6 ms·

Try arguing with less snark. Every comment like yours attacks the strawman that the CEO and employees should not get paid. Nobody is saying that. But I'm absol

Try arguing with less snark. Every comment like yours attacks the strawman that the CEO and employees should not get paid. Nobody is saying that. But I'm absolutely not going to donate anything while the CEO takes out over 800000 dollars in pay, and it looks distasteful to me to go around begging for donations.

dmayle 6y ago
Thank you. This is exactly what I meant, as well.
cosmodisk 6y ago
What do you think his salary should be that you'd feel comfortable to make a donation?
- JensRex 6y ago
  Significantly less. This feels like somebody setting up a GoFundMe to pay off their credit card debt. They paid their CEO an absurd salary, and now they need more money. That sounds like a you-problem.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    “They” would be fine getting even higher pay elsewhere working for private interests. The losers would be the general public who benefit from the education.
  - bbrree66 6y ago
    This is not even close to the same thing. If you don't want to donate, then don't. But this is a red herring. What you should be thinking about is the value he provides, not the absolute amount he is paid. The net positive effect of him running it and getting paid $800k is much higher than someone else who can't run things as well getting paid $100k. The goal is to maximize the output of the non-profit, not to keep salaries low. What you should care about is ROI on your dollars donated.
    - wegs 6y ago
      I think it's a false statement to say someone less expensive will run things less well. I've been at a number of not-for-profits, and that does not match my experience at all. Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care. $200 will bring people just as competent as $800k, but (1) your burn rate is lower (2) people are there for the mission (3) you can ask for donations in good faith. Depending on part of the country, you can step that down significantly, in turn. If you do want to invest extra money on people, a better place to spend that is stability and benefits (in the way universities do). I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee. I actually think a lot of the bad decisions by Khan Academy are related to misaligned incentive structures. Khan tries to keep a pretty deep moat protecting business models. The platform isn't open source. Partnerships are hard to come by. Research partnerships are exceptionally difficult (Khan data is a proprietary resources). There's a cult personality. Etc.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        > Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care. This is not realistic based on my experience with what motivates people. > I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee. Nature doesn’t offer guarantees on a lifetime timescale.
      - govg 6y ago
        You're joking if you think 200k will get you someone who manages an entire group like Khan Academy. That's the amount of money new graduates make out of their college in FANG, and in no way is what Khan does comparable to a generic software developer.
  - vowelless 6y ago
    You really think 800k is “absurd” money for what he does? Boy, I have news for you.
    - jrs235 6y ago
      Part of me thinks these folks making an issue of the CEOs pay and therefore not donating are trolls and that they may have interests in Coursera, edx, etc., and don't like having to compete with Khan Academy.
      - barry-cotter 6y ago
        EdX is also a non-profit.
        jrs235 6y ago
        Thank you. I did not know that.
  - fragmede 6y ago
    With a more revenue driven model (aka stop giving anything away for free), Kahn Academy would be deriving a lot more revenue from the added traffic. They are still giving away a significant amount of value away for free and asking for donations back. Someone set-up a GoFundMe for their credit card bill, which they ran up buying supplies to make masks for doctors in need. You are saying that, because they treated themselves to Olive Garden once for dinner, instead of only ever eating the cheapest thing off the McDonald's menu, that they need to repent. Meanwhile, actual fat cat CEOs are eating at $250/person steakhouses while raping the Earth. 800k is a lot of money, but it's really not for that sort of position. CEOs regularly make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The ones that famously don't, like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, are able to do so because they are already obscenely wealthy. Have you heard of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" Because that's what you're proposing here.
kharak 6y ago
I hold the position represented by Dan Palotta in this Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... There is nothing distasteful about non-profit CEOs wanting high pay. We're speaking about the founder of something that has and is helping millions of people around the world with arguably one of the most difficult and important educational needs. Khan Academy wouldn't be here without Khan himself and the world would be lesser for it. I see absolutely no reason why the CEO of such an organizations shouldn't paid in the same manner as for-profits. I'm snarky, because the implied notion of "people doing good instead of chasing profits don't deserve the same pay/good life" is nothing short of crazy to me.
- dirtydroog 6y ago
  There is something distasteful about them wanting high pay and extra donations to cover an unseen expense.
  - kharak 6y ago
    And you know already that Khan is going to take the same salary this year? This is just rationalization, be honest with yourself, you simply dislike the idea of Khan getting this much for himself, no matter what.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    $800k is an experienced engineer's salary where Khan Academy is based.
    - dirtydroog 6y ago
      Lol, what
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Khan Academy is based in Mountain View. There are plenty of engineers getting that annual compensation at Facebook/Google/Netflix.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
> it looks distasteful to me to go around begging for donations. Where do you think the money comes from to run the organization? They don't monetize their users. Asking for donations is a significant part of Sal Khan's job.

dmayle 6y ago

Thank you. This is exactly what I meant, as well.

cosmodisk 6y ago

What do you think his salary should be that you'd feel comfortable to make a donation?

