One, non-profits are worse by design, being both a tax write-off and deliberately exploitative entities, and two, any government that goes it has to work against number of international interests, each of which probably gets more income than many country’s economy. Companies are centrally planned by their CEO and board of directors, your statement makes no sense. The only difference is in what they are willing to do and were they are willing to go, where the real difference is not having to give a shit about your workers or consumers.
I work in a non profit healthcare company and the first part of your statement is bullshit. No comment on the rest of it though but non profit can work just fine.
Basically, as bad as healthcare, but they can get tax-free incentives. Good luck for the diamond in the rough you claim to belong to, but it’s far, far, far from the norm and it comes with hidden costs.
Has anyone ever told you the world is bigger than the US? Because it is, and I’m from there. That’s why healthcare isn’t a problem no matter what type of company I work in (if I even work). So maybe working non-profit in the US is unfair, but it is just as working for a normal organisation here in Europe.
Sorry, bud, I have universal healthcare in Europe. Nice try. No need for “non-profit (tax-subsidized private) healthcare”, at least not at the citizen level of the country I’m at where we do get it. The only one who seems stuck in the US bubble is you & company. But if you want, there are plenty of sites for European non-profits too, feel free to provide an specific example as I am able to do instead of moving from vague to vague and I’ll take your claim more seriously than what a bunch of meaningless Internet points gives it.
I’m sorry but your comment confuses me a bit. You specifically link to a US based article, and mention how bad non-profit organisations are. One of the things you mention as being bad about it (and why it doesn’t work) is because you don’t get healthcare.
Then I mention that this is not true for at least some other regions of the world, and I know that from personal experience, but now your saying I’m wrong? Or do you want me to share where I work?
I must just be misunderstanding your comment for sure, so please elaborate what you mean.
I linked to the first example I could find, which didn’t take very long, and then you are playing yourself by claiming I said things I never said “One of the things you mention as being bad about it (and why it doesn’t work) is because you don’t get healthcare” I get plenty of healthcare because I live in a country with universal healthcare. It’s the shitty ones that don’t have it that usually have to deal with the concept of “non-profit” healthcare, which rapidly becomes stained by the for the for-profit industry surrounding it.
Meanwhile, you provide zero examples, and continue providing zero examples, even though I’m giving you the liberty to provide any, even those that have nothing to do with your work, because of how likely I consider the task of providing the counter-evidence to any example you can provide me.
Yeah, sorry bud, you are going to have to participate and not just nitpick every example with whatever you consider the weakest part of it while you continue making unsupported premises. Maybe your upvote/downvote circlejerk can provide one if you are so afraid to, but I’m not going to assume that any example mentioned is that of where you work. If you really work in any industry, non-profit or otherwise, you should have plenty of examples from collaborating and competing entities at the very least.
non-profits are worse by design, being both a tax write-off and deliberately exploitative entities
They work worse and act as an excuse not to offer universal care
I have universal healthcare
You keep going on about me providing proof but you are the one making a bold statement. You disprove the one example you provide because that’s clearly caused by the healthcare situation in general in that country.
So how do you expect me to provide proof of healthy and normal non-profit companies not being evil? That’s no news, there’s no article saying “company is ethical and normal”.
You claim that non-profit companies are exploitative by design, but any proof you provide will always be anecdotal. I told you from personal experience that I have seen multiple that are just fine. My proof will also always be anecdotal. But I’m not the one making a claim about the entire system of non-profit organisations, I’m saying that although it might sometimes be exploitative, I know it’s not always from personal experience.
As you’re generalising the entire system of non-profit organisations, the burden of proof is on you.
Of course it isn’t, I’m not arguing for for-profit universal healthcare, where did you get that impression? I’m arguing against non-profits being used as tax-free launderers without any real benefits that also seem to want to get their low level workers to work for free while the CEOs cash in a nice salary.
Take your choice between mainstream non-relevance, free reusable software projects for large enterprises with small or next to nothing labor costs, political fronts, while also being far from the norm of how non-profits are used. You used the term “non-working”, not me, but it’s quite apt. If FSF and the Linux Foundation are worth anything, is because of the trust one can place in their central leadership, but their licenses get ignored all the time internationally and no amount of lawyers and money can overcome that. Even in regards to Ukranian and anti-Putin support, most of it is coming from the mainstream because that’s where the people are, crumbs don’t make an argument.
