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

  • [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    4 months ago

    https://sandiegozoowildlifealliance.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/2023-SDZWA-Annual-Report.pdf

    Total revenue per year is 420 million.

    Concessions and cleaning staff typically make 35k-40k. Zookeepers ~50k.

    These 5 employees. Amount to .8% of the yearly operating budget, while the sum of all other employees totals up to 10% of the 400 million dollar operating budget.

    I’m not making any judgements, just offering the numbers.

    • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      107
      ·
      4 months ago

      They pay cooks less than $20/hour in a city with an average rent of $3000/month. I’ve got no problem passing judgement.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        They pay cooks less than $20/hour

        So their cooks get paid less than ‘cooks’ at McDonald’s? Fast food minimum wage is $20/hour throughout California.

        • Throbbing_banjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          Why did you put “cooks” in quotes? Do you think fry cooks aren’t cooks? Churning out food in a hot kitchen is work, regardless of what you think of the end product

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            While most work is hard, and I dunno how bespoke this gig is, there’s a massive difference between a generic fry “cook” and a restaurant line cook/chef.

            Most fry cooks, like a Macdonald’s, are a finely tuned production line where most of the food is pre-prepped and premade (most of the “cooking” is done in a factory). The “cooks” in those roles usually just assemble the pre made components, and in the case of fast food, have finely tunes tools to serve their generic menu.

            A restaurant cook/chef requires significantly more attention to detail, skill, flexibility, and knowledge because most of the food is made from scratch, using raw ingredients, which is why there are culinary schools. Real restaurants can’t succeed with a kitchen full of deep fryers and teenagers pushing buttons. Naturally, the expectation is that they should be paid more because it requires more skill, knowledge, effort, and dedication.

            • RedditRefugee69
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              We’re already making the (existing) distinction between cook/chef though.

              There’s no apparent need for a “cook”/cook/chef distinction.

              • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                As a chef with 22 years of experience hiring cooks, there is absolutely a distinction. I would have said fast food worker instead of “cook” because the quotes make it feel condescending, but I also do not count experience in fast food as relevant experience when reviewing resumes for a line or prep cook position.

                We’re also misusing the word chef a lot in this conversation. Everyone working the line in a kitchen is not a chef. They are cooks. The chefs are the kitchen leadership. There is typically one executive chef and one or two sous chefs below them. I’m simplifying things a bit but that’s the most common structure you’ll find in non-chain/corpo kitchens.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m not saying that McDonald’s isn’t hard work - I definitely agree with you there. I was just referring to the fact that McDonald’s food is fairly straightforward to cook such that a teenager with minimal experience can do it, compared to a restaurant where they have many different menu items cooked from scratch and the chefs need more detailed knowledge of the items.

  • Robotunicorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is a good reminder that you can look up Form 990 for any nonprofit (they are required to submit one), which includes any staff that make over $100k.

    https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

    Also, it looks like the “salaries” you found are total compensation, which also includes medical and retirement benefits. The CEO’s salary is around $600k, but also got a $300k+ bonus.

  • linux2647@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    4 months ago

    My wife works for a non-profit where the Executive Director (CEO if you will) cannot make more than 5x what the lowest paid person makes. Wish more non-profits would adopt something similar

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Disabled and bedridden, can’t volunteer. All I got is the 10-30 USD left over at the end of year from my disability insurance payments and I want to do good in the world.

      Saving that little won’t get me anywhere. I’m already poor and in a shitty living situation and that money can’t really help me cuz its too small, so I wanna donate it to something where it can make a difference.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I want someone who would choose to spend a million/year on the animals instead of on themselves.

          That video is garbage, you REALLY think the “best and brightest” are the ones making millions? It’s the well connected. The people who make and break lives like chips on a poker table over a game of golf. The people who hang out on Epstein’s Island. They’re the only ones making millions per year.

          The best and brightest are slaving away in universities and companies making meager salaries. The ones who have to fight for every cent that goes towards their innovation and research, who have to convince shareholders that every dollar they invest will give them a thousand back.

          Let those people run the zoo, they’ll do it for 120k. That’s millions more that can be spent on the animals by people who actually have the skills to help.

          Update Oh my god. I just watched more of the video and it’s baffling how bad it is. First he says that charities have to fill the gaps the market can’t fill because it’s not profitable. But his 5th pillar is that they should be allowed to pay profit to share holders to attract “capital”. But if they could turn a natural profit they wouldn’t need to be a charity. That means that profit necessarily has to come from DONORS. He’s literally advocating for a charity that takes donations and pays them to SHAREHOLDERS instead of the needy… Holy shit he’s in a room full of “smart” people and getting praised for this idea. I’m only half way through and I’m getting nauseous watching this.

          Final update. His overall idea that overhead isn’t a good measure of charity success is a decent one. But NONE of the solutions he proposes are decent. What about compensation for charity workers? All he talks about is MBA salaries. And giving donations to shareholders is the most disgusting idea I’ve heard all year. That’s completely irredeemable.

        • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I want the Steve Irwins of the world that would only pursue the money in the benefit of the animals, not of their own pockets to run the zoo. Most productive and valuable people are not the richest but those truelly passionate that would even do it for free if it would’t ruin their lifes.

