[Obvious conflicts of interest given I work for an EA orgâthat said, I have argued similar points before that was the case]
Bravo.
Iâm also extremely sceptical of (in caricature) âif people arenât willing to take a pay-cut, how do we know they really care?â reasoningâas you say, one doesnât see many for-profit companies use the strategy of âWe need people who believe in our mission, so weâre going to offer market â20% to get a stronger staff cohortâ. In addition to the points made (explicitly) in the OP on this, thereâs an adverse selection worry: low salaries may filter for dedication, but also lower-performers without better âexit optionsâ.
(Although I endorse it anyway, I have related âEA exceptionalismâ worries about the emphasis on mission alignment etc. Many non-profits (and most for profits) donât or canât rely on being staffed with people who passionately invest in their brand, and yet can be very successful.)
That said, my impression is the EA community is generally learning this lesson. Although the benchmarks are hard, most orgs that can now offer competitive(ish) compensation. It is worth noting the reverse argument: if lots of EA roles are highly over-subscribed, this doesnât seem a reason to raise salaries for at least these rolesâit might suggest EA orgs can afford to drop them(!)
A lot has been written on trying to explain why EA orgs (including ones with a lot of resources) say they struggle to find the right people, whilst a lot of EA people say they really struggle find work for an EA org. What I think may explain this mismatch the EA community can âsupplyâ lots of generally able and motivated people, whilst EA org demand skews more to those with particular specialised skills. Thus jobs looking for able generalists have lots of applicants yet the âperson specâ for other desired positions have few or zero appointable candidates.
This doesnât give a clear âupshotâ in terms of setting compensation: itâs possible that orgs who set a premium on chasing up the tail of their best generalists applicant may see increasing salary still pay dividends even when they have more than enough appointable candidates to choose from now; supply of specialised people might sufficiently depend on non-monetary considerations to be effectively inelastic.
My overall impression agrees with OP. Itâs probably more economically efficient to set compensation at or around market, rather than approximating this with a mix of laggy and hard to reallocate transfer contributions of underpaid labour. Insofar as less resource-rich orgs cannot afford to do this, they are fortunate that there are a lot of able people who are also willing to make de facto donations of their earning power to them. Yet this should be recognised as sub-optimal, rather being lionised as a virtue.
To be clear: I donât think suppressing pay is a suboptimal way to foster a strong culture. I think driving to low salaries is sign-negative for this goal.
I can tell you that my superiors tried to make the âmeaningfulâ nature of my work more salient when conditions and compensation were unsatisfactoryâit leaves an awful aftertaste. Simple economic models wouldâve supported their perspective: surely satisfaction from mission alignment can substitute for more material incentives. However, my experience and decision making in response to my employer, dangling meaning in front of me, would be better explained in the vernacular of lefty sociologist types: alienation, resentment, and distrust.
The concept of discounted-pay signaling mission-commitment, has the potential to be harmful when you realize coworkers, not just employers, might use it to evaluate one another (actual ex.: âThis is just a hobby for Person A, theyâre spouse makes Xâthey donât really have to work. But Person B is actually committed, her electricity got cut off the other day!â).
You mentioned elsewhere in this thread that employer hiring/ânegotiating strategies can introduce issues of justiceâI completely agree: a creeping sentiment arose in my former org that the organization was biased towards hiring privileged individuals, this lead to a subtle faction lines being drawn. Some people believed they knew who were hired by merit vs. convenience.
No doubt the orgâs culture was strong, but it wasnât necessarily best suited towards making a desirable workplace or achieving mission aims.
I hope the above examples werenât too tangentialâthe point Iâm trying to make is that while economic models have their place, organizations dynamics and culture are messy and complex. Trying to shape culture through salary directly may be just too blunt an instrument, it can have unintended consequences in individual cases that are too unique to context to be captured by trendlines in aggregate data.
You mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the validity of maintaining a healthy distinction between work and your personal lifeâI couldnât agree more.
thereâs an adverse selection worry: low salaries may filter for dedication, but also lower-performers without better âexit optionsâ.
Hadnât thought about this before, but agree itâs worrisome. Great point!
A lot has been written on trying to explain why EA orgs (including ones with a lot of resources) say they struggle to find the right people, whilst a lot of EA people say they really struggle find work for an EA org. What I think may explain this mismatch the EA community can âsupplyâ lots of generally able and motivated people, whilst EA org demand skews more to those with particular specialised skills. Thus jobs looking for able generalists have lots of applicants yet the âperson specâ for other desired positions have few or zero appointable candidates.
Agree with this explanation, and I think both demographics and low salaries contribute. One might frame the problem as: EA needs diverse skillsets, but the EA community is not diverse enough to have all those skillsets and the low pay filters out mission aligned people from outside the community.
Re: the relative glut of generalists, I came across an amazing stat when researching this post. In 2017 and 2018, surveys asked orgs to list up to 6 skills the EA community needs more of. Across both years, not a single person said EA as a whole needs more âPeople extremely enthusiastic about effective altruismâ or more âPeople extremely enthusiastic about working on x-risk.â
I agree with you that âif you have low/âsuppressed pay, you harm your recruitmentâ. I think we disagree on how prevalent the antecedent is: I think the 80k stat you cite elsewhere is out of dateâalthough I think some orgs still are paying in a fairly flat band around âentry level graduate salaryâ, I think others do pay more (whether enough to match market isnât clear, but I think the shortfall is less stark than it used to be).
