Convertibility of Persons - via 'Not-for-Profit' Employment
“A means by which to convert company type from NFP model to LLC model, that could be designed as efficient, practical and with devilish details well considered and peer reviewed, is feasible.” — Patrick Lee Cheatham
Adults are nearly all ‘in Business’, to include government employees
We, in the category of ‘global adults’, typically are part of some sort of commerce, and thus — in an alternative interpretation— we all count as “businesspersons” by virtue of employment in any capacity being also involvement as “a part of some sort of business or activity that produces or provides, societally valued and of worth.” This is inclusive of those federally or state employed, whom if sometimes relegated or scapegoated for/against, depending on capacity or role, should have similar interest in these ‘in employment thus in business / activity / productivity modes’ issues which I cover next. I’ve selected to perform a coverage of issues which to my experiences, are not often delved into much, with the goal of providing readers with some additional perspective which applies at all times in all walks of our lives, and with which to take action and lead good changes in business, government, and societal ways and means.
Thus, by virtue of adult employment matching greatly with also being a ‘businessperson’ the coveted status of mere ‘line employee’ is truly not some special over-privileged status of both above and below other persons in more formal capacities at various companies, businesses, government offices, or other government capacities such as military branches and many federal, state, and local departments and offices. Such informal attitude, if used as a mindset and self-approach to personal roles in societies, is subtly damaging to infrastructures and millions personal economies widespread, in a several years to more years delayed manner.
Usage of the term ‘Profit’ is widely held erroneously, with misuse of the word rampant
Most companies that qualify as ‘for profit’ in model are not truly in business for reason of always profiting blatantly; they are in business to empower and gainfully occupy themselves, empower and contribute to customers, and reasonably provide for themselves by way of ‘income’ having good features: variability, increase-ability, decrease-ability, change-ability, react-ability, tailor-ability, capacitance-ability, surge-ability, drawdown-ability, and more.
That’s rather than by way of ‘profit’. “For profit’ is a term that naturally contrasts with ‘not for profit’, and is a misconstruing concept, greatly. Yet any who decry that I mention ‘for profit’ in terminology should face the reality that if ‘not for profit’ conveys such romantic and very idealistic notions of charitable shoving [giving] and while packaged with accompaniment of unromantic yet also idealistic anti-commercial and anti-employment, and especially anti-advertising — almost but not quite to the point of disassembling retail store signage, so no one else can find places to purchase wares and services, then this ‘profit and nonprofit’ comparative and competitive counterplay continues.
The fault for this, which possesses ‘action-potentials’ and having ‘results leverage’ in real-time recurring and continuing currently (and other than discoverable via past-tense many-months sequence-of-process research, which as a discovery project is too often initially selected as early on mode of assessing fault areas and problem causalities), upon consideration of common in-place commerce, education, and employment norms in United States society, I attribute in the main to those persons scouring the internet for education programs and job programs as means of hiring on at ‘not for profit’ companies. This regular employment rush (a subset of all employment seeking and opportunity canvasing, commonplace and more nominal, when aimed at standard employment) to get into a ‘not for profit’ outmaneuvers and drives matters more than those in administrative and financial decision-making roles at the exact same ‘not for profit’ companies as so targeted for entry-level employment, as with most employment opportunities these not for profit positions regularly coming open do feature rewarding and gainful project self-involvement of enjoyable effort self-exertions for prospective employees, and plus do feature good paychecks in tandem with reasonably rewarding and self-empowering exertions of effort at daily tasks and projects available for entrants to apply themselves toward at these not for profit positions.
This is very much similar to the exact same issues pertaining at employment opportunities availing and open at standard and conventionally operating companies, but which are in business operations which are not designated based on operating model monetary policy toward or against — income less expense (profit) as driving issues.
Such education seeking and job seeking, if aimed almost exclusively at ‘not for profit’ company membership, be that worded as ‘internships’ or otherwise, is a huge problem for all of us in our societies, and for many of a different category that is not truly ‘them’ — those employed and thus part of same ‘not for profit’ companies at which new entrance to membership via hiring on continues to apply tremendous trend-steering informally on inhouse results — those who hired on over several years past, and to whom having formerly belonging to such an oddly skewed peer-group of aspiring entrants formerly, was formerly not much understood and surely not directly related to them as to its nationwide legacy ways: of leverage upon their now daily and hourly personal gainful occupation in tandem with income source, commensurate.
Eras-Old “Charities-Style Math” —Subtractive, Summation-Oriented, Cancelling
Maximizing at doing the minimum as ostensibly best: Zeroing via Zero.
Zero’s “Holy Power” to Stop any and All Change.
“Charitable-Mode Math” involves selecting numbers in pairs of 2 rather than on their own natures and applying daily efforts resulting in the difference between the two attaining gain and productivity of nothing
In entering into presenting the reader with results of my guesswork, which have been in nature a feasibility study of excessively “Right Doing” in Eras long Historical, insight into a major factor contributing to the widespread unpopularity of advertising, with advertising's ties to productivities (in goods or services), as compared to the countering popularity of "not: For Profit,” is the proposal I have to the reader, that the following is very well feasible:
"Profit'' is an old term, feasibly devised as a numeric-pairing-up-of-2, to co-pit-contrarily. Debunking of this reveals the term/duo/pairing 'profit' as likely math-by-charities ever aiming at zero, to be an eras-old contrivance, as a way of rendering entity features to be not of gain and not of merit, and as foul pretense of being a measure/metric (instead truly being a subtraction between 2 true metrics, not perfectible by philosophy unto zero, perfectly always, but often).
This is a philosophy against goods and services, both, and favoring charitable usurping of other persons productivities personal and vocational both.
To NFP / FZD entities, the maximum performance and yearly requirement, and what makes them special and differently against differences in the main, and key to acting as officially charitable, and of which also performs at applying huge pressures against advertising, soon possibly even escalating to stop further retail signage, and next maybe product labeling and packaging (an anti-trade anti-commerce sleeper lobbyist issue to persons who deliver and stock commercial wares such as foods and beverages, persons favoring that food does not spoil in transit and while awaiting purchase), each category of “advertising” and thus “declaratively and blatantly revealing nature of product” as ripe and targetable by NFP charity-math calculation methods, (which if there ever was entry into trade as products, would be designed predominantly depicting minus and summation buttons with a lack of plus buttons and with limit as governor preventative of large numbers in result or computation) a major feature for the Zeroing-Out and Cancellation of many numbers, by at first merely gathering any group in numbers into pairs of two, then working at changing daily operations to make them come out as equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign. Deviant deviations from zero in the cancellation ‘beautiful at an ugliness painted as balance’ is blatantly showing of human productivity and mutual gain: ‘commerce activity’ and trade in services and products — to which NFP was chosen by many persons as a better way to earn paychecks, which other than is deemed uncharitable and improper to charitable giving (of form and as unsolicited as “advice”, in the main, or funds carrying same oomph) to other persons.
NFP “Convertible Persons” (to not be cruel, convertibility after eradication nearly from the automobile market (another unpopular word with NFP persons) being not such a terrible status, and actually very advantageous at sudden appearances and other sudden absences as to involvement or results upon the person, do prefer it seems that entities’ operational efforts, do zero out difference between metrics/measures of human output.
That's popular because hiring into NFP entities is popular. Popularity as a measure or metric is of merit because popularity is indicative of greater count of either large minority among total “populations” or majority of such “populations” — is exactly that way, and by self-preference direct or hypocritical, either way.
Making a “Difference Amounting to Zero”, can be done to excellent standards by ways and means of unattendance and non-commentary. So, quietness about this is very much for purposes of zero difference furtherance. It fits, and it performs no work, in order to counteract commerce and its advertising transgressions against charitable models.
