Keeping the set of EA org employees fixed, and paying them more, I think higher salaries have three effects:
EA org employees will donate more. This portion is a sort of regranting mechanism. I would expect such people to be effective regranters, so this feels like a small win.
EA org employees will practice better self-care and invest in things that save them time and allow them to work more. They will be more productive as a result. Given the scarcity of talent, this feels like a big win.
EA org employees will have higher standards of living. This feels like a net loss, given the potential alternative uses of funds.
My intuition is that EA org salaries are low enough, and talent is scarce enough, that (2) probably dominates.
There’s also the consideration of how the set of people working at EA orgs will change.
More people will be willing to work for EA orgs.
The set of people who become willing to work for EA orgs as salaries go up will be different from the people willing to work at lower salaries.
Keeping the set of EA org jobs fixed, the pool of people willing to take those jobs will expand. I would guess with higher salaries the people hired would tend to be more talented, and less “totalising” in their commitment to EA. The former seems good, whereas the latter seems bad for some roles, but perhaps good for others. I think it’s important to recognize that people’s willingness to work for a low salary depends on many factors. In particular, families (parents, spouses, children) can be significant financial resources or burdens. So low salaries are an imperfect way to filter for level of commitment.
And, given the relative scarcity of EA talent vs. funding, making EA org work more attractive (relative to earning to give) seems valuable to me. With higher salaries the number of EA org jobs will tend to expand due to an increased supply of workers, which seems good on the margin.
Keeping the set of EA org employees fixed, and paying them more, I think higher salaries have three effects:
EA org employees will donate more. This portion is a sort of regranting mechanism. I would expect such people to be effective regranters, so this feels like a small win.
EA org employees will practice better self-care and invest in things that save them time and allow them to work more. They will be more productive as a result. Given the scarcity of talent, this feels like a big win.
EA org employees will have higher standards of living. This feels like a net loss, given the potential alternative uses of funds.
My intuition is that EA org salaries are low enough, and talent is scarce enough, that (2) probably dominates.
There’s also the consideration of how the set of people working at EA orgs will change.
More people will be willing to work for EA orgs.
The set of people who become willing to work for EA orgs as salaries go up will be different from the people willing to work at lower salaries.
Keeping the set of EA org jobs fixed, the pool of people willing to take those jobs will expand. I would guess with higher salaries the people hired would tend to be more talented, and less “totalising” in their commitment to EA. The former seems good, whereas the latter seems bad for some roles, but perhaps good for others. I think it’s important to recognize that people’s willingness to work for a low salary depends on many factors. In particular, families (parents, spouses, children) can be significant financial resources or burdens. So low salaries are an imperfect way to filter for level of commitment.
And, given the relative scarcity of EA talent vs. funding, making EA org work more attractive (relative to earning to give) seems valuable to me. With higher salaries the number of EA org jobs will tend to expand due to an increased supply of workers, which seems good on the margin.