8 ms·

Credit Unions are far more than just banks. That's like saying Apple iOS and Linux are pretty much the same. They both do have similar features, but the relatio

by jadbox 2y ago

Credit Unions are far more than just banks. That's like saying Apple iOS and Linux are pretty much the same. They both do have similar features, but the relationship towards the user/member is arguably different in practice. I.e. cooperative owner vs customer-to-extract.

garciasn 2y ago
That’s like comparing for-profit higher ed and not-for-profit higher ed. Both are entirely motivated by money; one just is overt about it. Everyone is all about making the most money in the fastest way possible and few truly give a hoot about the people they use to achieve the goals.
- danudey 2y ago
  Both are motivated by money, but only one is motivated by profit. The drive to increase profits over and over, year over year, indefinitely is to the detriment of society as a whole. Meanwhile, not-for-profit entities like credit unions don't need to justify not making an extra few billion dollars this year compared to last year, meaning they're less likely to make customer-hostile moves for their own sakes.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  What no one has stated so far is: jobs and salaries at non-profits have almost no discipline applied to them; market or otherwise. If they lose a little more money this year: ok, so what? WETA (the public TV station) paid Sharon Percy Rockefeller $855,000 in 2022. The 12 highest paid employees all made more than $300,000. Maybe they are all "worth it" but how could you prove that WETA wouldn't function just as well at median salaries for everyone? https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/530242992_202206_990_2023051921274957.pdf https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/530242992_202206_990_... (page 71)
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  That's funny, because for-profit higher ed is notoriously, almost comically inferior in its product, how it treats its customers, and its fundamental soundness to not-for-profit higher ed. Strange example to use.
jltsiren 2y ago
From my non-American perspective, any organization that exists to provide material benefits to its owners / members / employees / other affiliates is a for-profit organization. A non-profit should pursue public interests, and only its core activities should be tax exempt. If a non-profit operates a business, that business should pay taxes normally.
- nickff 2y ago
  The problem is that there are no truly 'public' interests, there are only clusters of private interests. Going down this route would eliminate all non-profits (which I'm not entirely against).
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    And other people claim that the personal is political and that there are no truly private interests. In practice, there is a shared understanding what acting in the public interest means in that particular society. Laws can also provide a non-exhaustive list of examples to clarify the meaning.
    - nickff 2y ago
      I disagree that there is a 'shared understanding'; for instance, the latest Freakonomics podcast episode featured an interview where the subject stated that live theatre was a social good that was critical to a functioning society, and worthy of public subsidy. I like theatre, but think it's a luxury good. There are many similar 'interests'.
      - jltsiren 2y ago
        It obviously depends on the society. Theatres run or subsidized by a state or a city are common. In many countries, supporting national culture is seen as one of the key functions of the government. Most people in those countries agree with that, and even those who don't generally understand that they are in the minority.
demondemidi 2y ago
Not sure I follow. I bought a 600$ fanless pc. It runs Linux. I run apps on it. I bought a 600$ iPhone. It runs iOS. I run apps on it. I haven’t paid a cent more than the original cost for each product. From an economical viewpoint they are the same.

by jadbox 2y ago

garciasn 2y ago

That’s like comparing for-profit higher ed and not-for-profit higher ed. Both are entirely motivated by money; one just is overt about it. Everyone is all about making the most money in the fastest way possible and few truly give a hoot about the people they use to achieve the goals.

danudey 2y ago
Both are motivated by money, but only one is motivated by profit. The drive to increase profits over and over, year over year, indefinitely is to the detriment of society as a whole. Meanwhile, not-for-profit entities like credit unions don't need to justify not making an extra few billion dollars this year compared to last year, meaning they're less likely to make customer-hostile moves for their own sakes.
AlbertCory 2y ago
What no one has stated so far is: jobs and salaries at non-profits have almost no discipline applied to them; market or otherwise. If they lose a little more money this year: ok, so what? WETA (the public TV station) paid Sharon Percy Rockefeller $855,000 in 2022. The 12 highest paid employees all made more than $300,000. Maybe they are all "worth it" but how could you prove that WETA wouldn't function just as well at median salaries for everyone? https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/530242992_202206_990_2023051921274957.pdf https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/530242992_202206_990_... (page 71)
BobaFloutist 2y ago
That's funny, because for-profit higher ed is notoriously, almost comically inferior in its product, how it treats its customers, and its fundamental soundness to not-for-profit higher ed. Strange example to use.

jltsiren 2y ago

From my non-American perspective, any organization that exists to provide material benefits to its owners / members / employees / other affiliates is a for-profit organization. A non-profit should pursue public interests, and only its core activities should be tax exempt. If a non-profit operates a business, that business should pay taxes normally.

nickff 2y ago
The problem is that there are no truly 'public' interests, there are only clusters of private interests. Going down this route would eliminate all non-profits (which I'm not entirely against).
- jltsiren 2y ago
  And other people claim that the personal is political and that there are no truly private interests. In practice, there is a shared understanding what acting in the public interest means in that particular society. Laws can also provide a non-exhaustive list of examples to clarify the meaning.
  - nickff 2y ago
    I disagree that there is a 'shared understanding'; for instance, the latest Freakonomics podcast episode featured an interview where the subject stated that live theatre was a social good that was critical to a functioning society, and worthy of public subsidy. I like theatre, but think it's a luxury good. There are many similar 'interests'.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      It obviously depends on the society. Theatres run or subsidized by a state or a city are common. In many countries, supporting national culture is seen as one of the key functions of the government. Most people in those countries agree with that, and even those who don't generally understand that they are in the minority.

demondemidi 2y ago

Not sure I follow. I bought a 600$ fanless pc. It runs Linux. I run apps on it. I bought a 600$ iPhone. It runs iOS. I run apps on it. I haven’t paid a cent more than the original cost for each product. From an economical viewpoint they are the same.