4 ms·

Because they are being funded by tax payers.

tomjen3 10y ago
If they pay more than they can get away with, they are wasting money, but if they pay less and get lesser-skilled workers, they are also wasting their money. Underpaying in a non-for profit assumes that they can still get the same quality worker.
throwaway729 10y ago
> Because they are being funded by tax payers Again, this isn't a reasonable argument. The cost of labor does not magically disappear just because the employer is a non-profit instead of a for-profit. Teachers, clerks, and accountants don't magically cost less when they are paid with tax payer dollars. (Incidentally, administrators -- on average -- do cost substantially less in the non-profit sector.)
- Retric 10y ago
  >Teachers, clerks, and accountants don't magically cost less Actually, charity's pay people less than market rates in other positions.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    (edited) It's not magical, though. And it's not because the charity is "funded by tax payers". Sometimes the salaries are discounted because the charity can find someone who "believes in the mission" (sound familiar?). Sometimes the salaries are discounted because that's all the charity can afford. If the charity can't find someone willing to take the pay cut, then it ends up subsisting on below-average performers. See hospitals, for example. If they don't pay market rates for doctors, they probably have sub-par doctors. If your charity can't sell its mission as part of the compensation package, then it has to cough up. The point is, no one is going to take a pay cut just because, as GP put it, they're "funded by tax payers". Why the hell would anyone take a pay cut just because their job is funded by tax payers instead of by the Gates foundation?
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Doctors are a great example. The federal government pay scale for doctors goes above $300k. Pretty much everyone else tops out around half that.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Private doctors can make far more than $300k. So, making 300k working for the government does not mean they are making market rates.
jhbadger 10y ago
Very few non-profit organizations are "funded by taxpayers". They are not government agencies but corporations not very different from for-profit ones except that they don't make a profit (although as mentioned, they can certainly pay their employees quite well). Non-profits can be funded in a variety of ways, from private donations (as with most charities), or even by selling products or services (so long as they don't make a profit, as many scientific societies do)
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Tax exempt status is a form of subsidy, paid by everyone who pays taxes.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    In exchange for that subsidy, the government isn't (directly) running programs like homeless shelters and food banks. Societal necessities so long as homelessness and poverty remain parts of our society. Cut the tax break, fine, but then we need the government to intervene and provide assistance for citizens.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > In exchange for that subsidy, the government isn't (directly) running programs like homeless shelters and food banks. Or, you know, churches. The idea that the tax subsidy is justified by the fact that subsidized charities are displacing costs that would otherwise need to be born by the government would probably be more supportable if: (1) tax subsidized charities didn't perform functions that the government is Constitutionally barred from performing (viewing the subsidy as an alternative means of performing government functions, would make subsidizing "charities" to do such barred tasks a way for government to evade its Constitutional limits), and (2) the tax subsidy were the same for all donors (e.g., a fixed proportion credit) since each dollar given would displace the same amount of government funds no matter who gives it, rather than escalating for wealthier donors.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago

If they pay more than they can get away with, they are wasting money, but if they pay less and get lesser-skilled workers, they are also wasting their money. Underpaying in a non-for profit assumes that they can still get the same quality worker.

throwaway729 10y ago

> Because they are being funded by tax payers Again, this isn't a reasonable argument. The cost of labor does not magically disappear just because the employer is a non-profit instead of a for-profit. Teachers, clerks, and accountants don't magically cost less when they are paid with tax payer dollars. (Incidentally, administrators -- on average -- do cost substantially less in the non-profit sector.)

Retric 10y ago
>Teachers, clerks, and accountants don't magically cost less Actually, charity's pay people less than market rates in other positions.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  (edited) It's not magical, though. And it's not because the charity is "funded by tax payers". Sometimes the salaries are discounted because the charity can find someone who "believes in the mission" (sound familiar?). Sometimes the salaries are discounted because that's all the charity can afford. If the charity can't find someone willing to take the pay cut, then it ends up subsisting on below-average performers. See hospitals, for example. If they don't pay market rates for doctors, they probably have sub-par doctors. If your charity can't sell its mission as part of the compensation package, then it has to cough up. The point is, no one is going to take a pay cut just because, as GP put it, they're "funded by tax payers". Why the hell would anyone take a pay cut just because their job is funded by tax payers instead of by the Gates foundation?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Doctors are a great example. The federal government pay scale for doctors goes above $300k. Pretty much everyone else tops out around half that.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Private doctors can make far more than $300k. So, making 300k working for the government does not mean they are making market rates.

jhbadger 10y ago

Very few non-profit organizations are "funded by taxpayers". They are not government agencies but corporations not very different from for-profit ones except that they don't make a profit (although as mentioned, they can certainly pay their employees quite well). Non-profits can be funded in a variety of ways, from private donations (as with most charities), or even by selling products or services (so long as they don't make a profit, as many scientific societies do)

sliverstorm 10y ago
Tax exempt status is a form of subsidy, paid by everyone who pays taxes.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  In exchange for that subsidy, the government isn't (directly) running programs like homeless shelters and food banks. Societal necessities so long as homelessness and poverty remain parts of our society. Cut the tax break, fine, but then we need the government to intervene and provide assistance for citizens.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > In exchange for that subsidy, the government isn't (directly) running programs like homeless shelters and food banks. Or, you know, churches. The idea that the tax subsidy is justified by the fact that subsidized charities are displacing costs that would otherwise need to be born by the government would probably be more supportable if: (1) tax subsidized charities didn't perform functions that the government is Constitutionally barred from performing (viewing the subsidy as an alternative means of performing government functions, would make subsidizing "charities" to do such barred tasks a way for government to evade its Constitutional limits), and (2) the tax subsidy were the same for all donors (e.g., a fixed proportion credit) since each dollar given would displace the same amount of government funds no matter who gives it, rather than escalating for wealthier donors.
- dragonwriter 10y ago