10 ms·

> Non profit ceos make 100s of thousands of dollars a year. That money comes from cash donations. People don't want to line a ceos pockets they want to help the

> Non profit ceos make 100s of thousands of dollars a year. That money comes from cash donations. People don't want to line a ceos pockets they want to help their neighbor. This attitude frustrates me. Having the infrastructure in place to redistribute goods is work. It takes people's time and effort, and that does not come for free. The larger the scale at which a charity operates, the more true this becomes. If you're concerned that a particular charity is abusing your goodwill and not using enough of its funds for its mission, research it on https://www.charitynavigator.org https://www.charitynavigator.org.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> This attitude frustrates me. Having the infrastructure in place to redistribute goods is work. It takes people's time and effort, and that does not come for free. Neither does the work of the people donating food and/or money.
- scott_s 7y ago
  I can't figure out how that relates to my point? We're operating under the assumption that people are donating something, which implies they worked, gained from it, and then decided to pass on their gain to someone else. My point is about the efficiency of that donation, and the expectations we should have of the people who enable that donation.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > We're operating under the assumption that people are donating something, which implies they worked, gained from it, and then decided to pass on their gain to someone else. Precisely. And they don't like the idea that some middle man is profiting off of what they're giving. It's really that simple. Tell me my money goes to some administrator who's organizing a bunch of volunteers to distribute donations and I'm wondering why the hell that guy isn't a volunteer.
    - Klathmon 7y ago
      Because you can't democratize management and organization like you can with donation of individual goods and small amounts of money. You can donate $20 to a non-profit, but you can't donate "a few hours of CEO work" the same way, it just doesn't work. So it's more of an "all or nothing" kind of position. Expecting someone to donate $20 of their salary or a few days of their time? That's not a big deal. Expecting someone to donate 100% of their salary or 100% of their "work time" for a year or more? That's a HUGE ask. It's no surprise there aren't any takers.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Then someone needs to take the time to explain to people what the value of that position is and why it requires the amount of money it is being paid, because neither are at all obvious.
      - vertex-four 7y ago
        I'm part of a volunteer organisation that does provide free food for all sorts of folk and does entirely run on volunteer labour - it's really not obvious that such an organisation does need a full-time CEO.
        Klathmon 7y ago
        That's fair, I guess I shouldn't have used such absolute language, but I believe the point still stands. If for-profit organizations find it beneficial to grow and expand using dedicated administrative staff, the assumption is that there would be benefits to growing a non-profit organization to a similar level. And while I'm sure there are ways to make it work, if we want them to run as well as for-profit companies are run, it stands to reason that dedicated administrative staff would provide greater returns to the organization (and their cause) over the cost of employing them. If growing like that is an overall good thing is up for debate, but the idea that growing an organization requires dedicated and competent staff isn't really that shocking to me.
        MadcapJake 7y ago
CodiePetersen 7y ago
Or I can donate to a church that is doing all of it for free. If the issue is efficiency then isn't it better to donate to individuals doing it for free.
- scott_s 7y ago
  Such small operations typically can't scale and have greater difficulty dealing with emergencies.
  - CodiePetersen 7y ago
    You don't need to scale. How many churches are in LA? When I was homeless over there when I was younger, there were spots all over the city that were feeding the homeless. You don't need one giant entity. You just need the community to care. If your community doesn't care no amount of money is going to fix it.
    - scott_s 7y ago
      Scale and agility matter during emergencies, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes. In such circumstances, the smaller local organizations are affected by the same problem.
      - CodiePetersen 7y ago
        We are not talking about an emergency though. We're talking about regular food drives. Donating to emergencies if a different matter. And if your city is underwater, get your ass out there and help.
      - CodiePetersen 7y ago
        I will say though, after the damage is done and its been x amount of time and there is no immediate danger. There is not too much physical donations that can help, but again that's not a food drive problem.
      - caseysoftware 7y ago
ksdale 7y ago
Not only is it work, but as you say, beyond a certain scale, it's really, really hard work that can only be done by a person who is perfectly able to earn that kind of salary working at a for-profit. If you're not willing to pay for that ability, and you can't find someone with that ability who is already independently wealthy and willing to work their butt off for no compensation, then you're going to end up with someone who is absolutely not qualified, which in my opinion, amounts to saying that you don't believe charities should be large or efficient, which I suppose is a valid opinion, but doesn't seem like a better use of resources than paying a competent manager.
- salawat 7y ago
