The Forum > Article Comments > Global poverty does nothing for global stability > Comments
Global poverty does nothing for global stability : Comments
By Australian NGO Chiefs, published 29/10/2008The urgency to tackle the financial crisis is in stark contrast to the foot-dragging and broken promises over poverty alleviation, human rights and climate change.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
- All
Won't failure to tackle the financial crisis hinder our capacity to deal with poverty, human rights, er, climatic challenges and other issues? It sounds a bit like complaining about mum or dad urgently looking for a job because, hey, there's no food in the fridge, a leaking roof and the kids are screaming at each other. And, when times are tough, isn't it the automatic monthly debits to organizations like the above that are likely to be the first to go?
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 30 October 2008 5:28:47 AM
| |
HAH! ...when I see Tim Costello making a public announcement that at least 60% of his 200k plus salary package is going back into 'poverty alleviation'....then the NGO's will have more sympathy from me.
Why do I say 'PUBLIC' announcement? aaah simple! Because Tim, during his less financially rewarding time at Wesley Mission (if memory serves me correctly) was critical of another NGO Leader for his 'HIGH salary of $160,000 lavish lifestyle and luxury apartment, and he did so on the public record as found in the ABC transcript I've put here in the past. TIM likes to criticize... http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1150747.htm REVEREND TIM COSTELLO, WORLD VISION: Some of the quotes in that book I felt were very troubling because the American televangelists who also preach a prosperity gospel, have bred the greatest cynicism that you might have towards authentic Christian faith by turning it into that get-rich formula. Hmmmmmmm.... 220k? :) nah..that's not 'rich'...just a battler from Sunshine. Here are Tims words from the ABC KERRY O'BRIEN Melbourne's Wesley Central Mission today vowed to review the salary package of its controversial superintendent, Reverend Tim Langley, after it was revealed he was earning $160,000 a year, as well as living in a luxury apartment supplied by the Uniting Church. REV TIM COSTELLO, BAPTIST MINISTER: Look, I was shocked and I think most clergy in the church are dumbstruck. When you have a religious calling, you understand it's about sacrifice and service. You're not in it to make money. You were SHOCKED Tim? I'm more shocked that you could say that and now accept 200K plus yourself. After all.... "your not in it to make money" are you :) I'm DUMBSTRUCK. NGO's whining about 'World Poverty' without addressing: -Population control -Political causes. -Employment opportunities for those who will now live rather than die -The population multiplication effect of simply 'fixing poverty'..when in fact it would become worse. nah.. I'm cynical. To me all this whining is more about 'donate donate donate' so that I can maintain the 'lifestyle to which I'm rapidly becoming accustomed to'. Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 30 October 2008 5:58:02 AM
| |
Good find, Boaz.
Just in case anyone is suspicious about your unsupported quotes from the Kerry O'Brien interview, here is the reference. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s139045.htm I am royally p!ssed off by these people lecturing me, when they stuff their own pockets on the back of the misery of others. Amnesty International doesn't declare executive pay, but in any case is not a charity in the sense used in this article, more an activist operation. Greenpeace falls into the same category, which is a shame, because they seem to be populated with individuals with a keen sense of propriety. The Board managed to squeeze out a $25k honorarium to its chief last year, on account of the hours of selfless work on their behalf. This example of true commitment went unnoticed in the mainstream charity industry. World Vision is the worst offender. It's just a marketing organization, its constant vainglorious self-promotion necessary for the continued welfare of its overpaid management. http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/ The others mentioned are also major salary-machines - Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000. CARE Australia is very coy about its remuneration at an individual level, but does confess to spending $934,912 in salaries for its senior executives. Plan at least does not pay its Board members, but the National Executive Director takes home a $145k package. How do these people sleep at night, in the knowledge that their livelihood is entirely dependent on the continued suffering of others? There's an entire industry of spongers out there, dipping into your pocket to support their lifestyle, all the while dripping platitudes about supporting good works. It's obscene. Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 30 October 2008 8:31:30 AM
| |
I tend to agree with the criticism against the high wages collected by CEOs of charity orgnisations.
There is some misguided argument that to get talented people, you need pay for their expertise and experience. I don't really buy that. The financial crisis proves that paying higher wages does not really mean anything, although I would not criticise the efforts of Tim Costello or imply that I would not want to be rewarded for my own efforts. Neverthless, criticism of hypocrisy is indeed justified if warranted. Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 30 October 2008 8:39:25 AM
| |
Pericles says "Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000."
As far as executive salaries go this is a pittance. I have tradesmen working for me that with a bit of over time earn more than that. Any person with that level of talent is worth far more, and is probably donating 80% of his value. The old adage "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" still applies, (see greenpeace) Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 30 October 2008 9:36:16 AM
| |
When I read the “ NGO Chiefs “ article the word - RESERVATIONS- came to mind.
Reservations, that “$18 billion” or any similar amount would solve the problems of the undeveloped world. Reservations, about the concept of a “right” to receive housing, health and education, and a commensurate obligation on the part of others to provide such. Reservations, that any program that does not prominently push -not just populations controls- but, drastic population reductions will succeed. But, I am sure the NGO Chiefs had no such reservations and, judging by their highly remunerated positions , I would think the only reservations they ever had were of a five star nature. PS: I suggest we should scrap the NGOs Chiefs article and replace it with Colinsetts posts.Colinsett makes a darn side more sense! Posted by Horus, Thursday, 30 October 2008 10:14:26 AM
|