Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
It might have been better to give independent reviewers a run-up at this one, given the splash made by the two launch interviews.
I understand that, as per standard practice, AUP sent the book out to readers for comment pre-publication. The only NZ academic was a medical expert who helped clarify medical issues. No NZ historians or anyone from the 'other side' of the debate were asked to comment on it - for these matters it was sent to overseas academics with little knowledge of NZ history and this particular part of it.
-
Sand art - just stunning!
That is quite impressive. Thanks for posting that.
-
Apparently Bryder has stopped doing interviews as "she's not part of the debate".
-
Russell, you inspired Moreu cartoonage.
-
Professor Charlotte Paul retired recently.
-
If I were to price a job, of almost any kind, as 25% wages 25% expenses/materials and 50% profit I would consider it "Skimming" So, surely an 80/20 split is not outrageous considering the "product" is just the feel good factor of giving?.
If this was a business and not a charity pulling heart strings, I'd have no problem with a 20% profit.
Since its not your comparison seems somewhat pointless.
-
What is an acceptable ratio then? It seems a bit rough to make claim that their's is "wrong" without defining what is realistically possible.
That's shockingly low.
As a comparison, Pub Charity last year returned about 40% of its income back to the community. But about another 25% went to problem gambling, and other 22% on rentals to get the gambling machines in the site in the first place. Administration was 5% of their income.
They no doubt get some benefits from economy of scale, but returning less than 25% to the actual purpose of the donation is terrible.
-
Not only are we lowballing it, we're lowballing it in a range. There's even a lack of commitment to set a target.
-
What made me incoherently angry was the TV news report last night which showed an Afghani woman and her kids who'd been to rehab and then gone back to opium explaining that it was because opium was cheaper than food and quelled the kids' hunger pains.
That was 15 different flavours of fucked up. The story, the way it was presented, the context.
-
Are you advocating that we stop supporting this charity? Because that's where your argument is going logically, i.e poverty is a government problem, so we mustn't support any non-government organisations or charities who try to address it. I'm sure you're not.
I think you can construct a reasoned argument that charities and NGOs stepping into the void left by the state makes it easier for the state not to be in that void.
It's really a question of whether or not the void is valid in the first place. Is this something that families should be relying on charity for, or should it be guaranteed to them by the state?