The difficulty is in judging what is “wasteful”. To many outsiders, six-figure salaries for non-profit work will be judged to be “wasteful” or extravagant regardless of whether or not it actually is (from a counterfactual, all things considered, EA standpoint).
In terms of optics at least, present-day inequality is a big thing.
I think it’s kind of ironic this has been downvoted, given a similar point is made in the (most up voted post of all time) OP; and it’s a comment about optics. What are the downvoters’ thoughts on optics?
I am guessing that the reasoning in the comment isn’t “impact focused”.
Probably one of the key ideas EA brings is the ability to focus large resources on highly effective, impactful activities or projects or institutions, which sometimes involves high salaries or other high spending.
This idea is criticized sometimes. But it often seems that these criticisms lack a vision/model/understanding of how highly effective people or projects operate and succeed.
Another way of seeing this is to look at ineffective non-profits. I think that it’s very unlikely that all the non-profits outside of EA are ineffective because everyone in them is dumb or unprincipled. Instead, it seems like people are caught in some sort of “Malthusian-like” trap.
They often internalize beliefs where they have low spending and spend their limited time on bad activities that ultimately look like appeasement, and attend to social/political beliefs that don’t go anywhere.
This situation drives out talent and prevents critical long term planning.
Right, I get that, but I’m talking about the perception of EA (optics) as viewed from the outside (as is OP). Looking at the meta-level: will EA’s impact be maximal if it is politically opposed? I’m playing devil’s advocate: it looks a bit suspicious if we conclude that the best way to have an impact is mostly to pay already privileged people high salaries. Especially given global inequality (hence the suggestion of GiveDirectly). Why not be in a strong position to counter this by saying we’re also taking significant steps to combat global poverty?
The difficulty is in judging what is “wasteful”. To many outsiders, six-figure salaries for non-profit work will be judged to be “wasteful” or extravagant regardless of whether or not it actually is (from a counterfactual, all things considered, EA standpoint).
In terms of optics at least, present-day inequality is a big thing.
I think it’s kind of ironic this has been downvoted, given a similar point is made in the (most up voted post of all time) OP; and it’s a comment about optics. What are the downvoters’ thoughts on optics?
I didn’t downvote this.
I am guessing that the reasoning in the comment isn’t “impact focused”.
Probably one of the key ideas EA brings is the ability to focus large resources on highly effective, impactful activities or projects or institutions, which sometimes involves high salaries or other high spending.
This idea is criticized sometimes. But it often seems that these criticisms lack a vision/model/understanding of how highly effective people or projects operate and succeed.
Another way of seeing this is to look at ineffective non-profits. I think that it’s very unlikely that all the non-profits outside of EA are ineffective because everyone in them is dumb or unprincipled. Instead, it seems like people are caught in some sort of “Malthusian-like” trap.
They often internalize beliefs where they have low spending and spend their limited time on bad activities that ultimately look like appeasement, and attend to social/political beliefs that don’t go anywhere.
This situation drives out talent and prevents critical long term planning.
Right, I get that, but I’m talking about the perception of EA (optics) as viewed from the outside (as is OP). Looking at the meta-level: will EA’s impact be maximal if it is politically opposed? I’m playing devil’s advocate: it looks a bit suspicious if we conclude that the best way to have an impact is mostly to pay already privileged people high salaries. Especially given global inequality (hence the suggestion of GiveDirectly). Why not be in a strong position to counter this by saying we’re also taking significant steps to combat global poverty?