This means that when we do encounter such an opportunity, we should most likely take it, even if it seems expensive or unlikely to succeed… Some EAs doing direct work could literally earn >$1,000 per hour if they pursued earning to give, but it’s generally agreed that direct work seems more impactful for them
I notice that the listed grants seems substantially below $1000/​hour; e.g. Rethink getting $250,000 for seven FTEs implies ~$35,000/​FTE or roughly $18/​hour. *
Is this because you aren’t getting those senior people applying? Or are there other constraints?
* (Maybe this is off by a factor of two if you meant that they are FTE but only for half the year etc.)
I notice that the listed grants seems substantially below $1000/​hour; e.g. Rethink getting $250,000 for seven FTEs implies ~$35,000/​FTE or roughly $18/​hour. *
This is two misconceptions:
(1) we are hiring seven interns but they each will only be there for three months. I believe it is 1.8 FTE collectively.
(2) The grant is not being entirely allocated to intern compensation
Interns at Rethink Priorities currently earn $23-25/​hr. Researchers hired on a permanent basis earn more than that, currently $63K-85K/​yr (prorated for part-time work).
I notice that the listed grants seems substantially below $1000/​hour (…)
Is this because you aren’t getting those senior people applying? Or are there other constraints?
The main reason is that the people are willing to work for a substantially lower amount than what they could make when earning to give. E.g., someone who might be able to make $5 million per year in quant trading or tech entrepreneurship might decide to ask for a salary of $80k/​y when working at an EA organization. It would seem really weird for that person to ask for a $5 million /​ year salary, especially given that they’d most likely want to donate most of that anyway.
Cool, for what it’s worth my experience recruiting for a couple EA organizations is that labor supply is elastic even above (say) $100k/​year, and your comments seem to indicate that you would be happy to fund at least some people at that level.
So I remain kind of confused why the grant amounts are so small.
If you have to pay fairly (i.e., if you pay one employee $200k/​y, you have to pay everyone else with a similar skill level a similar amount), the marginal cost of an employee who earns $200k/​y can be >$1m/​y. That may still be worth it, but less clearly so.
FWIW, I also don’t really share the experience that labor supply is elastic above $100k/​y, at least when taking into account whether staff have a good attitude, fit into the culture of the organization, etc. I’d be keen to hear more about that.
I notice that the listed grants seems substantially below $1000/​hour; e.g. Rethink getting $250,000 for seven FTEs implies ~$35,000/​FTE or roughly $18/​hour. *
Is this because you aren’t getting those senior people applying? Or are there other constraints?
* (Maybe this is off by a factor of two if you meant that they are FTE but only for half the year etc.)
This is two misconceptions:
(1) we are hiring seven interns but they each will only be there for three months. I believe it is 1.8 FTE collectively.
(2) The grant is not being entirely allocated to intern compensation
Interns at Rethink Priorities currently earn $23-25/​hr. Researchers hired on a permanent basis earn more than that, currently $63K-85K/​yr (prorated for part-time work).
The main reason is that the people are willing to work for a substantially lower amount than what they could make when earning to give. E.g., someone who might be able to make $5 million per year in quant trading or tech entrepreneurship might decide to ask for a salary of $80k/​y when working at an EA organization. It would seem really weird for that person to ask for a $5 million /​ year salary, especially given that they’d most likely want to donate most of that anyway.
Cool, for what it’s worth my experience recruiting for a couple EA organizations is that labor supply is elastic even above (say) $100k/​year, and your comments seem to indicate that you would be happy to fund at least some people at that level.
So I remain kind of confused why the grant amounts are so small.
If you have to pay fairly (i.e., if you pay one employee $200k/​y, you have to pay everyone else with a similar skill level a similar amount), the marginal cost of an employee who earns $200k/​y can be >$1m/​y. That may still be worth it, but less clearly so.
FWIW, I also don’t really share the experience that labor supply is elastic above $100k/​y, at least when taking into account whether staff have a good attitude, fit into the culture of the organization, etc. I’d be keen to hear more about that.