It's Girl Scout Cookie season, so it's a great time to remind you that the Girl Scouts welcome trans and nonbinary children. Here is a list of trans Girl Scouts to order cookies from.
It's Girl Scout Cookie season, so it's a great time to remind you that the Girl Scouts welcome trans and nonbinary children. Here is a list of trans Girl Scouts to order cookies from.
This year, consider ordering your Girl Scout cookies from a trans girl scout to make their day!
Also, The Girl Scouts explicitly rejected a large donation from an anti-trans organization: https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2015/06/donor-says-girl-scouts-can-t-use-100k-gift-for-transgender-girls
Girl Scouting is for all girls. Trans girls are girls, so they belong in Girl Scouts.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's warms my heart to hear that the girl scouts don't discriminate with their child exploitation to sell their cookies.I recant my statement after having initially misunderstood the revenue and expenses regarding fundraising in relation to the value provided for the money taken from fundraising.
How is it child exploitation?
They are literally funding their own troop's activities.
Your Samoa chart tells me that the cost to produce and drop ship these cookies is slightly less than a quarter of the sales price, yet the troop doing all of the work sees 22% revenue which is exploitation. A fundraiser should see all profits go to the troop that does all the work after expenses, not 22%.
Sorry, how much should the cookies cost to make and how do you plan to get the bakeries to do it for that cost?
Also, what do you think "all the work" is? They ask their relatives if they want cookies and stand by a table for a couple of hours on the weekend for a few weeks.
There seems to be some confusion here so perhaps I didn't make myself clear, everyone involved in getting the cookies into a box and ready to be sold by a troop are covered under what is known as the cost, we've already established the cost is 24%. What's left over is the profit which would be 76% of the revenue.
I'm asserting the troop should keep the 76% profit. Currently we are giving the troop 22% and a parent organization 54%, maybe it's used for good maybe it's used to keep the parent organization pockets full who knows because neither you or I can make any claim as to where the money goes with any real certainty.
You are diminishing the work of the troop here, these girls are volunteering not just their time but also the parents and other family members involved and they should be the ones to benefit. "Oh no it was an easy job and they just had to sell to their relatives and it was hardly any effort!", even from that perspective I still don't understand why you think it's acceptable to give away 54% of the revenue to someone who did nothing solely because it was minimal effort on their part.
Ignoring taxes and other fees for this example, if I wanted to do my own similar fundraiser and went to the grocery store and bought 100 boxes of cookies there for $1 a box and then the troop sold them for $4 a box $100 covers my losses leaving $300 for profit for the troop. Should I pay the grocery store an extra $216 because they facilitated my actions?
No, because the grocery store isn't making special branded cookies that you can't generally get elsewhere. That's the whole point of Girl Scout cookies. That they're an unusual kind of cookie, which makes people want them more.
Also, GSA is a non-profit organization. They are not allowed to make a profit. All revenues must be put back into the organization.
Also, what is the difference in terms of exploitation between your cookie sales idea and Girl Scout cookies?
Girl scout cookies are not some unique creation, they are specifically licensed and legally cannot be made by anyone else but they aren't exclusive to girl scouts and can be purchased under their normal brand name if you know it from the official source like these coconut dreams I've got in my pantry.
"They cannot make a profit", out of curisoity what would you call charging 54% on top of the 24% cost, non-profit profit?
The difference in my example scenarios were after costs were paid all remaining revenue goes to the troop to be used by the troop for the troop, that's how a fundraiser should work. In the current business model you seem keen to defend you are giving away more than half of the revenue to the organization which already makes it's money through dues.
I never said they were unique. I said they were unusual and that you generally can't get them elsewhere. That makes them desirable. I'm not sure why you think it doesn't.
“They cannot make a profit”, out of curisoity what would you call charging 54% on top of the 24% cost, non-profit profit?
Raising funds. That is something any nonprofit can do. How do you think nonprofits stay in operation?
Unusual is quite literally a synonym for unique. If you are saying something is unusual and difficult to acquire that makes it unique by the very definition of the word.
Raising funds is correct, non-profits do need to offset their cost to stay solvent which is why the services you received are paid for by dues which is how the GSA remains solvent. That includes access to their resources for selling cookies as a fundraiser, you have already paid for this so the company has no need to charge you. Yet you're paying them an additional 54% of your revenue even though you already prepaid for the cost of the fundraiser.
