You know, there's this misconception that people who work at nonprofits should essentially accept being paid less than market value for their skillset. I couldn't say which of these I do think are overpaid; however, this is one of the serious issues facing nonprofits today: that the majority of the public thinks that they should spend every dollar directly on services, and not on things defined as "overhead" - which might include staff salary, or basic expenses that allow the business to operate.
In order to make an impact, nonprofits need highly skilled management. Over $1 million may be high, but without looking at the salary within the context of impact, overall budget, etc., it's really difficult to just flatly state they're overpaid.
And it really is worth noting how much less these salaries are than for-profit counterparts. Is it better for them to have ridiculous salaries because they aren't accepting public money, even as they treat their workers poorly? What about the nonprofits who primarily receive individual contributions - do they deserve the same scrutiny? What about nonprofits who earn a large percentage of their revenue?
I typically like your posts, Hamilton, but I'm kind of tired of the oversimplified nonprofit criticism. Yesterday 2:04pm
I've worked at a non-profit for 14 years, and in my experience, a lot of public expect the majority of work to be done by volunteers, not paid staff.
I just don't understand that mentality — I have to pay my bills just like everyone else, so why shouldn't I expect to have salary and benefits similar to someone doing the same work in the for-profit sector? Yesterday 2:14pm
There was a pretty popular Ted talk this year that made many of the same points. By a guy who had been hugely successful at organizing AIDS rides and then saw it all fall apart because of this narrow thinking. You may have seen it, but if not, I highly recommend it.Yesterday 2:28pm