Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Minciu Sodas fractal pay scales

Expand Messages
  • ms@ms.lt
    Andrius, How do you justify a pay scale that pays you five times the pay received by those who actually do the work? I am curious. Really. Hasn t anyone
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 13, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Andrius,

      How do you justify a pay scale that pays you five times the pay received
      by those who actually do the work? I am curious. Really. Hasn't anyone
      else asked you about this? I'm sure you have a good explanation.

      Tom


      Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
      twayburn@...
      http://www.dematerialism.net/
      http://dematerialism.blogspot.com/
      http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/

      ---------------------------

      Tom, Thank you for writing.

      Ten years ago, when I started, I was hoping that I could earn the same as
      everybody else at Minciu Sodas. But it became apparent that I was
      investing much more than anybody else could be expected to invest.
      Raimundas Vaitkevicius told me, "Andrius, first you must earn - and then
      everybody else will be able to earn."

      I can say, ten years later, that hundreds of people have done very well at
      Minciu Sodas. You and hundreds of people have, I think, received a "free
      service" that often isn't available elsewhere, and certainly not for
      purchase. I have set this up so that we are all contributing to a commons
      in the Public Domain and so we are yielding an asset that I think
      justifies my investment, but also is available for others, even those who
      have not yet invested.

      Tom, you have written 240 letters to our laboratory, a huge number, and so
      have dozens of other people. Yet I have written almost 10,000 letters
      which is about one-third of the 30,000 letters that we have written. So it
      is easy to forget and underestimate my contribution.
      http://www.ms.lt/authors.php

      In any work in our economy, the hardest part is finding the client. More
      than half the energy is spent on that. And I have structured our lab's
      work so that we meet our participants half way and they are, first of all,
      working for themselves. They are getting money for what they might do for
      free. So it's understandable if that's not very much money.

      Yet I do need to make sure that I can provide for myself. And $25,000 a
      year is actually not providing for myself considering that I have to make
      12x$1,400=$16,800 for loan payments to my credit cards.

      But I do believe that we can achieve the most impressive results if we
      give a small piece of work to everybody, so that hundreds and thousands of
      people might participate. In this way, when I received $24,000 for
      MyFoodStory, I made sure to give about half for our teams, benefiting some
      one hundred people, even though I could have kept all of the money for
      myself. Similarly, in my proposal for Stephen Wolfram, I would keep 25%
      of the money for myself, and distribute 75% for our team. Note that I am
      taking full responsibility for the project, that it is my investment that
      is key to making it possible, that I am taking the risk to find the
      client, and then think again how all that work is going to the poor.

      Also, consider that I am not asking others to work at a lower rate than
      me. I am asking them to work on smaller pieces, so that we could include
      as many people as possible. But certainly, Tom, I would be very happy if
      you might give me $200 or $1,000 or $5,000 worth of work. Indeed, that is
      the next step that I am proposing for Stephen Wolfram, that he fund a
      $2,000 project (of which I would get $1,000) and then a $15,000 project
      (of which I would get $5,000). So I am asking for the same work that I am
      ready to give other people. And if I did receive $25,000 of $100,000,
      then yet I may very well be doing one-quarter of the work, alongside a
      much greater share of the responsibility, risk, investment, and for me the
      least pleasant work of finding a client. If somebody could provide us a
      client, then I wouldn't care what percentage they took, whether it was 25%
      or 50% or more, certainly if they are taking the responsibility.

      Even if I did earn a lot of money, I hope that my generosity and my
      ability to use money well would make that good for all people. Gandhi was
      in favor of there being rich people, with the understanding that they are
      stewards of personal wealth that serves all.

      Dozens of poor people have earned vital income from our laboratory. They
      have a keen interest in my financial success. Tom, I wish that the
      well-to-do did as well.

      I ask for your help that I and others might have paid work.

      Andrius

      Andrius Kulikauskas
      Minciu Sodas
      http://www.ms.lt
      ms@...
      +1 (312) 618-3345
    • Peter Burgess
      Dear Colleagues The subject of remuneration is, in my view, very important ... and usually very badly argued. It also usually arises because of something that
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 13, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Colleagues
         
        The subject of remuneration is, in my view, very important ... and usually very badly argued. It also usually arises because of something that appears inequitable ... and is usually discussed around specific individuals. In my view the subject does deserve a lot more thought and dialog, and not around specific people.
         
        Most people get paid by an organization that has the money to pay them ... and uses their effort and talent to make money ... and in some modern organizations, a huge amount of money. Sadly ... in much of the modern global economy making a lot of money does not have much to do with doing a lot of good. In fact, though there is increased talk of things like Corporate Social Responsibilty (CSR) these things are rapidly discarded if they get in the way of making real money.
         
