Hacker News Reader

There's a common misconception in this article that non-profit means non-revenue. A non-profit organization can still charge for goods and services. The difference between a non-profit and a for-profit, is that a non-profit must invest all surplus revenue directly back into the company.

View on HN

I agree, obviously most nonprofits need to have a revenue model, because donations can't sustain you 100%. However I think the general point they were trying to make was that the model followed by many large nonprofits does more to treat the symptoms than solve the problem.

I do a lot of nonprofit work and I've become pretty disillusioned with many large organizations-I feel they tend simply give hand-outs rather than helping communities to become sustainable and self-sufficient and actually addressing the issues. Add to that the costs of overhead and management, etc. and I really feel like the most significant changes are going to come from the small groups motivated by their passion for helping and unburdened by the task of maintaining a large corporate revenue model. The change these groups affect might not be as far-reaching, but think their impact is greater.

I agree that the for-profit corporate model is better than the charity model, but only because the charity model has been so awful.

I think a non-profit revenue-based organization would probably be the best for what this guy is trying to do. You get the benefit of being sustainable without requiring donations, but you don't come off as someone profiting off the backs of the poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com