  Describe an example of this hypothetical really, really hard work to me, if you have the time. I find that there's always someone willing to clamor that CEO's are with their weight in gold, but I find it excruciatingly difficult to find an elucidation of how what a CEO does is dependent on a particular person rather than to an arbitrary individual making a decision based off of high level information collected about the state of the company. I'm really curious, because it bugs me that everywhere I go I never seem to be able to jive this view of CEO's as unique in their own right, with the fact that what they are doing is just enabled by carte blanche access to the internal state and business affairs of the company in question.
  - yters 7y ago
    My understanding is a CEO's main capability that earns them a large salary is being able to influence company salaries.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Most CEOs are quite detached from managing company salaries and have delegated that responsibility - CEOs do work, sure... but not a proportion of work in line with their earnings.
      - yters 7y ago
derekp7 7y ago
Not only that, but it is interesting to see the multiplier effect of those overhead funds. If a charity redistributes 90% of donations to their cause, can they raise twice the amount of money by increasing their overhead by 5%? It is well worth it to pay someone a mid 6 figure salary if they are really good at bringing in funds (value) greater than their pay.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  If their overhead is reasonable to start with, sure. My personal threshold is 20-ish%. St. Judes and Shriners meet that threshold with their massive TV ad spend. Certain veterans charities have been exceeding 60%. They are money grubbing scum.
module0000 7y ago
> This attitude frustrates me. CEO's making market-wages (100k+) "working for charity" frustrates me. At that wage, they aren't charity workers at all. Every dollar they accept is someone remaining underfed, while the CEO gets resume-flair. Protip: Charity's do not need a CEO in the sense that a company pushing a product to market needs a CEO to manage various business units. They need someone who cares about the net impact to the impoverished at reasonable expense to themselves.
- phil248 7y ago
  What? Every organization that wants to grow and thrive needs leadership. And getting and keeping good leadership requires offering fair compensation. Do you disagree?
  - eitland 7y ago
    Yes. Disagree. I think in many cases the right candidate for a non profit is someone who cares deeply enough to take a pay cut to work there.
    - ska 7y ago
      > someone who cares deeply enough to take a pay cut to work there. What makes you think this isn't the case? In my limited experience, it is very much the case.
      - eitland 7y ago
        Then I guess we agree.
        ska 7y ago
        So you don't have a problem if that reduced pay is still north of $200k/yr, all else being equal?
    - phil248 7y ago
Accacin 7y ago
Why? CEOs in the USA (and UK to be frank) earn way more than an average worker compared to many countries such as Japan. They do a look of work sure, but they needn't be paid so much.
- Balgair 7y ago
  I think you make a really good point here by looking at international salaries. Like a lot of other commetors, I think that a good CEO really is worth the salary. We've all had bad managers and seen bad C-suite decisions play out. However, the excessiveness of the increased pay is very concerning. I get it, those people exist in a market as well, and you have to play by market dynamics as a result. But as compared to international C-suites, US pay is very very high. The issue's core problem is the excessive pay of C-suite people in the US affecting the workforce. This bleeds quickly into charities, of course.
catacombs 7y ago
If people here are cool with CEOs making hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries, then everyone working under him or her should make a better-than-average salary, all the way down to the line workers, who'd normally make minimum wage.
AJ007 7y ago
Agreed, and people may not be away of how egregious the budgets of their favorite non-profit/charity are. "Nationwide, the mean salaries of chief executives at nonprofit hospitals rose 93% since 2005 to reach $3.1 million in 2015, according to an October 2018 study in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research." https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofit-hospitals-criticized-for-debt-collection-tactics-11561467600 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofit-hospitals-criticized-...
penagwin 7y ago
I'll agree that a person in a CEO position of say Goodwill deserves to be paid a lot of money given their position, running an organization takes money etc. But I personally don't have much money. I would rather give my local church food to be distributed than money to organizations. It's not that the CEO doesn't deserve to be paid, it's that I don't want my money to go to him.
golemiprague 7y ago
Charity should be to the people who need it around you, not to some big organisation that then decide to funnel all the money to Africa or something while cashing 50% of the money into their employees pockets. It is important that poor people will get the donations from people who are in the same locality, this way it solves the relative disparity which is in many ways more important psychologically. It also expose the donator to the real situation in his community and create solidarity and caring relationships. It is not without reason that most religions preach to donate first to people around you. Charity should scale horizontally rather than vertically.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> This attitude frustrates me. Having the infrastructure in place to redistribute goods is work. It takes people's time and effort, and that does not come for free. Neither does the work of the people donating food and/or money.

