I'm on the steering committee for the San Francisco Public Press, another nonprofit startup, and we've been operating full newsrooms — rent, staff, everything — on a tenth of those salaries. And we've been able to cover some great stories. Our latest, working with a Pulitzer Prize journalist, made the cover of the San Francisco Panorama.

Imagine what our newsroom could do just with the salary of one of those highly paid execs. It's obscene. $400k could be much more wisely spent on, you know, journalism.

Startup CEOs don't take low pay out of some sort of magnanimous sentiment for the employees — they are making a calculated investment, one that they hope will pay off with big bucks on acquisition or IPO.

There is no such potential upside for the nonprofit head. Current cash comp is all there is. So the comparison is apples and bowling pins.

That said, I know I couldn't look my constituents in the eye with that kind of comp at a nonprofit.

The crux of the problem is that these businesses aren't “charities” in the classic sense. They accept donations from those who want to see their work furthered. And they don't have to deliver a cash return. In every other way, including staff pay, they are businesses. It's a semantic variation — not the fault of those involved, per se. Perhaps the LPC is a more intellectually honest model.

I'm on the steering committee for the San Francisco Public Press, another nonprofit startup, and we've been operating full newsrooms — rent, staff, everything — on a tenth of those salaries. And we've been able to cover some great stories. Our latest, working with a Pulitzer Prize journalist, made the cover of the San Francisco Panorama.

Imagine what our newsroom could do just with the salary of one of those highly paid execs. It's obscene. $400k could be much more wisely spent on, you know, journalism.

Startup CEOs don't take low pay out of some sort of magnanimous sentiment for the employees — they are making a calculated investment, one that they hope will pay off with big bucks on acquisition or IPO.

There is no such potential upside for the nonprofit head. Current cash comp is all there is. So the comparison is apples and bowling pins.

That said, I know I couldn't look my constituents in the eye with that kind of comp at a nonprofit.

The crux of the problem is that these businesses aren't “charities” in the classic sense. They accept donations from those who want to see their work furthered. And they don't have to deliver a cash return. In every other way, including staff pay, they are businesses. It's a semantic variation — not the fault of those involved, per se. Perhaps the LPC is a more intellectually honest model.