[Moderated]JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006

[The Atheist]

JREF financial records for FY 2006 highlights:

FY 2005: surpus of $2340
LOSS of $79,859 for FY 2006.

Revenue up $80k, expenses up $160k.

Randi's salary $175k.

Advertising $22,000 (+450% over FY 2005)

Consulting fees $14,000 (+47%)

Credit card fees $9,100! (+55%)

Awards $2,000 (-90%!)

990 here

 

[Wolfman]

My first reaction to this was, "Wow, Randi gets $175,000/year in salary?!?". I'm not sure how many donors would be happy thinking that their donations are going to fund a salary which is rather excessively high for a non-profit organization.

But then when I looked into it more, I saw that almost $270,000 of revenue came from lectures and seminars...which I assume are given by James Randi.

So James Randi personally brings in $270,000...and then gives about $100,000 of that money to the organization, keeping the rest for himself. Donors' money does not seem to be a factor.

Personally, I've got problems when leaders of non-profit organizations regularly solicit others to give money to support them, but themselves live lavish lifestyles with very high incomes. I'd bet that the vast majority of donors who send money to the JREF make significantly less money than James Randi does..."I know you have less money than me, but I want you to give your money to my organization" is not a message that is particularly inspiring to me.

However, putting aside personal preferences and ideals, the salary that James Randi gets is supported by his own activities. In addition to that, his lectures and seminars raise additional funds to support the JREF, not relying just on donations. So my 'criticism', as such, would be more a personal one than a professional one.

The news that the JREF lost money is a worrying one; I'd be curious to know how they are doing this year, in comparison with last year. If it was a one-time thing, and they are doing better this year, great. If there are similar (or greater) losses this year, that is cause for concern, on a number of levels.

 

[CFLarsen]

Before you get your knickers in a knot....consider the dollar.

"Economic world power" my ass...*snicker*

 

[jhunter1163]

Randi is well worth $175K a year. And, while that's no doubt pretty good money, I wouldn't call it enough to fund a lavish lifestyle, believe me.

 

[Darat]

Posts about Randi's salary and the JREF wage bill: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2688066#post2688066

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/68/cpid/304.htm

 

[Wolfman]

Darat,

An interesting perspective, but perplexingly lacking in perspective, also, when one considers the rest of the info in that article. Some relevant quotes:

To put it in perspective, the average charity's CEO's salary makes up about 3.4% of the organization's total functional expenses.

For example, we can look at educational charities, which offer the highest average CEO compensations. This category includes large, seemingly-private institutions like Johns Hopkins University, which has the third highest total expenses ($2.49 billion) of all the charities in our database. In fact, 22 out of the top 25 charities in terms of total expenses are educational groups. As a result, these salaries ultimately represent a much smaller percentage (2.06%) of the group's budget than the typical charity.

Now, the JREF is an educational charity. According to the information in this article, the highest salaries tend to go to CEOs of educational charities. We're okay thus far.

But wait -- total expenses of the JREF are $664,511. Which means that James Randi's salary, in and of itself, represents a whopping twenty five percent of the organization's expenses (actually, it is a little more than 25%). Perspective -- that is more than seven times higher than the average for a non-profit educational organization!!!

I see a very, very big difference between when 3% of an organization's money goes to the CEO, and when more than 25% of an organization's money goes to the CEO.

Just wondering, Darat, why you left out that particular aspect of the perspective.

ETA: As I said above, I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary, given that it comes from his lectures rather than from donors; but I think that your 'perspective' here hurt rather than helped your case.

 

[CFLarsen]

Darat,

An interesting perspective, but perplexingly lacking in perspective, also, when one considers the rest of the info in that article. Some relevant quotes:
Now, the JREF is an educational charity. According to the information in this article, the highest salaries tend to go to CEOs of educational charities. We're okay thus far.

But wait -- total expenses of the JREF are $664,511. Which means that James Randi's salary, in and of itself, represents a whopping twenty five percent of the organization's expenses (actually, it is a little more than 25%). Perspective -- that is more than seven times higher than the average for a non-profit educational organization!!!

I see a very, very big difference between when 3% of an organization's money goes to the CEO, and when more than 25% of an organization's money goes to the CEO.

Just wondering, Darat, why you left out that particular aspect of the perspective.

You want perspective?