Also more popular is the reputation of charitability, for NFP/FZD entities personnel (consumers all, also) as to results, rather than reputation of productivity or changeability much.
Each reader of this reads while solo. Sheer numbers among total counts in societies are NFP employed, churched, or rostered this way, causing mindsets of: convertible persons. Person L and personnel do blend, but that's not convertible enough for many. Read solo, and wonder solo, as to the effects on all of us of charitable entity-employed persons, as which personnel are a multitude, which explains much.
Reversals in roles are not surprising, as the model of 'Convertible Persons' which I've humorously been exploring, does indicate a proclivity for many persons to divest themselves of acting as 'parts of companies' when in 'not at work' modes of being — the same person as while ‘at work’ ‘for’ some other person. "Person" and "Personnel" roles are dual but for only one person each, and thus there is no duo in these dualities.
Returning to the rallying cry of charity operations: who are for being 'not for' profit very much so, as key, and without which such odd subtraction and summation resultants such as such charity-favored notion of an enemy, they're great at math to come up with: the ‘holy scapegoat’ (if fair-minded persons can be duped into disregarding incomes and expenses both, and instead into playing the game of equalizing them as opposite in polarity, great at further cancellations and nullifications) ‘holy ruse of a word: profit’
Profit was/is:
“To: be not for!”
“Or: to not be for!”
“Rather than to live for!”
“Or: to die for!” …
instead, and as better, to do nothing and perform zilch, via assertively doing much of exactly such!) was/is the most ripe ‘phantom metric’ — rich in potential — if aiming to reduce that which the phantom metric is tied to.
That is my conclusion of feasibility study on economic idealism as likely involved in many Eras of History long before now.
Profit is maybe histories most ugly math creation, maybe performed when charity was becoming ineffective to perform human activities in lieu of / in the stead of — other human persons to be charitable toward. If company mission monetarily is to obsess on the 'idea of profit' (key to NFP acronym spelling) and some such non-thing to vilify if bored, and as using profit-notion to self-guide in opposition goals regarding, then this all fits. While all this predominates on what to do about the 'scapegoat' concocted up profit-idea notion, near and dear to NFP job seekers, surely as such a philosophy-opponent everlasting in the NFP term itself, this also serves attempts aimed to (fall short of) perfection, (of course more reasonably done, as also more convertible), but in so doing at least in the trying, succeeds (another unpopular word, but it exists as ‘result in’ form nevertheless) at distracting self/others from notice of profit-notion being a charitable hoax and ruse as a ‘math non-result of non-merit’ except to be subtractive and cancelling in bent and philosophy; yet which also almost scores perfectly in a side realm concurrently operative: at miscues when engaged in oft calculations by NFP entities, daily, which then guide decisions as to how to zero out (for which term in eras past profit was feasibly conceived of, as something to zero out) numbers representing true natures of differing characters. Zeroing 'differ between' is an old drastic and overreactive 'cure' against commerce and monies themselves, to render companies elusive to (mostly inhouse, often overlooked) assessment of growth potential, rendering the company and entity untradeable and nearly non-investible-in (mostly via inhouse motivation and initiative, often overlooked in favor of seeking effects elsewhere blinding as to first an lasting effects inhouse, again) as 'cure' against: increase, gain, improvement, change, and progress on projects, those increasers deemed, self-sacrificially, (for self-reputation, reputedly very effective) as measures of merit: very improper.
Differing in natures, are 'income' as of nature, not 'expense.' Unity of the two numbers, to cancel them by end of year, is a blatant miscue (not by fairly retaining demarcation between, commonly vilified as ‘divisions between them’, but by crass 'uniting': only via uniting can count of 0 or 1 in facets (unit/y) come to be, as < than multiple of count: in facets). This miscue exhibits idealism aiming for the perfect in self-repute, plus repute of no repute, both.
NFP economics, are undiscerning of isentropic/entropic differing, and neglect concurrent human gains. More on that sort of issue in more writings in later this year and following years, is my idea at present.
NFP imbued Nature begins at Startup stage or Formation of company
Only at not-for-profit entities, such as for only a few examples, medical companies, churches, trade associations, alumni associations, research institutes, lobbying associations, and many more types, which selected at early startup stage to operate as declaring themselves charitable and not for profit, does an overarching and intrinsic nature of operations adherence criteria exist in year-end accounting philosophies. This not-for-profit model begins at initiation of operations and acts onward, as primary in selections of what allocations of resources are decided on daily. This is continual as mattering greatly to NFP entities, and other companies are smart to not behave in this same manner.
Especially when year’s end approaches only several months or less to become complete, and toward the beginning of a new cycle, if incomes minus expenses, as summed at category of assessment of ‘one year totals’ (being that which must counter-equal one another in mirror comparison, in trends while approaching year’s end) possibly shows signs of differing from zero at greater amounts that present difficulty by being more than very quick final-week or final-day of tax year corrections can be made by quickly ordering — a slew plus a tailored few — of new peripheral devices to exactly mirror match unexpected at first overages of incomes, for example, then payroll or new greater lease of larger facility could be turned to next, in attaining tax-years-end main goal: zeroing.
This obviously becomes especially awkward if very large unexpected incomes come in when approaching the end of the conventional or fiscal year as tax-reporting year, as if such does occur then expenses must be increased hurriedly and while also for each day-to-day proceeding toward final tax-year last day, some incremental allowance for adjusting and tailoring of expenses is known to exist tomorrow and on subsequent days.
Most Personnel employed at Standard and NFP Companies neither Study nor Acknowledge that Company Model matters much, instead preferring to lobby against advertising or promotion, as most recent Trend
Income cancellations that an NFP entity is able to pull off are performable mostly by means of: [1] spending greater on payroll and paychecks to themselves and other ‘members’/’employees’ (the two terms for 3rd term ‘personnel’ being equivalent, truly, in these matters at least), or [2] otherwise spending greater on lease increases for alternative operations facilities, or [3] spending greater on viable asset acquisitions to later become accounted for as fixed assets or as inventory. This list does at least include some ‘expenses’ (spending) accounted for openly as performed, in the form of acquisitions of viable new equipment, better than presently or eventually to become, out of date or malfunctioning, the value of performance at such increases of total expenses/spending being one category and type of entity monetary behavior with which other companies could relate to as other than baffling and counterproductive.
Standard operating company entities possess no monetary accounting zeroing policy, nor do they harbor any particular ethos either for or against ‘profit’ amount tweaking, as to goals of the company. That’s independent of whether the Olympic gold equivalent concerning profit is the big zero, the big subtraction, or actually the big pitting of one number versus another, with usage of a minus sign and a summation sign to marry them together into the odd definition of ‘amount of profit.’
When a result that is meager in magnitude, or that amounts to cancellation is strived for with more of such being cast as better to do, then hypocrisy shows in the inverse maximum attainment being pursued, while concurrently posing as indicative of more non-impact or as more operating toward the non-effectual.
Such larger, better, and greater performance at attaining, oddly — either not very much or nothing at all — by virtue of being made a ‘big and largely important goal’ does show us that charitable attitudes are somewhat subtly hypocritical at best, or are somewhat of a scam and hoax upon those scamming and hoaxing at worse, or are beyond account and fathomable nature by this stage long after initial adoptions of NFP models long ago, at worst, in estimation of problematic issues entrenched therein.