        One of the big measures of success is simply how much money one makes ... how much money one has. It is an almost universal measure ... but not a very good one. Is the idea that "the person with the most toys at the end wins" really what we should be thinking about?
         
        As many of you know I am working on a framework of metrics that we call Community Accountancy ... we are trying to go further than the money measures because life, surely, is more than just about money things. This is, however, accountancy ... with much of the rigor associated with business accountancy.
         
        I am very clear that money sustainability is of critical importance. People have to have the money flows so that the bill flows can be paid and not create a catastrophe for the individual and family.
         
        I do not see why people that are working on good things ... things that deliver social value ... should have to take a vow of poverty. If that is what it takes, I would argue that this is an example of system dysfunctionality that needs to be addressed. 
         
        As a practical matter there is a huge opportunity for philanthropy to be much better used so that it does very much more of social good, and does it productively rather than merely in a way that looks good ... Community Accountancy is aiming to make it possible for Philanthropy to be driven by the concept of PR for productivity rather than PR for public relations. That is what happens with baseball ... why not do more or less the same thing with socio-economic performance. 
         
        One of the components of Community Accountancy is the whole issue of remuneration ... a mapping of what jobs pay what money ... what organizations pay what, where and to whom (class of people). Many are aware that things are pretty distorted in this area with some people doing a lot of value and getting paid very little ... and others getting paid obscenely huge amounts. These data are potentially very useful ... and I am sure they will tell us something, but what I do not know.
         
        Privacy and confidentiality are important ... these data are not about who ... the individual person ... but about places ... and organizations ... and job functions ... and the pattern that emerges. The data and the analysis does NOT link back to specific people.
         
        To the extent that anyone would like to help with any of this type of information, I would welcome the dataflows. As the patterns emerge ... they will be made public without compromising the privacy and confidentiality issue.
         
        A related piece of this module is a framework of job types ... what is the job (activity) and what is the reason for the job (what value outcome). We are now building this table as well.
         
        Sincerely
        ____________
        Peter Burgess
        The Transparency and Accountability Network: Tr-Ac-Net in New York
        www.tr-ac-net.org
        Community Accountancy
        Integrated Malaria Management Consortium (IMMC)
        917 432 1191 or 212 772 6918 peterbnyc@...
        Peter Burgess
         
        On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM, <ms@...> wrote:
        Andrius,

        How do you justify a pay scale that pays you five times the pay received
        by those who actually do the work?  I am curious.  Really.  Hasn't anyone
        else asked you about this?  I'm sure you have a good explanation.

        Tom


        Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
        twayburn@...
        http://www.dematerialism.net/
        http://dematerialism.blogspot.com/
        http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/

        ---------------------------

        Tom, Thank you for writing.

        Ten years ago, when I started, I was hoping that I could earn the same as
        everybody else at Minciu Sodas.  But it became apparent that I was
        investing much more than anybody else could be expected to invest.
        Raimundas Vaitkevicius told me, "Andrius, first you must earn - and then
        everybody else will be able to earn."

        I can say, ten years later, that hundreds of people have done very well at
        Minciu Sodas.  You and hundreds of people have, I think, received a "free
        service" that often isn't available elsewhere, and certainly not for
        purchase.  I have set this up so that we are all contributing to a commons
        in the Public Domain and so we are yielding an asset that I think
        justifies my investment, but also is available for others, even those who
        have not yet invested.

        Tom, you have written 240 letters to our laboratory, a huge number, and so
        have dozens of other people.  Yet I have written almost 10,000 letters
        which is about one-third of the 30,000 letters that we have written. So it
        is easy to forget and underestimate my contribution.
        http://www.ms.lt/authors.php

        In any work in our economy, the hardest part is finding the client.  More
        than half the energy is spent on that.  And I have structured our lab's
        work so that we meet our participants half way and they are, first of all,
        working for themselves.  They are getting money for what they might do for
        free.  So it's understandable if that's not very much money.

        Yet I do need to make sure that I can provide for myself.  And $25,000 a
        year is actually not providing for myself considering that I have to make
        12x$1,400=$16,800 for loan payments to my credit cards.

        But I do believe that we can achieve the most impressive results if we
        give a small piece of work to everybody, so that hundreds and thousands of
        people might participate.  In this way, when I received $24,000 for
        MyFoodStory, I made sure to give about half for our teams, benefiting some
        one hundred people, even though I could have kept all of the money for
        myself.  Similarly, in my proposal for Stephen Wolfram, I would keep 25%
        of the money for myself, and distribute 75% for our team.  Note that I am
        taking full responsibility for the project, that it is my investment that
        is key to making it possible, that I am taking the risk to find the
        client, and then think again how all that work is going to the poor.

