3 ms·
but you have to admit you "helped" people in need by doing 1% of what they needed. If that person just had a week of your salary, or fuck a year to help 50 fami
by throwmeaway222 1y ago
but you have to admit you "helped" people in need by doing 1% of what they needed. If that person just had a week of your salary, or fuck a year to help 50 families, the help would have gone way further.
Non-profits don't profit the entity, it profits the employees and that's 100% what they are designed to do. the employees are the charity recipients.
- snypher 1y agoNot knowing anything about the nature of the work of the person you replied to means you are not qualified to comment on it.
- tomdeboer 1y agoThat’s a very cynical take. You are not completely wrong of course, but an NGO like you describe is able to survive in a capitalist environment. Without it, it would not succeed. It succeeds at this _while_ sharing and redistributing resources. Not in a perfect, or even the most effective way, but one that allows the employee to find a balance between a job and volunteering. And one that is a net benefit to society (given the cause is beneficial etc), compare to for-profit companies that exclusively benefit shareholders
- ranger_danger 1y agoI think some would argue that only helping a small number of people temporarily, may not be the best use of his time nor money. Maybe more altruistic than doing nothing, yes, but there may be better options still.