JREF is a tiny organization. You can literally walk around the JREF "building" in much less than a minute. There's Randi, there's Linda, there's an intern. There's Wagg, but he works for a bale of hay. There's RemieV, but she works for toast.

Then, take a huge organization. A lot more money. 3% of a lot more money can easily be a lot more than $175K. And let's not talk about the overhead that some of these organizations carry. A lot more people, with all that follows.

And yet, JREF manages to rally the world's skeptics once a year, plus the cruises, plus the TAM halfbreed, plus the lectures, plus the media presence, plus the ridiculously easy access to Randi, with all the knowledge he got and can't stop sharing.

If you want JREF to follow the 3% salary, Randi would be making $20K a year.

You want perspective?

You got perspective.

 

[Wolfman]

CF,

I've already stated that I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary...my concerns are more personal, not professional...don't get your panties all up in a bunch.

And whatever you do, please don't shoot me.

Darat chose to print information that attempted to 'justify' this salary by using statistics that showed the salary of other non-profit organizations are similar, or higher. I fail to see how it is not legitimate for me to take that same information and point out that the comparison Darat is making is not at all similar.

This is a skeptic's forum. I am skeptical when information is presented to me in such a one-sided manner; and I take offense when someone seems to feel that just because we are talking about James Randi, that questions or criticisms are not valid.

Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally have issues when 25% of the organization's total costs are simply for the CEO's salary. Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally be skeptical when someone asks for people to donate money when the people he is asking to support him and his organization make significantly less money than he himself does.

And I'm not just playing armchair quarterback here -- I run my own non-profit organization in China, as I've discussed in a number of other threads. When I started my organization, one of the rules I set was that the highest salaries within that organization would never exceed 5% of our total expenses.

In my opinion, if one tells a CEO that their income is dependent on the results of their work (ie. their ability to generate income), they will work much harder to achieve that goal than they will if they get the same income even if their organization is losing money (which is the case with JREF right now).

In fact, in pretty much any of the non-profit organizations where CEOs are making large salaries (lets say over $150,000), if those CEOs led their organization to lose money, they would be fired, and another one hired.

I greatly admire James Randi, and his work. I do not in any way dispute the value of what he has done.

But that in no way puts him above scrutiny; nor does it mean that different standards should be applied to him than would be applied to the CEO of any other non-profit educational organization.

 

[CFLarsen]

CF,

I've already stated that I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary...my concerns are more personal, not professional...don't get your panties all up in a bunch.

And whatever you do, please don't shoot me.

Darat chose to print information that attempted to 'justify' this salary by using statistics that showed the salary of other non-profit organizations are similar, or higher. I fail to see how it is not legitimate for me to take that same information and point out that the comparison Darat is making is not at all similar.

This is a skeptic's forum. I am skeptical when information is presented to me in such a one-sided manner; and I take offense when someone seems to feel that just because we are talking about James Randi, that questions or criticisms are not valid.

Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally have issues when 25% of the organization's total costs are simply for the CEO's salary. Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally be skeptical when someone asks for people to donate money when the people he is asking to support him and his organization make significantly less money than he himself does.

And I'm not just playing armchair quarterback here -- I run my own non-profit organization in China, as I've discussed in a number of other threads. When I started my organization, one of the rules I set was that the highest salaries within that organization would never exceed 5% of our total expenses.

In my opinion, if one tells a CEO that their income is dependent on the results of their work (ie. their ability to generate income), they will work much harder to achieve that goal than they will if they get the same income even if their organization is losing money (which is the case with JREF right now).

In fact, in pretty much any of the non-profit organizations where CEOs are making large salaries (lets say over $150,000), if those CEOs led their organization to lose money, they would be fired, and another one hired.

I greatly admire James Randi, and his work. I do not in any way dispute the value of what he has done.

But that in no way puts him above scrutiny; nor does it mean that different standards should be applied to him than would be applied to the CEO of any other non-profit educational organization.

Nobody is saying that Randi is above scrutiny. And I doubt you can find anyone working harder than Randi.

However, what is your solution?

Should Randi do all that work for $20K a year? Do you have suggestions on how to dramatically improve JREF's income? What?

 

[Darat]

D...snip...

Just wondering, Darat, why you left out that particular aspect of the perspective.

ETA: As I said above, I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary, given that it comes from his lectures rather than from donors; but I think that your 'perspective' here hurt rather than helped your case.