        Also, consider that I am not asking others to work at a lower rate than
        me.  I am asking them to work on smaller pieces, so that we could include
        as many people as possible.  But certainly, Tom, I would be very happy if
        you might give me $200 or $1,000 or $5,000 worth of work.  Indeed, that is
        the next step that I am proposing for Stephen Wolfram, that he fund a
        $2,000 project (of which I would get $1,000) and then a $15,000 project
        (of which I would get $5,000).  So I am asking for the same work that I am
        ready to give other people.  And if I did receive $25,000 of $100,000,
        then yet I may very well be doing one-quarter of the work, alongside a
        much greater share of the responsibility, risk, investment, and for me the
        least pleasant work of finding a client.  If somebody could provide us a
        client, then I wouldn't care what percentage they took, whether it was 25%
        or 50% or more, certainly if they are taking the responsibility.

        Even if I did earn a lot of money, I hope that my generosity and my
        ability to use money well would make that good for all people.  Gandhi was
        in favor of there being rich people, with the understanding that they are
        stewards of personal wealth that serves all.

        Dozens of poor people have earned vital income from our laboratory.  They
        have a keen interest in my financial success.  Tom, I wish that the
        well-to-do did as well.

        I ask for your help that I and others might have paid work.

        Andrius

        Andrius Kulikauskas
        Minciu Sodas
        http://www.ms.lt
        ms@...
        +1 (312) 618-3345


        ------------------------------------

        http://www.worknets.org/wiki.cgi?HolisticHelping

        Please note our rule: Each letter sent to the Holistic Helping group enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN unless it explicitly states otherwise.  Thank you!  http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/holistichelping/

        <*> Your email settings:
           Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/holistichelping/join
           (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
           mailto:holistichelping-digest@yahoogroups.com
           mailto:holistichelping-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
           holistichelping-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
           http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      • ACTWID KONGADZEM
        Dear Andreas, We have read with keen interest all that is being discussed about fractal pay scales by Tom. Our own worry about you is the promises you made to
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 13, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Andreas,
          We have read with keen interest all that is being
          discussed about fractal pay scales by Tom.

          Our own worry about you is the promises you made to us
          about the internet that had been our long standing
          project and it just died a natural death from your
          end.

          We still all wonder how someone of very high moral
          standing like you could promise a rural poor
          organization things and end up not sending anything
          nor fulfil any of our own issues here that you
          yourself talked of and did not send anything in the
          end. We even wrote emails to you about the issues
          raised and you did not reply at all to us.
          We still feel that no matter what happened after you
          yourself told us that you were sending us a digital
          photo frame, flash sticks etc and to support our
          internet cafe issues and ended up by fraustrating us
          a poor rural women"s organization to instead pay rents
          of 450dollars in all for a room not used which we
          prepared and rented knowing our own that what you say
          as a leader cannot fail us. Janet too told us that
          she had also contributed at that same time 200dollars
          or so to help us in this our" dream" project of a good
          internet cafe for all rural women here which you did
          not forward to us too.[She later on gave another one
          to us again] We still also wrote to you to send us
          this contribution from Janet and you did not answer
          too.
          So for the sake of peace that you too are
          promoting among others in Africa and elsewhere, how do
          you think we feel ? We had earlier given a very big
          applause to you when you accepted to work with us on
          this internet project in one of your emails.
          We will be grateful if you can give us a reply to this
          email this time.
          Immense thanks while waiting to hear from you?
          Sincerely ACTWID KONGADZEM NGO board members led by
          Wendi, Njua Geraldine, Fon Brigit, Mary Ambijel
          ,Therese etc on behalf of all
          --- Peter Burgess <peterbNYC@...> wrote:

