Say you could either hire the best candidate for a role or the 2nd best plus receiving X $/āyear. What is the value of X which would make you indifferent between the 2 options? Feel free to provide different answers for different roles /ā sets of roles and organisatons/āareas.
I think it would be pretty hard for me to make that trade off in a workplace context (I think Iām still a deep sucker for impact and in any real version of this is X would be whatever the organization is indifferent towards and Iād donate it). If you forced me to in some hypothetical Iād guess X is quite low for many junior roles (<$10k), but higher for more mid/āsenior roles (>$50k?). But I think something like the following are true:
Iām currently not doing what I suspect would be the most impactful jobs for me to do, in part because what seems reasonable to pay for them (based on market rates, etc) strikes be as being at least $30k-$40k below what I would consider.
As recently as a few years ago, I probably would have considered them at that level.
My expenses havenāt changed in any meaningful way (outside inflation, etc).
I think the work Iām doing instead is almost certainly significantly less impactful.
I think this is bad, but compensation isnāt the only consideration on my mind.
I think generally past a certain point, having (or moving) money is strongly correlated having strategic influence within certain spaces in EA, so it seems pretty important.
This is obviously not necessarily correlated with having strategic skill
Iām currently not doing what I suspect would be the most impactful jobs for me to do, because what seems reasonable to pay for them (based on market rates, etc) strikes be as being at least $30k-$40k below what I would consider.
Out of curiosity, what would you be doing?
(My guess: running an insect welfare org, or starting another EA charity.)
Yeah, I think thatās basically what I was thinking (specifically, starting an insecticide charity, or similar project focused on implementing a WAW intervention)
Have you checked with potential donors if theyād be willing to pay you at a rate you find acceptable to run such a charity?
Iād be pretty excited about improving insecticides, but Iām not sure about donating much myself in the near term, since I already feel overinvested in invertebrates recently.
Also, adding to this, potential donors might be willing to pay more for you, given your experience, but maybe youāve accounted for this in āmarket rates, etcā. Presumably this would increase the probability of success of the org, from their POV.
And even bumping up the costs of the whole org 2x through higher salaries still leaves an insecticide charity at least 1ā2 as cost-effective as something extraordinarily cost-effective (the same org where the same people work for less), which is still extraordinarily cost-effective!
If the counterfactual is that such a charity isnāt started at all, that could be much worse than you running it at higher pay.
Great reflections, Abraham!
Say you could either hire the best candidate for a role or the 2nd best plus receiving X $/āyear. What is the value of X which would make you indifferent between the 2 options? Feel free to provide different answers for different roles /ā sets of roles and organisatons/āareas.
I think it would be pretty hard for me to make that trade off in a workplace context (I think Iām still a deep sucker for impact and in any real version of this is X would be whatever the organization is indifferent towards and Iād donate it). If you forced me to in some hypothetical Iād guess X is quite low for many junior roles (<$10k), but higher for more mid/āsenior roles (>$50k?). But I think something like the following are true:
Iām currently not doing what I suspect would be the most impactful jobs for me to do, in part because what seems reasonable to pay for them (based on market rates, etc) strikes be as being at least $30k-$40k below what I would consider.
As recently as a few years ago, I probably would have considered them at that level.
My expenses havenāt changed in any meaningful way (outside inflation, etc).
I think the work Iām doing instead is almost certainly significantly less impactful.
I think this is bad, but compensation isnāt the only consideration on my mind.
I think generally past a certain point, having (or moving) money is strongly correlated having strategic influence within certain spaces in EA, so it seems pretty important.
This is obviously not necessarily correlated with having strategic skill
Out of curiosity, what would you be doing?
(My guess: running an insect welfare org, or starting another EA charity.)
Yeah, I think thatās basically what I was thinking (specifically, starting an insecticide charity, or similar project focused on implementing a WAW intervention)
Have you checked with potential donors if theyād be willing to pay you at a rate you find acceptable to run such a charity?
Iād be pretty excited about improving insecticides, but Iām not sure about donating much myself in the near term, since I already feel overinvested in invertebrates recently.
Also, adding to this, potential donors might be willing to pay more for you, given your experience, but maybe youāve accounted for this in āmarket rates, etcā. Presumably this would increase the probability of success of the org, from their POV.
And even bumping up the costs of the whole org 2x through higher salaries still leaves an insecticide charity at least 1ā2 as cost-effective as something extraordinarily cost-effective (the same org where the same people work for less), which is still extraordinarily cost-effective!
If the counterfactual is that such a charity isnāt started at all, that could be much worse than you running it at higher pay.