I share this impression. I also just… am confused about why anyone would consider a starting salary of $150k/year + healthcare insufficient. I guess maybe if you’re buying a house? Or sending a kid to college? I mean, I live in the Bay and have never made anywhere close to $150k/year, and I am far from financially insecure.
Programmer salaries are insane, and most people (e.g. me) are not programmers, and manage to survive. I just feel like, if your objection is, “Well I’m worth more than that on the free market,” then just… go work somewhere else, if that’s what you care about? Nobody needs a salary of $450k/year!!!
Another EA/rationalist org I’ve worked at had a policy of “We don’t want salary to be a major reason for people to want to work here, and we don’t want it to be a reason for them to not want to work here.” That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think it’s probably what Lightcone is going for?
I don’t know, like, I can sort of see where the other side is coming from. But it also still seems crazy to me.
I guess maybe if you’re buying a house? Or sending a kid to college?
Without taking a side on the overall policy: buying a house and raising children are extremely normal things to do and want to do, and it would be bad if people had to choose between working for Lightcone and doing them, especially if Lightcone could pay them more without affecting other programs. I feel like we in the bay have been frogboiled to the point of not noticing a bunch of sacrifices we make to be here.
I haven’t done the math on what the listed salaries actually produce in terms of lifestyle, I’m not saying these particular salaries actually preclude what I consider reasonable, I’m only claiming that “it’s only low if you want a house and children” is not a good argument that a salary is sufficient.
[Full disclosure: I occasionally contract for LW/LC and benefit from them being freer with worker compensation]
Another EA/rationalist org I’ve worked at had a policy of “We don’t want salary to be a major reason for people to want to work here, and we don’t want it to be a reason for them to not want to work here.” That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think it’s probably what Lightcone is going for?
I think that having a blanket policy of “we aim to underpay you by 30% compared to what you would get on the open market” is making pay a reason to not work there. I don’t disagree that the salaries under discussion are massive, but I would never work for a place that openly brags about underpaying me by 30% as if that’s a moral high ground.
I don’t live on the west coast and can’t speak to how far different salaries go, but the rhetoric and strategy being employed here is a major red flag to me.
Yes, but nonprofits usually underpay people because of their funding constraints, not as a hazing ritual. There’s a big difference between “We believe that your work is worth x but we can’t pay you that much because of funding constraints” and “We believe your work is worth x and we’re not going to pay you that because we want you to prove your loyalty”.
“Funding constraints” are almost always fake. Givedirectly can double their pay and just give less to recipients if they wanted to, for example.
Institutions also usually have the option to just hire less people or fire more people.
I feel like treating fake constraints as a clear decision boundary is silly; what happened here is that Lightcone+ surrounding ecosystems chose to make the fake constraints less of a constraint and more of a visible choice.
That would make a lot more sense to me as a justification for not paying more than market rate than paying significantly below market rate.
Also, if someone is good at the job why does it matter if they don’t believe in the mission? If they’re a grifter looking for more money you can just fire them right?
Also, if someone is good at the job why does it matter if they don’t believe in the mission? If they’re a grifter looking for more money you can just fire them right?
People who aren’t interested in the mission will optimize their actions not in favor of the mission but in favor of what advances their own power. Most institutions are disfunctional because of infighting and it’s important that this one doesn’t go that route.
Why is this problem better solved by systematically underpaying everyone as opposed to firing people who act “in favor of what advances their own power” or who promote infighting?
I think the essential point is that you’re actually not underpaying them—in terms of their own utility gain (if they believe in the mission). You’re only ‘underpaying’ them in terms of money.
It’s still not obviously the correct approach (externalities are an issue too), but [money != utility].
It’s a way to filter out people who don’t believe in the mission but just want to join because of the money.
I share this impression. I also just… am confused about why anyone would consider a starting salary of $150k/year + healthcare insufficient. I guess maybe if you’re buying a house? Or sending a kid to college? I mean, I live in the Bay and have never made anywhere close to $150k/year, and I am far from financially insecure.
Programmer salaries are insane, and most people (e.g. me) are not programmers, and manage to survive. I just feel like, if your objection is, “Well I’m worth more than that on the free market,” then just… go work somewhere else, if that’s what you care about? Nobody needs a salary of $450k/year!!!
Another EA/rationalist org I’ve worked at had a policy of “We don’t want salary to be a major reason for people to want to work here, and we don’t want it to be a reason for them to not want to work here.” That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think it’s probably what Lightcone is going for?
I don’t know, like, I can sort of see where the other side is coming from. But it also still seems crazy to me.
Without taking a side on the overall policy: buying a house and raising children are extremely normal things to do and want to do, and it would be bad if people had to choose between working for Lightcone and doing them, especially if Lightcone could pay them more without affecting other programs. I feel like we in the bay have been frogboiled to the point of not noticing a bunch of sacrifices we make to be here.
I haven’t done the math on what the listed salaries actually produce in terms of lifestyle, I’m not saying these particular salaries actually preclude what I consider reasonable, I’m only claiming that “it’s only low if you want a house and children” is not a good argument that a salary is sufficient.
[Full disclosure: I occasionally contract for LW/LC and benefit from them being freer with worker compensation]
I think that having a blanket policy of “we aim to underpay you by 30% compared to what you would get on the open market” is making pay a reason to not work there. I don’t disagree that the salaries under discussion are massive, but I would never work for a place that openly brags about underpaying me by 30% as if that’s a moral high ground.
I don’t live on the west coast and can’t speak to how far different salaries go, but the rhetoric and strategy being employed here is a major red flag to me.
At least to me, it sounds like a way to filter out people who believe in the mission but don’t want to be intentionally underpaid.
Note that this is being paid, like, way more than nonprofits normally pay.
Yes, but nonprofits usually underpay people because of their funding constraints, not as a hazing ritual. There’s a big difference between “We believe that your work is worth x but we can’t pay you that much because of funding constraints” and “We believe your work is worth x and we’re not going to pay you that because we want you to prove your loyalty”.
“Funding constraints” are almost always fake. Givedirectly can double their pay and just give less to recipients if they wanted to, for example.
Institutions also usually have the option to just hire less people or fire more people.
I feel like treating fake constraints as a clear decision boundary is silly; what happened here is that Lightcone+ surrounding ecosystems chose to make the fake constraints less of a constraint and more of a visible choice.
I strongly upvoted this comment and am sad that it has net negative votes. I was going to say the exact same thing.
That would make a lot more sense to me as a justification for not paying more than market rate than paying significantly below market rate.
Also, if someone is good at the job why does it matter if they don’t believe in the mission? If they’re a grifter looking for more money you can just fire them right?
People who aren’t interested in the mission will optimize their actions not in favor of the mission but in favor of what advances their own power. Most institutions are disfunctional because of infighting and it’s important that this one doesn’t go that route.
Why is this problem better solved by systematically underpaying everyone as opposed to firing people who act “in favor of what advances their own power” or who promote infighting?
I think the essential point is that you’re actually not underpaying them—in terms of their own utility gain (if they believe in the mission). You’re only ‘underpaying’ them in terms of money.
It’s still not obviously the correct approach (externalities are an issue too), but [money != utility].