Were lots of DC-area professionals overpaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

[Anonymous]

Maybe, depends on the job. I'm a fed. Perhaps looking at my salary in isolation, maybe one could say I am overpaid for the type of work that I do (it's very easy work). However, someone looked into this at one point a few years ago and I was told 1 of me brings in 4x my salary of spending into the economy. So in the end, it would be actually be really stupid to eliminate my position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

Why? But an anonymous internet person says so? Try reading a newspaper or a scientific research journal.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext
An impact counter estimated that USAID funding discontinuation caused 62 557 adult deaths and 130 535 child deaths just until mid-April 2025.
https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-million-preventable-deaths-2030-if-usaid-defunding
Research finds more than 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 if USAID defunding continues, including more than 4 million children under five

The population of Africa is estimated at 1.5 billion people. They add about another 35 million people per year to that number. Call me an a-hole, but using our funds to ensure that population growth number is even higher when we have around 200,000 “deaths of despair” in our own country every year doesn’t make sense to me. I’d much rather see those funds used to prevent medical debt here or support our own health programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

Try reading some articles on the speculative methodologies and broad assumptions these types of models employ to arrive at such estimates. Stop with this lazy reply and maybe do some work yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe, depends on the job. I'm a fed. Perhaps looking at my salary in isolation, maybe one could say I am overpaid for the type of work that I do (it's very easy work). However, someone looked into this at one point a few years ago and I was told 1 of me brings in 4x my salary of spending into the economy. So in the end, it would be actually be really stupid to eliminate my position.

What's the role or type of work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

Try reading some articles on the speculative methodologies and broad assumptions these types of models employ to arrive at such estimates. Stop with this lazy reply and maybe do some work yourself.

No, I’m asking you to explain it. Someone gave you journal articles to support the opposite point. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion. I’m asking you how you made your conclusion. Explain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe, depends on the job. I'm a fed. Perhaps looking at my salary in isolation, maybe one could say I am overpaid for the type of work that I do (it's very easy work). However, someone looked into this at one point a few years ago and I was told 1 of me brings in 4x my salary of spending into the economy. So in the end, it would be actually be really stupid to eliminate my position.

Given the IRS cutbacks, stupidity is the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

Try reading some articles on the speculative methodologies and broad assumptions these types of models employ to arrive at such estimates. Stop with this lazy reply and maybe do some work yourself.

No, I’m asking you to explain it. Someone gave you journal articles to support the opposite point. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion. I’m asking you how you made your conclusion. Explain it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/421105/usaid-pepfar-cuts-death-toll?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

Try reading some articles on the speculative methodologies and broad assumptions these types of models employ to arrive at such estimates. Stop with this lazy reply and maybe do some work yourself.

No, I’m asking you to explain it. Someone gave you journal articles to support the opposite point. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion. I’m asking you how you made your conclusion. Explain it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/421105/usaid-pepfar-cuts-death-toll?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://letmegooglethat.com

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe, depends on the job. I'm a fed. Perhaps looking at my salary in isolation, maybe one could say I am overpaid for the type of work that I do (it's very easy work). However, someone looked into this at one point a few years ago and I was told 1 of me brings in 4x my salary of spending into the economy. So in the end, it would be actually be really stupid to eliminate my position.

Given the IRS cutbacks, stupidity is the norm.

This is such a left wing POV. Taking others’ money isn’t inherently creating value, esp given the waste in gov spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

Try reading some articles on the speculative methodologies and broad assumptions these types of models employ to arrive at such estimates. Stop with this lazy reply and maybe do some work yourself.

No, I’m asking you to explain it. Someone gave you journal articles to support the opposite point. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion. I’m asking you how you made your conclusion. Explain it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/421105/usaid-pepfar-cuts-death-toll?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I’m glad ChatGPT shared that link with you, since it demonstrates that you weren’t basing your claims on anything and just went fishing for evidence after the fact.

Regardless, here’s what the article says.

“What we know for sure is this: More people will die than you or I could ever meet. It’s enough people that I am pretty sure we’ll be able to see a Trump-era spike on global child mortality graphs the way we can see the impacts of major wars. Most of the dead will be children whose lives could be saved at very little cost. And whether we save their lives next year is apparently, somehow, still under discussion.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

Again, how do you know any of this?

Try reading some articles on the speculative methodologies and broad assumptions these types of models employ to arrive at such estimates. Stop with this lazy reply and maybe do some work yourself.

No, I’m asking you to explain it. Someone gave you journal articles to support the opposite point. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion. I’m asking you how you made your conclusion. Explain it.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/421105/usaid-pepfar-cuts-death-toll?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I’m glad ChatGPT shared that link with you, since it demonstrates that you weren’t basing your claims on anything and just went fishing for evidence after the fact.

Regardless, here’s what the article says.

“What we know for sure is this: More people will die than you or I could ever meet. It’s enough people that I am pretty sure we’ll be able to see a Trump-era spike on global child mortality graphs the way we can see the impacts of major wars. Most of the dead will be children whose lives could be saved at very little cost. And whether we save their lives next year is apparently, somehow, still under discussion.”