What on earth does "your perspective" mean in relationship to the post I made?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Darat chose to print information that attempted to 'justify' this salary by using statistics that showed the salary of other non-profit organizations are similar, or higher. I fail to see how it is not legitimate for me to take that same information and point out that the comparison Darat is making is not at all similar.

...snip...

I did not do any such thing.

 

[Wolfman]

Darat,

So far as I can see, your original post was intended to demonstrate that James Randi's salary was on par with the salaries of CEOs of other non-profit educational organizations.

However, the actual information within that article shows that, in fact, his salary is not at all on par with other organizations, when one considers all of the information, and not just a few points on a graph. You talked about providing perspective, yet you presented only that information that seemed to support your position, while ignoring everything else.

When woos do this, we pounce on them. When you do it, you don't see what the problem is?

And in regards to what should be done -- like I said several times, since James Randi derives his salary from his own lectures, I don't have a major problem with him having a salary that derives from those activities...it is not donors' money that is being used to support him (if it were, I'd have a hell of a lot bigger problem with it).

But I would personally prefer that his salary be dependent on his actual results in leading the JREF. Not just in organizing great events, but in A) bringing in donations necessary to cover the organization's expenses and B) running the organization in a responsible manner so that it is not losing money.

If the CEO of any major non-profit educational organization led that organization to significant financial losses, you can be sure that there would be huge questions about his leadership ability, and as to whether his results justified the significant salary being paid by that organization.

Like I said above, the losses last year may be a one-time thing, so I'm interested to see the results this year.

 

[Darat]

Darat,

So far as I can see, your original post was intended to demonstrate that James Randi's salary was on par with the salaries of CEOs of other non-profit educational organizations.

...snip...

All I provided was simply a post that linked to a similar previous discussion via a link and the post that I thought made a good starting point in that thread, I made no comments about Randi's salary at all.

 

[Wolfman]

All I provided was simply a post that linked to a similar previous discussion via a link and the post that I thought made a good starting point in that thread, I made no comments about Randi's salary at all.

Then my apologies. Within the context of the discussion, the insertion of graphs that indicate that James Randi's salary is actually low compared to the salaries of other CEOs of non-profit educational organizations, with no further commentary, seemed to me to be making the point that his salary was comparable to those other CEOs.

I'll withdraw my comments/complaints as to the actual intent of that original post.

But my other points remain.

 

[Steven Howard]

Spending money is not the same as "losing" it.

On the one hand, you could say the JREF "lost" $79,859 in 2006 because that's the difference between their expenditures and their revenues over the calendar year. On the other hand, you could look at the balance sheet on page 4 and say that they "made" $38,870 because that's the increase in their net worth from the beginning of the year to the end.

 

[The Atheist]

Spending money is not the same as "losing" it.

On the one hand, you could say the JREF "lost" $79,859 in 2006 because that's the difference between their expenditures and their revenues over the calendar year. On the other hand, you could look at the balance sheet on page 4 and say that they "made" $38,870 because that's the increase in their net worth from the beginning of the year to the end.

Sorry, but you're just showing a lack of business acumen here.

When expenditure exceeds income, that is known as a "loss". Refer to IRS for further details.

I note that the increase in assets after the loss is offset by an increase in "deferred income" of $96k. No explanation is given for what income is being deferred.

 

[kmortis]

So far as I can see, your original post was intended to demonstrate that James Randi's salary was on par with the salaries of CEOs of other non-profit educational organizations.

All I provided was simply a post that linked to a similar previous discussion via a link and the post that I thought made a good starting point in that thread, I made no comments about Randi's salary at all.

Yes you did. You explicitly linked the presented charts with the comments about Randi's salary. Vis:

Posts about Randi's salary and the JREF wage bill: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2688066#post2688066

Now, get off your cross and take wolfman's comments for what they are. A commentary about the quality of the data you provided. He is not attacking Randi, he is not attacking you, he is simply calling the data that you provided to support a seemingly average-challenged data point.

Now if you want to turn this into yet another pedantic folderol between you, me and Claus, I'm more than happy to oblige. Otherwise, stop mindlessly defending Randi against an attack that doesn't exist. Your loyalty is commendable, save it when it's actually needed.

That being said, to the OP:
TA, what's your point?

 

[LibraryLady]

My own opinion of Randi's salary? Cheap at twice the price.

