you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

You're asking people working for the non-profit to accept lower pay of tens of thousands of dollars? So basically because someone doesn't make a personal sacrifice of a significant fraction of their salary you're not willing to help at all?

I don't like or accept this logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Now I wonder, because both 999k and 100k are six figure sums, and one of them I find much more reasonable than the other.

    But yeah, running a non-profit often takes money instead of earning you money, and if they have spare money to pay salary to the CEO, maybe they're all right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That’s not what being a non profit means… they are allowed to make a “profit,” and pay for their liabilities. They just must reinvest them back into the business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I'm not sure that not having anyone on salary is part of that deal. Or if you were referring to the part where I said about salary being negative, that's from experience, a couple of directors of a non-profit I know had to donate their salary and add on top of it when times were rough (in that organisation it was pretty often). Large non-profits probably don't have that issue

  • source
  • parent