In search of Convertible Persons plausible involvement in the entities they are part of, on this our planet. Being convertible does outperform being disposable, understandably, even while otherwise indisposed
By analogy to automobiles, in which realm convertible features are very unpopular now, as in more recent popularity are safety-pods (once cast as Sport as to nature of automobile, with Utility augmenting the Vehicle word, for well-roundedness) which are very much of more safety to those whose beings are self-placed interior to the safety-pod, and while selected for purchase, (in keeping with popular advice, as repeatedly given charitably and quietly yet interminably unto car drivers), in favor of more heavily defensively-armored and also (not often mentioned due to not being as enjoyable to give, as advice) more impactful to other less-armored vehicles, when and if those vehicles could potentially appear suddenly in the way or path of safety-pod drivers. If preferring to remain extra-safe and possess the extra metal and bulwark to remain safest upon impact with other vehicles (they exist out there), concerning which there is no scoring system, then ensure such is the case by adding more heavy structure around personal safety-pod (SPV instead of SUV), and just blast through that/those which/whom is/are not much into the same way of setting time order priorities or weighing same time merits.‘Profit truly does not exist’ nor does it represent much summary of the formerly existent, and neither does it hold indicative merits much on delayed latent effects.
‘Incomes’ per hour / day / month / quarter / year are of representative value to many persons for making assessments that still pertain greatly to continuance in operations and in personal living.
‘Expenses’ per hour / day / month / quarter / year are of representative value to many persons for making assessments that still pertain greatly to continuance in operations and in personal living.
‘Profit’ is a subtraction between the two, and performs at reducing total magnitude [+] or [-] and divesting the indicative nature of the numbers from actual activity and/or tangibility.
‘Incomes’ summary representations exist truly and ‘expenses’ summary representations exist truly. These two ‘performance-matching and/or tangibles-matching numbers’ by virtue of matching actual activity by humans and/or tangible items of merit or of value to humans, are well representative of existent recent actions and enjoyably performed productivity as gainful occupation.
Matching with actual human activity issues, becomes badly divested of former and current actual recent actions effecting current and future actions, if placing these numbers side to side with a subtraction symbol between, to arrive at something simpler and smaller.
Performing the subtraction, by pitting the expenses number’s talent to ‘take away’ from the incomes number, does covertly hide by ‘take away’ effect upon the expenses number the existence of payroll paychecks for all entity members. Gladly and importantly, this does not take away salary or income by inverse non-bonus effects, but the subtraction satisfies some typical goals of arrogant pretense (the pretense part adds the ingredient of true arrogance) at superior performance at humility.
Minimizing numbers if they pertain to ‘personnel mode’ representation of same persons and people, does not change that they each are same as to person of consideration, even when stylistically divested of company ties and involvements when representation of their welfares is via ‘personal mode,’ in this case rendered “Convertible Persons” by way of other such “Convertible Persons” switching modes when addressing them, and while not aiming to give advice of course, unless charitable by way of shoving, and not commercial seeming, by way of promoting or advertising, and quickly.
In a contrary manner that provides ample opportunity for charitable ‘giving’ of patent advice — in this case to attend to and maintain consistent or greatening numbers as to ‘personal net worth.’
For those to whom the enjoyment of performing charitable advice giving, there is an obvious preference that such convertibility of ‘personnel mode’ status to that same person’s more solo ‘person mode’ status, which seems involved in this strange mismatch between a person and same person, when a person’s target richness is greatest in potential for charitable giving of… something worth the charitable maven’s time, if and when disavowal and denial of the existence of trade, commerce, retail, employment, monies, currencies, and adulthood, is made partially (for optimum effect truly more facilitating to give advice with) and with enough non-disavowal and non-denial remaining to the blend as to allow for some numerical currency quantity to exist, in concept non-vilified and concept unscathed.
Stylism at the issue of advertising is the hot topic and issue.
This the burden and legacy of anti-commerce and anti-advertising we all must contend with. Lobbying if allowed to spread too rampant, could even at some point attempt to dismantle signage at basic retail places lining common streets, at which point finding our way to points of purchase could get ugly, and if more ensues, and package labeling comes next to sudden epiphany: that signage and product labeling is… advertising, then we are in irreversible trouble.
Small numbers of monies, concerning company entity at performance (or business finances) please onlookers mostly by way of small magnitudes generating more approving wow effect.
It is of value in considerations by way of presenting us with more perspective, to in some cases, and more than only once, look at financial performance numbers in terms of magnitude only, disregarding for a while both positive and negative signage conventions. (As is driving northward truly not more gainful due to following the [+] convention, and as is driving southward not ‘being negative’ due to aligning oneself with the [-] convention. Also as is adding more distance to the left of center of drawing page is not on par with performing the reverse, thus as when compared to adding more distance to the right of drawing page center zone, each are performed by way of adding distance or displacement from center, with the plus and minus symbology or signage utilized mostly to differentiate between two realms rather than to act as reversals in contrast to each other.
This is Accordingly Delivered to the Reader in Ceremonial Tone of Prose, matching Not-for-Profit entity Supreme Fomenters: most adept and practiced at Traditional NFP Methods, and whose NFP ways Preceded and Heralded the Not-for-Profit Hoax itself
Introducing:
Churches providing pay, mostly only to their (possessive mode sadly active even more than when such mode word ‘their’ precedes the word ‘attorneys’) ministers, plus with bonus of usurping such minister-employees own personal involvement in such chores as personal selection of home to inhabit, for more giving at target desired to give unto. [Giving: advice, lessening of activity, lessening of involvement, and monies of course toward less the opposite of whatever the case might be if the ‘more’ version of it has indulgent reputation, or is of reputation to involve conscious exertion of more than bed-ridden, in personal activity level.]
Minister-employees, by necessity are quick to adapt and quick to perform prose vocal spoken wonders at steering matters more mundane, if discussion of afternoon weather can’t do the task, which is good for the amelioration and detour of otherwise strange initiatives brewing in these NFP entities, at which any church or religious entity has no other selectable way of forming, other than in a not-for-profit way.
Expenses are condoned, and minister-employee reasonable expense is spending, and thus not of income category, and by NFP attitudes, not of personal/financial gain to them, hypocritically.
It is even possible that the entire set and suite of stereotypical gripes against churches in their operating modes (aside from doctrine) stems in recent centuries more from company models than from old books of Shakespearean awkward wording
Completing the grand ceremonial tour of Not for Profit variety, by this stage of reading the reader likely can relate to NFP acting in results as FZD, thus actually:
For Zero Difference
Prevalent Trends that Favor that Zero be the Arbiter Between and Ruler Over, numerical incomes and expenses
Internships and a wide variety of acronym-rich nursing schools being performed in medical not-for-profit charitable manner at true companies, with total personnel payroll being expensive and condoned (as these persons and engineered equipment just do not arrive by stork nor do they favor zero income as penultimate in sacrificial act be so enacted, as that would only make a grand statement for just one day’s worth, and fail to cover the other typically 29 or 30 days pending.)A mock battle between expenses versus incomes, is pitched with mock weaponry, properly anti-warlike, with battle instruments selected of 2 signs (selected among non-vital signs, for proper medical regard upheld), but instead selected among other competitors, for their unpopularity of course: accounting and mathematical signs:
The [-] sign then is pitched between ‘income | expense’ and suddenly —
income [-] expense [=]— ensues. But unexpectedly both become mock wounded majorly for the entire entity and company, truly hindering and hampering the entire entity (that part not entirely mock in nature), by not-for-profit pre-selected and favored operating mode insisting that the entire set of signs and numbers cancel to zilch.
Even a newer and more charitable version of a Berlin wall, if attempted to build, by increasing font size of the non-vital sign and instead mere summation sign [=], doing such couldn’t stop the minimalization of merits and value, as the reality is that, by policy, that summation sign is to be bypassed entirely and merely put up with as unpopular formality.
Ingoing to this all the NFP personnel knew beforehand that only zero [0] could do the deed of perfect (non) balance, yet cancellation, and do that so unwell as to clone income and profit in mirror image of each other, actually each of same magnitude, and just of opposing signage, idealism and minimalism approached to near perfection, in “For Zero Difference” company operations.