[Obvious conflicts of interest given I work for an EA orgâthat said, I have argued similar points before that was the case]
Bravo.
Iâm also extremely sceptical of (in caricature) âif people arenât willing to take a pay-cut, how do we know they really care?â reasoningâas you say, one doesnât see many for-profit companies use the strategy of âWe need people who believe in our mission, so weâre going to offer market â20% to get a stronger staff cohortâ. In addition to the points made (explicitly) in the OP on this, thereâs an adverse selection worry: low salaries may filter for dedication, but also lower-performers without better âexit optionsâ.
(Although I endorse it anyway, I have related âEA exceptionalismâ worries about the emphasis on mission alignment etc. Many non-profits (and most for profits) donât or canât rely on being staffed with people who passionately invest in their brand, and yet can be very successful.)
That said, my impression is the EA community is generally learning this lesson. Although the benchmarks are hard, most orgs that can now offer competitive(ish) compensation. It is worth noting the reverse argument: if lots of EA roles are highly over-subscribed, this doesnât seem a reason to raise salaries for at least these rolesâit might suggest EA orgs can afford to drop them(!)
A lot has been written on trying to explain why EA orgs (including ones with a lot of resources) say they struggle to find the right people, whilst a lot of EA people say they really struggle find work for an EA org. What I think may explain this mismatch the EA community can âsupplyâ lots of generally able and motivated people, whilst EA org demand skews more to those with particular specialised skills. Thus jobs looking for able generalists have lots of applicants yet the âperson specâ for other desired positions have few or zero appointable candidates.
This doesnât give a clear âupshotâ in terms of setting compensation: itâs possible that orgs who set a premium on chasing up the tail of their best generalists applicant may see increasing salary still pay dividends even when they have more than enough appointable candidates to choose from now; supply of specialised people might sufficiently depend on non-monetary considerations to be effectively inelastic.
My overall impression agrees with OP. Itâs probably more economically efficient to set compensation at or around market, rather than approximating this with a mix of laggy and hard to reallocate transfer contributions of underpaid labour. Insofar as less resource-rich orgs cannot afford to do this, they are fortunate that there are a lot of able people who are also willing to make de facto donations of their earning power to them. Yet this should be recognised as sub-optimal, rather being lionised as a virtue.
Related question: what are ways that EA organizations can foster strong cultures that donât involve low salaries?
To be clear: I donât think suppressing pay is a suboptimal way to foster a strong culture. I think driving to low salaries is sign-negative for this goal.
I can tell you that my superiors tried to make the âmeaningfulâ nature of my work more salient when conditions and compensation were unsatisfactoryâit leaves an awful aftertaste. Simple economic models wouldâve supported their perspective: surely satisfaction from mission alignment can substitute for more material incentives. However, my experience and decision making in response to my employer, dangling meaning in front of me, would be better explained in the vernacular of lefty sociologist types: alienation, resentment, and distrust.
The concept of discounted-pay signaling mission-commitment, has the potential to be harmful when you realize coworkers, not just employers, might use it to evaluate one another (actual ex.: âThis is just a hobby for Person A, theyâre spouse makes Xâthey donât really have to work. But Person B is actually committed, her electricity got cut off the other day!â).
You mentioned elsewhere in this thread that employer hiring/ânegotiating strategies can introduce issues of justiceâI completely agree: a creeping sentiment arose in my former org that the organization was biased towards hiring privileged individuals, this lead to a subtle faction lines being drawn. Some people believed they knew who were hired by merit vs. convenience.
No doubt the orgâs culture was strong, but it wasnât necessarily best suited towards making a desirable workplace or achieving mission aims.
I hope the above examples werenât too tangentialâthe point Iâm trying to make is that while economic models have their place, organizations dynamics and culture are messy and complex. Trying to shape culture through salary directly may be just too blunt an instrument, it can have unintended consequences in individual cases that are too unique to context to be captured by trendlines in aggregate data.
You mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the validity of maintaining a healthy distinction between work and your personal lifeâI couldnât agree more.
Thanks for these thoughtful comments Gregory!
Hadnât thought about this before, but agree itâs worrisome. Great point!
Agree with this explanation, and I think both demographics and low salaries contribute. One might frame the problem as: EA needs diverse skillsets, but the EA community is not diverse enough to have all those skillsets and the low pay filters out mission aligned people from outside the community.
Re: the relative glut of generalists, I came across an amazing stat when researching this post. In 2017 and 2018, surveys asked orgs to list up to 6 skills the EA community needs more of. Across both years, not a single person said EA as a whole needs more âPeople extremely enthusiastic about effective altruismâ or more âPeople extremely enthusiastic about working on x-risk.â
Hello Jon,
I agree with you that âif you have low/âsuppressed pay, you harm your recruitmentâ. I think we disagree on how prevalent the antecedent is: I think the 80k stat you cite elsewhere is out of dateâalthough I think some orgs still are paying in a fairly flat band around âentry level graduate salaryâ, I think others do pay more (whether enough to match market isnât clear, but I think the shortfall is less stark than it used to be).
Greg is right that the stat is out of date. I elaborate here: https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââCkYq5vRaJqPkpfQEt/ââa-framework-for-thinking-about-the-ea-labor-market#osRTvpjHJHNCGWa3Q