IDK, there is only a 13.8% ‘profit’ margin. Expenses are growing as well. But I do think the campaign rhetoric can be a bit hard, but I trust the decisions made by the board. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning from the general secretary or whatever Wikipedia has.
Not really. Non-profits also needs people of the right skills to make such a big organization as Wikipedia is run well. There are very few in the world who have that skillset, and that skillset therefore has a big pricetag if you want someone who can make the organization improve and do well.
I wouldn’t hire just about anyone for a type of job like that, and very few with the right skillset would settle for less of a pay if there are other jobs they can go for instead.
Yeah this is the same argument you usually hear also in relation to IMHO excessive salaries of Mozilla executives for example.
But I am not sure of that is really true.
I see two main counter-arguments:
Large companies in other countries do not pay nearly as much for their top level executives and yet seem to be doing fine? Extreme case would be many Japanese conglomerates that pay only really modest sums to their top level staff.
A non-profit usually has completely different values and requirements, and at least in my experience having people there that would otherwise work at top-level commercial firms is rather counter-productive that they really fail to understand the organizational culture and purpose.
400k pr year a sallary for these top positions aren’t a lot at all in my opinion, particurarly when compared to other businesses. But we can agree to disagree.
It might be a joke. Although we have good social programs and a good economy it’s not like the average Norwegian is loaded and everyone has a high-skill job.
And again you don’t take in relation the skill difference between the jobs. In addition a wage of 400K pr. year is a drop in the ocean among it’s large budget right, it’s not a lof money and not to big corporations and non-profits. How much “a lot of money” is relative to it’s context, and here we are talking about a giant organization that is growing each year by tremendous bounds while it’s success wouldn’t have happened by itself.
I find
Sure depends on the country and the living costs and all that. Probably doesn’t sound that much from a Norwegian perspective ;)
What I meant is that due to various factors the typical Norwegian earns, but also has to spend, much more than pretty much anyone else in Europe. This of course means that they are not rich in their own country, but when looking at salaries from other places 400k may not seem as much as it is in reality.
A nonprofit organization (NPO) is a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit…
…
A nonprofit is subject to the non-distribution constraint: any revenues that exceed expenses must be committed to the organization’s purpose, not taken by private parties.
Which to me just sounds like a business for profit just with extra steps.
Since non-profit organizations provide a social benefit and literally their name says non-profit then workers shouldn’t be paid more than they need or rather, shouldn’t be paid based on their skillset or shouldn’t be expected to pay high like that. Seems counter-intuitive that an organization that wants to provide a benefit somehow still has to make the same money as a for profit.
Well, there are many different kinds of non-profits and the above definition is kind of the minimal legalistic one. Most “non-profits” are founded for a different purpose then just the tax-benefits the “non-profit” legal status gives them in most countries.
I recommend reding this in addition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
IDK, there is only a 13.8% ‘profit’ margin. Expenses are growing as well. But I do think the campaign rhetoric can be a bit hard, but I trust the decisions made by the board. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning from the general secretary or whatever Wikipedia has.
Well the question really is what kind of expenses there are? 400k/yr salaries for executives for example are a bit excessive for a non-profit I think.
Not really. Non-profits also needs people of the right skills to make such a big organization as Wikipedia is run well. There are very few in the world who have that skillset, and that skillset therefore has a big pricetag if you want someone who can make the organization improve and do well.
I wouldn’t hire just about anyone for a type of job like that, and very few with the right skillset would settle for less of a pay if there are other jobs they can go for instead.
Yeah this is the same argument you usually hear also in relation to IMHO excessive salaries of Mozilla executives for example.
But I am not sure of that is really true.
I see two main counter-arguments:
Large companies in other countries do not pay nearly as much for their top level executives and yet seem to be doing fine? Extreme case would be many Japanese conglomerates that pay only really modest sums to their top level staff.
A non-profit usually has completely different values and requirements, and at least in my experience having people there that would otherwise work at top-level commercial firms is rather counter-productive that they really fail to understand the organizational culture and purpose.
400k pr year a sallary for these top positions aren’t a lot at all in my opinion, particurarly when compared to other businesses. But we can agree to disagree.
Sure depends on the country and the living costs and all that. Probably doesn’t sound that much from a Norwegian perspective ;)
But a good way to look at it is how many times the executives make compared to the median employee. Which is probably not a good ratio at the WMF.
It might be a joke. Although we have good social programs and a good economy it’s not like the average Norwegian is loaded and everyone has a high-skill job.
And again you don’t take in relation the skill difference between the jobs. In addition a wage of 400K pr. year is a drop in the ocean among it’s large budget right, it’s not a lof money and not to big corporations and non-profits. How much “a lot of money” is relative to it’s context, and here we are talking about a giant organization that is growing each year by tremendous bounds while it’s success wouldn’t have happened by itself.
I find
a bit ignorant TBH
What I meant is that due to various factors the typical Norwegian earns, but also has to spend, much more than pretty much anyone else in Europe. This of course means that they are not rich in their own country, but when looking at salaries from other places 400k may not seem as much as it is in reality.
According to Wikipedia a non-profit:
Which to me just sounds like a business for profit just with extra steps.
Since non-profit organizations provide a social benefit and literally their name says non-profit then workers shouldn’t be paid more than they need or rather, shouldn’t be paid based on their skillset or shouldn’t be expected to pay high like that. Seems counter-intuitive that an organization that wants to provide a benefit somehow still has to make the same money as a for profit.
Well, there are many different kinds of non-profits and the above definition is kind of the minimal legalistic one. Most “non-profits” are founded for a different purpose then just the tax-benefits the “non-profit” legal status gives them in most countries.