So.... there are these things called non-profits and the "non-profit sector", which is sort of a big deal. Much bigger then I had previously realized, in fact. I had no idea it was such a large part of the economy, GDP, employed so many people, etc. I have, however, always known the importance of them in our society, and these readings only solidified that feeling. Something I found interesting (from Non-Profit Nation Ch.1): the sector accounts for 5-10% of the nations economy. At the same time, only 1.8% of US personal income was contributed. These aren't completely related statistics, but something worthy of consideration. In a place where non-profit, philanthropic operations account for that much of our nations revenue, we are only contributing a very small portion of it back. Seems somewhat contradictory.
Another interesting part in all of this is the religious factor (as we know from the annoyingly extended in-class debate). Religious entities make up a large portion of the sector, and have lots and lots of money. Yet they aren't required to report to the IRS because of the separation of church-state aspect (which I feel should be upheld at almost any cost). Then there are all these "counting" problems because firms aren't required to report if their revenue was under $25,000. Then there's the fact that the federal code for non-profits is a big, headache giving mess. So I'm guessing there's lots of smart people (past, present, and future) that are figuring out ways to cheat the system, with many different techniques and for many different reasons. I'm wondering, which I'm sure will be addressed later in the class, how all of this is regulated.
I think Chapter 2, theories on the evolution of the non-profit paradigm, was somewhat interesting. The first theory of this was that people assumed non-profit services and goods were superior because those firms weren't trying to cut costs at every corner. That didn't really make sense to me. Personally, I would expect non-profits to provide a service or do a job in a simplistic fashion, and for profits try to wow me and draw me in with a flashy, high quality, addicting good. So I'm not sure that was entirely accurate, although it was just a theory I suppose. The other theories made more sense to me.
Carnegie was pretty on-point with his analysis, I think. Most of what he said (or wrote) made complete sense to me and was even fairly inspiring. I'm not from a wealthy family or really had any reason to ponder what a filthy rich person should do with their money towards the end of their life. The 3 options put that in perspective for me, and I couldn't agree more with the conclusion that administering it in one's own lifetime was the only worthy action. To "place upon others the burden of the work which it was his own duty to perform, is to do nothing worthy". Great quote, and I think it would make a lot of crusty old rich people out there sweat, because it is my perception that most of them really are addicted to their wealth and are unable to dump huge amounts (proportions, I should say) while they are still alive. I also liked the section about his friend giving a quarter to a beggar. I had never thought of it as "I'll do better things with this money then he will", but that does make sense, although I think that could also possibly be an excuse for being an arrogant, greedy a**hole.
All in all, pretty good stuff.
Greg- How churches play into the nonprofit sector was something that really interested me too. It's crazy to think that no one really knows how much money is contributed to churches as a whole, but it's interesting to think about why people give so much money to churches, like because they feel morally obligated to or whatnot. The first theory in chapter two confused me as well. You would think that nonprofits are thrifty and are just looking for cheap ways to do things with the finances that they have available to them. Carnegie's reading really made me think about athletes who make millions of dollars and yet you rarely hear of them donating it and giving it away, instead it is usually spent on huge houses and fancy cars.
ReplyDeleteGreg,
ReplyDeleteI think that the theory that you are confused about makes sense to me. I think that if you have the non profits that are providing a community with say something like housing, I don't think that you would want them to cut corners, and I don't think you would want them to try to build ten more houses, at the expense of the quality of work on those houses, especially if those houses were going to lower income families, because they will probably not have the means to fix something that wasn't constructed right. So to me, I think the theory makes sense, but I could be completely wrong.. As far as Carnegies reading, we all know my viewpoint, but I do see how those with significant amounts of money could be connected so much. Many of them had to work hard for their money, and those that didn't, probably feel some sort of family pressure to do something "family worthy" with their money..
I enjoyed your analysis.. made me think.. dang you.. :)
Thought provoking blog, however, a**hole doesn't belong in an academic discourse, except when quoting a relevant document.
ReplyDelete