JensRex 6y ago
Significantly less. This feels like somebody setting up a GoFundMe to pay off their credit card debt. They paid their CEO an absurd salary, and now they need more money. That sounds like a you-problem.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  “They” would be fine getting even higher pay elsewhere working for private interests. The losers would be the general public who benefit from the education.
- bbrree66 6y ago
  This is not even close to the same thing. If you don't want to donate, then don't. But this is a red herring. What you should be thinking about is the value he provides, not the absolute amount he is paid. The net positive effect of him running it and getting paid $800k is much higher than someone else who can't run things as well getting paid $100k. The goal is to maximize the output of the non-profit, not to keep salaries low. What you should care about is ROI on your dollars donated.
  - wegs 6y ago
    I think it's a false statement to say someone less expensive will run things less well. I've been at a number of not-for-profits, and that does not match my experience at all. Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care. $200 will bring people just as competent as $800k, but (1) your burn rate is lower (2) people are there for the mission (3) you can ask for donations in good faith. Depending on part of the country, you can step that down significantly, in turn. If you do want to invest extra money on people, a better place to spend that is stability and benefits (in the way universities do). I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee. I actually think a lot of the bad decisions by Khan Academy are related to misaligned incentive structures. Khan tries to keep a pretty deep moat protecting business models. The platform isn't open source. Partnerships are hard to come by. Research partnerships are exceptionally difficult (Khan data is a proprietary resources). There's a cult personality. Etc.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      > Compensation should be set at a level where people don't need to worry about money, with a reasonable but basic standard of living. In the Bay, unfortunately, that's around $200k. On the other hand, compensation should not be set at a level where people are there for the money. You want people to be there because they are passionate and care. This is not realistic based on my experience with what motivates people. > I'd gladly take a job for $200k with a lifetime guarantee of doing meaningful work over one at $800k without that guarantee. Nature doesn’t offer guarantees on a lifetime timescale.
    - govg 6y ago
      You're joking if you think 200k will get you someone who manages an entire group like Khan Academy. That's the amount of money new graduates make out of their college in FANG, and in no way is what Khan does comparable to a generic software developer.
- vowelless 6y ago
  You really think 800k is “absurd” money for what he does? Boy, I have news for you.
  - jrs235 6y ago
    Part of me thinks these folks making an issue of the CEOs pay and therefore not donating are trolls and that they may have interests in Coursera, edx, etc., and don't like having to compete with Khan Academy.
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      EdX is also a non-profit.
      - jrs235 6y ago
        Thank you. I did not know that.
- fragmede 6y ago
  With a more revenue driven model (aka stop giving anything away for free), Kahn Academy would be deriving a lot more revenue from the added traffic. They are still giving away a significant amount of value away for free and asking for donations back. Someone set-up a GoFundMe for their credit card bill, which they ran up buying supplies to make masks for doctors in need. You are saying that, because they treated themselves to Olive Garden once for dinner, instead of only ever eating the cheapest thing off the McDonald's menu, that they need to repent. Meanwhile, actual fat cat CEOs are eating at $250/person steakhouses while raping the Earth. 800k is a lot of money, but it's really not for that sort of position. CEOs regularly make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The ones that famously don't, like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, are able to do so because they are already obscenely wealthy. Have you heard of the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" Because that's what you're proposing here.

kharak 6y ago

I hold the position represented by Dan Palotta in this Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... There is nothing distasteful about non-profit CEOs wanting high pay. We're speaking about the founder of something that has and is helping millions of people around the world with arguably one of the most difficult and important educational needs. Khan Academy wouldn't be here without Khan himself and the world would be lesser for it. I see absolutely no reason why the CEO of such an organizations shouldn't paid in the same manner as for-profits. I'm snarky, because the implied notion of "people doing good instead of chasing profits don't deserve the same pay/good life" is nothing short of crazy to me.

dirtydroog 6y ago
There is something distasteful about them wanting high pay and extra donations to cover an unseen expense.
- kharak 6y ago
  And you know already that Khan is going to take the same salary this year? This is just rationalization, be honest with yourself, you simply dislike the idea of Khan getting this much for himself, no matter what.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  $800k is an experienced engineer's salary where Khan Academy is based.
  - dirtydroog 6y ago
    Lol, what
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      Khan Academy is based in Mountain View. There are plenty of engineers getting that annual compensation at Facebook/Google/Netflix.

lern_too_spel 6y ago

> it looks distasteful to me to go around begging for donations. Where do you think the money comes from to run the organization? They don't monetize their users. Asking for donations is a significant part of Sal Khan's job.