> And CEO salaries (while the average charity worker gets a pittance).

Yes, that too.

> A lot of these mega-charities seem to just be in business to "raise awareness of issue x" which also generates more donations to the charity so they can raise even more awareness.

I've seen this with Greenpeace. When I was a kid living in Nieuwendam there was a guy that had emigrated to NZ with family nearby to where we lived that went on the first edition of the Rainbow Warrior. The one the French secret service sank in an attempt to get rid of Greenpeace (and which killed Fernando Pereira). At that time they were 'madmen in zodiacs' and this guy ended up as the skipper of the Rainbow Warrior.

The transition from 'doing good stuff at scale' to 'international organization that is raising money while also doing good stuff at scale' was a hard one. They did their level best to stay active but as a fraction of total income vs expenditure on action the relationship has shifted considerably over the years.

> A local charity to me has just had to cease operating. They provided free minibus travel for elderly/less mobile people. Nothing fancy, but it met a need and was tangible.

That's super sad in a way, because especially for the elderly you can see their world shrinking year by year and such services can make a massive difference to people's lives.