Lol

Come help me so I can go outside again

So profoundly incorrect.

Good point, I'm convinced.

I thought about spelling out in detail why organizations that exist by definition for the greater good are better 'motivated' than those companies who's mission statements can be ultimately boiled down to 'make cash,' but I mean, come on.

Another good point. Cash is not a motivation whatsoever. Especially when we're talking about cash you can take home if you do well vs cash you won't take home no matter what you do.

This post was edited by dxlightning on Mar 27 2015 09:05pm

Dat sarcasm. Let's go back to your words about for-profit companies being 'much more' motivated to make an impact than non-profits. Companies exist to make money. Full stop. Non-profits are much less equipped to tackle their pet issues than the Apples of the world, but their mission is explicit... if you meant 'capacity' over 'motivation,' then I'd agree.

Dan Palotta has some great stuff on motivating charities and staff via financial rewards. I won't argue that; he has some great stuff to say: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en

I still mean motivation. I'd explain why multi million dollar corporations are more results driven than wishy washy people who just want to feel good about themselves, but I mean, come on.

("I mean, come on" is an acceptable argument in this discussion I assume? You did use it first so I assume there's no 10th grade debate class fallacy assigned to it).

This post was edited by dxlightning on Mar 27 2015 09:17pm

results driven = cash for themselves yo...

You're suggesting that the personnel and personalities involved in for-profit are just, 'better,' than the 'wishy washy' people involved in non-profit? Is that really what you want to argue?

I'm saying they have motivation to make cash. And they make cash by successfully making an impact. By transitive property they are motivated to make an impact. They're gambling their own money instead of donated money, and it's widely known people spend others' money less effectively than their own. So yes, the motivation to effectively spend money for the biggest impact per dollar is higher in for-profit than non-profit.

And the Apple and Haliburton mega-companies-of-the-world's motivations are not predominantly profit-based?

This post was edited by StayPositive on Mar 27 2015 09:40pm