3 ms·

Wikipedia is a good example of how bad the non profits have it. They have to beg every other year for 2 years' worth of money. If they cant succeed in gathering

Wikipedia is a good example of how bad the non profits have it. They have to beg every other year for 2 years' worth of money. If they cant succeed in gathering that amount even once, they go under. Mozilla is already on shaky ground. And the others have permanent funding from other sources, so they are not really non-profit examples.

solardev 4y ago
Mmm, do you have some examples or sources to cite? I don't know where you're getting these ideas, but I've worked for many nonprofits and considered starting my own, so had to understand their legal and financial structures a little bit. If you have to beg every 2 years for money or you go bankrupt, that is some terrible planning. Nonprofits are usually run like businesses, and have revenues and expenses like any other business, usually continuous. It's not like they fundraise every 2 years and then spend money the rest of the time. That's just not how it works. They have boards, managers, staff, salaries, etc. that they plan for day to day, like any other business, and their revenue streams are not limited to donations (there can be grants, sales, memberships, endowments, whatever). Wikipedia, as an example, uses that bullshit to stir up a sense of urgency as a call to action, but they are actually doing just fine: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wikipedia-millions-bank-beg/ https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wikipedia-millions-bank-beg/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12... You can also look at their Form 990s for a clearer picture of their financials; https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200... (it's not FAANG money, but it's enough for what they're doing, and they get richer every year). The reason typical nonprofits don't get rich is that you can't really "invest" in them via capital injections, because investors can't get a return. That's what makes them nonprofit. But nothing stops them from doing routine business activities to make money on a predictable, cyclical cycle -- not a lump sum every year. That Wikipedia thing is just a marketing gimmick, the same way many charities will use holidays or Giving Tuesday to beg for money, but that's not their entire income stream (or even most of it). The choice to become a nonprofit is exactly that, a choice. They don't "have it bad", they just choose their mission (well, ideally) over profit. Of course scams exist and some are just tax havens or whatever. There are also non 501c3 nonprofits, like churches or issue-based advocacy groups, that have their own funding structures (tithes, corporate affiliations, whatever). And nonprofits can and do have their own investments, their own funds, etc. that earn a return, but it just goes back to the org and/or its staff (as salaries and perks, etc.), not shareholder return. Overall, though, for the most part the primary differentiation is just that they don't have shareholders/owners to give money to. Aside from that they are mostly just businesses with a bunch of small technicalities of IRS rules to adhere to.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > If you have to beg every 2 years for money or you go bankrupt, that is some terrible planning Its not. Its the legal setting that prevents non-profits from gathering more operating money than a given period. > their revenue streams are not limited to donations They aren't. Except it works the same way - they cant gather any kind of financial capital that could make them a viable competitor for for-profit companies. Otherwise non profits would have steamrolled the for-profit companies a long time ago. > Wikipedia Picking one example as poster boy does not make the argument. Wikipedia is the product of a well-connected, famous persona, who already had enough connections to start and float any kind of organization at the point he started Wikipedia. Its also the first and practically the only one of its kind with no practical competititon. Even so, it is dependent on fleeting funding from donations and similar revenue sources. The sole example of Mozilla can prove how fickle this format is. Its also one-of-a-kind, it was also practically the first in its field, and for a time it had no competition for its major product. Now its on shaky grounds, with funding for Thunderbird being cut, Firefox not doing so fine and so on. Thats the problem with non-profits in the current legal landscape. The landscape is crafted to prevent any threat to for-profit companies and it gimps many things ranging from non-profits to cooperatives for that end. And that makes it totally risky for anyone to build their livelihood on such a non-profit. You can still be able to pay your rent next month as a creator if Wikipedia goes down. But if your Patreon goes down, you are in knee-deep sh*t. Because its infrastructure by now. ... Im totally for non-profits. Actually, an entire economy that comprises of cooperatives, functioning on the infrastructure provided by the democratically elected government is the ideal economy for me. However the proposition of turning such services like Patreon to non-profit is not viable with the current legal landscape unless its changed drastically.
  - solardev 4y ago
    This just isn't true. There is nothing preventing nonprofits from accruing and banking money for many years at a time. Where do you keep getting this idea? There's no magical 2 year limit or anything like that. There are thousands if not millions of perfectly functional nonprofits. Mozilla is more the exception, a monster that gets fed by Google and produces little of value. The EFF, ACLU, Sierra Club, whatever are also nonprofits. There are lots and lots and lots. Nonprofits are a different beast from cooperatives. They don't have a profit motive. If you want a democratic nonprofit there are such things as worker self directed nonprofits. Or if you want shared investments without shared governance there are ESOPs and such. Yes, I would love to see a more democratic economy too. But that's not held back by the limits of organizational structures. Please, if you're going to make these extraordinary and (I believe) incorrect claims about nonprofits, provide some sources?

