Realistic opinion: It takes zero talent to sit on a board and collect money.
Comment on Charities of Employees from "non-profit" I was going to donate too
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Unpopular opinion: Charities should be morally allowed to compete for top talent on a financial basis.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Unpopular opinion: “top talent” is a meaningless capitalistic word to justify crazy wealth disparities
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
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?
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
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.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
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 especially if the charity isn’t your passion.
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.
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
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.
tomi000@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
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?
tomi000@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It doesn’t seem like an unpopular opinion at all