4 ms·

>It is often a prestigious and above average paying position Incorrect. Furthermore, the salaries are often public, so this is provable. Look up our 990 if you

>It is often a prestigious and above average paying position Incorrect. Furthermore, the salaries are often public, so this is provable. Look up our 990 if you don't believe me. You can also review via GuideStar[0] or Foundation Center[1]. I work with a lot of fellow non-profits, on average our positions pay about 80% of market. Perhaps you are only looking at CEO pay? On average, that is also below market, but there are some outliers which I'd have to guess you are basing your incorrect assertion on. [0] https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx [1] https://foundationcenter.org/ https://foundationcenter.org/

kokokokoko 8y ago
By "above average" I meant it was above the median income as opposed to above average for the position. I should have made that language a bit clearer. From there I would say that the status and prestige of working at a large and powerful NGO can make up for the difference in pay one might make elsewhere. There are obviously many people who go into non-profit work for purely altruistic reasons. I only meant to state that there are plenty of people who do not. Therefore using the position as a signal of the quality of a person's character is not valid.
- mLuby 8y ago
  Ehhh, the signal can be pretty valid even if it's not so in 100% of cases. And I imagine that it's less correct at the top: rank and file NGO employees are likely to have made significant sacrifices in terms of pay or lifestyle to support their org's mission, but I don't know for certain that applies to the C-suite equivalent at the top.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Can’t you just admit you were wrong, instead of moving the goalpost to some (also wrong) median vs mode argument, and then repeating your other impossible-to-disprove opinion on NGO worker’s character flaws?
  - kokokokoko 8y ago
    Hey Matt, seems like you really got offended by my clarification. I'm certainly not trying to upset you and my apologies if I did. I was in fact using "above average" as meaning they tend to be more white collar jobs that pay more than the median salary. With that said, this really seems like something that is upsetting you and I really want you to know that I'm not trying to play a game or trick anyone. Either way, it's just a web forum. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. There is no prize. Just making internet conversation since I'm a little bored today. Please don't get too worked up about it and I wish you well.
coldtea 8y ago
The average between CEOs or executive roles is not important, the average (median) among the public at large is. Simply put, they are better off than most.
- matt4077 8y ago
  No. The argument was, specifically, that these people are not taking a hit in pay by working for an NGO, and that they are therefore not acting altruistic. The comparison with similar positions is the only one valid, because those are the better paying job they did not take even though they were qualified.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    You're assuming a random NGO "CEO" or "exec" would be ever hired as the CEO/exec of a large private company, which is hardly the case. Those people are not taking a hit working for an NGO because they would never have the equivalent roles in the business world.

kokokokoko 8y ago

By "above average" I meant it was above the median income as opposed to above average for the position. I should have made that language a bit clearer. From there I would say that the status and prestige of working at a large and powerful NGO can make up for the difference in pay one might make elsewhere. There are obviously many people who go into non-profit work for purely altruistic reasons. I only meant to state that there are plenty of people who do not. Therefore using the position as a signal of the quality of a person's character is not valid.

mLuby 8y ago
Ehhh, the signal can be pretty valid even if it's not so in 100% of cases. And I imagine that it's less correct at the top: rank and file NGO employees are likely to have made significant sacrifices in terms of pay or lifestyle to support their org's mission, but I don't know for certain that applies to the C-suite equivalent at the top.
matt4077 8y ago
Can’t you just admit you were wrong, instead of moving the goalpost to some (also wrong) median vs mode argument, and then repeating your other impossible-to-disprove opinion on NGO worker’s character flaws?
- kokokokoko 8y ago
  Hey Matt, seems like you really got offended by my clarification. I'm certainly not trying to upset you and my apologies if I did. I was in fact using "above average" as meaning they tend to be more white collar jobs that pay more than the median salary. With that said, this really seems like something that is upsetting you and I really want you to know that I'm not trying to play a game or trick anyone. Either way, it's just a web forum. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. There is no prize. Just making internet conversation since I'm a little bored today. Please don't get too worked up about it and I wish you well.

coldtea 8y ago

The average between CEOs or executive roles is not important, the average (median) among the public at large is. Simply put, they are better off than most.

matt4077 8y ago
No. The argument was, specifically, that these people are not taking a hit in pay by working for an NGO, and that they are therefore not acting altruistic. The comparison with similar positions is the only one valid, because those are the better paying job they did not take even though they were qualified.
- coldtea 8y ago
  You're assuming a random NGO "CEO" or "exec" would be ever hired as the CEO/exec of a large private company, which is hardly the case. Those people are not taking a hit working for an NGO because they would never have the equivalent roles in the business world.