scott_s 7y ago
I can't figure out how that relates to my point? We're operating under the assumption that people are donating something, which implies they worked, gained from it, and then decided to pass on their gain to someone else. My point is about the efficiency of that donation, and the expectations we should have of the people who enable that donation.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > We're operating under the assumption that people are donating something, which implies they worked, gained from it, and then decided to pass on their gain to someone else. Precisely. And they don't like the idea that some middle man is profiting off of what they're giving. It's really that simple. Tell me my money goes to some administrator who's organizing a bunch of volunteers to distribute donations and I'm wondering why the hell that guy isn't a volunteer.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    Because you can't democratize management and organization like you can with donation of individual goods and small amounts of money. You can donate $20 to a non-profit, but you can't donate "a few hours of CEO work" the same way, it just doesn't work. So it's more of an "all or nothing" kind of position. Expecting someone to donate $20 of their salary or a few days of their time? That's not a big deal. Expecting someone to donate 100% of their salary or 100% of their "work time" for a year or more? That's a HUGE ask. It's no surprise there aren't any takers.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Then someone needs to take the time to explain to people what the value of that position is and why it requires the amount of money it is being paid, because neither are at all obvious.
    - vertex-four 7y ago
      I'm part of a volunteer organisation that does provide free food for all sorts of folk and does entirely run on volunteer labour - it's really not obvious that such an organisation does need a full-time CEO.
      - Klathmon 7y ago
        That's fair, I guess I shouldn't have used such absolute language, but I believe the point still stands. If for-profit organizations find it beneficial to grow and expand using dedicated administrative staff, the assumption is that there would be benefits to growing a non-profit organization to a similar level. And while I'm sure there are ways to make it work, if we want them to run as well as for-profit companies are run, it stands to reason that dedicated administrative staff would provide greater returns to the organization (and their cause) over the cost of employing them. If growing like that is an overall good thing is up for debate, but the idea that growing an organization requires dedicated and competent staff isn't really that shocking to me.
      - MadcapJake 7y ago

CodiePetersen 7y ago

Or I can donate to a church that is doing all of it for free. If the issue is efficiency then isn't it better to donate to individuals doing it for free.

scott_s 7y ago
Such small operations typically can't scale and have greater difficulty dealing with emergencies.
- CodiePetersen 7y ago
  You don't need to scale. How many churches are in LA? When I was homeless over there when I was younger, there were spots all over the city that were feeding the homeless. You don't need one giant entity. You just need the community to care. If your community doesn't care no amount of money is going to fix it.
  - scott_s 7y ago
    Scale and agility matter during emergencies, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes. In such circumstances, the smaller local organizations are affected by the same problem.
    - CodiePetersen 7y ago
      We are not talking about an emergency though. We're talking about regular food drives. Donating to emergencies if a different matter. And if your city is underwater, get your ass out there and help.
    - CodiePetersen 7y ago
      I will say though, after the damage is done and its been x amount of time and there is no immediate danger. There is not too much physical donations that can help, but again that's not a food drive problem.
    - caseysoftware 7y ago

ksdale 7y ago

Not only is it work, but as you say, beyond a certain scale, it's really, really hard work that can only be done by a person who is perfectly able to earn that kind of salary working at a for-profit. If you're not willing to pay for that ability, and you can't find someone with that ability who is already independently wealthy and willing to work their butt off for no compensation, then you're going to end up with someone who is absolutely not qualified, which in my opinion, amounts to saying that you don't believe charities should be large or efficient, which I suppose is a valid opinion, but doesn't seem like a better use of resources than paying a competent manager.

