But there is no incentive to get more money than they need to operate, because the shareholders and board don’t profit from it personally. NPR income is spent over 92% on program funding and 7% on administrative.
It’s basically run the same way as Wikipedia. If enough people donated, there would be no ads at all.
They run programming that they suspect will get them money, either through donations or government funding- because for those working to get raises the organization needs to have money. (As well as other reasons of course)
You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement? Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?
There very clearly isn’t an income motive. The organization is following their clearly stated goals of providing news and reporting to the american people. Their documents prove that.
But there is no incentive to get more money than they need to operate, because the shareholders and board don’t profit from it personally. NPR income is spent over 92% on program funding and 7% on administrative.
It’s basically run the same way as Wikipedia. If enough people donated, there would be no ads at all.
They run programming that they suspect will get them money, either through donations or government funding- because for those working to get raises the organization needs to have money. (As well as other reasons of course)
You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement? Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?
No? I never said anything about embezzlement.
I also never said that.
Here’s an example:
If you work for a public park, you’re probably going to support more money for the park for a lot of reasons, but here are just a few:
the park may be able to afford to pay you more.
the park may be able to afford hiring more people making your job easier.
you likely care about the park to some extent and want other people to enjoy it.
you want where you work and spend your time to be liked.
you are less likely to be at risk of losing your job.
None of those things are embezzlement or suggest you’re overpaid.
That hypothetical isn’t placing profit first, at all.
I never said they did
Then why even apply an anecdote in reply to my fact to start with? I think we’re done here.
What? I don’t think you understood what I said, please reread it.
It was teasing
I said there is a income motive
There very clearly isn’t an income motive. The organization is following their clearly stated goals of providing news and reporting to the american people. Their documents prove that.