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            No doubt that Steve Irwin was a good person, but I’d like to say that his personal net worth was $10 million at the time of his unfortunate death. Thinking of this though, that money is probably what allowed his children to study and pursue lives of work for the good of the world. At the end of the day what we can say about Steve is that he died how he lived, with an animal in his heart.

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 months ago

    Blood banks. “Your blood saves lives”. Is actually “We can sell your blood to hospitals for $200 per pint”. Check the salaries of the non-profit blood bank CEO and board. I would gladly share my blood if I’m paid $100 per pint, or if they gave insurance vouchers for a free pint of blood, to avoid insurance charging $1000-3000 to get a pint back. In fact they could just call it “blood insurance” where your premium is paid in regular blood donations.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      So straight people get blood for free since they can donate, but gay people, chronically ill people and drug addicts don’t, because they aren’t allowed to.

      • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well we don’t want cancer or drugs in blood. But the current screening criteria for blood donations are kinda crazy. Travel to certain countries, tattoos. They should just test for the stuff they’re worried about directly: HIV, Hepatitis, and Malaria. Not that it matters since it’s illegal to buy/sell bodily fluids.

        • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The testing may be more expensive to the point that it’s not worth it. But if they don’t make profit on blood they have to test, more blood is always better.

          Actually aren’t they testing the blood anyway? I used to be very poor and I would sell my plasma twice a week. $30 for the first visit and $40 for the second. They tested all the plasma. Plasma “donation” centers are mad corrupt. I wasn’t trying to help anyone I just desperately needed the money.

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Source on getting blood for free from donating? It’s not that I don’t believe you, I’ve just never heard of it.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Honestly this might sound weird but why can’t you just go around selling Organs? Wouldn’t that drive companies to make artificial Organs?

      This also could backfire like crazy so maybe it isn’t the greatest idea.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve given up on charity. They’ve lobbied sites like Charity Navigator to not count executive compensation as a negative. I’m sick of capitalism ruining everything.

    • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      The only places I donate money to are local food banks, Sally Ann’s, homeless initiatives and random people living on the streets.

      Da fuck any of the big organized non-profits get any of my money.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        random people living on the streets

        That’s where I’m at as well. 100% guarantee all the money is going to a person in need.

        • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Yup. I also hold to the belief that what the person considers their most important need is none of my fucking business. Once I give it I no longer have a right to determine how the money is used.

        • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nothing is 100%. Obviously it is not a common thing, but organized begging is a thing. Another problem is that your ″bread″ money could become ″meth″ money.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 months ago

    Charities and billionaires are the polar extremes of the same policy failure. In a healthy society neither should exist, and when they do they should be tolerated for a minimal time as possible.

    Charities and philanthropy exist to permit governments and corporations to abdicate their social responsibilities.

    When the work a charity does is properly valued by a society, it’s economy would never need to carve out a special, nonprofit status for it.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      When the work a charity does is properly valued by a society, it’s economy would never need to carve out a special, nonprofit status for it.

      Maybe, but in reality this almost never happens. The work of many charities is typically attacked by the state and other fascists. The current attack on non-profits is a great example. It’s disappointing but not surprising to see so many libs supporting this. The liberatory goals of charity are directly opposed to the oppressive goals of the state. For example capitalism relies on the hunger that charity purports to oppose.

  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    4 months ago

    Was put to me at a young age that non-profit only means they spend any revenue they get before it gets to the bottom line to show up as a gain or loss. Always good to sort out the shady from the legit.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      that’s not just non profits. ever wonder how so many nominally “unprofitable” companies seem to stick around forever?

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m one of the money guys at a nonprofit. You wouldn’t believe the vast corruption I have seen. Our president recently asked: “how did it get to this point?” He knew the fucking answer.

  • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    Give it to the San Diego food bank instead. It’s a good charity from what I’ve seen, and I’ve volunteered there at least half a dozen times.

  • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is why I always tell donation canvasers to shove it and make their rich ceo pay for it in full. Nothing worse then a billionaire CEO for loblaws underpaying someone to ask for handouts.

    I basically refuse to assist any and all charities at this point because of exactly what you have shown in your images. It’s disgusting.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why do honest effective charities have to suffer because of some others who exploit the system?

      You could just pick some that arent greedy like this.

        • tomi000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Which is simply wrong.

          Its pretty sad to turn your back on the whole system because there are a few exploiting it.

          This is basically far right politics. ‘Hey theres one foreigner raping an american woman, all foreigners are evil’

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Its not a few. America is full of scams and exploits at literally every turn. Its in advertisements, news stories, popular TV and movies.

            The point I’m making is that people think at least charities will be the exception to that rule, but they aren’t. You’d be better off donating to a non-american organization IMO.

    • tomi000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which is obvious because a huge part of big paychecks comes from exploiting others (directly or indirectly). You cant make the same amount of money ‘doing the right thing’

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I quit nonprofit because the salary is real bad. Like 25% of what I currently make.

      They’re in a catch-22. They can’t hire quality people because they need funds but then you see things like this like, “Why are they paying this guy so much?” And continues a neverending cycle of low wages.