Were lots of DC-area professionals overpaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

How do you know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

+1 to all of this. PP will have to get back to you after Fox News and the brain worm tell him how to respond though.

Based on his comments I suspect the job he does is some low productivity, easily disposable job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

There many resources for evaluating nonprofits, such as GuideStar and CharityNavigator. The NGO discussed here was platinum rated for managing costs and effectiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

If you are going to talk smack. Bring receipts:

The above nonprofit she worked for was CNFA. She wasn’t anywhere near the highest paid.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521447902/202511399349301581/full

CNFA (Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture) demonstrates strong financial efficiency, directing approximately 82% of its $70M budget toward program services and direct aid. With an overhead ratio of roughly 18% (14.4% management and 3.2% fundraising), the organization maintains a healthy balance between mission delivery and administrative stability. CNFA holds a Gold or Platinum Seal of Transparency on Candid and a three-star rating from Charity Navigator, making it a highly transparent and efficient choice for donors focused on global food security.

The money is spent on boots-on-the-ground technical training, equipment grants for small businesses, and infrastructure (like warehouses and irrigation) across approximately 16 countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

The USAID budget is public, please list how it was spent on “libs” pet projects.

These financials show a “non-profit” where the compensation packages for the president ($675k) and next 6 highest paid employees total $2.85 million/year. (Avg $407k)

This is for a “non-profit” with only 100 employees. These aren’t lawyers, or doctors… these are the “executives” of a 100 person “non-profit.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

How do you know this?

I've seen it up close and personal; seen these organizations waste tons flying in consultants from out-of-country instead of hiring cheaper locals who know the country dynamics and political economy better; seen these workers prioritize racking up hotel and flight points and planning and timing itineraries to visit their friends abroad on the government dime; seen the horrible morale, favoritism and cronyism that drives actual useful talents away; seen them waste thousands if not millions on drafting "reports" that go nowhere and do nothing but give the illusion of activity; seen them stacking boards with personal friends to limit the accountability mechanism on how the place is actually run. I also know people who are executive directors who complain about how useless and entitled a lot of the workers in this sector are; whilst still having outsized self images regarding the gifts they bring to the table. T'hey'll only whisper it though, because many of these things are not to be spoken out loud.

I'm sorry but citing some organizations that are themselves part of the non-profit industrial complex (which, btw, is benchmarking against other non-profits) is not some magic answer as to why these "skills" are transferrable and command a high wage outside of said sector. Some are good, but a lot are up to these shenanigans and are crumbling under the weight of even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, which they've skirted for so long. If you are in a closed ecosystem, it does not mean those "skills" stand up to scrutiny when you actually have to execute and compete under pressure and threat of being terminated rather than coasting on the largesse of a single, fat benefactor. Citing tech workers and bankers is also dumb. People assume those jobs knowing layoffs are part of the game and the jig could be up at any given moment. No one is writing reams of think pieces profiling Jared the Managing Director from Morgan Stanley or Chad the Principal Engineer from Meta and lamenting the difficulties of his job hunt and begging for sympathy. Plus, a lot of software engineers out of a job simply freelance or coast until they find a job of their liking because...their skills are in demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

+1 to all of this. PP will have to get back to you after Fox News and the brain worm tell him how to respond though.

Based on his comments I suspect the job he does is some low productivity, easily disposable job.

You revert to a "Fox News'' talking point because you are a lazy thinker, yet you try to denigrate others. I would tell you to do better, but I'm not sure you are capable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

If you are going to talk smack. Bring receipts:

The above nonprofit she worked for was CNFA. She wasn’t anywhere near the highest paid.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521447902/202511399349301581/full

CNFA (Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture) demonstrates strong financial efficiency, directing approximately 82% of its $70M budget toward program services and direct aid. With an overhead ratio of roughly 18% (14.4% management and 3.2% fundraising), the organization maintains a healthy balance between mission delivery and administrative stability. CNFA holds a Gold or Platinum Seal of Transparency on Candid and a three-star rating from Charity Navigator, making it a highly transparent and efficient choice for donors focused on global food security.

