[justin66]

> A software engineer in Ohio doesn’t command that kind of salary, but in San Francisco or Seattle that’ll buy you a moderately-senior engineer.

On the other hand, a CEO of a well-known nonprofit might command that kind of salary in Ohio. People often underestimate how much the leaders of nonprofits pay themselves.

[supern0va]

I'm not entirely convinced that this is entirely some sort of widespread bad behavior. Many non-profit boards conduct research on salaries and essentially size their organization and pay something akin to a market rate for the given size and scope.

However, even a small percentage of bad actors finding a way to inflate their salaries will, as a side effect, inflate salaries across the board because it influences the process that sets the salaries for the honest organizations.

It's a fun problem.

[justin66]

I suspect abuse is more prevalent at the low end, among nonprofits that don’t do much.

I stand by the point of my original post: People often underestimate how much the leaders of nonprofits pay themselves. These are figures you can look up and quiz your friends to test the hypothesis, if they’re into that sort of thing. For a good time include some nonprofit hospitals.

[supern0va]

Outside of manipulating the board, they do not pay themselves, though. The board decides their comp package.

[justin66]

That's fair, but the boards of nonprofits are as corruptible (I'm reluctant to use that word since we're talking about fairly standard practices, not outright crime, but whatever) as those in the corporate world. But I wouldn't want to keep talking about this situation as if it's all theoretical. In contrast with a lot of the corporate world, with nonprofits you can just go and look at what their officers are paid (it's public record) and decide for yourself what you feel about the figures.