salawat 7y ago
Describe an example of this hypothetical really, really hard work to me, if you have the time. I find that there's always someone willing to clamor that CEO's are with their weight in gold, but I find it excruciatingly difficult to find an elucidation of how what a CEO does is dependent on a particular person rather than to an arbitrary individual making a decision based off of high level information collected about the state of the company. I'm really curious, because it bugs me that everywhere I go I never seem to be able to jive this view of CEO's as unique in their own right, with the fact that what they are doing is just enabled by carte blanche access to the internal state and business affairs of the company in question.
- yters 7y ago
  My understanding is a CEO's main capability that earns them a large salary is being able to influence company salaries.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Most CEOs are quite detached from managing company salaries and have delegated that responsibility - CEOs do work, sure... but not a proportion of work in line with their earnings.
    - yters 7y ago

derekp7 7y ago

Not only that, but it is interesting to see the multiplier effect of those overhead funds. If a charity redistributes 90% of donations to their cause, can they raise twice the amount of money by increasing their overhead by 5%? It is well worth it to pay someone a mid 6 figure salary if they are really good at bringing in funds (value) greater than their pay.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
If their overhead is reasonable to start with, sure. My personal threshold is 20-ish%. St. Judes and Shriners meet that threshold with their massive TV ad spend. Certain veterans charities have been exceeding 60%. They are money grubbing scum.

module0000 7y ago

> This attitude frustrates me. CEO's making market-wages (100k+) "working for charity" frustrates me. At that wage, they aren't charity workers at all. Every dollar they accept is someone remaining underfed, while the CEO gets resume-flair. Protip: Charity's do not need a CEO in the sense that a company pushing a product to market needs a CEO to manage various business units. They need someone who cares about the net impact to the impoverished at reasonable expense to themselves.

phil248 7y ago
What? Every organization that wants to grow and thrive needs leadership. And getting and keeping good leadership requires offering fair compensation. Do you disagree?
- eitland 7y ago
  Yes. Disagree. I think in many cases the right candidate for a non profit is someone who cares deeply enough to take a pay cut to work there.
  - ska 7y ago
    > someone who cares deeply enough to take a pay cut to work there. What makes you think this isn't the case? In my limited experience, it is very much the case.
    - eitland 7y ago
      Then I guess we agree.
      - ska 7y ago
        So you don't have a problem if that reduced pay is still north of $200k/yr, all else being equal?
  - phil248 7y ago

Accacin 7y ago

Why? CEOs in the USA (and UK to be frank) earn way more than an average worker compared to many countries such as Japan. They do a look of work sure, but they needn't be paid so much.

Balgair 7y ago
I think you make a really good point here by looking at international salaries. Like a lot of other commetors, I think that a good CEO really is worth the salary. We've all had bad managers and seen bad C-suite decisions play out. However, the excessiveness of the increased pay is very concerning. I get it, those people exist in a market as well, and you have to play by market dynamics as a result. But as compared to international C-suites, US pay is very very high. The issue's core problem is the excessive pay of C-suite people in the US affecting the workforce. This bleeds quickly into charities, of course.

catacombs 7y ago

If people here are cool with CEOs making hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries, then everyone working under him or her should make a better-than-average salary, all the way down to the line workers, who'd normally make minimum wage.

AJ007 7y ago

Agreed, and people may not be away of how egregious the budgets of their favorite non-profit/charity are. "Nationwide, the mean salaries of chief executives at nonprofit hospitals rose 93% since 2005 to reach $3.1 million in 2015, according to an October 2018 study in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research." https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofit-hospitals-criticized-for-debt-collection-tactics-11561467600 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofit-hospitals-criticized-...

penagwin 7y ago

I'll agree that a person in a CEO position of say Goodwill deserves to be paid a lot of money given their position, running an organization takes money etc. But I personally don't have much money. I would rather give my local church food to be distributed than money to organizations. It's not that the CEO doesn't deserve to be paid, it's that I don't want my money to go to him.

golemiprague 7y ago

Charity should be to the people who need it around you, not to some big organisation that then decide to funnel all the money to Africa or something while cashing 50% of the money into their employees pockets. It is important that poor people will get the donations from people who are in the same locality, this way it solves the relative disparity which is in many ways more important psychologically. It also expose the donator to the real situation in his community and create solidarity and caring relationships. It is not without reason that most religions preach to donate first to people around you. Charity should scale horizontally rather than vertically.