I think that we as a community need to put status in better places.
My sense is that it’s relatively hard (though not completely infeasible) to change the status of particular jobs by just trying to agree to value them more.
I think that as individuals, the practice of noticing that we have accorded more status than our values imply is correct is itself worthwhile, and pushes in the correct direction.
That said, I certainly agree that it’s hard to coordinate about status, especially directly, and indirect signals like funding and salaries are critical—though I’d argue that it should happen at the level of choosing how generously to fund different types of organizations, rather than how to set individual salaries within those organizations. (But separately, substantively I mostly agree with you about salaries and compensation variance.)
I’d argue that it should happen at the level of choosing how generously to fund different types of organizations, rather than how to set individual salaries within those organizations.
I’m not sure I follow. My argument is (in part) that organisations may want to pay more for impactful roles they otherwise can’t fill. Do you object to that, and if so, why?
I agree that orgs should pay more of their budget for impactful roles they can’t otherwise fill, but I also think that orgs overall should get relatively less funding to do more abstract work, and relatively more to do things that are directly impactful.
My sense is that it’s relatively hard (though not completely infeasible) to change the status of particular jobs by just trying to agree to value them more.
An alternative strategy is to pay more for impactful roles that you can’t otherwise fill. That would directly incentivise people to take them, and probably increase their status as well.
I think that as individuals, the practice of noticing that we have accorded more status than our values imply is correct is itself worthwhile, and pushes in the correct direction.
That said, I certainly agree that it’s hard to coordinate about status, especially directly, and indirect signals like funding and salaries are critical—though I’d argue that it should happen at the level of choosing how generously to fund different types of organizations, rather than how to set individual salaries within those organizations. (But separately, substantively I mostly agree with you about salaries and compensation variance.)
I’m not sure I follow. My argument is (in part) that organisations may want to pay more for impactful roles they otherwise can’t fill. Do you object to that, and if so, why?
I agree that orgs should pay more of their budget for impactful roles they can’t otherwise fill, but I also think that orgs overall should get relatively less funding to do more abstract work, and relatively more to do things that are directly impactful.