The Sin in Doing Good Deeds

As a result, more resources would be allocated for the problems in more wealthy nations (ie. cancer), while problems in poorer regions would be neglected (ie. maleria). The same problem would exist even within a nation through existing class divisions.

While this schism already exists today, an increase of for-profit aid organizations/charities will probably exacerbate this divide.

In the end, this discussion opens a whole host of ethical issues and philosophical questions. Life is rarely simple.

There are lots of businesses that do good work for people. The tricky part is when you're soliciting for donations, you just need to be extremely transparent about where the money is going.

What we need is not a rethinking of what a charity can be, but a rethinking of what a business can be.

For example, Marx said that more capitalism logically leads to subsistence living conditions for the workers. He gave arguments for this. I think they are mistaken, but if you are wondering why people think profit is evil, that's a reason. Marx said that without fraud or coercion, and just free trade, most people will have very bad lives.

And, yes, obviously one can live in the US for a lot less than minimum wage, and be doing a lot better than the subsistence conditions Marx had in mind from his own time period. So Marxism is blatantly, factually inapplicable to the US (whether that's b/c Marxism is false, or b/c the US has been saved by it's non-pure capitalism with govt intervention is not obvious just from the plain facts). Why people are blind to this is a tough question.

So, for the most part, my guess is that $500,000+ salaries are a form of rent seeking, and are not justified in the so-called marketplace.

It'd be nice if someone could crash together the stats and see if this intuition bears out. You know, look at percentage of donations used to actually help their stated cause, and see if having a super-star CEO actually results in a more well-capitalized charity.

I doubt it, but I depend on evidence, not ideology.

Unless the donator is aware of the fact that you are paying your employees with the donations, and choose to give anyway. In fact, most large charities have employees who get paid, usually out of donations :). But you don't make your decision based on their management process, but based on the service they provide you; namely aiding some cause on your behalf.

You don't decide whether or not to buy a burger at McDonald's based on what percentage of your dollar goes to the CEO, but based on the quality of the service they may provide. Same with charities. If a charity can get away with paying exorbitant amounts to their CEO and still be the best value per dollar, people will donate, and it won't be wrong. Maybe the reason they do so well is that they were able to hire great high level management.

However, to convince people that you were going to spend their money one way and then actually spend it another is fraud. If you paid McDonald's for your burger, and they didn't give it to you, you would be within your rights to sue. At the very least you wouldn't go back. So it is with charities.

It is perfectly fine if you feel that a particular charity spends too much on management, and therefore decide not to donate your money to them. I realize that you may have been stating your personal opinion as to how you decide which charities you donate to, and that's fine. But to then claim in newspapers or other places that because they don't match your standards they are objectively evil and should be shut down/boycotted is a completely different thing. I think that is more what the article is about.