Maybe we need to put what is "huge salary" in perspective. How much money did YOU raise for Cambodia last year? Scott Neeson raised more than 100 times his salary. How much did YOU spend on programs in Cambodia. He spent more than 50 times his salary. How much in net assets do you have for programs in Cambodia, the organization he runs has over 90 times his salary.

Now take your salary, multiply it by 100. That is the amount you need to raise for Cambodian projects to justify YOUR salary based on what he accomplished.

So, have you raised more than 100 times YOUR salary for Cambodia last year? Or maybe you actually took money from those who brought it in. You know Cambodia cannot make dollars. Every dollar spent in Cambodia, including YOUR salary, had to be brought in by someone from somewhere, from commerce, government aid, NGOs, etc. My guess is that none of it came from you.

Not everyone is equal from an economic perspective, some people are simply worth more money than others. It is not a judgement on your moral worth or how good or bad a person you are. Some people choose lives where they want something different than maximizing their financial worth. Nothing wrong with this.

But when you feel you need to criticize someones salary, whose contribution is arguably much greater than yours, you should be a little circumspect in your judgement.

But please, if you raised more than 100 times your salary for programs in Cambodia last year, we would all love to hear your opinions. Otherwise, well, not so much.

CaliforniaGuy wrote: Not everyone is equal from an economic perspective, some people are simply worth more money than others.

Thank you for saying this. This seems to be one of the hardest concepts for people in general to understand, especially when others make more than them. Everyone wants more but few understand what it takes to make more.

Let's say that Scott was terminated from his position due to his "obscene" salary........and replaced with someone making 3k a month..........but who was pure of heart. That person would likely not have the skills necessary to be successful, and the organization would suffer as a result.

I reckon Scott would be worth at least his current salary to almost any NGO in town. If, the goal is to raise money for the aims of the organization..............than wouldn't that be a good yardstick to use?

93k is only a middle class salary for a family in the West. If, someone is working in the NGO sector that is well qualified with a family, it is not that much considering how much private schooling cost.

Any organization should hire the best talent they can find...........and you have to pay to attract that talent.

CaliforniaGuy wrote:Maybe we need to put what is "huge salary" in perspective. How much money did YOU raise for Cambodia last year?

CG, here's something I hope you know already, but deliberately ignored with your fatuous argument:

Not every NGO worker's job is limited to/even includes raising funds as a major entry in their job description. I was involved with curriculum design, for example.

You also know that I specifically stated that I was not referring to Scott, yet again, you chose to ignore that.

The other drum that is constantly being banged is...'in America, that salary...blah/blah/blah. Here's a very pertinent point: we are not IN America. But again, yo knew that already.

With all these things being ignored by you, when I have stated them several times, any reasonable person might be forgiven for thinking you have some kind of agenda/motive here. What is it that you do, exactly?

Satiated Parrot wrote:Good point, GM. 93k for an executive is peanuts in the real world.

After 15 years on the job, my mother was making damn near 100k per year as nurse manager of some clinic. She had only a B. S. degree in nursing plus the 15 years experience. My point is that salaries need to be somewhat relative in order to attract qualified Canadates.

Running an organization like CCF would be a job ID want more than 97k/year to do..... If I were even qualified, which I'm remotely not even close to being.

Lonestar wrote:Let's say that Scott was terminated from his position due to his "obscene" salary........and replaced with someone making 3k a month..........but who was pure of heart. That person would likely not have the skills necessary to be successful, and the organization would suffer as a result.

I reckon Scott would be worth at least his current salary to almost any NGO in town. If, the goal is to raise money for the aims of the organization..............than wouldn't that be a good yardstick to use?

93k is only a middle class salary for a family in the West. If, someone is working in the NGO sector that is well qualified with a family, it is not that much considering how much private schooling cost.

Any organization should hire the best talent they can find...........and you have to pay to attract that talent.

Let's put it this way. In America. An E.R nurse and a postman combined salaries are around Scott Neeson. He'll, the little NGO I worked for only had the creator/CEO paying herself $1300 per month. Not everyone is a huge NGO... Lots of grassroots operations all over the world.


Private sector pays more.

vladimir wrote:

CaliforniaGuy wrote:Maybe we need to put what is "huge salary" in perspective. How much money did YOU raise for Cambodia last year?

CG, here's something I hope you know already, but deliberately ignored with your fatuous argument:

Not every NGO worker's job is limited to/even includes raising funds as a major entry in their job description. I was involved with curriculum design, for example.

You also know that I specifically stated that I was not referring to Scott, yet again, you chose to ignore that.

The other drum that is constantly being banged is...'in America, that salary...blah/blah/blah. Here's a very pertinent point: we are not IN America. But again, yo knew that already.

With all these things being ignored by you, when I have stated them several times, any reasonable person might be forgiven for thinking you have some kind of agenda/motive here. What is it that you do, exactly?

Vlad, actually I was not specifically referring to you, there were a number of posts describing his salary as being unreasonable. I thought it was clear in my post that it was the editorial "you" I was using. Methinks you might be a tad sensitive.

Secondly, there are space and time limits with any post. Not mentioning something that is obvious is not quite the same as "deliberately" ignoring it, right?

I also "deliberately ignored" as you put it, string theory, the theory of evolution, and the need for more peaches in the peach yogurt. I apologize for my failures in this regard and will henceforth be more diligent in attempting to detail everything in every post. (Here I use exaggeration to make a point, Geez describing everything is a bit tedious).

Again, obviously, not everyone's job is, should be, or can be related to raising money. I did not think I needed to detail that particular point. As you state, because it is obvious.

However it is a very good quantitative measure of worth where it is applicable. You can develop many other measures, the ultimate financial value of what you do relative to your salary. (Again, the editorial you, if I need to explain again). My point is that one (maybe 'one' this is better than 'you'?) has a much higher credibility if their own worth (however one chooses to measure it) to salary is greater than that someone they are criticizing. Wouldn't you agree?

Looking back, you (not the editorial one here) did specifically mention Scott, "He may be an exception regarding motivation, I don't know his full story, but I still think a local salary of 93K/year for running an NGO is extremely high."

So how high is high? Well then, we get back to measurements again don't we? The one I gave for Scott I think is very reasonable for his work (not that he only does fund raising, but that alone justifies his salary to me). If one thinks the benefit of his (or her) salary is greater than 100 to 1, criticize away, if not, well should anyone really care if you criticize someone who's benefit clearly is 100 to 1?

As for my motive/agenda, (you made me smile at that one) surely you must know I am not now an agent for the CIA, NSA, FSB or Mossad, or anyone else other than myself, and haven't been for months.

What determines salary?

What happened to COL?

With all the other factors, including the holy capitalist mantra of supply and demand, all of a sudden COL is ignored.

And please, no one mention that dirty word 'charity'.

So how does someone in one of these positions appeal for funds without mentioning the word 'poor'?

Should they rather not just ask for a business loan, as their salary reflects that type of market, or is obfuscation acceptable when they score money from that?

Most of the opponents on this thread would happily chastise churches/religious bodies making bug bucks, but promote/support anyone else doing it. Joke.

CaliforniaGuy wrote: I don't know why I even bother posting.

me neither