4 ms·

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_Hospital_(Manhattan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_Hospital_(Manhatta..., Mt Sinai is a 'non-

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_Hospital_(Manhattan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai_Hospital_(Manhatta..., Mt Sinai is a 'non-profit', but in my opinion, we need a much more expansive definition of 'for-profit'. It's true that there are no shareholders, but the salaries the executives make is a form of profit, and ought to be treated as such. In some ways it's worse because in a company, the board sets the CEOs and execs compensation, and can adjust it according to their own financial interests (which means there's less desire by CEOs to 'waste', because waste means the board / shareholders make less money, and then their compensation is lowered -- theoretically). In a non-profit, the board uses arbitrary criteria, the board is incentivized to waste all money on executive compensation, because that means the execs throw them excellent parties, galas, soirees, and other social events where they can network with more people to make more profit in their for-profit ventures. Ask me how I know.

steveBK123 3y ago
Hospital donations are also interesting to me as you get billionaires donating amounts of money that.. a FAANG engineer could feasibly have left to give on their demise. Or giving amounts similar to like their 3rd homes value and getting a wing named after them (though the donation clearly only pays for a small fraction of the construction). Similarly I have a friend whose spouse is extremely talented with a PHD (not MD), and has worked in admin roles at a big nonprofit NYC hospital as well. They have at times had pretty similar compensation, one working at a hedge fund and the other working at a nonprofit hospital. Interesting that. Each side can argue they need to attract talent, and one can argue that hospital admin is closer to doing good for society. It is just surprising to see nonprofit and very high compensation.
cycomanic 3y ago
I find this notion completely alien. Paraphrasing (with some exaggeration): "it's outrageous we are paying people working at hospitals/schools/non-profits high salaries, they really should be doing it from the goodness of their hearts. The only people that should be earning big bucks are the engineers devolving the tech to keep us addicted to social media, the ad tech that extracts more value from every person and the fiance people to extract the maximum from the general economy to funnel it into some rich pockets! Really people working on things that are actually good for society, should be happy with that and work for free! "
- philwelch 3y ago
  The comment was about high salaries for nonprofit executives. If you claim to be a nonprofit but pay your CEO $10 million a year, are you really a nonprofit or are you just as guilty of “funneling money” into “rich pockets” as anyone else?
- anon291 3y ago
  Please re-read my comments. I am not against corporations (for-profit or non-profit), however I don't think we can simply say there is no profit motive in non-profits simply because there are no shareholders. I'm arguing that executive compensation is a form of profit and that -- contrary to what they are held up to be -- non-profits often suffer from an even more personal form of greed than for-profits. As I said above, for-profit entities are at least nominally forced to look out for the profit of the CEO + the shareholders, whereas non-profits are incentivized to look after just the CEO's compensation. In no way does this mean no non-profit should ever pay someone well.

steveBK123 3y ago

Hospital donations are also interesting to me as you get billionaires donating amounts of money that.. a FAANG engineer could feasibly have left to give on their demise. Or giving amounts similar to like their 3rd homes value and getting a wing named after them (though the donation clearly only pays for a small fraction of the construction). Similarly I have a friend whose spouse is extremely talented with a PHD (not MD), and has worked in admin roles at a big nonprofit NYC hospital as well. They have at times had pretty similar compensation, one working at a hedge fund and the other working at a nonprofit hospital. Interesting that. Each side can argue they need to attract talent, and one can argue that hospital admin is closer to doing good for society. It is just surprising to see nonprofit and very high compensation.

cycomanic 3y ago

I find this notion completely alien. Paraphrasing (with some exaggeration): "it's outrageous we are paying people working at hospitals/schools/non-profits high salaries, they really should be doing it from the goodness of their hearts. The only people that should be earning big bucks are the engineers devolving the tech to keep us addicted to social media, the ad tech that extracts more value from every person and the fiance people to extract the maximum from the general economy to funnel it into some rich pockets! Really people working on things that are actually good for society, should be happy with that and work for free! "

philwelch 3y ago
The comment was about high salaries for nonprofit executives. If you claim to be a nonprofit but pay your CEO $10 million a year, are you really a nonprofit or are you just as guilty of “funneling money” into “rich pockets” as anyone else?
anon291 3y ago
Please re-read my comments. I am not against corporations (for-profit or non-profit), however I don't think we can simply say there is no profit motive in non-profits simply because there are no shareholders. I'm arguing that executive compensation is a form of profit and that -- contrary to what they are held up to be -- non-profits often suffer from an even more personal form of greed than for-profits. As I said above, for-profit entities are at least nominally forced to look out for the profit of the CEO + the shareholders, whereas non-profits are incentivized to look after just the CEO's compensation. In no way does this mean no non-profit should ever pay someone well.