Just to check that I understand… sounds like to date, most of the EA angels have been doing their grant-making through other channels & not reporting those grants to the Angel Group. But you expect this to change in the near future. Is that an accurate summary?
An alternative view is that in 15 years’ time we’ll still be constrained by a career capital gap...
I think there’s a strain of apocalyptic thinking operating in some parts of the EA & rationality communities when it comes to career planning.
e.g. if you become emotionally convinced that AGI risk is a real thing, and that there’s a substantial probability of a short AGI timeline (short = in the next 10 years), then thinking about your longterm career prospects can feel absurd.
This dynamic probably makes it feel even more important that you start contributing now, because you believe that the window for making a meaningful contribution is very short.
I really dislike portrayals of EA as “doing the UTMOST good”, as opposed to “doing LOTS of good”
Also, framings like “the utmost good” presume that we have ethics figured out enough to know what’s best, at the end of the day. But we aren’t there yet.
Happy to see us converging independently.
Also – great title!
How many grants has the Angel Group paid out to date? What is the total size of all grants made to date?
So I’ll repeat what I’ve said in the comments of other posts: If you believe in the principles of EA, and are taking action on them in some way (work, research, donations, advocacy, or taking steps to do any of those things in the future), I consider you a member of the EA “tribe”
+1, though I don’t think this is common knowledge. (And even if a lot of people say this, many people may still not believe it.)
Are there any examples of this that stand out to you?
Eh, just feeling like I was given a lot of conversational space at parties, and people occasionally asking me a bunch of questions about GiveWell research and/or what working there was like.
Wow, I’m surprised that a job which only paid out room & board received 10 applications!
Is the job structured such that people would have enough time to work on other projects, or to hold another job alongside?
“reducing salaries wouldn’t have enough of an effect to qualitatively change oversupply.”
Right, this^ is what I mean.
This roughly cashes out to an income elasticity of labour (/applicant) supply of 1-2 (i.e. you reduce applicant supply by ~20% by reducing income ~~10%).
It was a rough, off-the-top-of-my-head prediction, so I wouldn’t give the specific numbers too much weight.
That said, there’s probably a gradient of applicant income elasticity here (and in most places? I don’t know very much about labor economics).
I’d expect dropping salaries by $10k to reduce the applicant pool substantially, and by $20k to reduce it somewhat more. But there’s probably a hard core of applicants whose demand is quite inelastic (i.e. who would be excited to apply to EA jobs regardless of whether they paid $35,000 or $70,000).
And probably also there’s some lower bound where anything under it is too little to live on, such that setting salaries under that threshold would cause a sharp drop-off in applications.
Totally agree. I think we’re aligned on all your points.
So I’m pretty sure if you dropped salaries you would reduce the number of eager applicants
I’d expect a reduction but not a drastic one. Like I’d predict Open Phil’s applicant pool to drop to 500-600 from 800 if they cut starting salary by $10k-$15k.
I think this excerpt from the Kelsey Piper podcast is a good example
Could you link me to this podcast?
What’s the distinction between the “EA Angel Group” brand and the “altruism.vc” brand?
Does the Angel Group accept applications for projects that will be for-profit (perhaps to be constituted as a social benefit corporation, eventually)?
+1 I’m confused about why this is being downvoted.
See also my thoughts on working at GiveWell from 2014-2016: https://80000hours.org/2016/08/reflections-from-a-givewell-employee/
“elite” feels like a fuzzy-enough concept that I’d guess different people have pretty different models of it.
I’m just curious to hear more about what people think around this, given that it’s come up a few times on the giant “EA jobs” thread.
Hmm… I’d bet that very few EAs voted for Trump, and even fewer would admit to having done so. (Just another dimension for assessing this.)
Nice. I’ve already written a sequence on it (first post here) – curious for your thoughts on it!
Also, I think Richard Ngo’s working on a piece on the topic, building off my sequence & the academic work that Hilary Greaves has done.