I was planning to donate the couple bucks I had left over from the year to the charity called “San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance”, I was doing a background check on CharityNavigator and they gave the charity full ratings so it seemed good.
Then I stumbled upon the salary section. What the fuck? I earn <20k a year and was planning to contribute to someone’s million dollar salary? WHAT.
This is a good reminder that you can look up Form 990 for any nonprofit (they are required to submit one), which includes any staff that make over $100k.
Also, it looks like the “salaries” you found are total compensation, which also includes medical and retirement benefits. The CEO’s salary is around $600k, but also got a $300k+ bonus.
Okay, so think about it like this:
Suppose your job is making wooden chairs. It’s takes you the exact same skills to make a wooden chair to sell for profit, as it does to make a wooden chair to donate to a chairless children’s charity, right? So why would you spend all your time and skills doing a job that’s eventually going to bankrupt you? While you might do a few chairs because you feel like it’s morally right, the bulk of your work is going to be selling chairs because that’s how you sustain yourself.
CEOs are in the same situation. A 500-person for-profit company takes the exact same skill set to run as a 500-person non-profit. So the reality is that non-profits need to either be competitive in pay with for-profits, or they have to be attractive in ways other than compensation so they can entice CEOs to work for them.
Now, none of that is to say that the scale of CEO compensation is appropriate, because it’s not. But that’s the calculus a non-profit has to make.
It really depends on the environment
If the only reason a ceo wants to work for a charity is the huge paycheck, they have the wrong set of values to run a charity.
Being a CEO of a charity is not about prestige. This is why a lot of american charities come across as grifts in my opinion.
You should ask why a person would accept that much money to do that kind of job, they could ask for an appropriate amount but instead take what they can get.
Mutual aid is where it’s at.
Yes, everyone should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
I earn <20k a year
Could I ask what you do for a living or what field of work you’re in?
A guy that came in as an LPO to a company I worked for used to brag about his last job. He worked for a non-profit and his whole entire job was to find ways to make money off of it. Tax loopholes, legal scams, etc. He said it was his favorite job because it was like solving a puzzle every day.
So gross.
Anyway, the top brass really liked him and followed all his plans for our company. Now it is in Mexico and the main facilities are shut down.
I’m one of the money guys at a nonprofit. You wouldn’t believe the vast corruption I have seen. Our president recently asked: “how did it get to this point?” He knew the fucking answer.
I took a huge pay cut when I worked for a non profit. :(
Which is obvious because a huge part of big paychecks comes from exploiting others (directly or indirectly). You cant make the same amount of money ‘doing the right thing’
I quit nonprofit because the salary is real bad. Like 25% of what I currently make.
They’re in a catch-22. They can’t hire quality people because they need funds but then you see things like this like, “Why are they paying this guy so much?” And continues a neverending cycle of low wages.
Unpopular opinion: Charities should be morally allowed to compete for top talent on a financial basis.
Unpopular opinion: “top talent” is a meaningless capitalistic word to justify crazy wealth disparities
I say this as someone who went to one of the “highest ranked” unis in the world. Most of all this prestige and “top talent” stuff is bullshit designed to keep the rich rich.
It doesn’t seem like an unpopular opinion at all
Partly agree there. Top talent in this context doesnt have to mean you are an expert at something. It usually just means you are worth a lot of money because having you generates even more money.
Imagine making 50k and generating 100Mio a year in protif for your company (doesnt matter how, maybe you just know the right people, Biden is your cousin or something). Wouldnt you feel exploited? Some other company might offer you 500k, bevause they know its still more than worth it.
Cool, so americans will do anything for money. Even in charities. Is that what you want to hang your hat on? Its awful behavior and the OP is right to highlight the hypocrisy of a charity CEO making over 10 times the cost of living.
A person leading a charity shouldnt have such an ego that they think they deserve so much more than anyone else. How could they possibly understand the concept of charity?
My point wasnt that it is morally right, which it isnt. But OP made it sound like some evil masterminds are pulling the strings so rich people can stay in power, when it is simply people doing whats best for themselves. People are being judgemental but I think most wouldnt sacrifice 90% of their paycheck ‘because its the right thing to do’. Most people already earn 10 or 100 times more than people in Africa for example and are still buying from Amazon or temu contributing to exploitation. When people have the chance to make/save lots of money, they usually take it.
