3 ms·

> An additional critique is that surely one of the many true-believers in old-school Internet ideals of freedom and openneess could lead for 1/10th the compensa

> An additional critique is that surely one of the many true-believers in old-school Internet ideals of freedom and openneess could lead for 1/10th the compensation That doesn't translate. A believer in freedom and openness should be compensated more than a counterpart in the private sector so they can work even harder for the causes. They may not be in it for the money, but they shouldn't be punished financially because of their belief, as surely there are no lack of lucrative opportunities in for-profit organizations for them.

neilv 3y ago
I disagree. $500K (and some degree less) is a perfectly comfortable living in even an expensive US city. Not paying them millions is only "punished financially" if being rich well beyond comfortable is more important to them than the mission of the non-profit. This "doesn't translate" only to people who have zero business leading non-profits. (Incidentally, capping compensation is an awesome cut filter, to eliminate people who are poorly aligned with the mission.) Sure, there are classes of people who see something like non-profit CEO as their angle for wealth and status to which they feel entitled, when they can't get the for-profit CEO job they'd prefer. Not only are they innately misaligned with the mission, but they are also completely out of touch with the vast bulk of the people who non-profits typically are supposed serve. Keep them away from non-profits.
lupusreal 3y ago
The director of Saint Jude's Children Research Hospital makes less than two million a year. How do you figure Baker is worth more than 3x that? The list of major charities with much larger and more complex interests that Mozilla, yet lower executive pay, is quite long. Here is a sample: https://www.charitywatch.org/nonprofit-compensation-packages-of-1-million-or-more https://www.charitywatch.org/nonprofit-compensation-packages... She's massively overpaid, not only when you consider her performance but particularly so.

neilv 3y ago

I disagree. $500K (and some degree less) is a perfectly comfortable living in even an expensive US city. Not paying them millions is only "punished financially" if being rich well beyond comfortable is more important to them than the mission of the non-profit. This "doesn't translate" only to people who have zero business leading non-profits. (Incidentally, capping compensation is an awesome cut filter, to eliminate people who are poorly aligned with the mission.) Sure, there are classes of people who see something like non-profit CEO as their angle for wealth and status to which they feel entitled, when they can't get the for-profit CEO job they'd prefer. Not only are they innately misaligned with the mission, but they are also completely out of touch with the vast bulk of the people who non-profits typically are supposed serve. Keep them away from non-profits.

lupusreal 3y ago

The director of Saint Jude's Children Research Hospital makes less than two million a year. How do you figure Baker is worth more than 3x that? The list of major charities with much larger and more complex interests that Mozilla, yet lower executive pay, is quite long. Here is a sample: https://www.charitywatch.org/nonprofit-compensation-packages-of-1-million-or-more https://www.charitywatch.org/nonprofit-compensation-packages... She's massively overpaid, not only when you consider her performance but particularly so.