The money is spent on boots-on-the-ground technical training, equipment grants for small businesses, and infrastructure (like warehouses and irrigation) across approximately 16 countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

The USAID budget is public, please list how it was spent on “libs” pet projects.

These financials show a “non-profit” where the compensation packages for the president ($675k) and next 6 highest paid employees total $2.85 million/year. (Avg $407k)

This is for a “non-profit” with only 100 employees. These aren’t lawyers, or doctors… these are the “executives” of a 100 person “non-profit.”

With $70M budget. And programs around the globe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

How do you know this?

I've seen it up close and personal; seen these organizations waste tons flying in consultants from out-of-country instead of hiring cheaper locals who know the country dynamics and political economy better; seen these workers prioritize racking up hotel and flight points and planning and timing itineraries to visit their friends abroad on the government dime; seen the horrible morale, favoritism and cronyism that drives actual useful talents away; seen them waste thousands if not millions on drafting "reports" that go nowhere and do nothing but give the illusion of activity; seen them stacking boards with personal friends to limit the accountability mechanism on how the place is actually run. I also know people who are executive directors who complain about how useless and entitled a lot of the workers in this sector are; whilst still having outsized self images regarding the gifts they bring to the table. T'hey'll only whisper it though, because many of these things are not to be spoken out loud.

I'm sorry but citing some organizations that are themselves part of the non-profit industrial complex (which, btw, is benchmarking against other non-profits) is not some magic answer as to why these "skills" are transferrable and command a high wage outside of said sector. Some are good, but a lot are up to these shenanigans and are crumbling under the weight of even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, which they've skirted for so long. If you are in a closed ecosystem, it does not mean those "skills" stand up to scrutiny when you actually have to execute and compete under pressure and threat of being terminated rather than coasting on the largesse of a single, fat benefactor. Citing tech workers and bankers is also dumb. People assume those jobs knowing layoffs are part of the game and the jig could be up at any given moment. No one is writing reams of think pieces profiling Jared the Managing Director from Morgan Stanley or Chad the Principal Engineer from Meta and lamenting the difficulties of his job hunt and begging for sympathy. Plus, a lot of software engineers out of a job simply freelance or coast until they find a job of their liking because...their skills are in demand.

There was a recent Slate article about tech workers which hit some of the same beats in terms of "previously well paid tech workers now struggling to find work." There will be more. But because their field wasn't killed by an Elon Musk tweet and also wasn't helping some of the poorest people in the world, it's true that it's not an exact analogy.

My skills are in demand and so I was able to easily leave the government and find something else, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't feel grateful and lucky for that, and also aware that it could easily change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

If you are going to talk smack. Bring receipts:

The above nonprofit she worked for was CNFA. She wasn’t anywhere near the highest paid.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521447902/202511399349301581/full

CNFA (Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture) demonstrates strong financial efficiency, directing approximately 82% of its $70M budget toward program services and direct aid. With an overhead ratio of roughly 18% (14.4% management and 3.2% fundraising), the organization maintains a healthy balance between mission delivery and administrative stability. CNFA holds a Gold or Platinum Seal of Transparency on Candid and a three-star rating from Charity Navigator, making it a highly transparent and efficient choice for donors focused on global food security.

The money is spent on boots-on-the-ground technical training, equipment grants for small businesses, and infrastructure (like warehouses and irrigation) across approximately 16 countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

The USAID budget is public, please list how it was spent on “libs” pet projects.

These financials show a “non-profit” where the compensation packages for the president ($675k) and next 6 highest paid employees total $2.85 million/year. (Avg $407k)

This is for a “non-profit” with only 100 employees. These aren’t lawyers, or doctors… these are the “executives” of a 100 person “non-profit.”

With $70M budget. And programs around the globe.

If you think a $70million budget and “programs” in several countries is impressive you haven’t done much.

