4 ms·
I find this notion completely alien. Paraphrasing (with some exaggeration): "it's outrageous we are paying people working at hospitals/schools/non-profits high
by 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 agoThe 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 agoPlease 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.