In reality I don’t think we’d want to go that close to the breakeven point—because there may be better uses of money, due to the reputation costs of unusually high salaries, and because salaries are harder to lower than to raise (and so if uncertain, it’s better to undershoot).
Good points, I agree it would be better to undershoot.
Still, even with the pessimistic assumptions, the high end of that $0.4-4M range seems quite unlikely.
Does 80k actually advise people making >$1M to quit their jobs in favor of entry-level EA work? If so, that would be a major update to my thinking.
Does 80k actually advise people making >$1M to quit their jobs in favor of entry-level EA work?
It depends on what you mean by ‘entry level’ & relative fit in each path, but the short answer is yes.
If someone was earning $1m per year and didn’t think that might grow a lot further from there, I’d encourage them to seriously consider switching to direct work.
I.e. I think it would be worth doing a round of speaking to people at the key orgs, making applications and exploring options for several months (esp insofar as that can be done without jeopardising your current job). Then they could compare what comes up with their current role. I know some people going through this process right now.
If someone was already doing direct work and doing well, I definitely wouldn’t encourage them to leave if they were offered a $1m/year earning to give position.
The issue for someone already in earning to give is that probability that they can find a role like that which is a good fit for them, which is a long way from guaranteed.
Shouldn’t the displacement value be a factor though? This might be wrong, but my thinking is (a) the replacement person in the $1M job will on average give little or nothing to effective charity (b) the switcher has no prior experience or expertise in non-profit, so presumably the next-best hire there is only marginally worse?
The estimates are aiming to take account of the counterfactual i.e. when I say “that person generates value equivalent to extra donations of $1m per year to the movement”, the $1m is accounting for the fact that the movement has the option to hire someone else.
In practice, most orgs are practicing threshold hiring, where if someone is clearly above the bar, they’ll create a new role for them (which is what we should expect if there’s a funding overhang).
Good points, I agree it would be better to undershoot.
Still, even with the pessimistic assumptions, the high end of that $0.4-4M range seems quite unlikely.
Does 80k actually advise people making >$1M to quit their jobs in favor of entry-level EA work? If so, that would be a major update to my thinking.
It depends on what you mean by ‘entry level’ & relative fit in each path, but the short answer is yes.
If someone was earning $1m per year and didn’t think that might grow a lot further from there, I’d encourage them to seriously consider switching to direct work.
I.e. I think it would be worth doing a round of speaking to people at the key orgs, making applications and exploring options for several months (esp insofar as that can be done without jeopardising your current job). Then they could compare what comes up with their current role. I know some people going through this process right now.
If someone was already doing direct work and doing well, I definitely wouldn’t encourage them to leave if they were offered a $1m/year earning to give position.
The issue for someone already in earning to give is that probability that they can find a role like that which is a good fit for them, which is a long way from guaranteed.
That all seems reasonable.
Shouldn’t the displacement value be a factor though? This might be wrong, but my thinking is (a) the replacement person in the $1M job will on average give little or nothing to effective charity (b) the switcher has no prior experience or expertise in non-profit, so presumably the next-best hire there is only marginally worse?
The estimates are aiming to take account of the counterfactual i.e. when I say “that person generates value equivalent to extra donations of $1m per year to the movement”, the $1m is accounting for the fact that the movement has the option to hire someone else.
In practice, most orgs are practicing threshold hiring, where if someone is clearly above the bar, they’ll create a new role for them (which is what we should expect if there’s a funding overhang).