/u/WindWalkerWhoosh: Well that's pretty rude. Why would you pay non-profit employees less money? Are they less skilled?

Did it ever occur to you that they have less money to give?

That's totally irrelevant to hiring people. Nonprofits can make just as money as for profit companies. If people's time is worth a living wage, then the rules apply to everyone. The whole thread was about business not being worth doing if you can't pay a living wage.

Are you saying that non-profits need to be more capitalist and market themselves better? 🤔

Most of them do, yes. For instance the United Way brings in over $3 billion a year. I'm pretty sure they can pay as well as most for profit companies.

And you don’t see a problem with the fact that doubling their payroll would force them to slash other expenses, i.e. their actual outreach?

Nope. If it's worth doing they can pay the prevailing wage (whatever that is). People can still volunteer if they want to. There's no difference in who is doing the hiring. Of course if the employee feels the cause is worth it, then they can always donate 1/3 of their salary or whatever they feel is right.

If it's worth doing they can pay the prevailing wage (whatever that is)

But that’s the case right now, and the prevailing wage is $7.25 an hour, which is what you’re so assravaged about.

I don't know what you're talking about. That's what the thread was about, not my opinion. I was only arguing logistics.

But in terms of non-profits, they do have major issues with donors wanting them to pay their employees less than market rate just because they're running off of donations (some of them). That's screwed up. Talent is talent, pay the market rate if you want it.

You have been banned from /r/LateStageCapitalism.