but you have to admit you "helped" people in need by doing 1% of what they needed. If that person just had a week of your salary, or fuck a year to help 50 families, the help would have gone way further.

Non-profits don't profit the entity, it profits the employees and that's 100% what they are designed to do. the employees are the charity recipients.

Not knowing anything about the nature of the work of the person you replied to means you are not qualified to comment on it.

That’s a very cynical take.

You are not completely wrong of course, but an NGO like you describe is able to survive in a capitalist environment. Without it, it would not succeed. It succeeds at this _while_ sharing and redistributing resources. Not in a perfect, or even the most effective way, but one that allows the employee to find a balance between a job and volunteering. And one that is a net benefit to society (given the cause is beneficial etc), compare to for-profit companies that exclusively benefit shareholders

I think some would argue that only helping a small number of people temporarily, may not be the best use of his time nor money. Maybe more altruistic than doing nothing, yes, but there may be better options still.