Well Lookie there, a Hypothetical Poll From Yours Truly.

[Luke]

Hey Luke, being an altruist, I'd say the percentage is a bit high.

That was just a random number to gauge responses. Not to worry, I've been running break even analyzes.

[dsheinem]

Isn't the reason for these high salaries simply the cost of doing business? In other words, don't these NFPs need to pay top dollar to execs who do a good job so that they can keep/attract good execs? It's better to spend more up top if it means you'll rake in even more for the charity itself because of their leadership...

You would not believe how many times that is used to justify high salaries. Look at the Banks and the Automotive industry, taht were bailed out. Hell look at your own company. There is a line of people who could do a lot better job at a lower salary. Its when a company gets too big and fat and gets a free non-profit lunch from the taxpayer.

Oh I agree it is distasteful. It would be great if charities only hired top people willing to work for cheap out of their dedication to the cause. But in any industry, you usually get what you pay for.

Whether you are a bank, auto maker, or any other industry (including NFPs) - if you know that your bottom line will be increased significantly if you can recruit and retain top talent, you would be well advised to do so. Everyone understands this in something like sports (e.g. payroll of The Yankees vs. payroll of The Royals), so I don't understand what people get so worked up about when their bank pays out huge bonuses to top execs. If those bonuses/high salaries are needed to help the company make money and beat the competition, then they are justified.

That said, the best suggestion so far is to donate to local and/or small charities with little to no overhead. Ask where your money goes, and don't donate if you don't get a satisfactory answer. Especially if you don't like the salary structure of something like the Red Cross, you might find that the local shelter will put your money to better use.

[Limewater]

You would not believe how many times that is used to justify high salaries. Look at the Banks and the Automotive industry, taht were bailed out. Hell look at your own company. There is a line of people who could do a lot better job at a lower salary. Its when a company gets too big and fat and gets a free non-profit lunch from the taxpayer.

Oh I agree it is distasteful. It would be great if charities only hired top people willing to work for cheap out of their dedication to the cause. But in any industry, you usually get what you pay for.

I just wanted to say that it warms my heart to see a Communications professor defending high CEO salaries against a man with a long career in the military.

Where can I go to see Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity making out?

[dsheinem]

You would not believe how many times that is used to justify high salaries. Look at the Banks and the Automotive industry, taht were bailed out. Hell look at your own company. There is a line of people who could do a lot better job at a lower salary. Its when a company gets too big and fat and gets a free non-profit lunch from the taxpayer.

Oh I agree it is distasteful. It would be great if charities only hired top people willing to work for cheap out of their dedication to the cause. But in any industry, you usually get what you pay for.

I just wanted to say that it warms my heart to see a Communications professor defending high CEO salaries against a man with a long career in the military.

Where can I go to see Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity making out?

LOL. I didn't say I like it, but it is an unfortunate reality of our current capitalist economy.

Anyway, if comrade Obama finalizes his five-year plan soon we should all be free of the yoke of capitalist oppression. We'll only be happy when everyone makes exactly the same amount of money and the streets run red with bourgeois blood. Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch! (/sarcasm)

[Ack]

Where can I go to see Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity making out?

Ah, young love.

[Octopod]

We'll only be happy when everyone makes exactly the same amount of money and the streets run red with bourgeois blood. Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch! (/sarcasm)

Well, I'll be happy anyway.


And Obama is far from the left.

[jp1]

LOL. I didn't say I like it, but it is an unfortunate reality of our current capitalist economy.

Anyway, if comrade Obama finalizes his five-year plan soon we should all be free of the yoke of capitalist oppression. We'll only be happy when everyone makes exactly the same amount of money and the streets run red with bourgeois blood. Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch! (/sarcasm)

That seems a little knee jerk. This whole thing has gotten off topic a little but I would just like to point out that blindly defending capitalism is just as bad as blindly dismissing it. Capitalism is obviously great for those who have been afforded the opportunities to capitalize. Like anything else people will support the cause that benefits them the most.

Just to be clear I'm not taking a stand on either side of the fence because while there are a great many things I disagree with in a capitalist society I cannot offer a better alternative.

More on topic, I think that "Not for profit" organizations should have salary caps all the way up the line so that it would keep everyone honest. There would still be a lot of very competent people willing to work for them because they support the cause. You shouldn't assume that every Pro bono lawyer is a bad lawyer, many of them are just as qualified and motivated as those who make the big bucks simply because they have a love for their cause. Do you think doctors who go to third world countries and risk their lives for very little compensation aren't as good as doctors who make tens of thousands to give someone a face lift? Monetary value doesn't always ensure the best candidate for a position.

I wouldn't want the CEO of a corporation that is supposed to feed hungry children throwing himself a $50,000 a year cost of living increase just so he can take an extra week in the islands. If it is some greedy asshole running the charity you can't expect any integrity.

[Limewater]

LOL. I didn't say I like it, but it is an unfortunate reality of our current capitalist economy.

Anyway, if comrade Obama finalizes his five-year plan soon we should all be free of the yoke of capitalist oppression. We'll only be happy when everyone makes exactly the same amount of money and the streets run red with bourgeois blood. Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch! (/sarcasm)

That seems a little knee jerk. This whole thing has gotten off topic a little but I would just like to point out that blindly defending capitalism is just as bad as blindly dismissing it. Capitalism is obviously great for those who have been afforded the opportunities to capitalize. Like anything else people will support the cause that benefits them the most.

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

[jp1]

LOL. I didn't say I like it, but it is an unfortunate reality of our current capitalist economy.

Anyway, if comrade Obama finalizes his five-year plan soon we should all be free of the yoke of capitalist oppression. We'll only be happy when everyone makes exactly the same amount of money and the streets run red with bourgeois blood. Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch! (/sarcasm)

That seems a little knee jerk. This whole thing has gotten off topic a little but I would just like to point out that blindly defending capitalism is just as bad as blindly dismissing it. Capitalism is obviously great for those who have been afforded the opportunities to capitalize. Like anything else people will support the cause that benefits them the most.

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

Eh? Make some sense man. Also, coming from you that may be the funniest thing I've read this week.

BTW, Sorry for contributing to the derailing of your topic Luke. I will stick to the topic at hand from here on out. I have to agree that if we were talking 5% and not 25% I would probably be far more likely to go the charity route. Still I am unsettled by the idea of it.

The answer could easily vary depending on my respect or trust for said company.

[Hatta]

Whether you are a bank, auto maker, or any other industry (including NFPs) - if you know that your bottom line will be increased significantly if you can recruit and retain top talent, you would be well advised to do so. Everyone understands this in something like sports (e.g. payroll of The Yankees vs. payroll of The Royals), so I don't understand what people get so worked up about when their bank pays out huge bonuses to top execs. If those bonuses/high salaries are needed to help the company make money and beat the competition, then they are justified.

That's a really, really big if. In principle you're right. Steve Jobs is worth anything Apple can give him. But when you have bank CEOs who are getting millions of dollars in bonuses when they have not only cost the bank billions of dollars, but also severely damaged the economy as a whole, that's a problem.

Pay bonuses when the company does well. If the CEO fucks up, fire him and give him nothing. If your candidate CEO won't take that deal, then he's not confident that he'll be able to increase profits. Why should you have any confidence in him then? Linking compensation to performance is only a problem for the incompetent. "Golden parachutes" are bad business.