= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on POSITION: Design and Write Rationality Curriculum - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (174)
For $3k a month, you're practically looking for volunteers.
Am I the only one who thinks $3k/month is actually a lot of money?
I don't know what others think (besides myself and thomblake, clearly), but I think it's between 3 and 4x under market for a person with those skills in the Bay Area. It's between 2 and 3x under market in a place like Austin, TX, depending on experience.
People with experience doing the things listed above make high 5 and low 6-figure salaries plus benefits (medical, 401k with some matching, etc.) in industry jobs, or they are university or secondary school teachers who have reasonable salaries, health care, and other benefits like tenure not available to industry workers.
Thanks, I didn't know any of that. Updated.
$3k/month still feels subjectively like a lot to me, but only because I've managed to get by comfortably with much, much less for my entire life. So I've never developed spending habits that require a different financial perspective. I just went to the dentist for the first time since 1998, for example. I understand this is not the best lifestyle for everyone.
It's also possible, for example, that they don't actually want people with work experience doing these things and would settle for folks who are decent at them but have so far only done these activities as a hobby/self-training exercise. If that's the case, then $36k/yr might be OK, and it might be a good opportunity for someone to get these skills on their resume for a later job search in a relevant industry. If that's what they're really looking for, they should state it as such. Otherwise, I remain highly skeptical of the position.
It's a lot if you're a student, I guess. The most I've ever made was about $2500/month, and that's working 55 hours a week...at $12/hour. Pretty much any non-student job pays more.
Agreed.
We pay grad students ~$45k for 40 hours a week. Most of them only work half time, so they take home a lot less than that. Of course they also get health insurance. Also, this doesn't appear to be seeking a student.
Edited to add: We pay their tuition, too.
Note that in the bay area, $3k/month is a reasonable rate for a 3-room apartment.
More or less. There would not be many people who meet the criteria mentioned that couldn't earn a lot more than that if they wanted it.
You're right, but they don't need many people, they only need one.
(Speaking as someone who applied, has most of those skills pretty solidly (from unusual experiences that employers generally don't care for: professional hula hoop instructor???), but has rarely made more than half of what they are offering)
Your position sounds suspiciously like mine. I also applied.
Rooting for ya :)
No you aren't. $3,000 a month would easily cover rent, utilities, Internet, transportation costs, a healthy diet, a textbook or two per month, and the occasional eating out or moviegoing (at least, it would where I live).
It is where I am, but I guess the Bay area is way more expensive...
They're offering 150% of the average US income during a recession with 9% unemployment as starting salary for an entry-level position doing satisfying creative work for an organization that could actually improve the world. I like money as much as anyone else, and I would fight for this job if I weren't otherwise engaged. If my hunt for residency positions this summer falls flat, I might still try to fight for it.
I do forget not everybody works in computing.
I have been continuously weirded out by how people in our circles seem to take for granted ridiculous salaries during what's supposed to be an economic recession.
I think the Bay Area factor is warping things as well in this case. When I read thomblake's first comment about $3k a month being volunteer-level pay, my first reaction was "$36k a year is practically for volunteers? Are you shitting me? That must be more than most PhD students make!" When he followed up by mentioning it was about what rent might cost in the Bay Area, the penny dropped and I thought "ohhh, right, Bay Area, say no more".
Even outside of the Bay Area an experienced software engineer can easily make 3 times that amount.
In the Bay Area... well, my very first job out of college -- in 1989, with a Master's in computer science -- paid $40K a year; adjusting for inflation, that is the equivalent of $76K a year now.
I expect so, but I doubt the Rationality Org is necessarily looking for experienced software engineers. Going by the skills EY listed, even a cartoonist with a knack for PowerPoint might be just who they're looking for, even if they have no degree & no job experience. Were it not for the Bay Area factor, $36k/year would likely be a great salary for them.
This.
Seeing people scoff about how easy it is to make a near six figure income is extremely off-putting.
Keep in mind that SIAI is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the cost of living (and thus salaries in general) tend to be higher. I just did a quick Google search and found that in this area, an entry-level police officer can make six figures plus benefits (and eventually pension), so such incomes aren't really outside the realm of normal possibility.
That being said, I think the offered salary is reasonable, especially given the interesting and important nature of the work being done, and will likely apply for the position.
How important is it for SIAI to be located where it is? (I know that proximity to the tech industry is relevant, but how relevant, exactly?)
I don't work for SIAI and don't have special knowledge relating to this-- that said, I do know that SIAI has at least considered locating some operations in other areas (and I believe did not always inhabit its current premises), so presumably there has been some analysis of this behind the scenes.
Charities benefit a lot from being in a city, I think. GiveWell, known for its numeric focus, relocated to Mumbai India for 3 months and found it a valuable experience, but they returned to their NYC digs and not, say, Appalachia. Similarly, the Wikimedia Foundation moved to SF from Florida the moment it could.
It seems logical that fundraising would be substantially easier in cities, especially major hubs like NYC or SF, which tend to represent large-scale concentrations of wealth.
Good to know.