Its not simply people doing what’s best for the selves, its greedy parents who have raised greedy children who grow up thinking their job title and bank account number represent who they are. They could choose any other values to pursue in life but actively choose greed each day.
The catalyst to change oneself comes from within, so I hold people responsible who refuse to learn or change.
Try interacting with offshore contractors who were hired to cut costs.
The board are fiduciaries. They have to do the math to prove hiring a more expensive CEO is ultimately better than not.
So why don’t you go work for a charity for 25k american a year? I’m sure you can do a much better job than overpaid C staff and pass all the rest of the money on to the actual cause, right? After all, you went to one of the best unis in the WHOLE world.
Plenty of non-american charities dont over pay people. You would expect people who work in charity to not be greedy. Greed is when you take more than you should because you think you deserve it.
If an exec can work two places and one pays an exorbitant amount but the other is a good cause, it would be altruistic to go to the good cause. If in the same situation the two places pay the same, I’m not sure it’s greed if you don’t give some back. The problem is that c suite folks in general are chronically overpaid. So the argument is that people who are very competent but don’t care about a cause should… take less money on principle I guess?
I mean sure I agree it seems ridiculous for charities to pay 8 figure salaries, but from a micro economics standpoint it doesn’t really make sense to walk away from an 8 figure salary to work for a charity either. Maybe it makes sense if you are already retired or it is your life passion, but that pool of people may be pretty small and maybe not hugely competitive.
Competent people who don’t care about the cause shouldnt take the job at all. People earning 8 figures shouldnt expect to make the same at a charity. Greed and altruism are values or qualities a person can possess and I dont think they can exist in the same person.
The United Health CEO thought he was altruistic, his family does as well. Its pretty clear the vast majority of people see greed there, not altruism.
Greedy people simply shouldnt be in charge of helping people.
I don’t think anyone is deluded enough to think for-profit insurance does anything altruistic. There is comparison at all between UHC and a charity.
In a purely ideological way I see and understand what you’re saying. In practice what I read from your message is “Charities should pay less and take who they can get”. Maybe there’s a competent altruist, and then maybe charities and nonprofits that don’t get competent staff at a “charity appropriate salary point” can just… dissolve or something? And they should do that whether they have the money to pay more or not, because charities paying more money is just flat distasteful.
Essentially you have it right, although I wouldnt say charities should dissolve as a rule. If there aren’t enough people to do the work with the right goal in mind though I dont think the answer is to pay more and get capitalists in the door.
I have a strong aversion to greed minded people in general though so I’m very biased here.
Realistic opinion: It takes zero “talent” to sit on a board and collect money.
(Ofc this zio wacko supports extreme inequality. Probably thinks poors are all palestinian.)
for me its more like whats the lowest paid worker. Nowadays you are going to have trouble under six figures in any major city and the ceo is not much over 10x that. Now I doubt the lowest paid worker makes that but it would be great if they did.
The market rates are not about trying to make everyone make a living. It is all about how hard you are to replace.
If you do the job only 0.1% of people can do you will make bank. If you do the job anyone with a pulse can do you will make almost nothing.
Yeah and thats what I was getting at. That the pay listed is not that high for the jobs and actually quite low but we should be limiting compensation based on a ratio low to high and I would like to see that in non for profits if our society can’t properly regulate. If non for profits can’t find folks to run big non for profits then people should give to smaller more local charities.
Damn, my work at a non profit yields me free coffee and water. I think I’m underselling myself
That’s why I’m very picky about donating. When I was at my very first job, pushing 1200 packages an hour at UPS for hourly wages, I donated to the United Way via payroll deduction. I was listening to the news in my car when I heard the CEO of United Way took his family on a $2M vacation. I had that payroll deduction removed on the very next shift.
I’d like to be “chief philanthropy officer” as well.
It really depends on a few things. First, where do they live? The cost of living is different depending on where you are at. Second, what is there background and education? Some high level positions pay very well because there are not that many people that can perform the role. Lastly, what percentage of the budget is going to the leadership? Most of it should be going to the cause.
Where in the world does it cost 1.27 million dollars a year to live?
If you need to attract talent away from somewhere else. Cost of doing business,. Or in this case non profit.
Every dollar you give feeds an animal.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Indeed , disgusting and out of control. Start taxing their asses.
