[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.