          > Dear Colleagues
          >
          > The subject of remuneration is, in my view, very
          > important ... and usually
          > very badly argued. It also usually arises because of
          > something that appears
          > inequitable ... and is usually discussed around
          > specific individuals. In my
          > view the subject does deserve a lot more thought and
          > dialog, and not around
          > specific people.
          >
          > Most people get paid by an organization that has the
          > money to pay them ...
          > and uses their effort and talent to make money ...
          > and in some modern
          > organizations, a huge amount of money. Sadly ... in
          > much of the modern
          > global economy making a lot of money does not have
          > much to do with doing a
          > lot of good. In fact, though there is increased talk
          > of things like
          > Corporate Social Responsibilty (CSR) these things
          > are rapidly discarded if
          > they get in the way of making real money.
          >
          > One of the big measures of success is simply how
          > much money one makes ...
          > how much money one has. It is an almost universal
          > measure ... but not a very
          > good one. Is the idea that "the person with the most
          > toys at the end wins"
          > really what we should be thinking about?
          >
          > As many of you know I am working on a framework of
          > metrics that we call
          > Community Accountancy ... we are trying to go
          > further than the money
          > measures because life, surely, is more than just
          > about money things. This
          > is, however, accountancy ... with much of the rigor
          > associated with business
          > accountancy.
          >
          > I am very clear that money sustainability is of
          > critical importance. People
          > have to have the money flows so that the bill flows
          > can be paid and not
          > create a catastrophe for the individual and family.
          >
          > I do not see why people that are working on good
          > things ... things that
          > deliver social value ... should have to take a vow
          > of poverty. If that is
          > what it takes, I would argue that this is an example
          > of system
          > dysfunctionality that needs to be addressed.
          >
          > As a practical matter there is a huge opportunity
          > for philanthropy to be
          > much better used so that it does very much more of
          > social good, and does it
          > productively rather than merely in a way that looks
          > good ... Community
          > Accountancy is aiming to make it possible for
          > Philanthropy to be driven by
          > the concept of PR for productivity rather than PR
          > for public relations. That
          > is what happens with baseball ... why not do more or
          > less the same
          > thing with socio-economic performance.
          >
          > One of the components of Community Accountancy is
          > the whole issue of
          > remuneration ... a mapping of what jobs pay what
          > money ... what
          > organizations pay what, where and to whom (class of
          > people). Many are aware
          > that things are pretty distorted in this area with
          > some people doing a lot
          > of value and getting paid very little ... and others
          > getting paid obscenely
          > huge amounts. These data are potentially very useful
          > ... and I am sure they
          > will tell us something, but what I do not know.
          >
          > Privacy and confidentiality are important ... these
          > data are not about who
          > ... the individual person ... but about places ...
          > and organizations ... and
          > job functions ... and the pattern that emerges. The
          > data and the analysis
          > does NOT link back to specific people.
          >
          > To the extent that anyone would like to help with
          > any of this type of
          > information, I would welcome the dataflows. As the
          > patterns emerge ... they
          > will be made public without compromising the privacy
          > and confidentiality
          > issue.
          >
          > A related piece of this module is a framework of job
          > types ... what is the
          > job (activity) and what is the reason for the job
          > (what value outcome). We
          > are now building this table as well.
          >
          > Sincerely
          > ____________
          > Peter Burgess
          > The Transparency and Accountability Network:
          > Tr-Ac-Net in New York
          > www.tr-ac-net.org
          > Community Accountancy
          > Integrated Malaria Management Consortium (IMMC)
          > 917 432 1191 or 212 772 6918 peterbnyc@...
          > Peter Burgess
          >
          > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM, <ms@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Andrius,
          > >
          > > How do you justify a pay scale that pays you five
          > times the pay received
          > > by those who actually do the work? I am curious.
          > Really. Hasn't anyone
          > > else asked you about this? I'm sure you have a
          > good explanation.
          > >
          > > Tom
          > >
          > >
          > > Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
          > > twayburn@...
          > > http://www.dematerialism.net/
          > > http://dematerialism.blogspot.com/
          > > http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/
          > >
          > > ---------------------------
          > >
          > > Tom, Thank you for writing.
          > >
          > > Ten years ago, when I started, I was hoping that I
          > could earn the same as
          > > everybody else at Minciu Sodas. But it became
          > apparent that I was
          > > investing much more than anybody else could be
          > expected to invest.
          > > Raimundas Vaitkevicius told me, "Andrius, first
          > you must earn - and then
          > > everybody else will be able to earn."
          > >
          > > I can say, ten years later, that hundreds of
          > people have done very well at
          > > Minciu Sodas. You and hundreds of people have, I
          > think, received a "free
          > > service" that often isn't available elsewhere, and
          > certainly not for
          > > purchase. I have set this up so that we are all
          > contributing to a commons
          > > in the Public Domain and so we are yielding an
          > asset that I think
          > > justifies my investment, but also is available for
          > others, even those who
          > > have not yet invested.
          > >
          > > Tom, you have written 240 letters to our
          > laboratory, a huge number, and so
          > > have dozens of other people. Yet I have written
          > almost 10,000 letters
          > > which is about one-third of the 30,000 letters
          > that we have written. So it
          > > is easy to forget and underestimate my
          > contribution.
          > > http://www.ms.lt/authors.php
          > >
          > > In any work in our economy, the hardest part is
          > finding the client. More
          > > than half the energy is spent on that. And I have
          > structured our lab's
          > > work so that we meet our participants half way and
          > they are, first of all,
          > > working for themselves. They are getting money
          > for what they might do for
          > > free. So it's understandable if that's not very
          > much money.
          > >
          > > Yet I do need to make sure that I can provide for
          > myself. And $25,000 a
          > > year is actually not providing for myself
          > considering that I have to make
          > > 12x$1,400=$16,800 for loan payments to my credit
          > cards.
          > >
          > > But I do believe that we can achieve the most
          > impressive results if we
          > > give a small piece of work to everybody, so that
          > hundreds and thousands of
          > > people might participate. In this way, when I
          > received $24,000 for
          >
          === message truncated ===
        • Peter Burgess
          Dear Colleagues The issues arising in the message from Actwid Kogadzem also deserve discussion ... and again in depth, frankly and preferably without being
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 13, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Colleagues
             
