• lad@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    Now I wonder, because both 999k and 100k are six figure sums, and one of them I find much more reasonable than the other.

    But yeah, running a non-profit often takes money instead of earning you money, and if they have spare money to pay salary to the CEO, maybe they’re all right

    • bobgobbler@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s not what being a non profit means… they are allowed to make a “profit,” and pay for their liabilities. They just must reinvest them back into the business.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I’m not sure that not having anyone on salary is part of that deal. Or if you were referring to the part where I said about salary being negative, that’s from experience, a couple of directors of a non-profit I know had to donate their salary and add on top of it when times were rough (in that organisation it was pretty often). Large non-profits probably don’t have that issue