a) As an individual doing remote work, or
b) As an organisation deciding where to maintain offices
(Emphasis on EA-relevant work and orgs, but non-EA input is also okay.)
I get there's a lot of intangible factors that go into such a decision, but I'm keen to know which factors impacted your decision specifically. So that I can obtain a picture of which of those factors matters the most.
P.S. Question came to my mind cause I'm a 20-year-old living in urban India interested in EA research work. So if I have to shift to the US for that, it's like 4x cost of living for what I'm guessing isn't really a 4x improvement in quality of life or satisfaction (versus a hypothetical where all EA employees, offices, researh hubs etc were based in a lower income country). Even if the salary makes up for it, that's still funds earmarked to the EA cause that need to be spent - it's a zero-sum tradeoff between financial anxiety of EA employees and EA funds being spent. Shifting countries could be positive sum, if people are willing to shift.
Yup I currently feel this is true, but this can change if the community as a whole wants it to, and establishes Schelling points elsewhere.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "crazy"? :p
'crazy' as in 'willing to pay a ridiculous CoL premium that everyone outside of these very specific regions will look askance at you for'.
By 'the community' I don't mean just EA but the larger pool of driven young university grads who EA draws from. It's no accident that EA's Schelling points for talent largely match those of the wider world.
As a recent worked example in shifting these Schelling points, take MIRI's proposal to move away from the Bay Area. It didn't work out, and they had a better chance of making this work than most.
That said, I still do I think the best opportunities for establishing new Schelling points are around insular work-areas like MIRI. I think the animal rights nexus forming in Berlin is another good example.