            The issues arising in the message from Actwid Kogadzem also deserve discussion ... and again in depth, frankly and preferably without being specific about (and critical of) any identifiable person. 
             
            There are a lot of good people around the world who are committed to helping those who are very poor and in great need ... these people are targetted by very competent fund raisers and it is pretty impressive how much moey they raise.
             
            I am concerned how difficult it is to track these funds from the organizations raising the money to the organizations using the money ... the accountability is near zero.
             
            There are other dynamics in play ... an increasing number of people in Africa doing interesting things are in contact with people all over the world and the coversations are growing in depth ... and some of the conversation is now about money and funding activities. For every satisfactory outcome from these conversations I estimate that there are probably 100 that do not work out. Social conversations are one thing ... talking through plans maybe helpful ... getting guidance ... getting knowledge ... but getting money is a whole different matter.  
             
            The money problem is compounded by a lack of accounting and financial information ... and an almost totally lack of any way to validate any financial data that are provided. Certainly poor people should have opportunity ... a big challenge ... but the question of why people have become so poor also needs dialog ... and why the (financial) help needs to come from half way round the world. What is happening to Africa's wealth ... and why is this not being deployed to sort out the poverty problems in Africa? 
             
            This message scratches the surface of a huge problem ... but I think it is worth getting it on the agenda.
            Sincerely
             
            Peter Burgess
            ____________
            Peter Burgess
            The Transparency and Accountability Network: Tr-Ac-Net in New York
            www.tr-ac-net.org
            Community Accountancy
            Integrated Malaria Management Consortium (IMMC)
            917 432 1191 or 212 772 6918 peterbnyc@...
            //////////////////////////////
            On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM, ACTWID KONGADZEM <actwid_k@...> wrote:
            Dear Andreas,
            We have read with keen interest all that is being
            discussed about fractal  pay scales by Tom.

            Our own worry about you is the promises you made to us
            about the internet that had been our long standing
            project and it just died a natural death from your
            end.

            We still all wonder how someone of very high moral
            standing  like you could promise a rural poor
            organization things and end up not sending anything
            nor fulfil any of our own issues here that you
            yourself talked of and did not send anything in the
            end. We even wrote emails to you about the issues
            raised and you did not reply at all to us.
             We still feel that no matter  what happened after you
             yourself told us that you were sending us a digital
            photo frame, flash sticks etc and to support our
            internet cafe issues and  ended up by fraustrating us
            a poor rural women"s organization to instead pay rents
            of 450dollars in all for a room not used which we
            prepared and rented knowing our own that what you say
            as a leader cannot fail  us. Janet too told us that
            she had also contributed at that same time 200dollars
            or so to help us in this our" dream" project of a good
            internet cafe  for all rural women here which you did
            not forward to us too.[She later on gave another one
            to us again] We still also wrote to you to send us
            this contribution from Janet and you did not answer
            too.
              So for the sake of peace  that you  too are
            promoting among others in Africa and elsewhere, how do
            you think we feel ? We had earlier given a very big
            applause to you when you accepted to work with us on
            this internet project in one of your emails.
            We will be grateful if you can give us a reply to this
            email this time.
            Immense thanks  while waiting to hear from you?
            Sincerely ACTWID KONGADZEM NGO  board members led by
            Wendi, Njua Geraldine, Fon Brigit, Mary Ambijel
            ,Therese etc on behalf of all
            --- Peter Burgess <peterbNYC@...> wrote:

