Submitted 2 weeks ago by FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/31dd721c-7011-4b22-ab8c-c4fcb37045c8.webp
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.
sandiegozoowildlifealliance.org/…/2023-SDZWA-Annu…
Total revenue per year is 420 million.
Concessions and cleaning staff typically make 35k-40k. Zookeepers ~50k.
These 5 employees. Amount to .8% of the yearly operating budget, while the sum of all other employees totals up to 10% of the 400 million dollar operating budget.
I’m not making any judgements, just offering the numbers.
They pay cooks less than $20/hour in a city with an average rent of $3000/month. I’ve got no problem passing judgement.
They pay cooks less than $20/hour
So their cooks get paid less than ‘cooks’ at McDonald’s? Fast food minimum wage is $20/hour throughout California.
For a second I thought this was a hit list.
any list is a hit list if you’re brave enough
Well, if you stab some potatoes, circumcise a cauliflower, and proceed to nunchuck a bag of flour … Then it might just have been a grocery list and now you’re not allowed in the store anymore
Thanks, I just smashed all of my kids’ Christmas gifts.
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.
You earn less than 20k? Save your money, volunteer your time! Much more productive and rewarding!
Disabled and bedridden, can’t volunteer. All I got is my disability insurance payments and I want to do good in the world.
If you would like to do something cool, I suggest these guys. You can do it all from wherever you are comfortable.
Executive pay is to high Inn the US. But consider this: ted.com/…/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_cha…
Who do you want running the zoo?
My wife works for a non-profit where the Executive Director (CEO if you will) cannot make more than 5x what the lowest paid person makes. Wish more non-profits would adopt something similar
Well we don’t know if the lowest paid employee makes $254,927 at this one
That’s the Janitor. He drives Bentleys off the pier into the Pacific Ocean every second saturday.
Blood banks. “Your blood saves lives”. Is actually “We can sell your blood to hospitals for $200 per pint”. Check the salaries of the non-profit blood bank CEO and board. I would gladly share my blood if I’m paid $100 per pint, or if they gave insurance vouchers for a free pint of blood, to avoid insurance charging $1000-3000 to get a pint back. In fact they could just call it “blood insurance” where your premium is paid in regular blood donations.
So straight people get blood for free since they can donate, but gay people, chronically ill people and drug addicts don’t, because they aren’t allowed to.
Not to mention those of us that just lived in the wrong country for a while in the 80’s.
I think they fixed the gay bit recently, 2023.
Well we don’t want cancer or drugs in blood. But the current screening criteria for blood donations are kinda crazy. Travel to certain countries, tattoos. They should just test for the stuff they’re worried about directly: HIV, Hepatitis, and Malaria. Not that it matters since it’s illegal to buy/sell bodily fluids.
Source on getting blood for free from donating? It’s not that I don’t believe you, I’ve just never heard of it.
Honestly this might sound weird but why can’t you just go around selling Organs? Wouldn’t that drive companies to make artificial Organs?
This also could backfire like crazy so maybe it isn’t the greatest idea.
Yes this would certainly lead to murder.
I’ve given up on charity. They’ve lobbied sites like Charity Navigator to not count executive compensation as a negative. I’m sick of capitalism ruining everything.
The only places I donate money to are local food banks, Sally Ann’s, homeless initiatives and random people living on the streets.
Da fuck any of the big organized non-profits get any of my money.
random people living on the streets
That’s where I’m at as well. 100% guarantee all the money is going to a person in need.
Charities and billionaires are the polar extremes of the same policy failure. In a healthy society neither should exist, and when they do they should be tolerated for a minimal time as possible.
Charities and philanthropy exist to permit governments and corporations to abdicate their social responsibilities.
When the work a charity does is properly valued by a society, it’s economy would never need to carve out a special, nonprofit status for it.
When the work a charity does is properly valued by a society
But in reality this almost never happens. The work of many charities is typically attacked by the state and other fascists. The current attack on non-profits is a great example.
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.
Was put to me at a young age that non-profit only means they spend any revenue they get before it gets to the bottom line to show up as a gain or loss. Always good to sort out the shady from the legit.
that’s not just non profits. ever wonder how so many nominally “unprofitable” companies seem to stick around forever?
Give it to the San Diego food bank instead. It’s a good charity from what I’ve seen, and I’ve volunteered there at least half a dozen times.
What the heck is a chief philanthropy officer?
They get wealthy people to donate.
Wealthy *friends. Hence a solid position
I always thought philanthropy was a fancy name for prostitution.
This is why I always tell donation canvasers to shove it and make their rich ceo pay for it in full. Nothing worse then a billionaire CEO for loblaws underpaying someone to ask for handouts.
I basically refuse to assist any and all charities at this point because of exactly what you have shown in your images. It’s disgusting.
Why do honest effective charities have to suffer because of some others who exploit the system?
You could just pick some that arent greedy like this.
They are saying they are all greedy.
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.
Mutual aid is where it’s at.
