[JensRex]

Try arguing with less snark.

Every comment like yours attacks the strawman that the CEO and employees should not get paid. Nobody is saying that. But I'm absolutely not going to donate anything while the CEO takes out over 800000 dollars in pay, and it looks distasteful to me to go around begging for donations.

[kharak]

I hold the position represented by Dan Palotta in this Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...

There is nothing distasteful about non-profit CEOs wanting high pay. We're speaking about the founder of something that has and is helping millions of people around the world with arguably one of the most difficult and important educational needs. Khan Academy wouldn't be here without Khan himself and the world would be lesser for it. I see absolutely no reason why the CEO of such an organizations shouldn't paid in the same manner as for-profits.

I'm snarky, because the implied notion of "people doing good instead of chasing profits don't deserve the same pay/good life" is nothing short of crazy to me.

[dirtydroog]

There is something distasteful about them wanting high pay and extra donations to cover an unseen expense.

[kharak]

And you know already that Khan is going to take the same salary this year? This is just rationalization, be honest with yourself, you simply dislike the idea of Khan getting this much for himself, no matter what.

[lern_too_spel]

$800k is an experienced engineer's salary where Khan Academy is based.

[dirtydroog]

Lol, what

[lern_too_spel]

Khan Academy is based in Mountain View. There are plenty of engineers getting that annual compensation at Facebook/Google/Netflix.

[cosmodisk]

What do you think his salary should be that you'd feel comfortable to make a donation?

[JensRex]

Significantly less.

This feels like somebody setting up a GoFundMe to pay off their credit card debt. They paid their CEO an absurd salary, and now they need more money. That sounds like a you-problem.

[bbrree66]

This is not even close to the same thing. If you don't want to donate, then don't. But this is a red herring.

What you should be thinking about is the value he provides, not the absolute amount he is paid. The net positive effect of him running it and getting paid $800k is much higher than someone else who can't run things as well getting paid $100k. The goal is to maximize the output of the non-profit, not to keep salaries low. What you should care about is ROI on your dollars donated.

[wegs]

I think it's a false statement to say someone less expensive will run things less well. I've been at a number of not-for-profits, and that does not match my experience at all.

Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care.

$200 will bring people just as competent as $800k, but (1) your burn rate is lower (2) people are there for the mission (3) you can ask for donations in good faith.

Depending on part of the country, you can step that down significantly, in turn.

If you do want to invest extra money on people, a better place to spend that is stability and benefits (in the way universities do). I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee.

I actually think a lot of the bad decisions by Khan Academy are related to misaligned incentive structures. Khan tries to keep a pretty deep moat protecting business models. The platform isn't open source. Partnerships are hard to come by. Research partnerships are exceptionally difficult (Khan data is a proprietary resources). There's a cult personality. Etc.

[lotsofpulp]

> Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care.

This is not realistic based on my experience with what motivates people.

> I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee.

Nature doesn’t offer guarantees on a lifetime timescale.

[govg]

You're joking if you think 200k will get you someone who manages an entire group like Khan Academy. That's the amount of money new graduates make out of their college in FANG, and in no way is what Khan does comparable to a generic software developer.

[bbrree66]

Most of what you're saying is nonsense and unsubstantiated.

> I think it's a false statement to say someone less expensive will run things less well. I've been at a number of not-for-profits, and that does not match my experience at all.

This is a favorite of people trying to disprove something. Just because it doesn't apply all of the time doesn't mean it's incorrect. It applies most of the time. And your experience is anecdotal and thus low value. In the majority of cases, people who get paid more are more skilled at getting the desired results. This is how capitalism works.

> Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care.

This is fairyland non-sense. Let's stick to reality and not your idealizations. Notice how many times you use "should". According to who? Why?

> $200 will bring people just as competent as $800k, but (1) your burn rate is lower (2) people are there for the mission (3) you can ask for donations in good faith.

Unsubstantiated nonsense. Again, let's stick to reality.

> If you do want to invest extra money on people, a better place to spend that is stability and benefits (in the way universities do). I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee.

Again, nonsense. What is this based on? No one cares about your personal preferences. It's irrelevant. As I said, your logic is weak. You can't hear something and say "that's not true for me"! And think that disproves anything. You're over-indexing on your own beliefs and it's clouding your thinking.

> I actually think a lot of the bad decisions by Khan Academy are related to misaligned incentive structures. Khan tries to keep a pretty deep moat protecting business models. The platform isn't open source. Partnerships are hard to come by. Research partnerships are exceptionally difficult (Khan data is a proprietary resources). There's a cult personality. Etc.

Again, nonsense. Please provide some facts, from the real world, that substantiate these claims. You're living in a dream where all that matters is what you personally think and how you want things to be and are completely disconnected from reality and facts. You're just finding made up points to confirm the bias you already have. E.g. "There's a cult personality". What does that even mean? It's a made-up statement because you feel the longer your list of things is the more evidence you have.

[vowelless]

You really think 800k is “absurd” money for what he does? Boy, I have news for you.

[fragmede]

With a more revenue driven model (aka stop giving anything away for free), Kahn Academy would be deriving a lot more revenue from the added traffic. They are still giving away a significant amount of value away for free and asking for donations back.

Someone set-up a GoFundMe for their credit card bill, which they ran up buying supplies to make masks for doctors in need. You are saying that, because they treated themselves to Olive Garden once for dinner, instead of only ever eating the cheapest thing off the McDonald's menu, that they need to repent. Meanwhile, actual fat cat CEOs are eating at $250/person steakhouses while raping the Earth.

800k is a lot of money, but it's really not for that sort of position. CEOs regularly make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The ones that famously don't, like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, are able to do so because they are already obscenely wealthy.

Have you heard of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" Because that's what you're proposing here.

[lotsofpulp]

“They” would be fine getting even higher pay elsewhere working for private interests. The losers would be the general public who benefit from the education.

[dmayle]

Thank you. This is exactly what I meant, as well.

[lern_too_spel]

> it looks distasteful to me to go around begging for donations.

Where do you think the money comes from to run the organization? They don't monetize their users. Asking for donations is a significant part of Sal Khan's job.