It seems a little on the high side to me—and $180,000 (when you combine his salary and the Sequences money) in 2009 is ludicrous. I mean, if that’s what people want to spend their money on, fair enough, but it’s a big chunk of the total funds raised by SIAI that year. So when people talk about the marginal utility of donating a dollar to the SIAI, an equally valid way to phrase it might be “the marginal utility of increasing the salary of someone who earned $180,000 in 2009 by 28 cents”.
But I’m not wanting to dissuade anyone from spending their money if that’s what they want to spend it on...
So when people talk about the marginal utility of donating a dollar to the SIAI, an equally valid way to phrase it might be “the marginal utility of increasing the salary of someone who earned $180,000 in 2009 by 28 cents”.
Assuming marginal money is allocated proportional to existing spending, which is surely not the case. (Yes, the $180,000 figure would be unreasonable if true.)
It seems a little on the high side to me—and $180,000 (when you combine his salary and the Sequences money) in 2009 is ludicrous. I mean, if that’s what people want to spend their money on, fair enough, but it’s a big chunk of the total funds raised by SIAI that year. So when people talk about the marginal utility of donating a dollar to the SIAI, an equally valid way to phrase it might be “the marginal utility of increasing the salary of someone who earned $180,000 in 2009 by 28 cents”.
But I’m not wanting to dissuade anyone from spending their money if that’s what they want to spend it on...
Assuming marginal money is allocated proportional to existing spending, which is surely not the case. (Yes, the $180,000 figure would be unreasonable if true.)