4 ms·

GiveWell’s CEO’s compensation is 200k: http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06/Attachment_F_Executive_Compensation_Proposal.pdf http://file

GiveWell’s CEO’s compensation is 200k: http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06/Attachment_F_Executive_Compensation_Proposal.pdf http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06... That, after working at a investment firm and having a BA in religion. Not sure that’s the skills and salary I would trust the use of the word « reason » and « science » with. Having a 200k salary in San Francisco definitely skews your vision of the world.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
200k in SF is...not a lot. At all.
- gowld 8y ago
  Why does the CEO of Givewell need to live in SF?
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    This is a question that should be taken seriously. I am not sure whether they did or did not. But I can imagine there could be valid reasons. For example, living close to potential major donors could increase the chance of convincing some of them to donate. But this too is a thing that should be measured.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  I get where you’re coming from, I think, but the way you phrased this I can’t agree with. 200k in SF is vastly less than a bunch of smart techies are making. But it is far, far more than the median SF income, and it is a very livable salary in the Bay Area. We should remember that even though SF is expensive, and tech employees can make much more than 200k, that much money is, in fact, after taxes, a lot of money. Even in SF. The spirit of what you’re saying is, I think, that talented people who have demonstrated organizational/management skills could easily make twice that much. I think that’s true, and I think the $200k salary is reasonable for the role in the organization.
brownbat 8y ago
If something goes wrong with an entity dealing with over a hundred million dollars, the CEO is expected to respond relatively immediately, as in, on call 24/7, because a hundred million represents the interests of a lot of people most likely. The variety of things that can go wrong is large, and the necessary responses are nuanced, potentially requiring sophisticated knowledge in several domains, from legal, accounting, personnel, leadership, to communication and reputation management. I have no idea what such a role should pay, but 0.2% of the money moved by the organization doesn't sound crazy, insofar as money moved correlates somewhat to the risk of lawsuits or the death of the organization after an emergency is handled poorly. Aside from the day to day management, look at it like an insurance policy on the whole enterprise. In those terms it's actually a pretty reasonable rate. This theory doesn't justify any price whatsoever. Some CEO compensations are surely still too large. I just don't think this is the best case study for that point.
- gowld 8y ago
  For charities, a pertinent question is: Why should I donate money to someone who takes home more money than I do? Why isn't he donating?
  - greenshackle2 8y ago
    GiveWell is not the top-ranked GiveWell charity. Typically if you use GiveWell you don't donate to GiveWell, you give to AMF or whatever directly. And he does donate: https://blog.givewell.org/2016/12/22/front-loading-personal-giving-year/ https://blog.givewell.org/2016/12/22/front-loading-personal-...
  - mjw1007 8y ago
    It seems rather likely that he is donating.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    Reminds me of Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, where one of the more bourgeois characters suggests to his middle class friend that he not worry so much about the less fortunate, and instead consider he might be one of the less fortunate himself. If you're struggling, feed yourself first. Don't create new needs, robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you have something extra, then sit down and figure out where your dollars actually do the most good, and resist the temptation to donate randomly with no research, based on a heartfelt appeal or good promotional materials. Maybe GiveWell doesn't meet that test for you, that's fine, if everyone just thought it through that much we'd be way better off than we are now.
gowld 8y ago
Wow. I remember when Elie and Holden started Givewell they made a huge deal about taking $70k/yr in salary. https://issarice.com/givewell-executive-compensation https://issarice.com/givewell-executive-compensation > From 2008–2014, their salary doubled from $60,000 to $120,000 > At the June 2015 GiveWell board meeting, Holden and Elie proposed a salary increase from $130,000 to $150,000 > At the June 2016 GiveWell board meeting, Holden and Elie proposed a salary increase from $150,000 to $175,000 > At the June 2017 GiveWell board meeting, Elie proposed a salary increase from $175,000 to $200,000. The proposal was approved.
gowld 8y ago
What part of investment firm and academic study of religions is incompatibility with reason and science? Both of those experiences suggest someone quite experienced at poring over large troves of documents to look for useful information, which is what Givewell does. And how does salary affect reason and science?

