Why isn't Mcdonalds non for profit?

[copperwindow]

Their mission statement would be to feed the hungry and bring together the community for a low price.

[Munch]

@copperwindow

I’m asking why McDonald’s doesn’t say that they are non for profit like the hospital, this way instead of paying employes they can just hire volunteers

For profit corporations have volunteers - they’re called “interns”. But why are you under the impression that non-profits don’t pay employees?

and they can have people give them large tax exempt contributions.

Boy, wouldn’t it be nice if just *being *a non-profit compelled people to make large donations? My job would be either a lot easier or non-existent because of it!

If Fletcher Allen is non for profit, why does it CEO make so much money?

Why does being a non-profit mean that the CEO can’t make a lot of money? All being a non-profit means is that you can’t distribute dividends to stakeholders. They can pay their CEO whatever they want. Of course, if a non-profits donors don’t like how much he’s being paid, they can stop making donations. Clearly, Fletcher Allen’s CEO’s salary isn’t such that their donors are upset by it.

[Magiver]

@copperwindow

I’m asking why McDonald’s doesn’t say that they are non for profit like the hospital, this way instead of paying employes they can just hire volunteers and they can have people give them large tax exempt contributions. If Fletcher Allen is non for profit, why does it CEO make so much money?

because non-profit doesn’t equal voluntary labor. You claimed your wife is a doctor at a non-profit hospital. Is she a volunteer or is she paid based on her skill-sets?

[Telemark]

@BigT

I can easily think of another goal for McDonald’s: to provide relatively cheap, fast food to a growing populace that was, at the time of the company’s foundation, rather woefully undernourished.

McDonalds is a franchise operation. Would you expect all franchise owners to hold the same noble spirit? It would require putting up a lot of your own money for the right to sell a product that you don’t expect to get a return on. It would certainly limit the pool of available franchisees.

[copperwindow]

@Magiver

because non-profit doesn’t equal voluntary labor. You claimed your wife is a doctor at a non-profit hospital. Is she a volunteer or is she paid based on her skill-sets?

My wife makes a salary. The orderlies are volunteers.

[Magiver]

@copperwindow

My wife makes a salary. The orderlies are volunteers.

so your question is answered. People work in exchange for money so they can in turn use the money in exchange for other goods and services.

people who work for free are donating their time as a unit of value for the benefit of others.

[Munch]

@copperwindow

The orderlies are volunteers.

I highly, *highly *doubt that. Here’s a list of employment opportunities at Fletcher Allen. Many hospitals are non-profit organizations because there are few people out there willing to make $20 million donations to a stakeholder-owned corporation, and they’re also willing to take on the responsibilities a 501(c)(3) organization is required to do above and beyond what any for-profit hospital would. McDonald’s has absolutely no reason to *want *to become a non-profit organization - not only because it hasn’t already, but because it’s set up plenty of side non-profits in its name. If there were a benefit, they’d have done so. There isn’t - that’s why they haven’t.

[Ferret_Herder]

What Munch said. Craploads of hospitals are non-profits, and typically the only volunteers do jobs like escorting patients around the hospital, that kind of thing. Maybe those “providing human touch to the premie babies” sorts of roles, I guess, if they still have those in the NICU. I will assure you the vast majority of positions are indeed paid. I work in a non-profit medical center which includes a hospital, clinic, and med school, and everyone in my department (ophthalmology) works for pay. The only volunteers I know of wear special tags designating them as such, and they help show people around, push wheelchairs, and help out in other simple ways.

[The_Niply_Elder]

@Ferret_Herder

In Philster’s absence, I’ll speculate on his meaning:

Alex’s Lemonade Stand is a charity

Except that Alex’s Lemonade Stand was started by a little girl named Alex who wanted a way to give doctors enough money to cure the kinds of cancer that affected her and other kids. So at 4 years old, she and her older brother set up a lemonade stand and raised a couple grand in one day. This hit the news and went viral, and she kept selling lemonade, and by age 8 (and her death), she’d raised a million dollars. Later, a full-on charity was created by her parents, with people working all over the US to raise money via lemonade sales, give grants to researchers, etc., etc.

Wow. Isnt this the saddest part of the 501c3 scheme? A million dollars later, doctors are relaxing in their million dollar yatches, poor Alex passed and where’s the cure?

[Princhester]

@copperwindow

I’m asking why McDonald’s doesn’t say that they are non for profit like the hospital, this way instead of paying employes they can just hire volunteers and they can have people give them large tax exempt contributions.

Why would people volunteer to make burgers?

[Alley_Dweller]

@Princhester

Why would people volunteer to make burgers?

So they could serve cheap burgers to the friends and family of sick people and to underpaid hospital staff?
Or to help raise money for the hospital?

[Princhester]

Sure but that wouldn’t be McDonalds.

