by slimboyfat 165 Replies latest members private
didn't each home of the BS have a contribution box?
Some did, others didn't.They were all supposed to, but most of the time no one bothered.
In my anecdotal, personal experience, virtually no one ever put any money into one.
It sticks in my mind because I was accounts servant for a few years, and I maybe - maybe - got 2 or 3 CBS conductors handing over money from their box in all that time.
I was assistant to the accounts servant , I was always quite surprised how little was in the contribution boxes and there was about five of them
Given the down on higher education, and that few people of substance are converted, the pool for inhouse expertise on all but Window Cleaning must be minute. Whoever started a mad rush for buildings and then abandoned it rapidly does not indicate shrewd businesslike expertise. WT run by Window Cleaners for Window Cleaners talent if any around, has to be Consultants. My contact in Singapore is convinced that high level officers met officials there to seek a safe bolt hole for funds. Imagine Lett and co running IBM or similar, the shareholders would revolt, fortunately for WT no shareholders. Outside advisers pulling financial strings for undisclosed huge fees. No one in HQ could run a coffee shop, let alone a global entity. However, in time, the collapse in income will bite, you can only live off fat for so long.
No income from literature. Everything can be downloaded online for free.
No income from food served at assemblies or from parking.
Contributions don't cover expenses.
No compulsory tithing.
Unless something changes, after eating away a house made of chocolate, sooner or later there is nothing left.
after eating away a house made of chocolate ...
It only looks like chocolate. It's actually made of shit.
The GB have a team of experts...legal...accountants etc...they don't run the finances, their team of pro's do...thus saying the GB are bumbling idiots adds nothing to the discussion on whether the WT is going to collaspe soon due to money issues.
The GB simply follow through on advice from the experts they have.
Depends what you mean. They've got people to handle their investment portfolio and property transactions of course. But in terms of their general strategy regarding my-God-what-are-we-going-to-do-now-that-the-publishing-empire-is-a-busted-flush, yes I do think the GB are in charge. From the decision to move to Warwick, reduce literature, raid congregations, close book study, cart witnessing, emphasis on digital, yes there's lots of evidence they are personally responsible for these miscalculations.
I bet those all came from people in charge of the money, not the GB...accountants are very good at suggesting these things.
sir82 even if the GB do rely heavily on the advice of others about when and what to cut in literature/branches/personnel and so on, and where and when to move the HQs - that decision to rely on the advice of others is itself a decision they themselves have made. And increasingly the necessity for them to rely on the advice of financial advisers over such policy and strategy, is itself a result of long term mismanagement by GB over the last few dacades. Their mismanagement of the lucrative publishing empire they inherited is the reason why they now find themselves in the position of having to rely on expert advice about which cuts to make in order to survive.
To put it another way, I don't think there was anyone telling Knorr to set up Gilead, open branches across the world, drive efficiencies in literature production and promotion and so on. He so clearly had a vision for what he wanted to accomplish, and in collaboration with Franz, was able to execute his strategy with impressive effect. I'm sure Knorr relied on financial advice too, and technical assessments of projects, and delegated a lot of stuff, that's not the point. The point is that he was clearly in charge of the overall strategy and he was clearly very skilled at it.
Now the current GB don't appear to have a strategy for how they are actually going to make a living in their post-publishing era. So far the best ideas they have come up with seem to be 1) cut costs and output wherever possible 2) ask the membership for more money, and 3) sell off their assets accumulated during better times, in order to pay for running costs. None of these responses is an answer to the question of how the Watchtower is going to make a living in the world without their historic revenues based on publishing. They are merely stalling for time.
Above, at least I think it was in this thread, someone said Watchtower has a "cash flow" problem rather than a financial crisis. Actually I think it's the other way round. A "cash flow" problem is used to describe a situation where your underlying business is basically sound, but you have a short term problem (an early bill, repairs all at once, compensation to pay, or some other unusual event) that means cash on hand in a given period doesn't meet necessary expenses. Actually JWs probably do have some cash on hand at the moment because of their property sales. That is not their problem. Their problem is the opposite of a "cash flow" problem, and much more serious. Their problem is that their underlying business is no longer profitable, meaning that, while they may have some cash on hand at the moment, over the longer term they have "a lot more money going out that they have coming in". Which will inevitably lead to crisis if it's not fixed. The only question is how long.
And the trouble is that withdrawing services as Watchtower is doing is generally no good way to turn an organisation into profit. It's as if McDonalds were to say, "we're closing down your local branch, and in future if you want cheeseburgers we'll send you a picture of a cheeseburger, and please send us the money for the cheeseburgers the same as you've always done." Now JWs are a religious organisation and they provide "eternal promises" as well as physical books and so on, so comparison is not completely legitimate. However there remains an element of truth to the comparison. If Watchtower think they can withdraw services without reducing revenue they are very mistaken. So their strategy of cutting their way to survival may very likely backfire and produce a downward spiral.
When I was the account servant (80's) most of the contribution came from sisters with unbelieving mates, think about that the sisters didn't work...
that decision to rely on the advice of others is itself a decision they themselves have made. And increasingly the necessity for them to rely on the advice of financial advises over such policy and strategy, is itself a result of long term mismanagement by GB over the last few decades.
A fair point - OK.
They are, ultimately, the top guys. They can fire anyone at any time for any reason, if they so choose, so if they are allowing bad financial decisions to take place, it is on their heads.
