I feel much more important and valued at an EA position if Iām paid a high salary, and sad when Iām not, because the difference only converts to 1-2% of my impact. So Iām glad to see someone write about the framing that Iām essentially this should be treated as donating 98-99%. Being underpaid would be especially annoying to the extent it prevents beneficial time-money tradeoffs.
I agree that there are some psychological and practical benefits to making and having more money, but I donāt think youāre āessentially donating 98ā99%,ā since even if you create value 50ā100 times your salary, thereās no way for you to capture 50ā100 times your salary, even if you were totally selfish. The fraction youāre āessentially donatingā is more like 1āactual salarymax possible salary, where āmax possible salaryā is the amount you would earn if you were totally selfish.
I think what I was going for is: say someone is day trading and making tens of millions of $/āyear. It would be pretty unreasonable to expect them to donate 98%, especially because time-money tradeoffs mean they can probably donate more if donating only 90%.
This is not necessarily equivalent to a situation where someone is producing tens of millions of research value per year, but itās similar in a few respects:
Keeping all the value for themself isnāt on the table for an altruist
Barring optics, taxes, etc. the impact calculation is similar
Pay provides incentives and a signal of value in both cases
Deviating from the optimum is deadweight loss
I donāt think salary norms in these circumstances should be identical, but thereās a sense in which having completely unrelated salary norms for each case bothers me. Itās a wrong price signal, like a $1000 bottle of wine that tastes identical to $20 wine, or a Soviet supermarket filled with empty shelves due to price controls.
By 1āactual salarymax possible salary Iām probably āessentially donatingā only around 94%, though it does get closer to 99% if you count equity from possible startups.
Thanks for writing this.
I feel much more important and valued at an EA position if Iām paid a high salary, and sad when Iām not, because the difference only converts to 1-2% of my impact. So Iām glad to see someone write about the framing that
Iām essentiallythis should be treated as donating 98-99%. Being underpaid would be especially annoying to the extent it prevents beneficial time-money tradeoffs.Note I currently feel adequately paid.
I agree that there are some psychological and practical benefits to making and having more money, but I donāt think youāre āessentially donating 98ā99%,ā since even if you create value 50ā100 times your salary, thereās no way for you to capture 50ā100 times your salary, even if you were totally selfish. The fraction youāre āessentially donatingā is more like 1āactual salarymax possible salary, where āmax possible salaryā is the amount you would earn if you were totally selfish.
I agree that this is more accurate.
I think what I was going for is: say someone is day trading and making tens of millions of $/āyear. It would be pretty unreasonable to expect them to donate 98%, especially because time-money tradeoffs mean they can probably donate more if donating only 90%.
This is not necessarily equivalent to a situation where someone is producing tens of millions of research value per year, but itās similar in a few respects:
Keeping all the value for themself isnāt on the table for an altruist
Barring optics, taxes, etc. the impact calculation is similar
Pay provides incentives and a signal of value in both cases
Deviating from the optimum is deadweight loss
I donāt think salary norms in these circumstances should be identical, but thereās a sense in which having completely unrelated salary norms for each case bothers me. Itās a wrong price signal, like a $1000 bottle of wine that tastes identical to $20 wine, or a Soviet supermarket filled with empty shelves due to price controls.
By 1āactual salarymax possible salary Iām probably āessentially donatingā only around 94%, though it does get closer to 99% if you count equity from possible startups.