[Ferret_Herder]

@The_Niply_Elder

Wow. Isnt this the saddest part of the 501c3 scheme? A million dollars later, doctors are relaxing in their million dollar yatches, poor Alex passed and where’s the cure?

:dubious: If you think ‘all forms of childhood cancer’ are super-easy to cure, you go do it. Medical research takes several years, even decades, from the discovery of a single drug that you think might maybe work for one or a handful of certain subtypes of cancer, and if you’re lucky, billions of dollars later you might have a slim chance at showing that your drug might at least not be inferior to existing treatments. Often, drugs being tested are complete dead-ends and all that money is wasted.

[toadspittle]

@copperwindow

I’m asking why McDonald’s doesn’t say that they are non for profit like the hospital, this way instead of paying employes they can just hire volunteers and they can have people give them large tax exempt contributions. If Fletcher Allen is non for profit, why does it CEO make so much money?

You are under the mistaken impression that what a CEO or the other employees of a company (whether non- or for-profit) are paid constitutes “profit.” It doesn’t. Those salaries are an expense, just like building leases, electric bills, etc., etc. (If you don’t believe that, then take a look at the first “expense” that is cut during an economic downturn. Hint: it isn’t the electric bill. It’s those very costly employees.)

“Profit” is the money that is left over after paying expenses (and after the revenue comes in, whether from paid goods/services or donations, obviously).

In a for-profit entity, the managers of the entity have a responsibility to pass that leftover money on to the owners of the company (maybe it’s thousands of stockholders; maybe it’s one guy and his wife), or else explain to the owners why it would be better for them down the line if that money were instead re-invested in the company (to replace equipment, expand to new locations, start a new line of R&D, etc.).

In a non-profit entity, those managers instead have a responsibility to use any leftover money to further fund the mission of the entity. There are no owners to whom the money can be distributed.

I think the confusion comes in part from mom-and-pop operations, where the owners and the managers and the employees are one and the same. Therefore, people start to conflate CEO/owner, and imagine that the whole corporation is just a scheme for that CEO to make as much money as possible (boilerplate anti-Wall-Street cynicism aside).

[toadspittle]

@copperwindow

If Fletcher Allen is non for profit, why does it CEO make so much money?

And to address this point specifically: The rationale behind the CEOs of nonprofits making “so much money” is that nonprofits want first-rate managerial skills and talent just like for-profits. They could pay their CEOs less, but they would possibly get a much lower level of competence in a CEO that way.

Now, one can simply say that ALL CEOs are paid far more than what they actually contribute to the company. (I mostly agree with that.) But the fact remains that, if CEO candidate Nancy is looking at two options: ForProfit Inc., which is willing to pay her $600,000 a year, and NonProfit Health Research, which is willing to pay her $100,000 a year to do the exact same sort of work, she will likely—unless she has deep personal reasons (i.e., her son died of a disease that NPHR is trying to stamp out)—choose to work for the better-paying company. NPHR is left having to hire CEO candidate Bob, whose last position was the management of a small, not-very-successful cardboard box manufacturing company, but who is thrilled to be making $100,000 a year.

That is an extreme (ridiculous) example of salary disparity, but it illustrates the overarching issue: The broader market outside of nonprofits has dictated the level of CEO salaries. If nonprofits want to hire people from that pool of qualified talent, they need to try to match those salaries. Otherwise, all the good CEOs will go work for better-paying for-profits, and the nonprofits will be stuck with Bob.

[hogarth]

How about starting a chain of fast food restaurants in order to provide jobs for redundant workers from the chemical industry? Does that sound like a good philanthropic reason?

[md2000]

Interesting, Wikipedia on college endowments:

Large endowments have been criticized for “hoarding” money.[15][16][17] Most philanthropies are required by federal law to distribute 5% of their assets per year,[18][19] but university endowments are not required to spend anything.[18] Many universities with very large endowments would require less than 5% to pay full tuition for all their students. For example, it has been estimated that if in 2006 all the Harvard students paid the maximum in tuition and fees, it would amount to less than $300 million.[20] In 2007, if Harvard had spent 5% of its $34.6 billion endowment,[21] all Harvard undergraduate and graduate students could attend for free and the university would still have $1.3 billion left over.[16] It would require less than 1% of the endowments of Harvard and Yale to allow all students to attend tuition-free;[18] Stanford, MIT, Princeton and Rice would require less than 2% of their endowments and 29 schools would require less than 3% for all their students to attend tuition-free.[18] Despite the decreasing values of endowments, congressmen, including Charles Grassley, have questioned whether the endowments are contributing enough to maintain their tax-exempt status.[17] After reviewing work in developing nations by 50 higher education institutions with endowments over $1 billion, Peter Hotez of George Washington University has stated that “pharmaceutical companies are doing more for the poorest people [in the world] than most of our wealthiest universities.”[17]