            > Dear Colleagues
            >
            > The subject of remuneration is, in my view, very
            > important ... and usually
            > very badly argued. It also usually arises because of
            > something that appears
            > inequitable ... and is usually discussed around
            > specific individuals. In my
            > view the subject does deserve a lot more thought and
            > dialog, and not around
            > specific people.
            >
            > Most people get paid by an organization that has the
            > money to pay them ...
            > and uses their effort and talent to make money ...
            > and in some modern
            > organizations, a huge amount of money. Sadly ... in
            > much of the modern
            > global economy making a lot of money does not have
            > much to do with doing a
            > lot of good. In fact, though there is increased talk
            > of things like
            > Corporate Social Responsibilty (CSR) these things
            > are rapidly discarded if
            > they get in the way of making real money.
            >
            > One of the big measures of success is simply how
            > much money one makes ...
            > how much money one has. It is an almost universal
            > measure ... but not a very
            > good one. Is the idea that "the person with the most
            > toys at the end wins"
            > really what we should be thinking about?
            >
            > As many of you know I am working on a framework of
            > metrics that we call
            > Community Accountancy ... we are trying to go
            > further than the money
            > measures because life, surely, is more than just
            > about money things. This
            > is, however, accountancy ... with much of the rigor
            > associated with business
            > accountancy.
            >
            > I am very clear that money sustainability is of
            > critical importance. People
            > have to have the money flows so that the bill flows
            > can be paid and not
            > create a catastrophe for the individual and family.
            >
            > I do not see why people that are working on good
            > things ... things that
            > deliver social value ... should have to take a vow
            > of poverty. If that is
            > what it takes, I would argue that this is an example
            > of system
            > dysfunctionality that needs to be addressed.
            >
            > As a practical matter there is a huge opportunity
            > for philanthropy to be
            > much better used so that it does very much more of
            > social good, and does it
            > productively rather than merely in a way that looks
            > good ... Community
            > Accountancy is aiming to make it possible for
            > Philanthropy to be driven by
            > the concept of PR for productivity rather than PR
            > for public relations. That
            > is what happens with baseball ... why not do more or
            > less the same
            > thing with socio-economic performance.
            >
            > One of the components of Community Accountancy is
            > the whole issue of
            > remuneration ... a mapping of what jobs pay what
            > money ... what
            > organizations pay what, where and to whom (class of
            > people). Many are aware
            > that things are pretty distorted in this area with
            > some people doing a lot
            > of value and getting paid very little ... and others
            > getting paid obscenely
            > huge amounts. These data are potentially very useful
            > ... and I am sure they
            > will tell us something, but what I do not know.
            >
            > Privacy and confidentiality are important ... these
            > data are not about who
            > ... the individual person ... but about places ...
            > and organizations ... and
            > job functions ... and the pattern that emerges. The
            > data and the analysis
            > does NOT link back to specific people.
            >
            > To the extent that anyone would like to help with
            > any of this type of
            > information, I would welcome the dataflows. As the
            > patterns emerge ... they
            > will be made public without compromising the privacy
            > and confidentiality
            > issue.
            >
            > A related piece of this module is a framework of job
            > types ... what is the
            > job (activity) and what is the reason for the job
            > (what value outcome). We
            > are now building this table as well.
            >
            > Sincerely
            > ____________
            > Peter Burgess
            > The Transparency and Accountability Network:
            > Tr-Ac-Net in New York
            > www.tr-ac-net.org
            > Community Accountancy
            > Integrated Malaria Management Consortium (IMMC)
            > 917 432 1191 or 212 772 6918 peterbnyc@...
            > Peter Burgess
            >
            > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM, <ms@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Andrius,
            > >
            > > How do you justify a pay scale that pays you five
            > times the pay received
            > > by those who actually do the work?  I am curious.
            > Really.  Hasn't anyone
            > > else asked you about this?  I'm sure you have a
            > good explanation.
            > >
            > > Tom
            > >
            > >
            > > Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
            > > twayburn@...
            > > http://www.dematerialism.net/
            > > http://dematerialism.blogspot.com/
            > > http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/
            > >
            > > ---------------------------
            > >
            > > Tom, Thank you for writing.
            > >
            > > Ten years ago, when I started, I was hoping that I
            > could earn the same as
            > > everybody else at Minciu Sodas.  But it became
            > apparent that I was
            > > investing much more than anybody else could be
            > expected to invest.
            > > Raimundas Vaitkevicius told me, "Andrius, first
            > you must earn - and then
            > > everybody else will be able to earn."
            > >
            > > I can say, ten years later, that hundreds of
            > people have done very well at
            > > Minciu Sodas.  You and hundreds of people have, I
            > think, received a "free
            > > service" that often isn't available elsewhere, and
            > certainly not for
            > > purchase.  I have set this up so that we are all
            > contributing to a commons
            > > in the Public Domain and so we are yielding an
            > asset that I think
            > > justifies my investment, but also is available for
            > others, even those who
            > > have not yet invested.
            > >
            > > Tom, you have written 240 letters to our
            > laboratory, a huge number, and so
            > > have dozens of other people.  Yet I have written
            > almost 10,000 letters
            > > which is about one-third of the 30,000 letters
            > that we have written. So it
            > > is easy to forget and underestimate my
            > contribution.
            > > http://www.ms.lt/authors.php
            > >
            > > In any work in our economy, the hardest part is
            > finding the client.  More
            > > than half the energy is spent on that.  And I have
            > structured our lab's
            > > work so that we meet our participants half way and
            > they are, first of all,
            > > working for themselves.  They are getting money
            > for what they might do for
            > > free.  So it's understandable if that's not very
            > much money.
            > >
            > > Yet I do need to make sure that I can provide for
            > myself.  And $25,000 a
            > > year is actually not providing for myself
            > considering that I have to make
            > > 12x$1,400=$16,800 for loan payments to my credit
            > cards.
            > >
            > > But I do believe that we can achieve the most
            > impressive results if we
            > > give a small piece of work to everybody, so that
            > hundreds and thousands of
            > > people might participate.  In this way, when I
            > received $24,000 for
            >
            === message truncated ===