 

[The Atheist]

Posts about Randi's salary and the JREF wage bill: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2688066#post2688066

Thanks, highly relevant data.

Especially the bit which shows organisations with total expenses <$3.5m have average CEO salaries of well under $100k.

You want perspective?

JREF is a tiny organization.

Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF.

You can literally walk around the JREF "building" in much less than a minute. There's Randi, there's Linda, there's an intern. There's Wagg, but he works for a bale of hay. There's RemieV, but she works for toast.

Bloody expensive toast and hay in Florida?

The wage bill outside of Randi's salary comes to $125k gross. That's neither peanuts nor hay. When that amount is shared by two and a bit fulltime staff, I don't think any of the employees are going to die of starvation at any time soon.

Average salaries in the USA don't seem to be all that flash, with this survey showing an average salary in 2002 of $36764. If we're generous and allow for a 15% increase in the past 5 years, that would give an average now of $42200 pa.

2 1/2 employees taking up $125k puts them all well over the average.

Plus, does Jeff get a cut directly from his dad with the cruise bookings?

Overall, the total salary bill of JREF being a tick over $300k, is more than 50% of total expnditure.

 

[The Atheist]

TA, what's your point?

JREF is an "educational foundation".

Spending on salaries: 51% of income
Spending on education: 0.36% of income

 

[CFLarsen]

Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF.

Just how much do you think Randi's salary should be, then?

Bloody expensive toast and hay in Florida?

There are a lot of things you don't know. Jeff and RemieV are not in Florida.

Average salaries in the USA don't seem to be all that flash, with this survey showing an average salary in 2002 of $36764. If we're generous and allow for a 15% increase in the past 5 years, that would give an average now of $42200 pa.

2 1/2 employees taking up $125k puts them all well over the average.

The US is big, with big differences in living expenses. $20K will get you a lot more in Bumbletown than in New York.

Plus, does Jeff get a cut directly from his dad with the cruise bookings?

What does that have to do with JREF's financial records?

 

[CFLarsen]

JREF is an "educational foundation".

Spending on salaries: 51% of income
Spending on education: 0.36% of income

Oh, no, no, no.

Everything JREF does is educational. When Randi goes on a lecture, that's educational. When people contact JREF for information, that's educational. When TAM is held, that's highly educational.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Overall, the total salary bill of JREF being a tick over $300k, is more than 50% of total expnditure.

Yeah, but being the type of organization they are (it's not like they're a factory buying raw materials to produce something) I would expect salary to make up a large portion of their expenditures.

I am troubled by the size of Randi's income in relation to the amount they take in. Plus, all those credit card fees? Is that what they have to pay from processing credit card transactions from donors/customers or is that from making late payments on their own cards? (may be a dumb question but I don't know)

And is Randi worth 175K a year? Of course...but if the money isn't there salaries have to be adjusted accordingly. Many small business owners (who work damn hard) pay themselves last when times are tough and if there's no money they don't take a paycheck that week.

 

[The Atheist]

The US is big, with big differences in living expenses. $20K will get you a lot more in Bumbletown than in New York.

I don't believe JREF is in Manhattan, either.

What does that have to do with JREF's financial records?

It has two effects:

If Jeff is getting a cut, it's money on top of his bundle of hay and it reduces the amount he needs to earn elsewhere - JREF salary, for instance.

Oh, no, no, no.

Everything JREF does is educational. When Randi goes on a lecture, that's educational. When people contact JREF for information, that's educational. When TAM is held, that's highly educational.

Rubbish. Preaching to the converted is not educational. It's a money-making exercise and Randi admits it.

Yeah, but being the type of organization they are (it's not like they're a factory buying raw materials to produce something) I would expect salary to make up a large portion of their expenditures.

I am troubled by the size of Randi's income in relation to the amount they take in. Plus, all those credit card fees? Is that what they have to pay from processing credit card transactions from donors/customers or is that from making late payments on their own cards? (may be a dumb question but I don't know)

And is Randi worth 175K a year? Of course...but if the money isn't there salaries have to be adjusted accordingly. Many small business owners (who work damn hard) pay themselves last when times are tough and if there's no money they don't take a paycheck that week.

Well put.

 

[jmercer]

Well, I think you have to consider a few things where Randi's salary is concerned, since his position - and The JREF - are both fairly unique in terms of business. It's a bit tough to compare them to anyone else because of that.