castlecrasher2 8y ago

200k in SF is...not a lot. At all.

gowld 8y ago
Why does the CEO of Givewell need to live in SF?
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  This is a question that should be taken seriously. I am not sure whether they did or did not. But I can imagine there could be valid reasons. For example, living close to potential major donors could increase the chance of convincing some of them to donate. But this too is a thing that should be measured.
mercutio2 8y ago
I get where you’re coming from, I think, but the way you phrased this I can’t agree with. 200k in SF is vastly less than a bunch of smart techies are making. But it is far, far more than the median SF income, and it is a very livable salary in the Bay Area. We should remember that even though SF is expensive, and tech employees can make much more than 200k, that much money is, in fact, after taxes, a lot of money. Even in SF. The spirit of what you’re saying is, I think, that talented people who have demonstrated organizational/management skills could easily make twice that much. I think that’s true, and I think the $200k salary is reasonable for the role in the organization.

brownbat 8y ago

If something goes wrong with an entity dealing with over a hundred million dollars, the CEO is expected to respond relatively immediately, as in, on call 24/7, because a hundred million represents the interests of a lot of people most likely. The variety of things that can go wrong is large, and the necessary responses are nuanced, potentially requiring sophisticated knowledge in several domains, from legal, accounting, personnel, leadership, to communication and reputation management. I have no idea what such a role should pay, but 0.2% of the money moved by the organization doesn't sound crazy, insofar as money moved correlates somewhat to the risk of lawsuits or the death of the organization after an emergency is handled poorly. Aside from the day to day management, look at it like an insurance policy on the whole enterprise. In those terms it's actually a pretty reasonable rate. This theory doesn't justify any price whatsoever. Some CEO compensations are surely still too large. I just don't think this is the best case study for that point.

gowld 8y ago
For charities, a pertinent question is: Why should I donate money to someone who takes home more money than I do? Why isn't he donating?
- greenshackle2 8y ago
  GiveWell is not the top-ranked GiveWell charity. Typically if you use GiveWell you don't donate to GiveWell, you give to AMF or whatever directly. And he does donate: https://blog.givewell.org/2016/12/22/front-loading-personal-giving-year/ https://blog.givewell.org/2016/12/22/front-loading-personal-...
- mjw1007 8y ago
  It seems rather likely that he is donating.
- brownbat 8y ago
  Reminds me of Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, where one of the more bourgeois characters suggests to his middle class friend that he not worry so much about the less fortunate, and instead consider he might be one of the less fortunate himself. If you're struggling, feed yourself first. Don't create new needs, robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you have something extra, then sit down and figure out where your dollars actually do the most good, and resist the temptation to donate randomly with no research, based on a heartfelt appeal or good promotional materials. Maybe GiveWell doesn't meet that test for you, that's fine, if everyone just thought it through that much we'd be way better off than we are now.

gowld 8y ago

Wow. I remember when Elie and Holden started Givewell they made a huge deal about taking $70k/yr in salary. https://issarice.com/givewell-executive-compensation https://issarice.com/givewell-executive-compensation > From 2008–2014, their salary doubled from $60,000 to $120,000 > At the June 2015 GiveWell board meeting, Holden and Elie proposed a salary increase from $130,000 to $150,000 > At the June 2016 GiveWell board meeting, Holden and Elie proposed a salary increase from $150,000 to $175,000 > At the June 2017 GiveWell board meeting, Elie proposed a salary increase from $175,000 to $200,000. The proposal was approved.

gowld 8y ago

What part of investment firm and academic study of religions is incompatibility with reason and science? Both of those experiences suggest someone quite experienced at poring over large troves of documents to look for useful information, which is what Givewell does. And how does salary affect reason and science?