I think this viewpoint is an important aspect to delve into, but you may benefit from other sources I have included in the post. Some thoughts on your comment:

• While it may seem "fair" to pay everyone the same salary on the surface, it is crucial to recognize that different locations can entail varying degrees of hardships and challenges. Ignoring these differences could lead to a lack of fairness in compensation. It would not adequately account for factors such as danger, safety concerns, or the cost of living in different regions. I have made some distinctions between living in NYC and Nairobi - very different conditions for employees working in the same organization.
• I actually think offering higher compensation for positions in expensive or hardship locations can act as an incentive to attract and retain individuals willing to work in such challenging environments. It recognizes the additional burdens they face and compensates them accordingly and can help address the inherent inequalities arising from differing circumstances.
• It is important to strike a balance between promoting fairness and incentivizing individuals to take on difficult assignments. By taking into account location-based factors when determining salaries, organizations can acknowledge the varying hardships people face, ensuring that they are appropriately compensated for the challenges they encounter.

It is obviously a delicate balance that organizations need to navigate, considering both fairness and the need to provide incentives for individuals to work in challenging locations. Thank you again Tekin for raising these thought-provoking questions.

Thanks Scott for your comment and thoughts!

• I truly appreciate your perspective on the decentralization and relocation of EA organizations. It's an interesting idea that many of us might instinctively consider beneficial due to lower operating costs and potential improvements in optics and cost-effectiveness. I think it is important to acknowledge the diverse viewpoints of experts in the field, who may have a more nuanced understanding of the situation. Having looked into the GiveWell model myself, I can comprehend the value of having people regularly gather in the same physical space for collaboration and synergy, which might not be easily replicable in a decentralized setup.
• Regarding the interplay between location and value-based considerations in salary determinations, I agree with your notion that it is not a matter of choosing one over the other. Rather, it's about finding a balance and establishing a norm where both factors are taken into account. While it is common for companies to benchmark salaries based on local competitive rates, your intuition of incorporating location-specific and value-based components resonates with me. This approach would ensure that a worker in a city like San Francisco, for example, receives a higher salary than someone in Nairobi, while still accounting for the local cost of living.
• Your emphasis on considering averages rather than exceptions when contemplating salaries is noteworthy. It is essential to look at the bigger picture and consider the overall job market and opportunities available. Organizations often find themselves needing to offer higher wages due to competitive factors, as they strive to attract and retain top talent in the field.
• Regarding the example of a Kenyan employee redistributing their disposable income, I understand your skepticism. While offering higher wages in the region might attract individuals who are not as altruistically inclined and may not generously or impartially redistribute their income, it is crucial to examine the broader impact. NGOs like GiveDirectly have developed their own strategies for effectively utilizing funds and addressing philanthropic goals. Even if the individual's philanthropic investments may not directly align with the NGO's objectives, there can be overall benefits in terms of organizational image and employee morale. It is indeed a complex balance that requires careful consideration and evaluation.

By incorporating both location-specific and value-based components in remuneration decisions, we can strive to strike a harmonious balance. I find it crucial to approach this endeavor with empathy and an understanding of the potential implications, ensuring that the overall impact aligns with the organization's goals and respects the humanity of all involved. Once again, thank you for sharing your valuable perspective.

Thanks Nick for the insightful comments you've shared!  I greatly appreciate your well-thought-out perspective. I would like to address some key considerations based on your points:

1. Regarding the remuneration system, it is indeed debatable whether most of the extra income would be donated. I understand your viewpoint on this matter. However, I believe a more nuanced approach is necessary when designing remuneration systems. Organizations should strive to encourage their employees to contribute a portion of their additional earnings to effective charities, such as 10%. This approach becomes especially important in areas where Effective Altruism (EA) is not widely embraced.
2. Considering the cost of living is essential, and it would be unfair to disregard its impact. I agree that an employee's location and the associated cost of living should not be used against them, particularly in low-income areas.
3. I acknowledge your observation that the giving culture in Kenya, where I am currently located, may not be as prevalent in other African countries. It would be presumptuous to assume a uniform situation across all African states. Efforts are underway within the EA Nairobi and EA JKUAT communities in Kenya to expand the reach of EA and foster a stronger giving culture. While I cannot provide specific details on the donations made by EA Nairobi, it is an area I am personally interested in exploring further.
4. Concerning the impact of attracting professionals away from their current impactful jobs, I respectfully disagree with your perspective. In the long term, I believe it is crucial to provide professionals in Africa with equal opportunities to compete for impactful positions. Additionally, a significant number of highly competent and dedicated individuals are already working on effective causes, and this trend is not expected to diminish anytime soon.
5. In terms of cost-effectiveness, I agree that allocating extra funds to employ more highly skilled individuals is important. However, it is crucial to ensure that employees receive adequate compensation to prevent a situation where their productivity is compromised due to unfavorable conditions resulting from low salaries.

While the term "black tax" may sound negative, I personally view it as a positive phenomenon based on my own experience as a beneficiary of financial support from my well-off extended family. I have had the opportunity to attend conferences outside Kenya solely due to their generosity. Therefore, I believe that targeted financial support within families and communities can be an extremely beneficial force.

Your concern regarding the sustainability of communities after NGOs cease their activities or funding is no longer available is valid. Often, when NGOs implement successful programs, such as feeding initiatives or distributing mosquito nets, communities struggle to maintain those advancements once the programs end. I share your belief that entrepreneurship should continue regardless of external funding. It is through a combination of financial resources and locally developed solutions that many of the challenges in Africa can be effectively addressed.

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. Your insights have added depth to the discussion, and I value the opportunity to engage in this conversation.