Firstly, he has given up all other means of income, such as show business, speaking for private (in-his-pocket) fees, consulting services and other possible income opportunities. Secondly, he has lent his name and his reputation to the organization - both of which have financial value as well.

As Wolfman pointed out - " So James Randi personally brings in $270,000...and then gives about $100,000 of that money to the organization". If he kept that income for himself, he could take a salary from The JREF of 70k, which would change the perception of things - but not the reality of it. In essence, James Randi raised $100,000 more than he was paid - which means that The JREF retained $100,000 income from his employment after meeting the expenses of his salary.

I'd hire a 170k employee if they brought in 270k in profit annually.

To me, it's not unreasonable to provide Randi with a level of continuous income commensurate with his income production, plus the potential personal income he's given up, plus the value of his name and reputation and industry contacts. If you wish to point out a potential weakness, it's that Randi generates so much income for The JREF; which means that their other fund raising efforts are simply not as effective as they need to be.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't believe JREF is in Manhattan, either.

The amount you showed was the average for all of the US. You can't apply that to Florida and think it will be enough.

It has two effects:

If Jeff is getting a cut, it's money on top of his bundle of hay and it reduces the amount he needs to earn elsewhere - JREF salary, for instance.

What do you mean, "needs to earn"? Jeff has a job besides what he does for JREF. RemieV is a full-time student. They do what they do for JREF in the extra time they don't really have. Whatever they get is well-deserved. They sure aren't doing it for the money.

Rubbish. Preaching to the converted is not educational.

Randi' lectures aren't for the "converted", nor is TAM for the "converted" either.

It's a money-making exercise and Randi admits it.

So? We have a great time at TAM, with exciting speakers and meet and network with people from all over the world. Why is it so bad if JREF manages to earn money, too?

Just how much do you think Randi's salary should be, then?

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'd hire a 170k employee if they brought in 270k in profit annually.

important correction: "revenue" not "profit"

 

[jmercer]

important correction: "revenue" not "profit"

Nah - I switched contexts, and didn't make it clear - my fault. I was reaching from a for-profit analogy, because I don't work for a non-profit any more. (My last two jobs were non-profit organizations, though.)

What I was driving at was that a non-profit basically gets to keep all the money that comes in... so in the for-profit world, that's the equivalent of pure profit, not revenues.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[The Atheist]

The amount you showed was the average for all of the US. You can't apply that to Florida and think it will be enough.

What do you mean, "needs to earn"? Jeff has a job besides what he does for JREF. RemieV is a full-time student. They do what they do for JREF in the extra time they don't really have. Whatever they get is well-deserved. They sure aren't doing it for the money.

Well, that makes it even more notable.

Who gets paid that other $125k then?

Funny how nobody's doing it for the money, yet everyone is earning far in excess of averages, both for USA and the type/size of organisation.

Randi' lectures aren't for the "converted", nor is TAM for the "converted" either.

Good one, Claus!

So? We have a great time at TAM, with exciting speakers and meet and network with people from all over the world. Why is it so bad if JREF manages to earn money, too?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with earning money, everyone needs to do that. It's how the money is spent which actually matters.

Just how much do you think Randi's salary should be, then?

$60k. 10% of income would seem to be appropriate, although still on the high side for the nature of the organisation. Let's face it, I bet not too many 80-year olds earn more than $60k in salary.

 

[Steven Howard]

Sorry, but you're just showing a lack of business acumen here.

When expenditure exceeds income, that is known as a "loss". Refer to IRS for further details.

While I make no claims to any sort of "business acumen," I have a passing familiarity with nonprofit accounting. In my limited and likely nonrepresentative experience, I don't recall ever seeing the word loss used in this way. Typically (again, in my own limited experience) the difference between total revenue and total expenditures is reported in the rather unsexy phrase "Excess of Revenues and Other Financing Sources over (under) Expenditures and Other Uses."

I note that the increase in assets after the loss is offset by an increase in "deferred income" of $96k. No explanation is given for what income is being deferred.

It's "deferred revenue," actually. I'm sure you know the difference between income and revenue.

 

[Steven Howard]

It's "deferred revenue," actually. I'm sure you know the difference between income and revenue.

Okay, that was a little snarky, even for me. "Deferred revenue" just means that you have objectively measurable revenue that is not available to current period expenditures.

