> Imagine, just imagine a society, where doing non-profit could be a valid career option without a disadvantage in the income department. The horror.
I don't feel like I should have to explain this, but the difference between a non-profit and a profit driven corporation is that:
1) The NPO is likely doing some kind of activity for the greater good, which means that the more money you take out for administration and profit, the less good you can do.
2) The Corporation is likely doing some kind of profit-driven activity for the primary benefit of increasing the value of the company. Corporations generate profit by their very nature since their purpose is not primarily to solve (profit-wise) unattractive problems or to perform charitable work: the purpose is primarily to generate profit.
Anyone that understands the difference between these two should be able to draw the conclusion that:
1) If an NPO is burdened by excessive expenses, such as administrative cost, it will have less money to spend against the objective of "greater good".
2) If a Corporation is burdened by excessive expenses, such as bonuses, salaries or is otherwise mismanaged financially, this only affects the corporations capability of making a profit.
It should be plain to see that the complaint against NPO salaries is not equivalent to a complaint of a for-profit corporate counterpart.
Since I was immediately downvoted I'd also like to add that this logic also applies to questioning public expenses. Taxes are allegedly levied to supply common services and serve the "common good", would you also argue that politicians should be salaried on par with profit driven corporations, in the name of ensuring competence of public officials, even if that means less common good can be taken out from your taxes?
Strongly disagree. The more money is in being part of a NPO, the more talent will go into NPOs. Hence, your first point 1) isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
Right now, if I'd want to work for a NPO, it would only come with a severe pay cut. So I stay with FPOs, although I believe that many NPOs are way more important in what they are doing.
Right, but this mentality leads to greater good type causes to require martyrs amongst other types of people. A failure mode of this is brain drain - see most civil service jobs in the west or NHS doctors in the UK. Additionally can create brain drain which the beleaguers the original cause.
I guess you can see personnel as an investment towards the cause too
I don't feel like I should have to explain this, but the difference between a non-profit and a profit driven corporation is that:
1) The NPO is likely doing some kind of activity for the greater good, which means that the more money you take out for administration and profit, the less good you can do.
2) The Corporation is likely doing some kind of profit-driven activity for the primary benefit of increasing the value of the company. Corporations generate profit by their very nature since their purpose is not primarily to solve (profit-wise) unattractive problems or to perform charitable work: the purpose is primarily to generate profit.
Anyone that understands the difference between these two should be able to draw the conclusion that:
1) If an NPO is burdened by excessive expenses, such as administrative cost, it will have less money to spend against the objective of "greater good".
2) If a Corporation is burdened by excessive expenses, such as bonuses, salaries or is otherwise mismanaged financially, this only affects the corporations capability of making a profit.
It should be plain to see that the complaint against NPO salaries is not equivalent to a complaint of a for-profit corporate counterpart.
Since I was immediately downvoted I'd also like to add that this logic also applies to questioning public expenses. Taxes are allegedly levied to supply common services and serve the "common good", would you also argue that politicians should be salaried on par with profit driven corporations, in the name of ensuring competence of public officials, even if that means less common good can be taken out from your taxes?