It looks like I misunderstood a comment above. I meant āmarket priceā as the rate at which CEA should currently trade between money and marginal careers, which is >$750k. I think you mean the average price at which other companies āin the market for talentā buy career changes, which is <$750k.
I think there isnāt really a single price at which we can buy infinite talent. We should do activities as cost-effective as other recruiters, but these can only be scaled up to a limited extent before we run into other bottlenecks. The existence of a cheaper intervention doesnāt mean we shouldnāt fund a more expensive intervention once the cheaper one is exhausted. And we basically want an infinite amount of talent, so in theory the activities that buy career changes at prices between $150k and $750k are also worth funding.
I think we can agree that
different activities have different cost-effectiveness, some of them substantially cheaper than $750k/ācareer
we can use a basically infinite amount of talent, and the supply curve for career changes slopes upwards
we shouldnāt pay more than the market price for any intervention e.g. throw $100k at a university group for dinners when it produces the same effect as $5k spent on dinners
we should fund every activity that has a cost-effectiveness of better than $750k per career change (or whatever the true number is), unless we saturate our demand for talent and lower the marginal benefit of talent, or deplete much of our money and increase the marginal benefit of money
we are unlikely to saturate our demand for talent by throwing more money at EA groups because there are other bottlenecks
Because most of the interventions are much cheaper than $750k/ācareer change, our average cost will be much less than $750k/ācareer change
It looks like I misunderstood a comment above. I meant āmarket priceā as the rate at which CEA should currently trade between money and marginal careers, which is >$750k. I think you mean the average price at which other companies āin the market for talentā buy career changes, which is <$750k.
I think there isnāt really a single price at which we can buy infinite talent. We should do activities as cost-effective as other recruiters, but these can only be scaled up to a limited extent before we run into other bottlenecks. The existence of a cheaper intervention doesnāt mean we shouldnāt fund a more expensive intervention once the cheaper one is exhausted. And we basically want an infinite amount of talent, so in theory the activities that buy career changes at prices between $150k and $750k are also worth funding.
I think we can agree that
different activities have different cost-effectiveness, some of them substantially cheaper than $750k/ācareer
we can use a basically infinite amount of talent, and the supply curve for career changes slopes upwards
we shouldnāt pay more than the market price for any intervention e.g. throw $100k at a university group for dinners when it produces the same effect as $5k spent on dinners
we should fund every activity that has a cost-effectiveness of better than $750k per career change (or whatever the true number is), unless we saturate our demand for talent and lower the marginal benefit of talent, or deplete much of our money and increase the marginal benefit of money
we are unlikely to saturate our demand for talent by throwing more money at EA groups because there are other bottlenecks
Because most of the interventions are much cheaper than $750k/ācareer change, our average cost will be much less than $750k/ācareer change