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

  • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    While not ideal, I would like to note that the charity has a revenue of 392 M$. Spending 1-2% on salaries of top exec is not that bad if it prevents them from misusing the funds. A lot of the time, the alternative to high salaries for people in power is those people giving in to corruption since the risk/benefit encourages it. Just look at politics for an example.

    That being said, wtf is chief philanthropy officer?!

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      21 days ago

      Spending 1-2% on salaries

      These greedy cunts are probably 1% of the workforce though. How much is actually spent on salaries?

      Stop defending them

      • Celestus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        How much would you prefer they made? Do you think the world would be a better place if they shut down their charity businesses?

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

        Stop defending them

        Idk anything about them, so it is not my intention to defend anyone. I am just pointing out that having bad execs (whether incompetent, careless or outright embezzlers) is far worse than paying 1-2%. As far as I know, no one has came up with a better reusable way to get good execs than paying them a lot. I have no idea if these execs in particular are good.

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      21 days ago

      What you are describing is blackmail.

      “Pay us exorbitant salaries or we’ll be forced to embezzle the funds”

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          21 days ago

          So we should just accept that and pay them off rather than putting in mechanisms to prevent that and hiring people who are motivated by something other than the payout?

          It might seem like we have no choice but we do, collectively, hold the power of the purse here. And I think this post is a great example of that.

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

            You are not necessarily paying of the same people. Even most honest/righteous people like to be paid well. So the charity willing to pay them get those and the charities that don’t pay well risk getting the kind of people who don’t mind embezzling.

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

            What I am describing is not blackmail. It is the same as saying that leaving unguarded food next to starving people encourages theft of said food. That is not blackmail. I am saying anything beyond that. I am not commenting on morality of the situation or what the right thing to do is. Just pointing out a fact.

              • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                20 days ago

                Sorry, do I need to handhold you through it? Are you unable to figure out what the definition of blackmail is? “If you don’t bring an umbrella, you will get wet since it is supposed to rain.” is not blackmail. Unless you are 10, I am very concerned that you can’t comprehend this.

                • enbyecho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  20 days ago

                  I am very concerned that you can’t comprehend this.

                  What’s not comprehensible here is your argument. I’d suggest you consider how you might learn to be a better communicator.

                  Good bye.

    • eran_morad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      That salary should be elevated, but a more reasonable value would be $250-350K. At least in my extremely expensive market. That’s the guy that asks rich people for money. He generates multiples of his salary in value. He’s connected to the very wealthy. When I contributed to such efforts, I was invited to dine with Peter Lynch (who served lamb chops at his penthouse in Boston, it was an experience. Nice guy.).

      He could get a well-paying job at virtually any large nonprofit.

      Edit: CFO is also extremely competitive but that much at a nonprofit is fucken wild. $600K is what we pay our CFO at my very large and consequential nonprofit (like, we do innovative shit that saves lives across the world).