Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
I was planning to donate the couple bucks I had left over from the year to the charity called “San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance”, I was doing a background check on CharityNavigator and they gave the charity full ratings so it seemed good.
Then I stumbled upon the salary section. What the fuck? I earn <20k a year and was planning to contribute to someone’s million dollar salary? WHAT.
Unpopular opinion: “top talent” is a meaningless capitalistic word to justify crazy wealth disparities
I say this as someone who went to one of the “highest ranked” unis in the world. Most of all this prestige and “top talent” stuff is bullshit designed to keep the rich rich.
So why don't you go work for a charity for 25k american a year? I'm sure you can do a much better job than overpaid C staff and pass all the rest of the money on to the actual cause, right? After all, you went to one of the best unis in the WHOLE world.
Plenty of non-american charities dont over pay people. You would expect people who work in charity to not be greedy. Greed is when you take more than you should because you think you deserve it.
If an exec can work two places and one pays an exorbitant amount but the other is a good cause, it would be altruistic to go to the good cause. If in the same situation the two places pay the same, I'm not sure it's greed if you don't give some back. The problem is that c suite folks in general are chronically overpaid. So the argument is that people who are very competent but don't care about a cause should... take less money on principle I guess?
I mean sure I agree it seems ridiculous for charities to pay 8 figure salaries, but from a micro economics standpoint it doesn't really make sense to walk away from an 8 figure salary to work for a charity either. Maybe it makes sense if you are already retired or it is your life passion, but that pool of people may be pretty small and maybe not hugely competitive.
Competent people who don't care about the cause shouldnt take the job at all. People earning 8 figures shouldnt expect to make the same at a charity. Greed and altruism are values or qualities a person can possess and I dont think they can exist in the same person.
The United Health CEO thought he was altruistic, his family does as well. Its pretty clear the vast majority of people see greed there, not altruism.
Greedy people simply shouldnt be in charge of helping people.
I don't think anyone is deluded enough to think for-profit insurance does anything altruistic. There is comparison at all between UHC and a charity.
In a purely ideological way I see and understand what you're saying. In practice what I read from your message is "Charities should pay less and take who they can get". Maybe there's a competent altruist, and then maybe charities and nonprofits that don't get competent staff at a "charity appropriate salary point" can just... dissolve or something? And they should do that whether they have the money to pay more or not, because charities paying more money is just flat distasteful.
Essentially you have it right, although I wouldnt say charities should dissolve as a rule. If there aren't enough people to do the work with the right goal in mind though I dont think the answer is to pay more and get capitalists in the door.
I have a strong aversion to greed minded people in general though so I'm very biased here.
Try interacting with offshore contractors who were hired to cut costs.
The board are fiduciaries. They have to do the math to prove hiring a more expensive CEO is ultimately better than not.
It doesn't seem like an unpopular opinion at all
Partly agree there. Top talent in this context doesnt have to mean you are an expert at something. It usually just means you are worth a lot of money because having you generates even more money.
Imagine making 50k and generating 100Mio a year in protif for your company (doesnt matter how, maybe you just know the right people, Biden is your cousin or something). Wouldnt you feel exploited? Some other company might offer you 500k, bevause they know its still more than worth it.
Cool, so americans will do anything for money. Even in charities. Is that what you want to hang your hat on? Its awful behavior and the OP is right to highlight the hypocrisy of a charity CEO making over 10 times the cost of living.
A person leading a charity shouldnt have such an ego that they think they deserve so much more than anyone else. How could they possibly understand the concept of charity?
My point wasnt that it is morally right, which it isnt. But OP made it sound like some evil masterminds are pulling the strings so rich people can stay in power, when it is simply people doing whats best for themselves. People are being judgemental but I think most wouldnt sacrifice 90% of their paycheck 'because its the right thing to do'. Most people already earn 10 or 100 times more than people in Africa for example and are still buying from Amazon or temu contributing to exploitation. When people have the chance to make/save lots of money, they usually take it.
Its not simply people doing what's best for the selves, its greedy parents who have raised greedy children who grow up thinking their job title and bank account number represent who they are. They could choose any other values to pursue in life but actively choose greed each day.
The catalyst to change oneself comes from within, so I hold people responsible who refuse to learn or change.