Soon hot debate about income and expense being so very different in nature ensues, awkward when the numbers match but with differing directional or GPS coordinate symbols appended as prefix.
Zero is the Difference Between, thus the other 2 numbers serve at the whim of the zeroing mirror in between, for FZD purposes, as indicated by signs [+] or [-], The 2 merely a mirror distraction of 2 numbers of opposing signage but equal magnitude not differing, cancelling and demolishing each other, as expected of them.
At end of this battle between income and expense, hot debate and notice of both former pesky numbers no longer being in attendance and seemingly missing in action, then at this stage ceremonial celebration does lighten the mood, noting and revering the best number at practical-version semi-perfection (more attainable that way, and not so picky as to be truly consistent) near-attainment of: Zero.
Zero can perfectly clone all other numbers who stand in the way.
If any count of numbers become quarrelsome, then reduce the set of numbers to an even count of numbers, by mere elimination of one from the fray. That sole number is the most fortunate and could survive until next week.
‘It takes a pair or 2 numbers, and a subtraction between them, after adjusting one of the two numbers to equalize their difference’ to make zero difference.
By promoting the merit of the pair — both numbers tied in new association and forevermore joined together — as a former pair become truly zero when now complementing one another unto Zero status.
Pair by pair, of many numbers to contend with, NFP/FZD entities do this as part of the fabric of their company or entity existence, with “for zero difference” company model being more truly descriptive of results and effects
A Return from the Spreadsheet Battlefront, in time to beautify results via Word Processing, more presentable for Statements
In the United States for salaried employment modes of company membership, when Friday arrives, or when other days arrive for hourly wage or salaried modes not aligned with public school day of week operations, there exists at such exact timing a de facto ‘virtual but not actual firing or laying off’ before departing for the personal home, and when Sunday occurs with Monday soon to arrive, there exists a ‘return to adult status permitted by NFP members globally’ at which time — [1] the earning of incomes personally gainful, and [2] the enjoyment of productivity at projects after vacating the home — to inhabit the other place which is then vacated before returning home — is temporarily given pardon and waiver, commerce may again commence, as long as dues and offerings are made in sincere efforts to abolish advertising, first at internet banners, then at car dealership websites, then at television commercial producers, then at companies daring to advertise via online social services, then at the demolishing of in place signage at retail stores (on basis of such signage promoting sales and attracting customers) — blatant commercial advertising.
These monetary zeroing policies are selected and enforced by NFP entities themselves, and thus by ‘initial legacy and formation (or startup) stage’ selections apply and restrict only such ‘not for profit’ companies, as to the range of availing company performable means to attain incomes absolute equality with expenses.
In daily and hourly operations at places of projects and productivity, and thus which involve order fulfillment, and/or performance of studies, performance of designs, performance of production of tangibles with transferable end results in forms of proposal-satisfying reports or conclusions on ideas, methods, or wares, and/or performance of activities or productions of products to match contracts in forms of locational distance-covering deliveries performed, in forms of retail point-of-sales attendance at availability to meet and coordinate transactions as readied to encounter customers, and/or performance of studies or conceptual projects to contractual fulfillment.
Incomes per hour and per day do not typically exactly equal expenses per same hour and per same day, nor does such strange idealistic bent enter into considerations of those monetary actions, as driving decisions on that which to next adjust or modify to better cause a numbing and nullifying effect to stamp out any unexpected differences between incomes and expenses, desired by NFP company models to mirror-match toward cancellation goal of zero, in ‘destructive zeroing’ or ‘devaluing via cancellation’, typically and patently termed ‘balancing’ to zero and other than ‘stasis non-change attainment’, by those who perform such work, or if not considered decent and fair ‘balancing’ by those performing these ugly tasks who with experience could come to aim truer and less complementary cast to descriptions of this sort of not-for-profit chasing zero, then cast as proper ‘balancing’ by those who favor having selected other persons than themselves to perform financial and payroll tweaks and fine tunings, and set their other goals and criteria also, among many other persons part of the same NFP model company or entity who effect financial bottom-lines greatly, and many more persons than just those wearing the most formal attire for the most days of the year.
Recruiting of high school age groups (performed by colleges) and also recruiting of college age groups (performed by companies other than colleges, of which colleges, as entities, are also companies, and have been for a long time) is an activity suite very much of merited value for our infrastructure and personal-based economies. This is of great value and the merits of — recruiting / advertising / signage / package and label declarations — are tried and true.
Excepting that in the cases of ‘not for profit’ NFP models, for those companies so operating, they are self-forced by their former self-declared nature, into skewed ways of doing these sorts of tasks and project functions, every time and every day.
At these very different from standard companies — these NFP companies: such as many medical entities, many so called ‘trade association’ entities, many so called ‘alumni association’ entities, many so called ‘church’ entities, and many so called ‘research institutes’ on various hot topics for lobbying — there exists a bizarre oddity in ways of personal project exertion of efforts and also in ways of member / employee / administrator (regardless, each part of the entity, and similar in such as that basis) compensation, with that oddity manifesting for those performing efforts productively at the entity which obviously should merit and thus involve reasonable compensation monetarily. For some NFP entities, this category of personnel at project daily task, amounts to only a few among many more persons in total count, on membership rosters and thus members of the entity. Many members of NFP entities are not in such as vocation or profession, and act in an odd position of side-related non-employment, but of standard influences on all others involved, and on par with those in blatantly gainful employment role — by way of enjoying productivity at task by being the few doing so — but while also in some cases lobbied for/against by those non-productive yet oddly in pseudo-management roles preferred by them to not be compensatory and thus whom are both divested of involvement (officially) and heavily involved (actually) of which troublesome nature is in the skewed assessment and accounting — for many issues more than just monetary — intrinsic to the NFP model.
NFP companies prefer employment paychecks be inflated often, greatly, and repeatedly, and consider an increasing count of employees a good way to do more work (exertions of effort) for people (as projects composed of persons’ hourly living). This employment obsession, sometimes slogan-titled ‘job creation,’ is aimed to have results in number/count of jobs, and in income levels from jobs, and otherwise fails much at understanding: Enjoyment-of/from-productivity (at) entity projects or personal projects.
[‘Project(s),’ as sole or singular word, performs for us better in usage and if selection of that word in our thinking is more often and broadly selected to replace some other singular sole words (such as ‘job’, ‘duty’ or ‘work’) in cases when we review facets and aspects of human pursuits for greater understanding, similarities among a larger range of human pursuits show as not as separative between vocational and personal activity, and some differences that do delineate are noticed better to still exhibit some overlap. That overlap matters greatly for each person because personal identity and involvement does not disappear or change upon departing various places or endings of proceedings.]
Commerce and Business Entity Understanding of Truths in Person’s’ Pursuits
Dual-directional and dual-benefit facets of engaging in personal exertions and efforts while at entity or personal project — are so very beautifully complex — mostly by way of involving a huge listing of types of benefits to persons, if attempted to jot down toward even partial completion. A set of 15 is more complex than a set of 3, in terms of facets of benefit, for example made by selecting relative numbers non-matching any particular listing, but notionally indicative of the issue of complexity outperforming simplicity, in nature and reality. This means that introspections and reviews of dual-directional personal benefits while at vocational, recreational and other pursuits are very time consuming and laborious to relate to and assess concerning.