            ------------------------------------

            http://www.worknets.org/wiki.cgi?HolisticHelping

            Please note our rule: Each letter sent to the Holistic Helping group enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN unless it explicitly states otherwise.  Thank you!  http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org


          • Mark Roest
            Hi all, For those who don t know him, Peter Burgess spent decades doing accountancy in Africa and elsewhere, and wrote a book called Profit in Africa . He has
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 13, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi all,

              For those who don't know him, Peter Burgess spent decades doing accountancy in Africa and elsewhere, and wrote a book called "Profit in Africa". He has been on the path of efficiency and effectiveness in aid to others for a very long time. His work would be valuable to anyone who needs to deal with these issues.

              Peter, some of the people I cc'd here are working on, or working to make happen, fairly large-scale projects, for which the methodology you are giving a taste of may have a role. Could you give us a little more specific description (e.g. something like a white paper) of how it would work in documenting and supporting accountability in a pilot project or roll-out, and for people working on bringing equity to their own community?

              Is it entirely a digital product or service? How do (or will) people work with it?

              What is your timeline for going live? Are you planning on the equivalent of alpha and beta tests, and will you need test projects? What scale are you hoping for, in what kind of timeframe?

              Did you start with a philosophy of compensation that you could describe to us, or did you start with a hypothesis for testing -- and can you share it?

              Regards,

              Mark

              On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Peter Burgess <peterbNYC@...> wrote:

              Dear Colleagues
               
              The subject of remuneration is, in my view, very important ... and usually very badly argued. It also usually arises because of something that appears inequitable ... and is usually discussed around specific individuals. In my view the subject does deserve a lot more thought and dialog, and not around specific people.
               
              Most people get paid by an organization that has the money to pay them ... and uses their effort and talent to make money ... and in some modern organizations, a huge amount of money. Sadly ... in much of the modern global economy making a lot of money does not have much to do with doing a lot of good. In fact, though there is increased talk of things like Corporate Social Responsibilty (CSR) these things are rapidly discarded if they get in the way of making real money.
               
              One of the big measures of success is simply how much money one makes ... how much money one has. It is an almost universal measure ... but not a very good one. Is the idea that "the person with the most toys at the end wins" really what we should be thinking about?
               
              As many of you know I am working on a framework of metrics that we call Community Accountancy ... we are trying to go further than the money measures because life, surely, is more than just about money things. This is, however, accountancy ... with much of the rigor associated with business accountancy.
               
              I am very clear that money sustainability is of critical importance. People have to have the money flows so that the bill flows can be paid and not create a catastrophe for the individual and family.
               
              I do not see why people that are working on good things ... things that deliver social value ... should have to take a vow of poverty. If that is what it takes, I would argue that this is an example of system dysfunctionality that needs to be addressed. 
               
              As a practical matter there is a huge opportunity for philanthropy to be much better used so that it does very much more of social good, and does it productively rather than merely in a way that looks good ... Community Accountancy is aiming to make it possible for Philanthropy to be driven by the concept of PR for productivity rather than PR for public relations. That is what happens with baseball ... why not do more or less the same thing with socio-economic performance. 
               
              One of the components of Community Accountancy is the whole issue of remuneration ... a mapping of what jobs pay what money ... what organizations pay what, where and to whom (class of people). Many are aware that things are pretty distorted in this area with some people doing a lot of value and getting paid very little ... and others getting paid obscenely huge amounts. These data are potentially very useful ... and I am sure they will tell us something, but what I do not know.
               
              Privacy and confidentiality are important ... these data are not about who ... the individual person ... but about places ... and organizations ... and job functions ... and the pattern that emerges. The data and the analysis does NOT link back to specific people.
               
              To the extent that anyone would like to help with any of this type of information, I would welcome the dataflows. As the patterns emerge ... they will be made public without compromising the privacy and confidentiality issue.
               
