Imagine, just imagine a society, where doing non-profit could be a valid career option without a disadvantage in the income department. The horror.
Every comment like yours attacks the strawman that the CEO and employees should not get paid. Nobody is saying that. But I'm absolutely not going to donate anything while the CEO takes out over 800000 dollars in pay, and it looks distasteful to me to go around begging for donations.
There is nothing distasteful about non-profit CEOs wanting high pay. We're speaking about the founder of something that has and is helping millions of people around the world with arguably one of the most difficult and important educational needs. Khan Academy wouldn't be here without Khan himself and the world would be lesser for it. I see absolutely no reason why the CEO of such an organizations shouldn't paid in the same manner as for-profits.
I'm snarky, because the implied notion of "people doing good instead of chasing profits don't deserve the same pay/good life" is nothing short of crazy to me.
This feels like somebody setting up a GoFundMe to pay off their credit card debt. They paid their CEO an absurd salary, and now they need more money. That sounds like a you-problem.
What you should be thinking about is the value he provides, not the absolute amount he is paid. The net positive effect of him running it and getting paid $800k is much higher than someone else who can't run things as well getting paid $100k. The goal is to maximize the output of the non-profit, not to keep salaries low. What you should care about is ROI on your dollars donated.
Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care.
$200 will bring people just as competent as $800k, but (1) your burn rate is lower (2) people are there for the mission (3) you can ask for donations in good faith.
Depending on part of the country, you can step that down significantly, in turn.
If you do want to invest extra money on people, a better place to spend that is stability and benefits (in the way universities do). I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee.
I actually think a lot of the bad decisions by Khan Academy are related to misaligned incentive structures. Khan tries to keep a pretty deep moat protecting business models. The platform isn't open source. Partnerships are hard to come by. Research partnerships are exceptionally difficult (Khan data is a proprietary resources). There's a cult personality. Etc.
This is not realistic based on my experience with what motivates people.
> I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee.
Nature doesn’t offer guarantees on a lifetime timescale.
> I think it's a false statement to say someone less expensive will run things less well. I've been at a number of not-for-profits, and that does not match my experience at all.
This is a favorite of people trying to disprove something. Just because it doesn't apply all of the time doesn't mean it's incorrect. It applies most of the time. And your experience is anecdotal and thus low value. In the majority of cases, people who get paid more are more skilled at getting the desired results. This is how capitalism works.
> Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care.
This is fairyland non-sense. Let's stick to reality and not your idealizations. Notice how many times you use "should". According to who? Why?
> $200 will bring people just as competent as $800k, but (1) your burn rate is lower (2) people are there for the mission (3) you can ask for donations in good faith.
Unsubstantiated nonsense. Again, let's stick to reality.
> If you do want to invest extra money on people, a better place to spend that is stability and benefits (in the way universities do). I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee.
Again, nonsense. What is this based on? No one cares about your personal preferences. It's irrelevant. As I said, your logic is weak. You can't hear something and say "that's not true for me"! And think that disproves anything. You're over-indexing on your own beliefs and it's clouding your thinking.
> I actually think a lot of the bad decisions by Khan Academy are related to misaligned incentive structures. Khan tries to keep a pretty deep moat protecting business models. The platform isn't open source. Partnerships are hard to come by. Research partnerships are exceptionally difficult (Khan data is a proprietary resources). There's a cult personality. Etc.
Again, nonsense. Please provide some facts, from the real world, that substantiate these claims. You're living in a dream where all that matters is what you personally think and how you want things to be and are completely disconnected from reality and facts. You're just finding made up points to confirm the bias you already have. E.g. "There's a cult personality". What does that even mean? It's a made-up statement because you feel the longer your list of things is the more evidence you have.
Someone set-up a GoFundMe for their credit card bill, which they ran up buying supplies to make masks for doctors in need. You are saying that, because they treated themselves to Olive Garden once for dinner, instead of only ever eating the cheapest thing off the McDonald's menu, that they need to repent. Meanwhile, actual fat cat CEOs are eating at $250/person steakhouses while raping the Earth.
800k is a lot of money, but it's really not for that sort of position. CEOs regularly make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The ones that famously don't, like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, are able to do so because they are already obscenely wealthy.
Have you heard of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" Because that's what you're proposing here.
Where do you think the money comes from to run the organization? They don't monetize their users. Asking for donations is a significant part of Sal Khan's job.
Why do some people go nuts if they see non-profits demanding high pay? Khan Academy has done something unique, helpful and truly excellent, but how dare Salman Khan wanting a cut similar to for-profits. (If it is similar, properly still less).
If you take donations, it sounds like you should be a charity, but there are lots of examples of organizations that rely on donations, but are not charities. Basically anybody living off Patreon, for example.
Having said that, I don't think it is wrong for a donator to decide that they don't want to donate because one person is taking the lion's share of the wealth. In fact, there are for profit organisations that I will avoid simply because they don't seem to provide a service other than to line some fat cat executives' pockets. People are free to choose how they want to spend their money.
Abstract :
Entrepreneurs who start new firms may choose not-for-profit status as a means of committing to soft incentives. Such incentives protect donors, volunteers, consumers and employees from ex post expropriation of profits by the entrepreneur.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/publications/not-profit...
Khan Academy is soliciting donations, an avenue of human interaction which asks us to suspend this local rationality and instead transact on hope and trust. That's the difference to me between a business transaction and a donation.
> [...] transact on hope and trust.
These two things are not as dissimilar as you seem to think.
There is nothing irrational about donating to a non-profit, and nothing irrational about paying high salaries to irreplaceable employees or executives.
Hence, you're not being asked to "transact on hope and trust".
The main difference between donating to KA and a typical business transaction, is that the value of the goods/services provided does not necessarily go to the person providing the payment.
There is an understandable worry about over-payment of executives, but I don't think that the "threat model" is significantly different between for-profits and non-profits. You could argue that in the case of for-profits, competition will weed out companies that over-pay their executives, but internal, corporate politics is likely to trump the market mechanism — at least that's what seems to be happening. As a result, I don't think that it makes sense to excessively harp on executive pay at non-profits you donate to, or at least not more so than you care about the pay of the CEO at a company whose products you buy.
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?
I guess you can see personnel as an investment towards the cause too
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.