Stage-to-stage, Real Effect on Multiple Persons, not Perception illusion of Effect, by way of Time-measured Analysis while Entropy-aware
Dual-directional concurrent effects on multiple persons and cascading toward multiple timeframes (including immediate effects) makes for a long list of differing types and timeframes of merited and valued fruitions of a person’s activity, with more than immediate busied and gainfully productive or creative effect directionally of value and appeal to initiator same-person as performing effort on project(s), but also ‘stage 3’ later benefiting the initiator-acting same-person additionally beyond that which was immediately of initiator-benefit to perform, adding in total beneficial effects, which happened slightly to medium duration earlier than ‘stage 3’, at a notional ‘stage 2’ when earlier there became existent that productivity outputs had proceeded toward availing other persons selection at personal activity (whether of meager effect or more in value to the customer and other person is not at issue, as the most merited facet is that at such ‘stage 2’ the other person, whether extra pleased with their selection of applied self-exposure or self-involvement as to their selection of that with which to spend their activity on and at, happening to have involved output initiated in commerce attitude by the initiator person then selecting to present the productivity output and not give or shove at persons the output, and as maximum perform informal to formal advertising referring such output, with results to other persons such that their brief stints in customer role, remain person-centric as to their involvement throughout belonging to the same person, each of us a person of many roles. By natural truth and person-centric assessment, we persons in multiple roles aplenty at all times, and temporarily with one of those roles that of customer, are by nature well pleased to be of activity of self-initiation and selection, regardless of whether later conclusive finishing of exposure possibly ranges from slightly valued to greatly valued, and regardless of mixed blend of satisfied and further piqued or irked by self-selections to spend time and activity on that which turned out form very pleasing to somewhat disappointing, so long as in our multiple roles, and the timing of entry to and exit from the role of customer, is not overly lengthy tied to only one commerce involvement, nor becomes of nature when or where such customer role is usurped and decided upon by another person, in side-customer action.
Time passage for results of personal efforts to have occurred such that initial productivity becomes effective to other persons’ involvement, which by nature is limited by delivery time passage, or by time passage until online, storage placement, or library availability as presented or published, becomes blended in with time enough in passage for the actions of other persons to perform access and thus become exposed to: initiator outputs from earlier productivity, more at a variety of timeframes conceivable as ‘stage 2’ in time sequence.
This spread of multi-person multi-benefits of project effort, by complex host of variety of effects, becomes with experience particularly more and better understood to those in commerce and trade, as truths to standard company operations. In reverse time sequence order: [2] the access to and exposure to that which was earlier performed or produces, at later stages is by template condoned and upheld in good commerce and trade, almost totally under the initiation-control of the customer or delivered-to person, while [1] the inception, creation, sending, and publishing or presenting was almost totally under the initiation-control of the person performing at productivity.
Timeframe overlap analysis does improve our abilities to fathom these dual-directional benefits. Parsing reviews and introspections on means by which these truths operate in commerce and in nature is thus well furthered by way of timeframe relating that which differs not only in character, but in relating that which differs in qualifying as that which precedes or that which ensues, but in 3 or more timeframe stages, as involved in understanding business, commerce and person-centric (as seller, purchaser, deliverer, retailer, contractor, provider, commentor, suggester, or customer — always thus as person — split impersonations not recommended, by role singularizing which too much whittles down person-centric multi-role truths in living and commerce)
Standard companies are neither formed with intent to appeal to speculation at reputation-based boosts in reputation or expected performance at reputation with other traders, in months future, nor formed with intent to cancel difference between income and expenses in opposite ricochet while effectively cloaking themselves away and unawares at first becoming paycheck generation factories unallowed to perform some of these facts of merit to good natured person-centric commerce.
If some NFP personnel exhibit a blindness and utter numbness to even notice the strange nature of these ways by NFP companies, then it stands as quite feasible that ‘divesting between roles’ of same exact persons, as if they actually were of two differing persons, could be a personality trait of those preferring charitable giving [shoving] as mode of project personal exertion basic enjoyment at gainful self-occupation. Human nature is to value and merit each his or her daily productivity. This is appealing to all humans, but if reading of this being appealing to him or her is disturbing to more persons who are oriented toward NFP type modes of operation, then that further suggest at least some possibility that such is a matter of ‘divesting between roles’ more prevalent as personality trait more attuned to NFP entity jargon, ethos, and hypocrisy.
Hundreds or thousands jobs, and hefty and very empowering paychecks, plus daily access to work at and be productive at some of the most expensive to lease facilities known to humanity and history, could appeal to a person of proclivity, when faced with self/other assessments, ‘to divest between roles’ invalidly so, and so also number and amount of paychecks being very large both, double-acts as also being an ‘expense’ to the NFP company entity, and the opposite of gain, success, result, merit, value, or output made by the company, which could amount to a blemish or embarrassment to those of ‘role divesting perspectives on matters’ when the ideal of charitable denies success, gain, or result of value, and predominates on loss, as long as that loss was ignobly self-selected and graciously performed.
NFP company illusion of fantasy self-martyrdom, which is attractive in notion as reputation of type of work to some persons, and if such (exaggerated as) ‘sacrifice’ (when no person becomes deceased or loses limbs) of any feasible official monetary company growth, as strangely measured with numerical year number subtraction between being main guide as to ways to ignobly deter and stifle company or entity growth, then if that enriches employees very greatly then such hypocrisy in strange idealistic divesting of condoned relatedness — between company and company membership in: company — such reputation reinforcement becomes supreme ultimatum to further, while later year minus former year company varied assets are by company model declared by the company and entity itself, to be desired to not increase.
Companies select their model, and they report based on their selections. The companies do this to themselves, and that’s of no surprise, as companies are composed 100% of paycheck earning employees, — from most senior, whether cast inhouse as most-vilified or most-ostensibly-powerful at the gymnasium, — to the newest and youngest new member cast as ignorant and of no worry concerning despite the obvious new entrant savvy to spend years — inclusive of high school years — scoping out these ‘not for profit’ places to arrive at after associates, or other certification or degreed program, ready to recruit more and spread the (low) (non-) high ideals. Thus, NFP companies are doing what to themselves? Something ignobly gracious and impressively self-sacrificial is not truly the case.
Convertible Persons
If a company entity is comprised (stylistically and not actually) of zero personnel in and of: that company, those who ‘work at’ or ‘work for’ that stylistically fictitious, but actually non-fictitious entity — pose stylistically as unmanned and of population contribution count of zero — and have vocation and profession in a stylistic mode of ‘convertible persons’ of whose involvement with much of anything and presence much of anywhere is of stylistic merit ranging from very much of merit, or non-existence of merit, instantly non- affected by and immune to any demerit, with that NFP stylistic mode tailorable and customize-able, to the optimum, it seems.
The founding with ‘not for profit’ mode of operation of a company is key to its nature of existence.
This is usually unchangeable practically, by way of the bulk of personnel at these entities harboring a twisted ethos that they render non-negotiable. The throngs of members at the exact same NFP entity too often are more likely to react to other members of that same NFP entity, if and when some are proposing a change to company model, as unwilling to yield on favored idealism and in contrast retain stance as more devoted to the charitable reputation that they hold of themselves and the work that they do, and while usually unaware of that which is actually involved in charitable operations, as sadly more devoted to the word than any reality in applied hourly and daily operations.
In the hallways and cafeterias of these NFP entities, the bulk of members of the NFP company possess active daily stance and attitude — aimed at senior management — to de facto perform as expected (whether expectations are based in negative stereotypes; or are based in positive over-reliance featuring employee-attitude transfer to exclusive category — invalidly differing from the remainder; or whether based on a blend of both types of expectancies).
Personnel involved with bottom line finances at NFPs thus must work strange oddities (as compared to standard company entities, which are ‘not out to not profit’ the company, but as non-standard NFP companies being instead ‘out to profit the employee personally in project involvement plus pay’, and also out to avoid inequality between ins and outs of company financial matters, to ensure no growth of company, excepting growth by way of count of personnel, growth by way of larger facilities, and so on, to ensure that corporate trade of stock ownership loses the ostensible non-battle between stock trade and non-profit.