That is a comically tiny budget/program to be managed by a team of highly paid executives with fancy titles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

How do you know this?

I've seen it up close and personal; seen these organizations waste tons flying in consultants from out-of-country instead of hiring cheaper locals who know the country dynamics and political economy better; seen these workers prioritize racking up hotel and flight points and planning and timing itineraries to visit their friends abroad on the government dime; seen the horrible morale, favoritism and cronyism that drives actual useful talents away; seen them waste thousands if not millions on drafting "reports" that go nowhere and do nothing but give the illusion of activity; seen them stacking boards with personal friends to limit the accountability mechanism on how the place is actually run. I also know people who are executive directors who complain about how useless and entitled a lot of the workers in this sector are; whilst still having outsized self images regarding the gifts they bring to the table. T'hey'll only whisper it though, because many of these things are not to be spoken out loud.

I'm sorry but citing some organizations that are themselves part of the non-profit industrial complex (which, btw, is benchmarking against other non-profits) is not some magic answer as to why these "skills" are transferrable and command a high wage outside of said sector. Some are good, but a lot are up to these shenanigans and are crumbling under the weight of even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, which they've skirted for so long. If you are in a closed ecosystem, it does not mean those "skills" stand up to scrutiny when you actually have to execute and compete under pressure and threat of being terminated rather than coasting on the largesse of a single, fat benefactor. Citing tech workers and bankers is also dumb. People assume those jobs knowing layoffs are part of the game and the jig could be up at any given moment. No one is writing reams of think pieces profiling Jared the Managing Director from Morgan Stanley or Chad the Principal Engineer from Meta and lamenting the difficulties of his job hunt and begging for sympathy. Plus, a lot of software engineers out of a job simply freelance or coast until they find a job of their liking because...their skills are in demand.

There was a recent Slate article about tech workers which hit some of the same beats in terms of "previously well paid tech workers now struggling to find work." There will be more. But because their field wasn't killed by an Elon Musk tweet and also wasn't helping some of the poorest people in the world, it's true that it's not an exact analogy.

My skills are in demand and so I was able to easily leave the government and find something else, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't feel grateful and lucky for that, and also aware that it could easily change.

Are you talking about the Slate article that profiled people with these jobs descriptions: "A "journalist and writer by trade" who is a "content strategist." A "technical" recruiter. A "knowledge management professional." A "people manager."?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

How do you know this?

They don't know, of course. At best, they had experience with different organizations (more likely, they just imagine what goes on).

Here's the thing about killing an entire field abruptly and intentionally for political reasons - we never get to find out whether they had good business practices or not. There's just a big gaping hole in hundreds of thousands lives where there used to be jobs, food, medicine. Telling yourself that's ok because (you think) salaries were too high at the top is gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

+1 to all of this. PP will have to get back to you after Fox News and the brain worm tell him how to respond though.

Based on his comments I suspect the job he does is some low productivity, easily disposable job.

You revert to a "Fox News'' talking point because you are a lazy thinker, yet you try to denigrate others. I would tell you to do better, but I'm not sure you are capable.

And your sensitivity to it is how we know it’s true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

Imagine thinking "budgeting" was an irrelevant job skill. Have you ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand?

The companies (NGOs) collapsed and melted away. That doesn't mean the jobs these people were doing were fake or unskilled. After the 2008 crisis nobody declared "banking" a niche skill without value, even though bankers couldn't get jobs. When a tech company collapses and a lot of programmers are out of work all at once, you don't say they were overpaid before because they can't find jobs now.

PP has a problem with "government, NGOs, and contractors" which is a huge swath of the economy to declare fake. Tells us PP, which jobs qualify as "real" jobs - just the one you do?

You still don't get it. The reason it's in quotes is because they are not actually that skilled in it. Many places are notoriously, horribly mismanaged and that is being exposed. Not exactly masters of resource management, innovation and lean service delivery models here.

That’s not how quotes work. You are not actually skilled in communication. Or logic.