Comment on Local charity shop rejects pre-spychip PCs. Then they get destroyed.
evenwicht@lemmy.sdf.org 19 hours agoCorrection:
They likely are only selling what
peoplethe mainstream masses want to buy.
Smart consumers are marginalised. Just as they are with most of the ensitified market.
Correction:
Just the way
the worldcapitalism works.
But we are talking about a charity. I was not talking about a profit-driven company.
It tends to cost money to send them some where they actually want those.
I am willing to pick them up. They are not willing to maintain a list of hardware sought by people. Until we pull levers and twist arms to get a registry of parts sought and who to contact. The price I would pay exceeds the cost of paying their staff to enter a database record and cross-reference what arrives.
thejml@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
A charity still needs to turn a profit or they won’t be a charity for long. The point is that they make enough money from reselling these things that they can offer some sort of service.
And by people I only mean the ones shopping there. Not the “mainstream masses”. Its a charity shop, not Microcenter or Amazon.
evenwicht@lemmy.sdf.org 18 hours ago
Nonsense. By law, they /must/ break even.
That’s only partially true. If the sales activity is unrelated to the mission, then the sales must support something else. If the mission is environmental, then your claim falls apart.
It’s one in the same. I would shop there if they had what I wanted. But I don’t shop there because they are only targeting the mainstream masses.
Exactly. It’s bizarre that you can realize this while simultaneously rely on them behaving like a Microcenter or Amazon.
MrEff@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
I don’t think you know what you are talking about with non-profits. I used to have one for my reddit socials group. I founded it and was the president/ceo for about 8 years. I can tell you right now, you can definately run it as a for profit. In fact, there is a specific dollar amount you can profit off it. Every year when I submitted financial documents to the state I had to show generally (high level only, not specific) every dollar that came in or out, but they didn’t care about where it came from or where it went to. The only real question was if I had over exactly $1 million in profit. Obviously I never did, but if I did there would simply be a slightly different set of rules on what I would have to do with it or how to declare it. If I had a non-profit that sold computers and made $999,999 per year, then paid myself or banked all of that, then I am still a perfectly legal non-profit and don’t need to report any details on my finances other than general numbers.
And as far as financials related to the mission? Literally nothing stopping me from spending it on whatever I feel like. If my mission is slinging used computers to help kids with cancer- i can buy a fucking yacht with all my computer sales money under the non-profit then donate $1 to st.judes. This is why millionares and billionaires love to found their own charity and wash money through it. The rules are so gray.
Want to know the most common bullshit with non-profits if you still don’t believe me? Look up Equine Therapy non-profits. It is how you make your horse(s), stable, and pasture all sheltered as a non-profit. Then once a year you have some nondescript person ride one of your horses and count it as your charity event to justify the existence. I know so many people who own horses who do this bullshit to help cover the cost of owning them. And most of these people aren’t even that rich, just well off. And again, totally legal.
evenwicht@lemmy.sdf.org 17 hours ago
None of this obviates my thesis. A profit limit of $999,999 in your country reflects a buffer for ops. That’s has no material relevance here. Nor does it support the other Cloudflare user who claimed the charity activity of selling old machines is not viable. To claim that it’s not possible to sell old machines (even at a loss) and yet sustain, this makes it hard to believe you really know how non-profits work.
Indeed it is well known that non-profits have countless angles for abuse. People like Peter Thiel and other right-wing pricks notoriously abuse non-profit charity structure. That’s mostly irrelevant but to the extent that it’s relevant it actually supports my thesis nonetheless.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 hours ago
They aren’t required to break even. There is no law prohibiting them from losing money.