Sadly and truly, some personnel at NFP entities must (by their own selected mode and thus standards, or at least those of most personnel of that entity) perform acquisitions and calculator/spreadsheet abominations during those last few weeks to months before end of tax-reporting year, and do so in a manner so as to not disturb a myriad of education institutions expectations as to treatment of their alumni, and finally to not disturb the charitable and not for profit method.
Not for Profit entities operating in smaller but more widespread scale
Adding more to the count and sideswipe array of involved ‘entities’: though colleges, universities and academies (as optional to attend after-high-school education institutions) are all standard operations entities as to type of company, there are other entities of ‘not for profit’ model in the eaves, and (in generic wording) these are typically as a group termed alumni associations. In the late spring seasons, they become more active recruiting soon to be members, nearing the weeks of graduation ceremonies, usually in the months of May or June.
Alumni associations are parasitically attached to — and typically have long ago named themselves as to ‘entity title’ (company name, or more ambiguously ‘organization’ from which nomenclature arose .org domain suffixing) with nomenclatures parallel to or directly matching as to some pairs or more of words — the education institution they give to or shove at, by various means of action or funds, with those means most all designed to avoid transaction or transfer of value, valued either way, and as such then initial transfer of funds is a different matter than dues or offerings, and performs the opposite of what it seems at first to do.
These alumni associations often recruit (that which is in many ways, truly) new side job ‘company membership’ in the alumni association, by way of proposing that early sums of monies be transferred [shoved/given] — in a new way, to many soon to graduate post-high-school/post-compulsory-mode college students soon to graduate. The sums of monies for membership in these associations, are cast and semi-advertised by the alumni association usually by testimonial means mostly, this mode deemed more effective if not showing anything transferred as that which involved enjoyable effort to produce or that which would in time, as a product or service, be leverageable, useful, or enjoyable to consume, after the transfer.
Monies given/shoved (‘donated’ is for internal organs) does assure lifetime membership (equivalent to ‘outside’ employment, and thus recruiter base). If the shoving/giving seems to go the wrong way at or near graduating weeks in late spring, then time assessment is merely hours off. Allow one day later: then the reality is apparent that as of one day after ‘joining a not for profit as part of the team’ the association member began with their ‘first shove/give’ as by analogy their prime basic training exercise, very much in keeping with not-for-profit vision and mission: to shove/give the money/advice/usurping-of-exertions at training target entity: the association of which self is part of (one day later). In truth the former student and now graduate, did not actually receive anything other than a lifelong company (association) membership basic training exercise and lifelong burden at more such shoving and giving, if not of money than surely of advice and unsolicited, or to be fair, solicited sometimes, advice.
Such university and college campus smiling advice-shove and recruitment occurs usually at timeframes actually undermining to those near ready to graduate, as performing much else other than respond with ‘okay’ and depart the throng, is impractical as non-doable mostly, when not of the means to maneuver with enough mental and prose agility to fulfill any other personally selected proposal, and to do such for several days to weeks, to maintain counter to ‘association guidance’ any other personal plan until graduation ceremony completion.
Alumni associations’ members merely pose as part of staffs of academic college companies, or university companies.
Alumni membership is obviously partially composed of so very many persons who consider themselves partial owners of these post-high-school education institutions, but whom are truly owners of their own backgrounds and memories of former such, but by human nature too many of these NFP side-job alumni association members leverage powers of NFP company role (often not acknowledged by the member) which are bizarre and detrimental to all of us, and especially to senior in class students.
Important: alumni associations are not the same as colleges. One is an NFP company, the other is a standard company. Standard companies operate for a long and realistic list of reasons to which much perspective on benefits as member and benefits to customers, as well as benefits to other entities involved, applies in terms of personal rewards, whether delayed-leverageable as monetary currency self-managed, or current leverageable as real time self-occupation and self-application of enjoyed productivity at project, or as delayed-leverageable endurance and continuance of same level at the ready, daily.
Company / Entity / Organization Operating Model details seemingly Peripheral, are not decided by Revenue Departments.
Instead, the Operating Model is decided on by those who desire the Company to do such, and typically that means active members, throughout.
It is not a matter of selection, and it is not a matter of legal trouble deterring non-compliance with ‘not for profit’ and ‘charitable’ bizarre insistence on any and all slight difference between inflow and outflow being just not doable, lest operations of the company shudder with employees/company-membership in tumult: the NFP model selected as means of societal appeal and guarantee of never having the ability to operate at even a slight difference whereby some slight small amount of financial power was spent greater than that which is earned or brought in. This loss is no loss in absolute terms, and rather it is just as validly reversed, depending on gain/loss order of which is assessed as most pertinent: reasonable personnel interest in furthering their employment-at-task and productivity on project fruition, away from the end of weekend vacancy at home for nice return to work mode, or reasonable person of customer status in furthering the same, whether by way of vacating the home to exert on valued projects elsewhere in exertions mode valued, or otherwise. The + sign and the - sign can and should sometimes be reversed for analysis in accounting for real human interests and personal fruitions, and this indicates a true oddity in NFP model dangerous to our futures, but this oddity is embedded by nature of delays to taxation, and especially by nature of perfect balance dictates, year to year. These two delay factors, usually +2 years out or more, defy adjustability actions matching timeframe for those actions, in the case of NFP model for entities. NFP personnel who might have attempted some reforms inhouse, could have in many cases in time noticed implicit and intrinsic delay unnoticeabilities and non-dependencies rampant, in results far worse than any procrastinations at smaller scales in groups of persons.
Key and Decisive: the Details Imbued in the Operating Model of all Not-for-Profit Entities
‘Not for profit’ means that yearly summarizations of certain types of expenses, namely inclusive of income portions passed on to employees as the ‘expenses’ of monthly paychecks, *must* balance out to ridiculously ‘zero’ differing from ‘incomes’ of similar categorizations. Companies that by fair-involvement attitude, by sheer good fortune, or by accident or situation limits, did not select ‘not for profit’ formation status then are in more reasonable position. Companies and government entities at which it is possible to be employed, enjoyment of exerting productive effort while earning income with such entities is truly to act as part of that company or entity. (This differs from the erroneous attitude of earning income ‘from’ an entity as a ‘non-part’ of that entity, furthered via usage of the ‘working’ and ‘for’ wordings.)
This is government agency, self-entity, and peer-entity assessed by way of the company earning *income* as ‘blatant and obvious’ proof of performing at reasonable tasks and in legal and fair operations. This allows the amounts of *income*, more reasonably existent with granularity of fluctuations happening in reality *daily* to differ from *daily* expense.
The strange idea of the three-word concept ‘not for profit’ has a strange result of in part and not quite in total: tyrannically slaving income to absolutely and perfectly equal expense. There is another set of words which is strange: ‘operating at a loss’. This is bad terminology. If incomes are significant, and for a particular day, week, month, and year-end demarcation, there are differences between income and expense: then this is a blatant sign of real operations, and a blatant sign of normalcy, and no other.
Understanding Human Exertion/Effort at Project or sub-Task
And understanding the role of Financial Currencies as Capacitive Embodiment of (Part of — but short of All) fruition from such Human Exertion (as Conscious Human Activity, as resulting in then/later Effects of any sort).
Quarter to quarter, and year to year, taxation reasonable and truly proper requirements only require entities to be in earnest and true operations to in some legitimate way provide useful, empowering, and as ever for both usefulness and empowering criteria—while [1] providable, [2] deliverable and [3] consumable in a manner of operations that is - at a minimum - mundanely or meagerly - ‘enjoyable,’ and not the alternative of ‘miserable’ manner of operations — as to goods and/or services provided and/or delivered by the entity, delivered and/or maintained by other contracted entities, and consumed by persons whom in category are either non-adult dependents of members of entities, or are those adults who in most cases are members of entities themselves, to have the financial powers to support dependent non-adults.
