Pages

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Why do People Working in Nonprofits make less money?


Photo By Daniel Suchenski
If you do quick search on-line for ‘non-profits’ you are bound to come across ‘how-tos’ and ‘what to expect…’ websites. For example Joanne Fritz writes in her article entitles Eight Tips for Jumping Ship: For-Profit to Nonprofit Career, suggests that you “Make sure that you can accept the likelihood that you will earn less money. Nonprofit work can be 5-10% lower for entry-level jobs and mid-level employees. For top positions, compensation can be as much as 50% lower than comparable corporate jobs.”[1] This begs the question, why do People Working in Nonprofits make less money?

            Often times nonprofits, rely on donations for their revenue and this is not always consistent from one year to the next. Indeed, many would argue that there is a compensation wage differential between for-profit and non-profit organizations that leads them to need to incentivize employees other than wages. Dwight Ueda writes that instead of high paid positions, many nonprofits employees often receive attractive benefits packages which could include “generous vacation time and sick pay, low premiums on medical and dental insurance, good retirement plans, tuition reimbursement, and sometimes a convenient or flexible work schedule without significant overtime.”[2] Ueda highlights that many universities are nonprofit entities and they can typically “offer the use of facilities such as gyms and libraries, and sometimes membership in credit unions with guaranteed low-interest loans and other attractive features.”

           According to Dan Pollatto “in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce, the more money you can make. But we don't like nonprofits to use money to incentivize people to produce more in social service. We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make very much money helping other people. Interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people. You know, you want to make 50 million dollars selling violent video games to kids, go for it. We'll put you on the cover of Wired magazine. But you want to make half a million dollars trying to cure kids of malaria, and you're considered a parasite yourself.”[3] He goes on to say that this is part of the reason why some successful professionals prefer to make a hefty salary donate a large percentage of it to charity and then sit on the board thus having money, and helping a charity rather than being the executive director of the charity outright. Perhaps that makes sense. Applying the cost-benefit analysis this does seem to be a better alternative. The for-profit professional is acting rational and is able to specialize in comparative advantage to the benefit of all.

            When recent college seniors at Cornell University were asked if they would rather work for the American Cancer Society or Camel cigarettes -all else being equal- almost “90 percent of them chose the American Cancer Society. When asked how much more they would have to be paid to induce them to switch to the Camel cigarettes job, their median response was a premium of $15,000 per year.”[4] This is another example of a compensating wage differential. As the cigarette company can’t hope to compete unless they offer a higher salary.

            In the end, there seems to be many reasons why people working in nonprofits make less money, but a large part of that explanation is due to a suppressed market equilibrium because there is a glass price cap on salaries and people who donate to charities don’t like seeing their money going to anyone’s salary. And in the nonprofit world, donations are king.



[1] http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitwork/tp/From-Profit-to-Nonprofit-Job.htm
[2] http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_Cat14_Ser70_Par149.html
[3] http://news.rapgenius.com/Dan-pallotta-the-way-we-think-about-charity-is-dead-wrong-lyrics
[4] Robert H Frank and Ben S. Bernanke, Principles of Microeconomics. 5th Edition. 2013 Mcgraw –Hill, page 342.

Why do Credit Cards still have raised numbers?


Photo By Daniel Suchenski
According to Creditcards.com, It once was necessary to have credit cards embossed, that is having the numbers raised above the surface of the card, that’s because “the common way of approving credit card transactions involved making a physical impression of the numbers via carbon packets and a "zip zap" machine.”[1] Today however, credit cards are rarely processed using this method. Indeed, as the world moves everyday toward more advanced payment methods like EMV (An international standard for smart credit cards that have a built-in CPU chip), why do credit cards still emboss their cards?

            The answer that seems most likely is that while the vast majority of people with credit cards don’t use the embossed feature, there remains a small minority that still takes advantage of the feature. If this is true then there is another issue that is raised. Since it requires an additional step to emboss the cards and the number and security information can be used manually input to process an order why are the credit card companies spending the money to emboss cards?

            As limited but persistent use of the cards by a minority seems unlikely from a simple cost analysis point of view, the answer must lie elsewhere. Without having relevant data to support this claim, it seems reasonable that the marginal benefit of not producing the cards embossed is at least as great as the marginal cost to change the manufacturing process to simply exclude the embossing stage. This cost-benefit principle also rings true for the efficiency principle. Not only is the added cost to emboss cards unnecessary and costly, this stage also delays the time between requesting a card and actually receiving it. These are both fundamental efficiency problems that diminish credit card issuers’ ability to more instantly gratify customers, while also saving money and time. This also seems like a good example of a low hanging fruit that, while it may not make as much money as other products and services of a large company is certainly a perfect example of a quick fix to a problem that is uncomplicated. This example is echoed in the principle of increasing opportunity costs. While it would only be a one time savings, it is far easier and simpler to make this manufacturing change than to come up with a more complex credit default swap to make money.

Given the above mentioned examples of why it makes more sense to discontinue the use of embossing credit cards why is it likely that we will continue to see them in the near-future? One possibility that was raised and the one that seems most plausible as the correct, or at least most, prevalent reason, is that people consider credit cards without embossed numbers to be “unreal”. The perception of the cards has a very strong correlation to their appearance. According to Chunk “One of the reasons that our company still issues embossed cards (in Europe) is that non embossed cards aren't taken seriously. This is obviously a public perception issue but when you have a piece of plastic with a printed PAN, expiry, etc., it just looks like a bit of a cheap imitation of a "real" card.”[2]



[1] http://www.creditcards.com/glossary/term-embossed.php
[2] http://portalsandrails.frbatlanta.org/cards/