Money vs. Making a Difference

[MsRiss7383]

Originally Posted by PenforPrez

A former QLCer I know from Dallas works for a non-profit and the atmosphere was just killing her. From what I could gather, it was more that nobody knew what they were doing, and it just took a toll. She's now telecommuting from home most of the time, and she's much happier.

We were discussing non-profits the other day. I asked her how non-profits can expect to make problems go away when true change is out of our hands entirely. She explained to me that most non-profits don't want to cure problems; that would take away their whole raison d'être. She said that instead, they want to make problems more manageable.

I replied, "So they're like drug companies in that regard."

"Exactly."



Paul

No offense to your friend, but I think that if you are working for a non-profit for some kind of external validation, you may be in the wrong field. Your satisfaction would need to come from within. Also, I think that if you are working for an organization that is hoping to end a social problem, your goal really should be to put yourself out of business (not that this would ever happen) and if this hypothetically worked, you could move on to the next problem. There is an endless stream of problems out there. Just my opinion on the issue....

[gemma-dahl]

For OP: I would balance the two, were I making the choice. I can't do something I hate for a living, because it infects everything else in my life. There is something to be said for the notion that "a job is just a job," but I am such an anxious person, and I really need to be passionate about my work, so this is not a motto that works for me. I also can't live on nothing, however. I did this when I was starting out, as well as working as many as four jobs at a time, and it was very difficult, I got sick often, etc.

There is non-profit work that pays more than 12-13 an hour. Consider positions in different fields that offer more flexible hours and working conditions. On the average (though there are many exceptions, of course), corporations and corporate-like environments, including hospitals and universities, provide the best benefits and perks - but you might find other factors such as flex time or larger bonuses in a different environment.

Regarding having money vs not, that is probably one of the oldest debates in the world - and another one with no "correct" position. It’s another area where I feel generalizations don’t do justice…many people who grew up with little still don’t value money above career passion (some of whom post on this board), other people, who have lots, still lust after getting even richer, etc. It’s just as contentious as healthcare, as far as debates go.

[Minipan]

Speaking from experience, working at a University isn't really that much different than the corporate world. There are pros and cons to each, but it's not really the kind of thing you should take a huge paycut for.

[wordsmith]

Working for a large nonprofit is also no different than many corporate environments. With size comes more intense politics, red tape, hierarchical quirks, policy issues, etc. no matter what your tax code designation.

I have generally been most comfortable in my time with small companies and organizations, some nonprofit, some for-profit. You sometimes do sacrifice pay for a smaller outfit (and often vacation time, since there are fewer people to pick up slack), but not always. I'm sure I've made more and had a more generous vacation package when I've worked for smaller outfits than some people who've worked for larger. It's not an iron-clad rule.

[Rage]

Originally Posted by MsRiss7383

There are two things going on here. One is I want to work at a job where I have the money to travel. Two is I want to work at job where I can help bring about positive change in the world. These two things so far have proven to be mutually exclusive. But I am still going to keep looking.

Have you thought of applying to work for the federal government, or a government contractor? There is decent money to be made, and it's like working at a non-profit, without the cushy feely (depending what department of the gov I imagine though). If you can apply your skills in HR to certain departments, there's an opportunity for travel too.

You mentioned being sick of HR, but I just plugged that in to USAJobs and it looks like there are a few opportunities worldwide at varying pay levels.

http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/search....uman+resources

[cazort]

Maybe in the long-run it would be good to discipline yourself. I could live comfortably off $12-$13 an hour, although I typically earn much more than that. Why would you be in such a pinch? Do you have loans or debt to pay off? Do you live a lavish lifestyle? Do you have expensive medical costs, people to support? Where does your money go? Denver isn't the cheapest place but it's certainly not like D.C., NYC, or Boston.

There are likely ways in which you can greatly reduce your life expenditures even in the short-term. Write out a budget and track your spending. Figure out how to reduce it. You will likely be able to reduce it greatly without reducing your quality of life much.

Then you will have increased flexibility...suddenly instead of facing a tradeoff between two seemingly bad choices, you'll be facing a tradeoff between two great choices...having a low-paying job that you can comfortably live off of, vs. having a high-paying job where you are raking in the cash.

[MsRiss7383]

I do have quite a bit of debt. My husband has a student loan payment of over $600/month and we have $15,000 in credit card debt(!) so we have a lot of that to deal with...

[PenforPrez]

Originally Posted by MsRiss7383

No offense to your friend, but I think that if you are working for a non-profit for some kind of external validation, you may be in the wrong field. Your satisfaction would need to come from within. Also, I think that if you are working for an organization that is hoping to end a social problem, your goal really should be to put yourself out of business (not that this would ever happen) and if this hypothetically worked, you could move on to the next problem. There is an endless stream of problems out there. Just my opinion on the issue....

I was the person who was misguided. I'm now better informed. She's in non-profit work because she didn't do very well in teaching and she's like me in that neither of us would survive any amount of time in corporate America. It made a lot of sense to her, but she's also like me in that she doesn't have any concrete career goals either.

Paul

[chicagogirl]

If I had to do it over again, I would go into corporate. Working in non-profit has just as many issues, and they work you just as much (ok, maybe not as hard as my lawyer friends), all for less pay. I would rather get paid more, and be able to give my time and money to non-profit groups than go home exhausted daily and feel rather useless.