Human Nature, and how NFP Model Operating details are by nature Pitted against it
This is a status most of us adults prefer: that we as individuals be the senior in merit — as to our decisions not being ‘by policy’ regularly undermined — point-of-decision as to whom selects instruments and goals, and whom performs timely to-the-hour tradeoff assessments concerning — all of merit excepting the last in list: — recreation, entertainment, sustenance, non-obsessive capacitance of leverage and of *financial/bodily-derivative (delayed hours to months) and *bodily-direct (more real-time) personal resources, and (not truly of much merit, though often a quick target for mentioning by onlookers) truly obsessive personal ‘net worth’ hoarding or maintenance. (Personal ‘net worth’ quantities and past-tense time charts at performance concerning, are poor criteria for viable living qualities and are of abysmal hour-to-hour granularity and awareness of ongoing and thus timespan-overlapping adult personal living trappings - trappings which are good things each of us value greatly.)
Senior in merit point-of-decision only works if unhindered as being such at both: initial stages and final stages (in time order) of self-management, and as timeframes of hourly issues overlap, this can only be upheld if ‘not for profit’ and ‘charitable’ projects and programs are kept at a distance. We adults enjoy more than earning income: along with that we enjoy being productive, and working projects for the better, as daily activities. That’s the problem with charitable mission and vision: it is a vision ultimately aimed to personally usurp others, with the goal of doing it better than others: living their lives.
This usually operates for personal living and selves-management, if adult persons are not aimed at for special project inclusion and treatment. Special project inclusion and treatment is too often, still, engaged in by NFP company charitable shoving [giving] methods, twisting against adult self-support economically.
Employment with an entity is more rewarding and reasonable if some productivity by each person does happen, but when that desirable daily putting out at various employment tasks gets mixed up in ‘not for profit’ attitudes, it is little wonder many adults are faced with impatience by ‘not for profit’ low and middle level members/employees aimed to unfairly judge them as not able to quickly enough or excellently enough provide for themselves, thus providing the ‘not for profit’ employee a great opportunity for daily self-occupation at exertion of effort (and for good pay income) by way of usurping the adults own flexible time table and own performance criteria, usually not as obsessively perfectionistic as not for profit standards are.
Very Important to Prospective Startup-Readied Persons, the selection of ‘Not for Profit’ is a Dark Path!
Selecting ‘Not for Profit’ status effectively soon shackles senior management with the burden of such ugly and unreasonable time-balancing of ‘income less expenses’, and results to my assessment time and time again, in line employees, some with disenfranchised attitudes, as a group of many employees, benefiting greatly in personal yearly advancement and understandably desirable self-occupation and self-empowerment, plus inflation of personal incomes, for a limited but *long* amount of time, being assured. The problem I notice here is thus not one of blatant or ugly motivators on the part of senior management or line employees, but of lost ‘in the details’ very subtle and difficult to ferret out: reputation, idealism, and tax model legacy very bad model tax-rules which just do not much change. Business model usage and trend is created much more by entities in ‘NFP’ (which upon study ranks as a ‘bizarre model’ in the burdens placed on bottom-line managers, truly) business operations, to which the Internal Revenue Service and state revenue departments are very much less so manned in count of employees and advocacy potentials to change matters, than are the many persons and businesses truly maintaining trend-control of these ways of operations in the United States, in this case.
Company ‘Profit’ idea further assessed, in Human real Application
Profit exists, for company entities, *only* when income is greater than expenses, when accounted for at end of four quarters, and such company expense is actually heavily partially composed of monthly paychecks to a multitude of employees (personal incomes, not considerable in company tax terminologies).
When these company expenses of the monies paid to each person performing any sort of hours of work for the company, must in part — as defined by the very rigid ‘not for profit’ overly-idealistic anti-corporate NFP model itself — in large part — be increased and kept perfectly on par with any and all planned-for or accidental increases of inflows of ‘income’ (unless as sole exceptions nearly — more fixed assets, building of buildings, and or leasing be selected without much latitude leverageable by those in senior management, just prior to end of reporting year):
Then paychecks inflate and new employees keep signing up for more.
(A stereotypical way of casting such results, straight from the 1970s, would be to word the issue more akin to ‘… then senior management grows the company by hiring more employees.’ This former approach we are no longer blinded by, and we by now should realize that graduates of various degreed programs do in truth drive these company entities, as comprising typically over 90% of personnel operating the entity.)
This line employee contribution to the character of company entities is a good and beautiful truth to business and trade conducted in societies. But distortions in this truth are especially more problematic in the case for NFP (not for profit) model entities, by nature of their addition, subtraction, and zero cancellation/balance rules to which they are beholden to adhere to by quickly weeks before end of taxation year is complete. This results in an ‘as promised to the remainder of societies effect’ embedded in the NFP paradigm.
That effect is for the entity to position itself as ‘not for profit’, but instead for charitable purposes, which is sadly resounding too much to many of us, especially at first consideration, which by human nature does not allow or offer perspective or time to consider much more than jumping straight to a benefits pitch far worse than fair commerce advertising efforts. Many entities in regular operations seem often unfairly negatively criticized for advertising, so long as that advertising does not qualify as signage and labeling which facilitates customers in discovering and finding their way to retail places leased by contract. In contrast, I herein turn that negative criticism at what to me amounts as intrinsically penultimate in unfair advertising: strange declaration of ‘not for profit’ and with such twisted advertising embedded in company nature, very lazily performed. (That’s so very unfair, because most of us do not even recognize or acknowledge the huge advertising effect of such declaration. If advertising is performed via pretense of being something other than advertising entirely, then that is to score off the scoreboard, and that surely ranks as most unfair.)
.ORG / Not for Profit models—as Trending Hot and Popular—affect Everything
We’ve all been impacted, and as smart as infrastructure boosting government and company initiatives have been, these realities are still of such widespread effect while of such subtle and nearly impossible to fathom interrelating ties to—everything—that it is imminent in the decade ahead that some fair commerce companies are now in 2025 well placed to perform early adopted new-technique standards reforms and establishments of new better-practices ways.
All Companies and Employee otherwise seemingly routine Actions and Decisions have more Impact than Typically Acknowledged
In my case for my small business—niche / specialty software product design concepts which possess subtle, yet valuable feature-flow and ability-nuances are my aim to produce and with which to empower users, whereas implementation via software development tool management of solutions and proficiency at means-of-leverage are by nature restrictive and limiting. That's a good truth in these matters, or more downturns to our userbase leverageable personal device-user capabilities, assessed as actually performable with on-the-go practical do-ability, would further be encroached on by too-readily accessed commercial and personal access to produce hardware and software too quickly and patently, a lasting thereafter cascading influence on all products, services, hardware and software evolvement globally.
A Case in point, and a sad one, follows:
Computer-phone screen-size and ergonomics/human-factors very restrictive to reasonable-human-performance feasibility are often resulting in failure to be selected or used much at all. Digital standards reform is ripe and at the ready. This is not restricted by way of punting, for only government or for more 'open standards' charitable only NFPC distortions of matters. Instead, it is to advocate that employees and businesspersons at those hundreds of thousands of entities involved with computers, devices, and the internet (either by way of selling and trading in such items, or by way using them on the job or in personal capacity) be defended in their development of in-house standards to compete with and somewhat revise 40+ years of entrenched status quo. This describes about 25% to 50% of the current landscape of open standards and device technologies in global usage presently. A mature assessment is that we are blessed with much of the results since 1980 or so, yet we are also smart to notice not all is for the better.