One, non-profits are worse by design, being both a tax write-off and deliberately exploitative entities, and two, any government that goes it has to work against number of international interests, each of which probably gets more income than many country’s economy. Companies are centrally planned by their CEO and board of directors, your statement makes no sense. The only difference is in what they are willing to do and were they are willing to go, where the real difference is not having to give a shit about your workers or consumers.
I work in a non profit healthcare company and the first part of your statement is bullshit. No comment on the rest of it though but non profit can work just fine.
They work worse and act as an excuse not to offer universal care, so I disagree. Talk to these guys about just how good non-profit healthcare is … https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/orlando/profile/hospital/adventhealth-0733-160528155/customer-reviews
Basically, as bad as healthcare, but they can get tax-free incentives. Good luck for the diamond in the rough you claim to belong to, but it’s far, far, far from the norm and it comes with hidden costs.
Has anyone ever told you the world is bigger than the US? Because it is, and I’m from there. That’s why healthcare isn’t a problem no matter what type of company I work in (if I even work). So maybe working non-profit in the US is unfair, but it is just as working for a normal organisation here in Europe.
Sorry, bud, I have universal healthcare in Europe. Nice try. No need for “non-profit (tax-subsidized private) healthcare”, at least not at the citizen level of the country I’m at where we do get it. The only one who seems stuck in the US bubble is you & company. But if you want, there are plenty of sites for European non-profits too, feel free to provide an specific example as I am able to do instead of moving from vague to vague and I’ll take your claim more seriously than what a bunch of meaningless Internet points gives it.
I’m sorry but your comment confuses me a bit. You specifically link to a US based article, and mention how bad non-profit organisations are. One of the things you mention as being bad about it (and why it doesn’t work) is because you don’t get healthcare.
Then I mention that this is not true for at least some other regions of the world, and I know that from personal experience, but now your saying I’m wrong? Or do you want me to share where I work?
I must just be misunderstanding your comment for sure, so please elaborate what you mean.
I linked to the first example I could find, which didn’t take very long, and then you are playing yourself by claiming I said things I never said “One of the things you mention as being bad about it (and why it doesn’t work) is because you don’t get healthcare” I get plenty of healthcare because I live in a country with universal healthcare. It’s the shitty ones that don’t have it that usually have to deal with the concept of “non-profit” healthcare, which rapidly becomes stained by the for the for-profit industry surrounding it.
Meanwhile, you provide zero examples, and continue providing zero examples, even though I’m giving you the liberty to provide any, even those that have nothing to do with your work, because of how likely I consider the task of providing the counter-evidence to any example you can provide me.
Yeah, sorry bud, you are going to have to participate and not just nitpick every example with whatever you consider the weakest part of it while you continue making unsupported premises. Maybe your upvote/downvote circlejerk can provide one if you are so afraid to, but I’m not going to assume that any example mentioned is that of where you work. If you really work in any industry, non-profit or otherwise, you should have plenty of examples from collaborating and competing entities at the very least.
You keep going on about me providing proof but you are the one making a bold statement. You disprove the one example you provide because that’s clearly caused by the healthcare situation in general in that country.
So how do you expect me to provide proof of healthy and normal non-profit companies not being evil? That’s no news, there’s no article saying “company is ethical and normal”.
You claim that non-profit companies are exploitative by design, but any proof you provide will always be anecdotal. I told you from personal experience that I have seen multiple that are just fine. My proof will also always be anecdotal. But I’m not the one making a claim about the entire system of non-profit organisations, I’m saying that although it might sometimes be exploitative, I know it’s not always from personal experience.
As you’re generalising the entire system of non-profit organisations, the burden of proof is on you.
Right, keep circlejerking to yourself and company, bud.
Universal healthcare can’t be for-profit btw
Of course it isn’t, I’m not arguing for for-profit universal healthcare, where did you get that impression? I’m arguing against non-profits being used as tax-free launderers without any real benefits that also seem to want to get their low level workers to work for free while the CEOs cash in a nice salary.
deleted by creator
List of “non-working” non-profits: FSF, KDE e.v., Linux Foundation, Agora and Anti-Corruption Foundation.
Take your choice between mainstream non-relevance, free reusable software projects for large enterprises with small or next to nothing labor costs, political fronts, while also being far from the norm of how non-profits are used. You used the term “non-working”, not me, but it’s quite apt. If FSF and the Linux Foundation are worth anything, is because of the trust one can place in their central leadership, but their licenses get ignored all the time internationally and no amount of lawyers and money can overcome that. Even in regards to Ukranian and anti-Putin support, most of it is coming from the mainstream because that’s where the people are, crumbs don’t make an argument.