I also included a let me google that for you, lazy. This is not news to anyone who is familiar with the USAID world's funny math and M&E practices. Look at how selective you are with the excerpt you pull from the article . I notice all of your little "inquires" only run in one direction. You aren't fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

Why? But an anonymous internet person says so? Try reading a newspaper or a scientific research journal.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext
An impact counter estimated that USAID funding discontinuation caused 62 557 adult deaths and 130 535 child deaths just until mid-April 2025.
https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-million-preventable-deaths-2030-if-usaid-defunding
Research finds more than 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 if USAID defunding continues, including more than 4 million children under five

The population of Africa is estimated at 1.5 billion people. They add about another 35 million people per year to that number. Call me an a-hole, but using our funds to ensure that population growth number is even higher when we have around 200,000 “deaths of despair” in our own country every year doesn’t make sense to me. I’d much rather see those funds used to prevent medical debt here or support our own health programs.

OK but that's not actually happening. Those weren't the choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband has always contended that salaries never make any sense and increasingly I agree with him.

We have a friend who is a state-level administrator for bridges. So she oversees hundreds of employees and her division is responsible for the construction, maintenance, and replacement of every state-owned bridge. She makes 200k and is restricted by statute from making more.

We have another friend who trades utilities? Not totally clear on his exact job, but it's finance related to the trading of like power and utilities? He has a staff of 3-4 people and makes 7 figures.

Does this make sense? Not really. They work similar hours. The state administrator is actually more educated.

But salaries don't always make sense. They are usually dictated by how close you are to the levers of capitalism, and someone working in finance is right in the mix of those levers, and someone working in a government job overseeing infrastructure is viewed within our economy as just running a cost center.

It never makes sense.

You could make the argument that most Fortune 500 CEO's are overpaid, but by the logic of some in this thread if the company is willing to pay it, especially in an in-demand city, then they are, by definition, not overpaid. I'm sure that one will go over real well.

Well, yes. That is economically true.

You may think those jobs are overvalued. That's fine, values are subjective. But the people paying get to decide what they're willing to pay for.
And any individual being paid the typical rate for a person of similar education and experience is by definition not overpaid, even if you personally think the market rate is not a good value.

The issue here is that private market salaries are set in an environment where there are countless different employers offering salaries independently and in pursuit of their own self interest.

If a big chunk of the non-profit industry is all being funded by the US government, there isn’t actually a functioning free market.

It is also clear that USAID wasn’t doing proper due diligence if it was awarding grants to “non profits” that were making their leadership rich while supposedly administering charity.

How could anyone pay the salaries shown in the documents posted earlier while claiming they are doing some humanitarian mission?

There are only 100 people in the company… how can you need 7 people at an average annual compensation of over $400k/year to run a 100 person nonprofit with a small budget?

At a minimum there should be rules put in place that any nonprofit receiving a grant from the US government pay no more than is allowed by the government pay scale.

This nonprofit was paying its CEO two thirds of a million dollars a year to run a 100 person entity with a $70million budget… meanwhile actual USAID senior leadership weren’t making much more than a third of that to run vastly larger entities.

The government makes funds available, on a competitive basis, to companies doing work the government wants done. If the government is hiring directly that's a contract and otherwise it's a grant (loosely speaking). The government's focus should be, and is, on the work that is going to be done. How the company structures itself and how it pays its staff (including from other sources of income, which most nonprofits have) are not the government's business, outside of some ethical guards that benefit the government. If they tried what you're suggesting with defense contractors you'd scream.

The people who work at nonprofits don't take a vow of poverty and there's no reason they should.

lol at the idea that the government needs to pay a team of 7 executives nearly $3million a year to give away $70million.

Seriously, imagine how nuts that sounds to any normal person.

It is a symptom of just how broken the system is that you are making people rich while “alleviating poverty” in Africa or something… and then they run around telling people they run a “nonprofit” while paying themselves $650k/year.

It is insane…

That's why of all this had to be scrapped. Noone is helping poor people in Africa or anywhere but it has become a charity of its own for white collar jobs in US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

Why? But an anonymous internet person says so? Try reading a newspaper or a scientific research journal.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext
An impact counter estimated that USAID funding discontinuation caused 62 557 adult deaths and 130 535 child deaths just until mid-April 2025.
https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-million-preventable-deaths-2030-if-usaid-defunding
Research finds more than 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 if USAID defunding continues, including more than 4 million children under five

The population of Africa is estimated at 1.5 billion people. They add about another 35 million people per year to that number. Call me an a-hole, but using our funds to ensure that population growth number is even higher when we have around 200,000 “deaths of despair” in our own country every year doesn’t make sense to me. I’d much rather see those funds used to prevent medical debt here or support our own health programs.

I think this was the sentiment for why some people could get behind this but then instead of using the money on domestic programs, they used it on...a foreign war.