That’s true, it’s more I think it can lead to poor incentives for organization competition
How? If organisations try to convince funders of their impact so that they can pay bigger salaries, this is good prima facie.
we could achieve the same gradient at a much lower level, closer to candidates ‘normal’ job counterfactuals.
But most EAs could earn more outside of EA than they do at EA organisations. Note that earn-to-give EAs tend to have more funds available for personal consumption than those doing direct work, even after their donations. I think it is not unreasonable for there to be some difference, because direct work is often fulfilling and has other perks, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves that direct work pays more.
Good point and I agree for some roles such for technical AI safety researchers. Being a recent graduate I can see what my EA and non-EA friends can get in the job market and my some of my EA friends are better compensated. It’s possible my EA friends are more competent and could command a higher wage but I don’t get that impression. For a more solid case study of what i’m taking about: Office Manager—New York EA Hub : $85,000 - $100,000 Office Manager Salaries in New York from Glassdoor: ~$55,000
I agree that some EA jobs in ops pay above market. But there has been a community-wide shortage of ops staff for over five years, so the salaries help retain people who would otherwise go for jobs outside EA. Often people’s alternative jobs are pretty good too. Note that an office manager at Google makes $85k. And some ops staff in EA have even stronger alternatives—working as a consultant, a programmer, a product manager. Plus this particular job is probably a pretty difficulty office manager job (working without a big local team, to set up a new office) And there has been recent inflation.
How? If organisations try to convince funders of their impact so that they can pay bigger salaries, this is good prima facie.
But most EAs could earn more outside of EA than they do at EA organisations. Note that earn-to-give EAs tend to have more funds available for personal consumption than those doing direct work, even after their donations. I think it is not unreasonable for there to be some difference, because direct work is often fulfilling and has other perks, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves that direct work pays more.
Good point and I agree for some roles such for technical AI safety researchers. Being a recent graduate I can see what my EA and non-EA friends can get in the job market and my some of my EA friends are better compensated. It’s possible my EA friends are more competent and could command a higher wage but I don’t get that impression. For a more solid case study of what i’m taking about: Office Manager—New York EA Hub : $85,000 - $100,000
Office Manager Salaries in New York from Glassdoor: ~$55,000
I agree that some EA jobs in ops pay above market. But there has been a community-wide shortage of ops staff for over five years, so the salaries help retain people who would otherwise go for jobs outside EA. Often people’s alternative jobs are pretty good too. Note that an office manager at Google makes $85k. And some ops staff in EA have even stronger alternatives—working as a consultant, a programmer, a product manager. Plus this particular job is probably a pretty difficulty office manager job (working without a big local team, to set up a new office) And there has been recent inflation.