[winneythepooh7]

I think there is also a way to find a decent middle ground. Right now I work for a for-profit home care agency, and while I don't agree with everything the agency stands for, I do enjoy MY work on a personal level. I have my own caseload and get satisfaction from providing services to them directly. I also don't make millions, but I think I am paid a fair salary for the amount of work that I do. I also make enough that I am still able to set aside a good amount of $$$$ in savings for whatever I may want to do with that $$$$ down the road.

[Echo]

Reading some of the posts on here you would be led to believe that working in a non-profit is just as bad as working for a corporation and just as annoying and soulless.

You could have the dream life and job you wanted - all you have to do is move to the UK!

Here jobs at non-profits are well paid - on an equal footing as teaching, the companies/charities usually operate a very good pension scheme, you don't have to worry about medical insurance as you have full access to the National Health Service even as an American citizen on a work visa, you usually get 28-35 days paid vacation a year(not counting public holidays), work only 37 hours a week Monday-Friday, get flexible working arrangments if you have children, can take breaks to have children.

As for the comment someone made about charities not wanting to solve the root problem - that is so cynical! It is not the charity's responsibility to change the world at the most fundamental level - that is for the government to tackle. The purpose of a charity is to change the world in a holistic, non-violent way and to distance itself from politics.

There are some charities that change over time to provide services to people in a changing world, for example in England in the 1880s, a certain Dr Barnardo founded a charity to look after destitute children in the slums of London's East End...100 years later it doesn't do that anymore, it provides services to young offenders, children in care and trafficked children. Meaning, they're not involved in a sinister plan to keep children in the position they are so that the charity can continue to exist.

[wordsmith]

Originally Posted by Echo

Reading some of the posts on here you would be led to believe that working in a non-profit is just as bad as working for a corporation and just as annoying and soulless.

No, really, what people (including myself) are saying is that the workplace atmosphere in nonprofit CAN be identical to for-profit, depending on what organizations/employers you're talking about. It's not an accurate assumption that non-profit always = unconventional, "outside the box work" environment, because many are also very conventionally, traditionally structured. Likewise, it's unwise to assume that all jobs in the for-profit sector have that conventional office structure and the cliche atmosphere and politics. I've worked for both non-profit and for-profit employers whose workplace structure has matched both descriptions (and, by far, the most red-tapey, heirarchically driven, and politically structured job I've ever had happened to be for a large nonprofit). In any case, you really have to assess each workplace on its own, individual characteristics and methods. There are no hard and fast rules.

[vinsanity]

Originally Posted by Echo

Reading some of the posts on here you would be led to believe that working in a non-profit is just as bad as working for a corporation and just as annoying and soulless.

You could have the dream life and job you wanted - all you have to do is move to the UK!

Here jobs at non-profits are well paid - on an equal footing as teaching, the companies/charities usually operate a very good pension scheme, you don't have to worry about medical insurance as you have full access to the National Health Service even as an American citizen on a work visa, you usually get 28-35 days paid vacation a year(not counting public holidays), work only 37 hours a week Monday-Friday, get flexible working arrangments if you have children, can take breaks to have children.

Yeah, but what can you tell us about tax rates and cost of living in the UK, let alone in London where you live?

As for the comment someone made about charities not wanting to solve the root problem - that is so cynical! It is not the charity's responsibility to change the world at the most fundamental level - that is for the government to tackle. The purpose of a charity is to change the world in a holistic, non-violent way and to distance itself from politics.

Yeah, but like Paul said, both sectors have to take on a manageable share of the problem. It's just as absurd to expect government to fix all the world's problems as it is to expect charities to do so.

[Echo]

The cost of living in London is high, which means it's hard for first-time buyers to get on the property ladder unless their parents pay for their deposits on the mortgage. However, other areas of the UK are much cheaper to live in and their salaries are almost as high as London salaries.

And we probably do pay higher taxes than you guys, but we don't have to worry about healthcare (which, correct me if I'm wrong, costs a lot in America in terms of monthly payments to insurance companies).

It's true that some non-profit organisations can have very rigid hierarchies and can be soulless places to work in - I can tell you that from my experience of working in Social Services - but that's because they're funded by the government. When they are charitable organisations they give their workers far more freedom and individuality. And yes, you do get jobs in a charity where you spend the majority of your time in an office, but they are far more likely to be jobs where you go out into the community on certain days of the week and don't have the same horribly repressive atmosphere of a corporate office where you are expected to live and breathe the corporation.

I don't think it's being in an office per se that depresses people, it's the job itself and the people they work with.

[anichka]

I'd rather pay higher taxes and have a peace of mind than pay lower taxes, but spend thousands on healthcare in (addition to the thousands I already spend on monthly premiums) and have 86K in student loans (mine and hubby's combined). What's great about Canadian and European systems is that if you ever find yourself ill, pregnant, out of work, etc. you get help from the government. The more generous European nations (and Canada) consistently rank at the top among developed nations as far as quality of life goes - and their taxes are the highest in the world. Guess who's consistently at the bottom (post-Reagan years, of course, when a lot of people were convinced that lower taxes was a GOOD thing, while the government borrowed from social security like nobody's business)?