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.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951648219

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Yup. I also hold to the belief that what the person considers their most important need is none of my fucking business. Once I give it I no longer have a right to determine how the money is used.

        • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Nothing is 100%. Obviously it is not a common thing, but organized begging is a thing. Another problem is that your ″bread″ money could become ″meth″ money.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • linux2647@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    6 days ago

    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

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Management and marketing bloat is extremely common for nonprofits, unfortunately. Especially large ones.

    Ones that don’t do that exist too, but it’s a thing you have to be wary of.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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 industry.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Disabled and bedridden, can’t volunteer. All I got is the 10-30 USD left over at the end of year from my disability insurance payments and I want to do good in the world.

      Saving that little won’t get me anywhere. I’m already poor and in a shitty living situation and that money can’t really help me cuz its too small, so I wanna donate it to something where it can make a difference.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          I want someone who would choose to spend a million/year on the animals instead of on themselves.

          That video is garbage, you REALLY think the “best and brightest” are the ones making millions? It’s the well connected. The people who make and break lives like chips on a poker table over a game of golf. The people who hang out on Epstein’s Island. They’re the only ones making millions per year.

          The best and brightest are slaving away in universities and companies making meager salaries. The ones who have to fight for every cent that goes towards their innovation and research, who have to convince shareholders that every dollar they invest will give them a thousand back.

          Let those people run the zoo, they’ll do it for 120k. That’s millions more that can be spent on the animals by people who actually have the skills to help.

          Update Oh my god. I just watched more of the video and it’s baffling how bad it is. First he says that charities have to fill the gaps the market can’t fill because it’s not profitable. But his 5th pillar is that they should be allowed to pay profit to share holders to attract “capital”. But if they could turn a natural profit they wouldn’t need to be a charity. That means that profit necessarily has to come from DONORS. He’s literally advocating for a charity that takes donations and pays them to SHAREHOLDERS instead of the needy… Holy shit he’s in a room full of “smart” people and getting praised for this idea. I’m only half way through and I’m getting nauseous watching this.

          Final update. His overall idea that overhead isn’t a good measure of charity success is a decent one. But NONE of the solutions he proposes are decent. What about compensation for charity workers? All he talks about is MBA salaries. And giving donations to shareholders is the most disgusting idea I’ve heard all year. That’s completely irredeemable.

        • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          I want the Steve Irwins of the world that would only pursue the money in the benefit of the animals, not of their own pockets to run the zoo. Most productive and valuable people are not the richest but those truelly passionate that would even do it for free if it would’t ruin their lifes.

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            No doubt that Steve Irwin was a good person, but I’d like to say that his personal net worth was $10 million at the time of his unfortunate death. Thinking of this though, that money is probably what allowed his children to study and pursue lives of work for the good of the world. At the end of the day what we can say about Steve is that he died how he lived, with an animal in his heart.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • Geobloke@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • greenhorn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • greenhorn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          The comment I was responding to said it would be nice if the people running the organizations would do it for free or survival wages. I agree the salaries in OP’s example are extreme, but what I see more often in my industry is burnt out people doing work for survival wages because they’re passionate, while everyone else makes a ton of money.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

      It’s not like a private company where the owner/CEO can just grab the money

      When the board is stacked with friends and family and the job itself is just cronyism, they absolutely can.

      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.

      The advanced state of finance capitalism and the deplorable state of mass transit and paid leave make financial gifts far more practical than donated labor.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

      Maybe, 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. It’s disappointing but not surprising to see so many libs supporting this. The liberatory goals of charity are directly opposed to the oppressive goals of the state. For example capitalism relies on the hunger that charity purports to oppose.

  • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

  • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Wow, that’s crazy. I just checked out my local zoo and there are only 2 executives with a pay package of $200k. The rest are unpaid trustees.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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’

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.