Thanks for spelling that out, makes it clearer to me. I am ambivalent here because that might scare off many people that could actually afford going lower for 1-3 years but are just very anchored on their market rate.
I feel many people have never questioned how much they would compromise their salary for the chance of 10-100x their impact in the world - until they get a real opportunity to do so. I feel assumptions like "I'm OK with my market rate-30 to 50%" are quite common even though the threshold for living a comfortable life for them might be much lower.
I only found out how much salary I was willing to sacrifice after engaging more deeply with the idea of founding. Thus, based on my experience I find it fair to discuss salary expectations as a part of the co-founder matching process, not upfront. On a sidenote, I see an important psychological difference to make an active founder choice of setting your own starting salary low, in contrast to "being offered only minimum wage".
All in all, maybe I am a bit disappointed that 90% of the discussion here so far has focused on salary, while impact potential and cost-effectiveness are more important matters to cover.
I do not think it reasonable to expect a Lightcone-like salary (150k+) from a co-founder position of an experimental new organisation aiming for high cost-effectiveness in the current EA non-longtermist funding structure.
The article mentions that a typical CE charities seed funding budget is between 110-190k and that is the reality high impact cofounders have to deal with, and looking at the track record of CE-incubated charities, quite successfully.
However, I agree that its prohibitive for some demographics, especially the US and UK. And of course it would be great if we could change that!
If Readers think this to be a big enough problem, I suggest them to earn-to-give and join the CE funding circles - and consider this a cost-effective alternative to taking a potentially overpaying EA job with a less clear roadmap to impact.
It might seem daunting for Global Health people to confront a big lobby while there are seemingly easier interventions with less resistance around.
From the vantage point of an animal activists it's not that daunting though. I am relatively certain that it's easier than e.g. to go against the factory farming lobby. At least it's so much common sense that it should be possible to convince the rational parts of government - increasing both public health and tax returns. Concerns arise around corruption but if you encounter too much of that you could simply switch intervention countries.
Looking at scale and neglectedness, tobacco taxation seems just too important to shy away from the challenge.
Thanks for spelling that out, makes it clearer to me. I am ambivalent here because that might scare off many people that could actually afford going lower for 1-3 years but are just very anchored on their market rate.
I feel many people have never questioned how much they would compromise their salary for the chance of 10-100x their impact in the world - until they get a real opportunity to do so. I feel assumptions like "I'm OK with my market rate-30 to 50%" are quite common even though the threshold for living a comfortable life for them might be much lower.
I only found out how much salary I was willing to sacrifice after engaging more deeply with the idea of founding. Thus, based on my experience I find it fair to discuss salary expectations as a part of the co-founder matching process, not upfront. On a sidenote, I see an important psychological difference to make an active founder choice of setting your own starting salary low, in contrast to "being offered only minimum wage".
All in all, maybe I am a bit disappointed that 90% of the discussion here so far has focused on salary, while impact potential and cost-effectiveness are more important matters to cover.
I do not think it reasonable to expect a Lightcone-like salary (150k+) from a co-founder position of an experimental new organisation aiming for high cost-effectiveness in the current EA non-longtermist funding structure.
The article mentions that a typical CE charities seed funding budget is between 110-190k and that is the reality high impact cofounders have to deal with, and looking at the track record of CE-incubated charities, quite successfully.
However, I agree that its prohibitive for some demographics, especially the US and UK. And of course it would be great if we could change that! If Readers think this to be a big enough problem, I suggest them to earn-to-give and join the CE funding circles - and consider this a cost-effective alternative to taking a potentially overpaying EA job with a less clear roadmap to impact.
It might seem daunting for Global Health people to confront a big lobby while there are seemingly easier interventions with less resistance around.
From the vantage point of an animal activists it's not that daunting though. I am relatively certain that it's easier than e.g. to go against the factory farming lobby. At least it's so much common sense that it should be possible to convince the rational parts of government - increasing both public health and tax returns. Concerns arise around corruption but if you encounter too much of that you could simply switch intervention countries.
Looking at scale and neglectedness, tobacco taxation seems just too important to shy away from the challenge.
Excited you are working on this! I have been thinking about this topic from a corporate campaigns angle. Will be in touch to talk about it.