[Wikimedia-l] compromise?

[Thomas Dalton]

On 3 January 2013 08:08, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does that sound like the
> kind of people who would want to risk losing talent because their
> donations were limited to a fundraising goal set based on the
> blatantly false assertion that we aren't able to raise enough money to
> pay market rate?

You seem to have a misunderstanding of how employers set salaries.
Affordability isn't really a factor (you adjust who you hire and how
many people you hire based on affordability, but you can't do much
about how much you pay them). As with any procurement, you pay the
minimum that is necessary to get what you want. A good employer will
include a reasonable level of staff morale as part of what they want,
of course.

It appears that the Foundation is able to attract and retain the staff
they need and keep them happy at current salary levels, so paying any
more would be a waste of donor's money. They pay less than other
employers, but that's because people value working for a good cause so
are happy to work for less. If the Foundation failed to take advantage
of that, it wouldn't be making the most efficient use of its funds.