solardev 4y ago

Mmm, do you have some examples or sources to cite? I don't know where you're getting these ideas, but I've worked for many nonprofits and considered starting my own, so had to understand their legal and financial structures a little bit. If you have to beg every 2 years for money or you go bankrupt, that is some terrible planning. Nonprofits are usually run like businesses, and have revenues and expenses like any other business, usually continuous. It's not like they fundraise every 2 years and then spend money the rest of the time. That's just not how it works. They have boards, managers, staff, salaries, etc. that they plan for day to day, like any other business, and their revenue streams are not limited to donations (there can be grants, sales, memberships, endowments, whatever). Wikipedia, as an example, uses that bullshit to stir up a sense of urgency as a call to action, but they are actually doing just fine: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wikipedia-millions-bank-beg/ https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/wikipedia-millions-bank-beg/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12... You can also look at their Form 990s for a clearer picture of their financials; https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200... (it's not FAANG money, but it's enough for what they're doing, and they get richer every year). The reason typical nonprofits don't get rich is that you can't really "invest" in them via capital injections, because investors can't get a return. That's what makes them nonprofit. But nothing stops them from doing routine business activities to make money on a predictable, cyclical cycle -- not a lump sum every year. That Wikipedia thing is just a marketing gimmick, the same way many charities will use holidays or Giving Tuesday to beg for money, but that's not their entire income stream (or even most of it). The choice to become a nonprofit is exactly that, a choice. They don't "have it bad", they just choose their mission (well, ideally) over profit. Of course scams exist and some are just tax havens or whatever. There are also non 501c3 nonprofits, like churches or issue-based advocacy groups, that have their own funding structures (tithes, corporate affiliations, whatever). And nonprofits can and do have their own investments, their own funds, etc. that earn a return, but it just goes back to the org and/or its staff (as salaries and perks, etc.), not shareholder return. Overall, though, for the most part the primary differentiation is just that they don't have shareholders/owners to give money to. Aside from that they are mostly just businesses with a bunch of small technicalities of IRS rules to adhere to.

unity1001 4y ago
> If you have to beg every 2 years for money or you go bankrupt, that is some terrible planning Its not. Its the legal setting that prevents non-profits from gathering more operating money than a given period. > their revenue streams are not limited to donations They aren't. Except it works the same way - they cant gather any kind of financial capital that could make them a viable competitor for for-profit companies. Otherwise non profits would have steamrolled the for-profit companies a long time ago. > Wikipedia Picking one example as poster boy does not make the argument. Wikipedia is the product of a well-connected, famous persona, who already had enough connections to start and float any kind of organization at the point he started Wikipedia. Its also the first and practically the only one of its kind with no practical competititon. Even so, it is dependent on fleeting funding from donations and similar revenue sources. The sole example of Mozilla can prove how fickle this format is. Its also one-of-a-kind, it was also practically the first in its field, and for a time it had no competition for its major product. Now its on shaky grounds, with funding for Thunderbird being cut, Firefox not doing so fine and so on. Thats the problem with non-profits in the current legal landscape. The landscape is crafted to prevent any threat to for-profit companies and it gimps many things ranging from non-profits to cooperatives for that end. And that makes it totally risky for anyone to build their livelihood on such a non-profit. You can still be able to pay your rent next month as a creator if Wikipedia goes down. But if your Patreon goes down, you are in knee-deep sh*t. Because its infrastructure by now. ... Im totally for non-profits. Actually, an entire economy that comprises of cooperatives, functioning on the infrastructure provided by the democratically elected government is the ideal economy for me. However the proposition of turning such services like Patreon to non-profit is not viable with the current legal landscape unless its changed drastically.
- solardev 4y ago
  This just isn't true. There is nothing preventing nonprofits from accruing and banking money for many years at a time. Where do you keep getting this idea? There's no magical 2 year limit or anything like that. There are thousands if not millions of perfectly functional nonprofits. Mozilla is more the exception, a monster that gets fed by Google and produces little of value. The EFF, ACLU, Sierra Club, whatever are also nonprofits. There are lots and lots and lots. Nonprofits are a different beast from cooperatives. They don't have a profit motive. If you want a democratic nonprofit there are such things as worker self directed nonprofits. Or if you want shared investments without shared governance there are ESOPs and such. Yes, I would love to see a more democratic economy too. But that's not held back by the limits of organizational structures. Please, if you're going to make these extraordinary and (I believe) incorrect claims about nonprofits, provide some sources?