50 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoDoctors 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 agoPrivate doctors can make far more than $300k. So, making 300k working for the government does not mean they are making market rates.