Yes, everyone should read this book: en.wikipedia.org/…/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut…
Charities are good business. That’s why there are a lot of them.
Damn I’m in the wrong nonprofit lol. Building, activity and pay & benefits for 7 employees come in under $400k total budget/expenses and we have distributed millions and millions of pounds of food in the last few years.
Management and marketing bloat and is extremely common for nonprofits, unfortunately.
It’s a classic moral hazard of private non-profits. You generate income from press and marketing, so you have an incentive to invest more in those parts of your business. The Zoo Wildlife Alliance doesn’t get any money from the wildlife.
But now you’ve got a marketing team that wants to grow, in order to generate more revenue. So they need more revenue themselves. But it’s “justified” because they can claim credit for every dollar brought in. The bigger the marketing staff gets, the more sway they have within the organization as a whole. So it prioritizes growth for the sake of growth, rather than asking where the money is going.
And all along, the fundraising leadership is justifying higher and higher compensation as a percentage of groups revenue.
Eventually, you’re just a millionaire pan handler, asking money so you can ask for money. That’s a totally organic consequence of unregulated charities.
Yup.
And honestly direct regulation is hard here. Those are the two expenses that grow out of control, because it’s really hard to measure how much marketing or managing you need exactly. No empirical proof of overspending means no legal case against the directors.
Ideally, they’d have to provide something like the MER (management expense ratio) you see on investment funds. Charity kind of is like an investment on the behalf of the greater good, if you think about it.
No affiliation, and I’ve never donated to them, but their financials are far from the worst:
Image
There are many charities that don’t spend the majority of donations on the actual program. Like, wtf…
There are some non profits that are money funneling machines. Enter College board and CompTia.
I’d like to call out the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation here. You know the pink ribbon people. They are ridiculously corrupt. They only give 21% of what they take in.
The head of the American Red Cross makes about 750k, last I heard.
Whether or not that’s justified either, I think we can all agree it’s a little bit larger of an organization with more responsibility to juggle.
Some of these charities are approaching large corporations in size and complexity. Getting people with experience to run them can be hard and the people that do do it often do it as a charitable contribution.
do do it often do it
Had to read that one a couple times 😅
It would be nice if organisations were run by people who were so dedicated to the job that they’d do it for free or at least on a survival wage, but it is difficult to find someone with both the right qualifications and the willingness to do it cheaply.
The figures aren’t outrageous for those positions and as a non-profit they do have a board who made the decision to pay those amounts.
It’s not like a private company where the owner/CEO can just grab the money. The board members voted to hire someone and offered those amounts.
If you want to change this kind of thing, you need to attend the annual meeting in which the board is elected. I’ve been elected to a few board positions in non-profit organisations and let me tell you: It’s really easy to get on a board. Most places have difficulties filling the positions or you can easily outcompete other candidates simply by wanting to be there. It’s boring as fuck, but important stuff sometimes happens and it’s a good experience to have.
So if you want to actually contribute to that non-profit, you might want to save your few dollars and instead give them some of your time to help them in the right direction. Assuming you’re dedicated to the cause in the first place that is. If you have something to say, you will be heard, because quite frankly, half the board members only come for the free food.
You think a zoo CEO being paid $1.2 million per year is normal? Really???
As someone who has worked at a non profit and works at a low profit company now, the idea that because it’s work we’re passionate about that we should do it for pennies is so toxic, and how teachers, nurses, childcare workers, etc are abused by society. We’re actively out here trying to fix the problems caused by capitalism and the top 10% who are fucking over the world, and we deserve to be fairly compensated, not do it for free because we’re so passionate. I’m not saying OP’s example is right either, but charity workers shouldn’t need to rely on charity to survive, or be so wealthy they didn’t need to get paid.
This completely misrepresents the issue. It is not about working for free. A salary of a million bucks is just insane, regardless of context, be it for a non-profit, a private company or a presidential office. There’s no point of donating money to a cause if it only ends up in the pockets of a CEO who already has way too much of it.
Those figures definitely ARE outrageous for those positions, or ANY positions.
It would be nice if organisations were run by people who were so dedicated to the job that they’d do it for free or at least on a survival wage
A fully flashed out public service sector could encourage this. If health care and housing and utilities and education were human rights rather than luxuries, you’d have more people who didn’t consider a six figure salary at a for-profit venture a prerequisite for survival.
While not ideal, I would like to note that the charity has a revenue of 392 M$. Spending 1-2% on salaries of top exec is not that bad if it prevents them from misusing the funds. A lot of the time, the alternative to high salaries for people in power is those people giving in to corruption since the risk/benefit encourages it. Just look at politics for an example.
Spending 1-2% on salaries
These greedy cunts are probably 1% of the workforce though. How much is actually spent on salaries?
Stop defending them
How much would you prefer they made? Do you think the world would be a better place if they shut down their charity businesses?
Stop defending them
Idk anything about them. I am just pointing out that having bad execs (whether incompetent, careless or outright embezzlers) is far worse than paying 1-2%. As far as I know, no one has came up with a better way to get good execs than paying them a lot.
