I’ve also been thinking about incentives at the senior end as well, how do these orgs decide to pay a small number of senior staff extremely well, like for example I’ve seen figures that Eliezer Yudkowsky is compensated $600k at MIRI alone (*just used as an example, don’t have anything against him personally),
$600k is not “extremely well” for the Bay Area, given the high taxes and ridiculous cost of living there. But the obvious next question is: why are so many EA organisations located in extremely-high-cost cities?
I don’t think it’s an EA-specific problem, because many other non-profits are also located in high-cost locations. For policy / lobbying / campaigning organisations there is an obvious reason to be close to the centres of power in capital cities, but that doesn’t apply to direct-work orgs.
Median household (not personal) income in the bay area is well under $200,000, so I disagree that $600k is not doing “extremely well”.
However, I personally believe that most EA executives earning in the mid six figures could easily earn even more if they were to move to the private sector.
Perhaps that also answers my other question. The reason so many orgs are based in high-cost cities is that there are lots of workers who are willing to eat that cost themselves, taking a big hit to everything I would include in a “quality of life” metric in order to get something that can only be had in the big city.
But the obvious next question is: why are so many EA organisations located in extremely-high-cost cities?
Very fair challenge; I think the EA movement is quick to want to ‘justify’ being based in very expensive areas because of an argument that it’s more talent-concentrated there, but there are some arguments to be made that it would be cheaper to replicate this kind of ‘talent cauldron’ in a cheaper location than sustain even just ‘decent’ standards of living in some of the world’s most expensive locations such as the Bay Area.
$600k is not “extremely well” for the Bay Area, given the high taxes and ridiculous cost of living there. But the obvious next question is: why are so many EA organisations located in extremely-high-cost cities?
I don’t think it’s an EA-specific problem, because many other non-profits are also located in high-cost locations. For policy / lobbying / campaigning organisations there is an obvious reason to be close to the centres of power in capital cities, but that doesn’t apply to direct-work orgs.
Median household (not personal) income in the bay area is well under $200,000, so I disagree that $600k is not doing “extremely well”.
However, I personally believe that most EA executives earning in the mid six figures could easily earn even more if they were to move to the private sector.
I would define “extremely well” relative to the extremes of the income distribution rather than the median. However, according to https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/California/San-Francisco/Household-Income the “mean of top 5%” income is $563k so $600k would count as “extremely high” by my definition too.
Perhaps that also answers my other question. The reason so many orgs are based in high-cost cities is that there are lots of workers who are willing to eat that cost themselves, taking a big hit to everything I would include in a “quality of life” metric in order to get something that can only be had in the big city.
Very fair challenge; I think the EA movement is quick to want to ‘justify’ being based in very expensive areas because of an argument that it’s more talent-concentrated there, but there are some arguments to be made that it would be cheaper to replicate this kind of ‘talent cauldron’ in a cheaper location than sustain even just ‘decent’ standards of living in some of the world’s most expensive locations such as the Bay Area.