Were lots of DC-area professionals overpaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 57 year old not finding a new equivalent job after a layoff is not a new thing.

This.

Plus:

Many of the USAID-funded nonprofits were implementing complex multimillion dollar projects abroad. In short: not easy to do, and requires highly qualified staff (lots, in fact).

I’m not shocked by her salary. It’s a bit more than I make in a high level position at a nonprofit with a multimillion dollar portfolio and hundreds of staff.

The biggest takeaway everyone should have is the administration decimated highly effective nonprofits and essentially decimated the overall infrastructure.

ICYMI: the administration is going after domestic nonprofits in a number of ways, and they think they have a silver bullet with their baseless attack on SPLC.

None of this is good for America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IDK 272K is outrageous for a non-profit.

Go read the 990 tax forms of non profits. For many of the so-called trade associations, the executive director/ceo makes millions.

What’s a “so called” trade association?

Nonprofits have always been scrutinized, particularly when receiving federal funding to implement projects determined by the federal government. It’s not a scam; the activities are real and well-documented.

Re: salaries at non-profits - If a nonprofit is implementing a complex portfolio of activities to the tune of many millions of dollars, you need senior staff with credentials and they deserved to be paid well for jobs that are essentially 24/7/365 (especially when dealing with implementing projects abroad).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IDK 272K is outrageous for a non-profit.

Go read the 990 tax forms of non profits. For many of the so-called trade associations, the executive director/ceo makes millions.

Who pays these salaries? Members's dues of the trade associations? Or the government? Genuinely curious.

Members’ dues.

Dues from members aren’t taxpayer dollars. Country club dues similarly aren’t taxpayer dollars.

[Anonymous]

49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's obscene that we are debating this while the US is burning a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY on a pointless war.

Don't forget all the money that the current admin is just helping themselves to- just the pure funneling-- not just the private jets and overseas family trips.

I would happily pay USAID nonprofits 5 times over if we could stop this other stuff.
It's just that people get jealous and they don't think straight. People start to get crazy competitive with the scraps they are leaving us when the problem is... the people who are taking it all and leaving scraps. They love this infighting.

This.

If you want something to be outraged about, may I suggest focusing on the billions of dollars in federal contracts given to FOR profit Beltway bandits when better qualified NON profit orgs could do a superior job for far less?

^^^
Digest that.

Taxpayers should be outraged that for-profits are now securing federal funding while non-profits are forced to shut their doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

Yes!

While you were busy clubbing and then locking down a husband and keeping up with the Joneses, USAID types were living in third world and/or war torn countries trying to help the least fortunate people stay alive.

Bottom line: no time to have a baby and focus on which organic onesies or thousand dollar stroller to buy.

[Anonymous]

Wait until you hear how much staff at foundations make. (Note: again, not taxpayer dollars. The money comes from super rich people who have way more money than their heirs can possibly spend, so they stand up a charitable foundation to support charitable activities. Hint: it’s a good thing that helps people.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

My first thought was USAID must have had great fertility benefits on their health care plan.

[Anonymous]

First, most public servants make a lot less. Second, most on this board would think these salaries are too low for themselves. So what is fair compensation for development work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

We are 50 with a 9 year old. There are at least 5 other parents same age at our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

My first thought was USAID must have had great fertility benefits on their health care plan.

I think it's what PPs said. USAID jobs "in the field" are really hard with young kids, not least because some were unaccompanied. It does not surprise me at all that folks waited to have kids until they had enough seniority/experience to either be in DC or to opt out of postings like DRC or even Kyiv.

As regards the larger article, I think the reporter chose highly-compensated folks at the tail end of their careers, so at the highest pay grade they would ever achieve. The vast majority of USAID employees, or USAID implementers, never touched that pay grade.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I made $157k in 2025 as a DOJ lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes thats an insane amount to be paid for usaid

why can't she retire? Didn't she have the good gov benefits?