In the nonprofit world, you're often dealing with a lot of different revenue streams. There will be times when you know that you're going to get a certain amount of money, but you don't have it yet. Or there are times when you've actually got the money, but for whatever reason you can't spend it yet. That's what deferred revenue is.

 

[jmercer]

$60k. 10% of income would seem to be appropriate, although still on the high side for the nature of the organisation. Let's face it, I bet not too many 80-year olds earn more than $60k in salary.

I knew an 82 year old that was making 190k a year. And I know a 59-year old who's making over $536,000 a year as the president of a 80 million dollar non-profit organization. Of course, that's not including his Lexus (a company car leased for his personal use) and other perks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, that makes it even more notable.

Who gets paid that other $125k then?

Funny how nobody's doing it for the money, yet everyone is earning far in excess of averages, both for USA and the type/size of organisation.

I didn't say anything about how much Jeff and RemieV got. But whatever they get, they get it for doing work after they are done with their primary commitments.

Good one, Claus!

And I have been to all TAMs, while you haven't been to any.

$60k. 10% of income would seem to be appropriate, although still on the high side for the nature of the organisation. Let's face it, I bet not too many 80-year olds earn more than $60k in salary.

Let's face it, I bet not too many 79-year olds have a day as long as Randi's.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Just a few clarifications..

Yes we pay that in credit card fees. If anyone knows a way around it, please let me know.

Remie is not included in those figures. Linda, Kramer, and myself are.

I own half of Absolutely Cruising, which provides the cruises to the JREF. The company does make commission from the cruises. We are required to by agreement with the cruise lines. However, Absolutely Cruising also donates a significant amount of money to the JREF, and provides service beyond that which a traditional agency would do. My entire take of income from Absolutely Cruising last year was $1000, only a tiny portion of which came from JREF cruises. And I've donated well more than that as an individual.

Randi brings in more money than he's paid. 2006 was a rough year, considering Randi's health issues. He has gone without in the past, and donated money as well. I don't need to justify his salary.

I worked at the JREF full time for nearly a year with no salary at all. None of us get benefits, and pay our own medical insurance. Mine runs about $800 a month. I also pay most of my own expenses, such as the DragonCon conference, for example.

That said, I'm not complaining. I feel well treated by the JREF. It's a family more than anything else.

Bottom line is.. if anyone thinks that we're working at the JREF for the money, they're crazy.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bottom line is.. if anyone thinks that we're working at the JREF for the money, they're crazy.

Yeah, but how much is a bale of hay?

That's why I want to know...

 

[The Atheist]

I knew an 82 year old that was making 190k a year. And I know a 59-year old who's making over $536,000 a year as the president of a 80 million dollar non-profit organization. Of course, that's not including his Lexus (a company car leased for his personal use) and other perks.

So, the 59-year old is being paid somewhat less than 1% of income, while Randi is getting somewhat more than 25%? Possibly not the best comparison.

 

[jmercer]

So, the 59-year old is being paid somewhat less than 1% of income, while Randi is getting somewhat more than 25%? Possibly not the best comparison.

It's an excellent comparison. It shows just how bogus the percentage game is.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, the 59-year old is being paid somewhat less than 1% of income, while Randi is getting somewhat more than 25%? Possibly not the best comparison.

You do understand that there can be vastly different workloads?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Nah - I switched contexts, and didn't make it clear - my fault. I was reaching from a for-profit analogy, because I don't work for a non-profit any more. (My last two jobs were non-profit organizations, though.)

What I was driving at was that a non-profit basically gets to keep all the money that comes in... so in the for-profit world, that's the equivalent of pure profit, not revenues.

I don't think so, unless I missed something, as it is having to pay the $175K out in salary to get that "profit."

Having picked that particular nit, however, I think your actual point is well-taken. Given that a major source of revenue is Randi's speaking fees (and the use of his name/goodwill), the figure seems easily justified.

 

[rsaavedra]

I wonder, who establishes CEO salaries of non-profit organizations? Their own founders, who then become the CEO's?

And what if a non-profit organization had total revenues of $175K. Would it make sense to have its CEO earn $175K? If not, then what if the total revenue of the organization were $250K? Still not? What if they were $300K?... In general, what would be the minimum reasonable total revenue of the organization to make its CEO's $175K salary reasonable?