There's no good reason to allow chronological order of past advents in softwares and hardwares to continue unadjusted as to what we have to work with, which presently acts as main driver to our (by analogy) ‘menu’ of choices as consumers — *and as entities’ working tools with which to proceed onward in too much of the same — which upon consideration has nearly exact same effect on developers and designers in contemporary company/provider entity operations, when it comes to softwares, hardwares, as similar effect pertaining to other types of commerce of full gamut of ‘products and services’ in our lives.
Hardware companies versus Software companies
To add complexity, there exist two effects which have produced this very limited and until now almost ‘un-revisable’ ‘menu’:
— one effect is that of first-to-market software informal and unspecified ‘user-habitual-standards’ predominating.
When considering the truth that all professionals at companies of interest and by whom changes could be performed, are persons who are first and foremost ‘computer/device users’ themselves — lest otherwise they be disqualified from performing at such companies by reason of ineptness with keystrokes and mouse movements — there is then cause for readers to also further consider two more realities of dual perspective: that these sometimes initially sobering realities be honored as having potential for more problematic status quo, as by negation indicative of that which to work against in light of realities to humans being humans; and that these same realities are our sources of potentials for reviewed and gradual improvements by way of these same realities of humans are humans, each of us possessing the potentials that are key to affecting major and beneficial changes on these matters, as by contrast indicative of that which to work toward.
— Another effect of complexity mixed in is next-in-calendar-order next-to-market ‘eclipsing’ in/of hardware formal and specified standards predominating.
— Finally, adding worse than beautiful complexity, but instead adding a sad dose of nearly irreversible simplicity has been NFP entity / standard company entity blended-mode (yet with fairly soon thereafter dissolution of cohesive enacting ‘committee’ action-abilities — back to respective roles and lives) creations of that which was once semi-advertised as ‘open’ standards, becoming very awkward to evolve or coordinate on: and thus by now resulting in long-term blind-launched dictates, which we too often default to as unchangeable, and almost by preference. These are legacy ghosts of tax-years past by now, performed by committees of too much variety, and though some excellent standards were initiated in this manner, the issues of future tending to, and evolvement of, such standards has in most cases since initiation of standards leaned heavily against proprietary standards and favoring overly idealistic non-proprietary standards. The effect of this leaning away from company involvement in company matters, in true *result, has been that — few to none in count — cohesive entities with staying power to evolve and coordinate with other entities and customers on maintaining or furthering these standards, was thus by default and de facto leaning, selected to be performed by ‘open’ standard. When emplaced as such, boundary defining and usage defining as to minimums and mandatory especially in file formats, was somewhat bound to go astray at least to some degree. I have noticed via internet delving that many former committee members continue to perform good intent activity to tend to such standards, which is laudable, but while also rendered more ineffective and less respected as to their opinions on evolvements.
Former eschewing away from 'proprietary’ ownership of and responsibility for, plus more importantly — staffing at ready daily to perform coordination on - minimum and boundary defining standards, is a legacy result which cascades onward, from years of file formats and software informal norms being gladly worked on, but sadly then when work was complete, tied to no companies’ and with each company dissuaded away — as is still the case — from formally adopting responsible involvement and contribution to such software and document issues, in effect. Reality is good; and reality is that empowerment plus responsibility must not be decoupled. Sadly, too many efforts aimed especially at software and operating systems companies have worked strongly to rip the two apart, very unfortunately, all to exercise powers against powers, very hypocritically.
Software and document standards are not at all striving or visionary matters, but instead minimums we work with, but which if de facto forced into near abandonment as to updates and reforms, then become not as yielding as they could be.
Yielding and good grace assumption is aimed at customers and users, to include the customers and users operating other entities. The means by which this is performed is only well-conceivable when switching mindset to assess this almost in full as: an issue of time order abilities (powers) to adjust and perform reviews, which contrary to still-popular misconception, are truly designed with main purpose facilitative and non-punitive, though our global societies remain too trained by broadcast reporting on those roles being of differing, and too much cast as frightful, penalty effect on users and other entities of users.
Commonplace is natural revising and evolving—not cast as some grand improvement progress issue nor grand sentimental retro issue either—but cast as the nature of calendar change of dates and months—is the forgotten true role and purposes of per-company empowered ‘proprietary’ standards.
The idea is that nearly *every software/document-creation company and division should be encouraged and empowered with its own version of its own entity-tailored standard ‘ways and procedures’ (as a minimum) with in some cases more consistent standard ‘formats’ being risked to excess conformity effect, if agreed upon to be less often (but obviously at some periodic interval) relooked at for proposal for update. Per-entity standard better practices involves the power and staffing and ‘proprietary status’ to practically perform well and satisfactorily, daily. When standards are blatantly ripped away from company entities, in some anti-commerce and by true relatedness even anti-retail and anti-personal-paycheck userbase rallied effort against companies and thus against employees and nearly against employment itself, then as result much of our working tools and formats by now have been relegated as not much steered or evolve-able at all. Entities evolve and tend to these very pertinent standards by way of proprietary partial ownership of their own work and efforts (surely reasonable, with countering plan being quite unreasonable) and this ownership of efforts and actions is crucial to not lobby against.
For too many years afore now, softwares/computers/devices/peripherals features we currently have going for us as users have been of near impossibility to do more than patch-on and tack-on, just because hardware/driver standard X happened to eclipse other standard Z, while software (informal) standard G was released at timeframe F. Chronological, to the very day, order of advents, is a way to understand and study this, while aware of the three [3] effects I noted just previously, and how they operate counter to one another, or aside from each other, depending on calendar timeframes historically near-same date or month of adoptions by userbases, to include the users at designer, developer, provider and seller companies.
NFP selection as Operating Model becoming known to be troublesome later, via possible authorship efforts aimed to provide good reason for ‘NFP model’ to be reconsidered before startup and formation by otherwise reasonably well intending persons, seem best ways to maybe have NFP model become less popular and less (invalidly) revered, in course of time
Commerce/companies/businesses long have gotten the short mistreatment for daring to advertise, daring to proprietary standardize (misunderstood - as these standards are not draconian but natural and very non-punitive) and daring to much be involved at all. That's somewhat bizarre. Study of ‘for (possible) profit’ company models vs. not for profit (but actually *resulting* [intentionally or not] in mid-to-lower-level employee personal riches at the detriment of management and at the subtle detriment of many more) company models, does enlighten. It's difficult to find the truth of .com vs .org ways and subtle effects. Later to be somewhat regretted by management selection of NFP company model shows to be the culprit. NFP companies, intentional or not, fair or not, do *result* in line employee financial furtherance not at all fair and reasonable, but instead inflated and hugely in the personal financial progressions of NFP company personnel to include formal financial senior management and complete range of other employees.
Per-entity, by-entity, conversion away from NFP company Models is crucial
Planning for this is of nature specific to each NFP entity which desires to switch company models. Lining up this year, while considering taxes next year, while attempting to convert company model, I recommend not be hurried, nor too much spread out to samplings of groups of persons who latter and onward do not possess coherent division/office latter response and react action potentials and powers, together.
Get busy. Make major and routine and informal hourly decisions. Yes, that’s for each reader—
A means by which to convert company type from NFP model to LLC model, that could be designed as efficient, practical and with devilish details well considered and peer reviewed, is feasible.
Readers may select monetary value to Pay-after-reading, to match with differentiation of:
- [1] reader financial leverage availing, and…
- [2] reader's assessment of value to the reader of that which was recently read.
This is optional.
Published by Talon 38 FileMedia
Fifth Edition
2025-06-18
TOPIC REALMS#InflativeNonNumeric #Income #Expenses #PersonalCapacityPay #CharitableCompanyPitfalls #CompanyModel #NotForProfit #DigitalStandardsReform #OpenStandardsVsProprietaryStandards #UnguidedLostStandardsByOpenMethod #GuidedEvolvedUpToDateStandardsByProprietaryMethod