So if the prisons are non-profit you woudln't care?  That just seems weird to me.

If the prisons were non-profit, there'd be less cause for exploitation. Like the thing with the judge that you mentioned. No prison would bribe judges to make more prisoners if they weren't getting mad cash out of the deal.

Well it would be taxpayer money paying them the wage.

So it really makes no difference if they get free room and board...or if they pay rent but are getting minimum wage...either way the taxpayer loses.

But...at least in the second scenario, like you said they would have money for when they leave prison and maybe don't go back to a life of crime, so it would have benefits. I would support it if there was some way that the prisoners could do their work for private companies, that way the private sector is paying their wages instead of the taxpayer, and then we could still charge the prisoners a reasonable amount towards food/rent.

Sure they would.  There would be less cause for it, but non profit CEO pay works just like for profit CEO pay.  Or Oldschool CEO pay before stock options anyway.

What they get paid is based on how well the Non-profit is doing.  The more profit a non-profit makes, the more they can justify being paid and the more the trustees will reward them for doing a good job.

Afterall, Nonprofit companies do make profits.  It's just those profits aren't paid out to investors.  Instead it stays in the company for further projects, like opening more prisons, etc.  

Therefore the decision makers of a private prison project can justify being paid more if they open more non-profit prisons that they manage and increase their revenue.  The bigger the nonprofit, the more the CEO gets paid...

http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/studies/2012_CEO_Compensation_Study_Final.pdf

Or a government prison head, could justify being paid more when their union renegotiation comes around if they are managing more prisons/prisoners/making more profit by leasing prison workers to private companies/saving politcians from having to raise taxes by making everyones liscense plates for free.

Capitalism: A Love Story was bullshit, but that part really got to me.

Um...prisons are run by private corporations now, obviously that is a huge moral conflict. What incentive does a corp have to rehabilitate and release someone when they are paid to imprison them?  I say no money for prisoners at all.  They already get room and board and cost us billions in this country. (USA)

My tax dollars pay for their food, healthcare, and well being in prison. I don't think its fair if they get paid to do things when they're locked up for punishment.

If that was the case, people would go to prison only to find work....

@Kasz

No.  Private companies don't share profits with investors in the form of equity unless you provide special financing.  All companies need capital.  Non-profit companies are setup to offer as much as possible without losing money.  Their excess goes into improving the business not rewarding their creditors.  Whether or not that actually happens in the real world is another story.  Kahn's point is that if they ran the prisons as a true non-profit, the motivation would be to provide the safest, best rehabilitation facility possible.  That would mean educational programs, counseling, better paid guards, better conditions, etc.  Unfortunately these for profit companies are just leaching off the system.  It is deplorable and embarassing that we allow it in a modern society.

edit - Also, if you want a quality CEO you have to pay competitively.  Most benevolent people are not savvy enough to run a non-profit nearly as effectively as a seasoned executive.

Sure they do.  It's called divdends.  The higher the profits, the higher the dividends, (and stock prices).

As for argueing about "Ideals", ideal arguements are worthless in a real world.  Afterall if people were ideal there would be no prisons to begin with.

Non-profits do try and make a profit.  It's a fundamental goal to try and keep the program alive.