24

I am curious to determine how much J. Robert Oppenheimer got paid in today's dollars when he was the head of Los Alamos National Laboratory?

Do we have any HR or accounting documents of the Los Alamos National Lab when it was tasked with the Manhattan Project?

Gabriel Fair
  • 507
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
  • Welcome to History:Stack Exchange. Thank you for your question; please consider revising it to be more in line with our community expectations. Like many other stacks, we expect questions to provide evidence of prior research. That helps us to understand the question, and avoids our repeating work you've already done. Our [help], and other stacks provide additional resources to assist with revisions. – MCW Jan 23 '21 at 16:44

1 Answers1

32

On page 14 of FAS.org it indicates his salary was initially set at $10,000. Since that exceeded his previous UC professor’s salary he asked that it be reduced in line with others. Apparently the Regents turned down his request (following letter on that page).

As a comparison, on page 10 there is a salary listing for "Persons not now holding an academic position but who were in academic work", where the maximum salary (presumed monthly) for a PhD with more than 4 years of experience is set at $400, or $4800/year. So, Oppenheimer's salary was roughly double that of an experienced PhD from outside academia.

Now, at the US National Lab where I work, an experienced PhD will be paid somewhere around ~30 times the $4800/yr, or Oppenheimer's salary would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $300k/yr (plus/minus $100k?).

As a separate comparison, per Business Insider, a US Army private was paid $50/month during the war. A technician at Los Alamos made up to six times that salary (and was not shot at).

Jon Custer
  • 2,655
  • 1
  • 20
  • 22
  • 13
    According to the first random online inflation calculator I tried, $10k in 1943 (the year he signed that letter) dollars would be roughly $150,000 today. Not bad dough, but considerably less than a modern commercial VP in charge of a large project site like that would expect to be pulling down today. – T.E.D. Jan 23 '21 at 17:24
  • 25
    @T.E.D. - $150,000 is low for a commercial VP but consistent with 2021 Federal salaries for civil servants in executive positions. E.g. the payscale for the Senior Executive Service is $132,552 - $199,300. – dbc Jan 23 '21 at 23:37
  • 8
    @dbc I think "Senior Executive Service" is nothing compared to Robert Oppenheimer. No comparison whatsoever. Where in that link is there a "list of extremely notable examples" section that has anyone nearly as close to what Oppenheimer was. I do get your point though that civil servants are not paid like VPs at private corporations. Also I'll point out to T.E.D. that even though 150k is not much compared to VPs in private corps these days, house prices were also not nearly as high, and stress levels in VP positions may not have been either. Competition to get there wasn't nearly as high. – user1271772 Jan 24 '21 at 02:30
  • 3
    @user1271772 back then, few people understood the real long-lasting importance of the Manhattan Project the way we understand it today. – fraxinus Jan 24 '21 at 14:27
  • 13
    It's quite impressive that Oppenheimer asked for his salary to be reduced! – user2705196 Jan 24 '21 at 15:42
  • @fraxinus Oppenheimer was already one of the best physicists in the world, and one of the most talented and educated people in the world, before becoming the leader of the Manhattan project. That's why it's surprising that he's getting paid less (after inflation adjustment) than average senior scientists at LANL today. – user1271772 Jan 24 '21 at 17:38
  • 9
    @T.E.D. - the salary range from bottom to top was much more compressed in those days. It wasn't until around the 80's that the ratio of top to bottom in a company really took off. – Jon Custer Jan 24 '21 at 18:04
  • 1
    @user1271772 No, the SES is a pretty direct analogue to Oppenheimer. Running a small installation is a relatively junior SES spot. For some rough comparison, a program manager for an aircraft platform (e.g. the entire F-18 program) is going to be a senior GS-15, which ranks below the bottom of the SES scale. – fectin Jan 24 '21 at 22:34
  • 2
    @fectin I disagree completely. Name me one SES with anything named after them (as the Born-Oppenheimer approximation) or one with a Wikipedia page, off the top of your head without Googling it. I would be amazed if you could. Oppenheimer was the boss of Einstein, Feynman, Fermi, etc. *Absolutely zero comparison.* – user1271772 Jan 24 '21 at 22:57
  • 1
    @user1271772 you mean like Spruill Charts? Or do you think "SES" has some relation to scientific notoriety? – fectin Jan 25 '21 at 00:33
  • 2
    @fectin Just name one famous SES person. – user1271772 Jan 25 '21 at 00:55
  • 1
    @user1271772 Einstein wasn't part of the Mahattan Project ("too pacifist"). Also being boss of someone usually doesn't mean being smarter than that someone... – smcs Jan 25 '21 at 14:27
  • 2
    @user1271772, you have it backwards, he was a household name after the Manhattan project, not before. – crobar Jan 25 '21 at 14:30
  • 1
    @user1271772 When working for the government in the scientific/technical sector, one does not get paid for being famous, one gets paid depending on the rank of the job. Many more famous people had less famous bosses who earned more. – Vladimir F Героям слава Jan 25 '21 at 14:35
  • 2
    I've worked with a number of SES folks over the years, all good at what they do. The government needs them to effectively oversee programs. But, the lab director of Los Alamos is not SES (nor GS) for a reason. – Jon Custer Jan 25 '21 at 14:57
  • 1
    Los Alamos technicians didn't get shot at, but if they were paid poorly they'd be easier to bribe – llama Jan 25 '21 at 21:48
  • 1
    @llama - plus the best draftees got assigned to the project anyways. I knew of few of them back in the day. – Jon Custer Jan 25 '21 at 22:16