              A related piece of this module is a framework of job types ... what is the job (activity) and what is the reason for the job (what value outcome). We are now building this table as well.
               
              Sincerely
              ____________
              Peter Burgess
              The Transparency and Accountability Network: Tr-Ac-Net in New York
              www.tr-ac-net.org
              Community Accountancy
              Integrated Malaria Management Consortium (IMMC)
              917 432 1191 or 212 772 6918 peterbnyc@...
              Peter Burgess
               
              On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM, <ms@...> wrote:
              Andrius,

              How do you justify a pay scale that pays you five times the pay received
              by those who actually do the work?  I am curious.  Really.  Hasn't anyone
              else asked you about this?  I'm sure you have a good explanation.

              Tom


              Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
              twayburn@...
              http://www.dematerialism.net/
              http://dematerialism.blogspot.com/
              http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/

              ---------------------------

              Tom, Thank you for writing.

              Ten years ago, when I started, I was hoping that I could earn the same as
              everybody else at Minciu Sodas.  But it became apparent that I was
              investing much more than anybody else could be expected to invest.
              Raimundas Vaitkevicius told me, "Andrius, first you must earn - and then
              everybody else will be able to earn."

              I can say, ten years later, that hundreds of people have done very well at
              Minciu Sodas.  You and hundreds of people have, I think, received a "free
              service" that often isn't available elsewhere, and certainly not for
              purchase.  I have set this up so that we are all contributing to a commons
              in the Public Domain and so we are yielding an asset that I think
              justifies my investment, but also is available for others, even those who
              have not yet invested.

              Tom, you have written 240 letters to our laboratory, a huge number, and so
              have dozens of other people.  Yet I have written almost 10,000 letters
              which is about one-third of the 30,000 letters that we have written. So it
              is easy to forget and underestimate my contribution.
              http://www.ms.lt/authors.php

              In any work in our economy, the hardest part is finding the client.  More
              than half the energy is spent on that.  And I have structured our lab's
              work so that we meet our participants half way and they are, first of all,
              working for themselves.  They are getting money for what they might do for
              free.  So it's understandable if that's not very much money.

              Yet I do need to make sure that I can provide for myself.  And $25,000 a
              year is actually not providing for myself considering that I have to make
              12x$1,400=$16,800 for loan payments to my credit cards.

              But I do believe that we can achieve the most impressive results if we
              give a small piece of work to everybody, so that hundreds and thousands of
              people might participate.  In this way, when I received $24,000 for
              MyFoodStory, I made sure to give about half for our teams, benefiting some
              one hundred people, even though I could have kept all of the money for
              myself.  Similarly, in my proposal for Stephen Wolfram, I would keep 25%
              of the money for myself, and distribute 75% for our team.  Note that I am
              taking full responsibility for the project, that it is my investment that
              is key to making it possible, that I am taking the risk to find the
              client, and then think again how all that work is going to the poor.

              Also, consider that I am not asking others to work at a lower rate than
              me.  I am asking them to work on smaller pieces, so that we could include
              as many people as possible.  But certainly, Tom, I would be very happy if
              you might give me $200 or $1,000 or $5,000 worth of work.  Indeed, that is
              the next step that I am proposing for Stephen Wolfram, that he fund a
              $2,000 project (of which I would get $1,000) and then a $15,000 project
              (of which I would get $5,000).  So I am asking for the same work that I am
              ready to give other people.  And if I did receive $25,000 of $100,000,
              then yet I may very well be doing one-quarter of the work, alongside a
              much greater share of the responsibility, risk, investment, and for me the
              least pleasant work of finding a client.  If somebody could provide us a
              client, then I wouldn't care what percentage they took, whether it was 25%
              or 50% or more, certainly if they are taking the responsibility.

              Even if I did earn a lot of money, I hope that my generosity and my
              ability to use money well would make that good for all people.  Gandhi was
              in favor of there being rich people, with the understanding that they are
              stewards of personal wealth that serves all.

              Dozens of poor people have earned vital income from our laboratory.  They
              have a keen interest in my financial success.  Tom, I wish that the
              well-to-do did as well.

              I ask for your help that I and others might have paid work.

              Andrius

              Andrius Kulikauskas
              Minciu Sodas
              http://www.ms.lt
              ms@...
              +1 (312) 618-3345


              ------------------------------------


              http://www.worknets.org/wiki.cgi?HolisticHelping

              Please note our rule: Each letter sent to the Holistic Helping group enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN unless it explicitly states otherwise.  Thank you!  http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/holistichelping/

              <*> Your email settings:
                 Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/holistichelping/join
                 (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                 mailto:holistichelping-digest@yahoogroups.com
                 mailto:holistichelping-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                 holistichelping-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.