If you think the organization that is fairly funded through your dues to access the resources and services should be paid the majority of profit from your fundraiser instead of giving that money directly to the children it's meant to fundraiser then good for you, I personally don't think a fundraiser should be used to raise funds for an organization you've already fairly compensated.
We clearly have different opinions on the matter and that's cool, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my day debating. It's good to have met you Flying Squid and I wish you and your daughter the best.
Not seeing the word 'unique' here-
Because Merrian-Webster's website is designed to take the boiled-down definition and show the synonyms for that, so you are looking at the synonyms for "uncommon"; If you type in unique as the search term you'll see what I mean as it boils down the definitions into "personal, unusual, only, and uncommon" and shows the synonyms for those.
Let's say children were sent to the factories to bake and package the cookies instead of going door to door selling them and they were given 22% of a regular workers salary. Would that be exploitation? I'm sure it would be ok if the other 54% were spent on a fun pizza party at the end of the day.
If I hold a bake sale to raise funds for GLAAD, are all the people who bake goods for it slaves? Seems like the same as your scenario.
I guess we should stop raising funds for anything because it's all slave labor.
I think it's possible to raise funds for something without exploiting children.
I see, so it's only exploitation if children raise money for a cause. If adults do it, it isn't exploitation.
Why?
Both can be exploitation, as an adult you shouldn't want your children exposed to that kind of exploitation. Just because others are exploited doesn't make it right for you to exploit others especially if they are children. Capitalism encourages you to sell your labor so others can profit from it, and I don't just me financially. They will try and skim from the labor of children to benefit the brand or the organization. A kid having a bake sale is a different story if done through their own labor and initiative. They can put up the investment and keep all the profits to do with as they choose instead of several organizations scraping 75% of the rewards.
The girls themselves 'profit' from it by funding activities. They aren't being forced to do it either. No one in my daughter's troop was forced to be there. No one was forced to sell cookies. No one was shamed if they didn't sell cookies. Selling cookies is never even suggested to be required in order to be a Girl Scout.
If you can show me evidence of a large number of Girl Scouts being forced to sell cookies against their will, go for it. But doing something of their own free will so that they can do things like take a trip to the zoo sure doesn't sound like exploitation to me.
Also... "several organizations" do not scrape 75% of the rewards. That is just false. 76% goes to the Girl Scouts of America and 24% goes to the cookie bakers. I assume you don't think the cookie bakers should bake cookies for free or that the Girl Scouts shouldn't be funding themselves, so who is scraping this 75%?
I guess we can agree to disagree here. I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who thinks child labor is fine and dandy.
Ah, got it, I'm fine with child labor.
At least you didn't call me an abusive parent like another person here I guess...
I see this line used a lot, and it sure does sound snappy but it doesn't actual make any sense. Exploitation requires an exploiter, and the troops are funding themselves by talking to relatives and maybe standing at a table in a supervised group for a two hours on the weekend. No one is profiting off this fundraiser except the troops themselves.
There is actual child exploitation problems in the US. I think you are falling in to the qAnon style trap where some people talk about "child sexual abuse" by a secret cabals instead of talking about actual child abuse occurring in their own towns because it sounds Spicer to talk about the first one.
This isn't a topic that's worth much time or energy.
If you read the comment chain with OP you'll see my argument present is that the "fundraiser" for the troop nets 22% while taking 78% of while only having 24% cost.
Please explain to me what value is provided for 54% of the revenue after having already paid the cost to get the cookies made and packaged and already having paid dues to access this program?
That 54% helps to pay for the camp facilities and subsidize participation in summer camp and troops for low-income kids that otherwise wouldn't be able to participate.
Hi medgremlin, you are correct. I misread the 2023 earnings report where it stated fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising (which is false). Which is why I tried to defend my position that there's no value in taking that from the children and it's just a cash grab.
Okay at this point I just have to assume you are a troll who likes to argue without caring about or understanding a topic. If you did care, the infromation is readily available. But your intent is to argue, so here you are sealioning.
It's easy to say "100% should go to the cause", but that's literally never how these things work. Go check up on any charity you like, none of them donate 100% to one thing. The scouts are running a drive for various causes, and to try and reach for "exploration" because it funds scholarships for under privligaged scouts is bad faith.