Chief Philanthropy Officer probably heads their fundraising team. Aka sales
That’s exactly what they do. They also usually act as a liason between their mega donors to ensure the money is spent in the way it’s ear marked for. Mega donors usually donate conditionally, basically a type of private grant.
That makes sense, thanks for the info.
Unpopular opinion: Charities should be morally allowed to compete for top talent on a financial basis.
Here’s the thing: I don’t know about this charity in particular. But in general, a big charity is just as complicated a business as a big for profit company.
The task of managing it isn’t any easier. So the people who have experience in managing big businesses can get that kind of money elsewhere, too.
In our system, the charity is pretty much forced to pay competitive CEO salaries if they want experienced people at the helm.
If they paid much less, they wouldn’t get anyone to do the job who’s actually competent.
I suggest donating to your local wild animal rescue/rehabber. They’re all volunteer based. They receive $0 public money. The public rarely sees the work they do. They’re doing physically and mentally taxing work purely for the love of animals.
They typically all have a donation page, and many have Amazon Wishlists where you can send them cleaning, maintenance, or medical supplies directly if you’re worried about the money going to something you might not intend.
Nothing will go to people. You won’t have to question if you’re really help an animal that may or may not exist in a country you’ll never see. They’re your neighborhood animals.
As the !superbowl@lemmy.world person here, I look specifically for a raptor rehabbers to donate to, and I share links to those rescues worldwide.
I can’t find my link to the world rescue database, but for a US based one, you can look here or just Google up “wild animal rescue near me” and you should get some options.
Indeed , disgusting and out of control. Start taxing their asses.
Every dollar you give feeds an animal.
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.
Philanthropy officer getting paid the least.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is more of a system issue than bad behavior of an individual charity.
Charities can underpay a little bit, because working for a charity has its own appeal. But if you want a talented, experienced person to run your org, you have to consider what they could make if they worked for someone else. San Diego is not a cheap city, and has its fair share of CEO positions.
If you really want to stretch your dollar though, local food banks are probably a better bet.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Talent and experience isn’t that rare. Nor does executive compensation correlate with performance.
billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Whether it does or not is irrelevant; what matters is the perception among executives that it does.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
The pay correlates directly to how hard you are to replace.
state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
But Elon said CEOs are the most important people because they create the value.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
I’m not living in america. In my country this really isn’t a thing. Most charities have a sort of “everyone gets the same salary” policy which is usually around the median salary in the country.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Best not give them your money then based on your principles.
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
How does not giving that ‘cool project’ money do any good?
madcaesar@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I always hear this argument, and it seems like straight up CEO propaganda. I remember how failing businesses HAVE TO hire multi million dollar CEOs and fire employees becuase how else will they get good leadership!
Motherfucker, your previous CEO also had the same salary and sent you into bankruptcy.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No, a company definitely doesn’t have to pay their CEOs generously, and not all do. The median pay for a CEO is actually about 250k/yr.
www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes111011.htm
Though if we just look at CEOs from S&P 500 companies, that jumps up to 16 million. There’s going to be a lot of factors involved, from the size of the company to the cost of living in the area. A CEO in San Francisco is probably going to make a lot more than one in Milwaukee.
It’s less propaganda and more just understanding how the capitalist system is intended to function. It applies to other jobs as well, a software engineer can make quite a wide range of pay, depending on who they work for. Then they can also get increased pay for advancing up the ranks of their organization, as promotions often involve raises.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
There is a market reason for doing that. If not there competition would’ve hired the budget CEO.
ch00f@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah, it’s a tough call to make. It’s like those car donation things. Like 90% of your car’s value goes to the company managing the sale, but that’s still 10% to the charity that they wouldn’t have anyway. Unless you want to deal with selling your own car, and giving the charity the money, it still does some good.
I suspect a $1M salary isn’t too insane for a CEO if they bring tangible value to the company. Also, with a lack of shareholders to answer to like in a publicly traded company, their motivations probably align with the cause they’re supporting. It’s not like they’re going to sell off a shitload of assets to bump stock price and escape with a golden parachute.
tomi000@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
givewell.org ranks charities by their ‘efficiency’ in multiple categories and offers funds for bundled donation according to their constantly updated ranking. Its really cool for finding reputable charities if you are worried about your money going where it is needed.
derf82@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s such bullshit reasoning. They make more than 99.9% of people. I get that not everyone is great, but you are saying 99.9% of people are all talentless hacks that couldn’t do a decent enough job to the extent that the salary savings would be worth it?
Guess my civil engineering degree and 18 years of experience is a worthless pile of shit.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Hypothetically, if you were looking at two civil engineering jobs, and one paid 100k/yr, and another paid 200k/yr, which would you pick?
Would it matter much if any of the construction guys doing the actually construction of your projects made 50k/yr? Are they less talented than you for that?
It’s not so much about “talentless hacks” vs “a decent job” as trying to entice the best person you can afford.