|
|
|
|
|
|
by adrian_mrd
1622 days ago
|
|
|
What about money in = money out? If an organization pays its expenses - including the wages of its staff - well, why does there ‘need’ to be some cream leftover at the top? What I am trying to better understand is why there is a preference (morally, legally, societally) for for-profit organizations. Is it because (most) people are inherently profit-focused, or, that it is just the way things are? Amongst many other possible options. |
|
|
sustainable ones do not move all of it to expenses or purpose
the answer of why is that the buffer allows them to continue existing. if there is any disruption in money coming in, then they cease to exist.
I understand you are wanting a different discussion that I didn't offer, based on wanting a reason that has nothing to do with moral legal or societal. There are more for profit organizations because it is easier to set one up, it is "permissionless" whereas a non-profit requires approval.
for profit and non profit are bound to the same fundamental constraints and I think that is misunderstood by many. both types of organizations have the capability of having none left over. both types of organizations have the risk of having a disruption in their ability to exist. both types can keep more for themselves. this is not a moral issue.