Joe Braxton wrote:Out of respect for the "Be nice" rule, I will just say I agree 1000% with what Paul said.
Jennifer Wadsworth wrote:In my experience they are a sham 65% of the time.
Adam Klaus wrote: Split the difference? If you go 82% on the 'sham-factor', I'm all in.
paul wheaton wrote:My position is probably a minority position. Are there any others that can validate my observations?
So in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce the more money you can make. But we don't like non-profits to use money to incentivize people to produce more in social service. We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make very much money helping other people. Interesting that we DON'T have a visceral reaction to the notion of people who make a lot of money NOT helping other people. You want to make 50 million dollars selling violent video games - go for it! - we'll put you on the cover of Wired magazine.
This whole argument about profit/non-profit reminds me of the mindset many people have around permaculture. Permaculture is promoted as this awesome thing that can provide for our needs while simultaneously healing the planet. People get torqued when someone ACTUALLY MAKES MONEY off permaculture
paul wheaton wrote:
My impression is that within every non-profit, the people would not put their time in there unless they were getting paid.