As I said before, this isn't a topic that is worth time or energy. You can insist on your hard line definition but understand that most people don't agree it's exploitation and the girls know they are helping a good cause. I know it sounds spicy to say it's a consisparcy harming kids, but that doesn't reflect reality.
Go argue about actual child labor laws and leave the girl scouts and comet pizza alone.
Not a troll, I misread the 2023 earnings report where it states fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising. Which is why I tried to defend my position that there's no value in taking that from the children and it's just a cash grab.
While I understand that the mistake is entirely my own and I apologize to you, perhaps in the future just point out the flaw in their argument instead of calling them a qanon conspiracy nutjob.
Gonna hard disagree about this being exploitation of the youth.
Girl Scouts of America is strictly a nonprofit, meaning what excess money they do raise is used to cover running costs of the organization itself and reinvested into various projects within their mission scope, which for the girl scouts, is improving and enable the lives with more opportunities.
Yes, it's true, the troop of the individual girlscout only sees 22% of the sales according to recent figures. This doesn't seem a lot, but really all the girls are doing is going out for 10-20 hours per 'cookie season' to gather orders and then another 10-20 hours to deliver said orders when they are done. From a six dollar box of cookies (tax free!) 22% is $1.32. How many boxes the girlscout sells varies considerably by region and the child, not many figures are publicly available though GSA claims on average they sell 200 million boxes per year. Low end estimates figure even novice girls can get 30 per season with experienced scouts averaging 100-200 with some troops often reporting 300 average or more. If a girl spends 40 hours canvasing the neighborhood and delivering them to sell 200 boxes, thats roughly 5 dollars per hour. Not great but certainly better than other fundraisers some youth partake in.
This gets more difficult to track and balance out now that the girl scouts support and promote online cooking sales, as the above article links, but girls still get credit for these sales despite only posting the url or QR code to attract the sales.
And the cookie program itself takes 24%, or 1.44 per box. This is absurdly cheap, considering it doesn't just cover the cost to bake the cookies, but also package and ship them, at no charge to the youth, even for things such as online orders or direct delivery options they offer now. This is charitable work, but that's still a phenomenally low operating cost.
And yes, the Girl Scouts of America does take 54% or 3.24 per box. This might seem high at first, though you again have to remember their nonprofit status. And unlike the Boy Scouts who are constantly fraught with controversy after controversy due to how the organization is run as well as political pressure from those who should have no involvement with them, the Girl Scouts have a general good reputation if being the younger sibling of scouting organization when we talk about cultural awareness of their activities and how much time the media gives them on average (effectively none) so I can't say I'm that worried that millions of dollars are being funneled into some directors pocket tax free when the worst thing people say about them is they are a cookie salesperson masquerading as a scouting organization.
The GSA invests heavily in programs and facilities used by the Girl Scouts themselves, as well as doing outreach programs for generalized youth to be given opportunities on top of supporting nationwide efforts to support troops in lower income areas that can't fundraise to the same level as those in richer areas.
And my own person input here, as a former Boy Scout that made Eagle Scout: GSA does brand recognition so damn well that it's incredibly easy and low stress to sell those cookies. We as the boy scouts did multiple fundraisers a year, from popcorn (the traditional yet lesser known counterpart to GSA Cookie sales) to pizzas and utensils to even trying to sell camping related gear one year. Everyone knows the Girl Scout cookies, everyone wants to buy them and in most scenarios a girl just has to show up with the ordering brochure and a smile and people interested in buying them will immediately scramble to order what they can. I'm not faulting the GSA or girls in this scenario, I'm envious because as a Boy Scout we were always envious of that simplicity when trying to pitch our own fundraisers to the local community and I can't count how many times I was told to my face to come back with the cookie sale.
So TL;DR, yes the GSA takes the largest cut, but they are also doing most of the actual work involved in producing and shipping the cookies at no charge to the girls, something most fundraisers that sell food DO NOT do, and the girls just have to do the legwork to find mostly willing customers and ensure the cookies get delivered. Compare that to any job that pays a commission for selling items and anyone who does those types of jobs would literally kill for 22% of the total cost of each sale.
I misread the 2023 earnings report where it stated fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising (which is false). Which is why I tried to defend my position that there's no value in taking that from the children and it's just a cash grab.