4 ms·

Whether you believe he is doing a good thing because it's a good thing, or just because he wants to be seen doing a good thing, it doesn't change the fact that

by adwf 10y ago

Whether you believe he is doing a good thing because it's a good thing, or just because he wants to be seen doing a good thing, it doesn't change the fact that the good thing is being done. Tax deductibility does indeed incentivise charitable giving, possibly for selfish reasons. But the person on the recieving end of education/healthcare/whatever, doesn't really care do they? The effect is what's important, not the motivation.

blackbagboys 10y ago
I don't believe that he is making this investment for either of those reasons. I believe he is making it because developing additional pools of low-cost contract labor is in the long term excellent for his business. Additionally, Andela will capture some of the delta between the cost of African and the cost of Indian or American developers, some of which will in turn be returned to the Initiative to finance future forays into making the world safe for oligopoly. I am sure that some localized Good Things will occur as a byproduct of this arbitrage, but let's not pretend for a second that "advancing human potential" and "promoting equality" are actually the metrics by which the success of this enterprise is being judged.
- rdlecler1 10y ago
  You could make the argument that any of his investments will be in his long term self interest. Even investing in an anti-Facebook could be seen as a self interested move "Oh, this is to show that he doesn't support monopoly"
- rdlecler1 10y ago
  You could make the argument that any of his investments will be in his long term self interest. Even investing in an anti-Facebook could be seen as a self interested move "Oh, this is to show that he doesn't support monopoly"
- bko 10y ago
  > low-cost contract labor Phrases like that ring to me to describe a two class of people: a "low cost" tier, and a "normal cost" tier. To me this has obvious racist overtones as "low-cost" is often followed by [nationality]. If someone is willing to work harder, she should get the job, but somehow if that same person is willing to work as hard for less money, she is unworthy? Sure the company benefits from a spread between what a person makes and what they contribute, but they do so already. Eventually if that spread becomes too large, other companies will exploit this arbitrage and start new businesses and bid up the employees compensation. You are free to do so as well assuming you live in a free capitalist society.
  - Sacho 10y ago
    They're willing to work for less because in their local economy, the pay is actually good to great. This destabilizes the local economy, creating gentrified districts or entire cities(See: SF) where only the privileged laborers for a foreign economy can afford to live. It will also lead to a sharp increase in luxury good prices due to new demand, driving the bar for middle-class living out of reach for local workers. The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels. Helping people is hard.
    - Cybiote 10y ago
      In those countries, corruption and the resource curse have already more than decimated local economies, creating a very lopsided distribution of wealth. It is difficult to conceive of an orthogonal infusion of wealth generation as worsening their already horrid state of affairs. With corruption having bled those countries dry, there remains little by way of local engineering opportunities and those able to, leave. A local training hub as Andela is difficult to see as worsening that situation.
    - bko 10y ago
      > This destabilizes the local economy, creating gentrified districts or entire cities(See: SF) So paying people more and giving them jobs destabilizes the local economy because these people now have money and spend more on housing and other items? And if they're paid less, they're being exploited? > The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels. Doesn't the government prefer rich denizens and a higher tax base? Isn't this how education is funded and higher salaries and tax base partially the point of investing in education? > but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels. Aren't digital good mostly global in nature? Don't poor countries benefit from Facebook/Google/Apple/etc?
q5 10y ago
One issue with the argument you presented is that a not-for-profit or charitable entity by definition does not have profit in its interest. For-profit entities also have the liberty to freely move their capital to satisfy their business requirements. Although there is no law against a charity or not-for-profit deciding to remove funding for a program they, by definition, are not motivated by the money flow of the program. Sure they are interested in making the program run efficiently and that there is enough funding to begin the program and see the program through but profit is not their core motivation and thus, I would argue, are more committed in their programs and investments. Those exploiting inefficiencies for gain should be reprimanded by the system granting these special business types.

by adwf 10y ago

blackbagboys 10y ago

I don't believe that he is making this investment for either of those reasons. I believe he is making it because developing additional pools of low-cost contract labor is in the long term excellent for his business. Additionally, Andela will capture some of the delta between the cost of African and the cost of Indian or American developers, some of which will in turn be returned to the Initiative to finance future forays into making the world safe for oligopoly. I am sure that some localized Good Things will occur as a byproduct of this arbitrage, but let's not pretend for a second that "advancing human potential" and "promoting equality" are actually the metrics by which the success of this enterprise is being judged.

rdlecler1 10y ago
You could make the argument that any of his investments will be in his long term self interest. Even investing in an anti-Facebook could be seen as a self interested move "Oh, this is to show that he doesn't support monopoly"
rdlecler1 10y ago
You could make the argument that any of his investments will be in his long term self interest. Even investing in an anti-Facebook could be seen as a self interested move "Oh, this is to show that he doesn't support monopoly"
bko 10y ago
> low-cost contract labor Phrases like that ring to me to describe a two class of people: a "low cost" tier, and a "normal cost" tier. To me this has obvious racist overtones as "low-cost" is often followed by [nationality]. If someone is willing to work harder, she should get the job, but somehow if that same person is willing to work as hard for less money, she is unworthy? Sure the company benefits from a spread between what a person makes and what they contribute, but they do so already. Eventually if that spread becomes too large, other companies will exploit this arbitrage and start new businesses and bid up the employees compensation. You are free to do so as well assuming you live in a free capitalist society.
- Sacho 10y ago
  They're willing to work for less because in their local economy, the pay is actually good to great. This destabilizes the local economy, creating gentrified districts or entire cities(See: SF) where only the privileged laborers for a foreign economy can afford to live. It will also lead to a sharp increase in luxury good prices due to new demand, driving the bar for middle-class living out of reach for local workers. The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels. Helping people is hard.
  - Cybiote 10y ago
    In those countries, corruption and the resource curse have already more than decimated local economies, creating a very lopsided distribution of wealth. It is difficult to conceive of an orthogonal infusion of wealth generation as worsening their already horrid state of affairs. With corruption having bled those countries dry, there remains little by way of local engineering opportunities and those able to, leave. A local training hub as Andela is difficult to see as worsening that situation.
  - bko 10y ago
    > This destabilizes the local economy, creating gentrified districts or entire cities(See: SF) So paying people more and giving them jobs destabilizes the local economy because these people now have money and spend more on housing and other items? And if they're paid less, they're being exploited? > The skilled workers hired by the foreign economy become a brain drain - the government has invested resources into their education, but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels. Doesn't the government prefer rich denizens and a higher tax base? Isn't this how education is funded and higher salaries and tax base partially the point of investing in education? > but no one in the local economy can afford them, thus they'll never create goods for it to improve local technology levels. Aren't digital good mostly global in nature? Don't poor countries benefit from Facebook/Google/Apple/etc?

q5 10y ago

One issue with the argument you presented is that a not-for-profit or charitable entity by definition does not have profit in its interest. For-profit entities also have the liberty to freely move their capital to satisfy their business requirements. Although there is no law against a charity or not-for-profit deciding to remove funding for a program they, by definition, are not motivated by the money flow of the program. Sure they are interested in making the program run efficiently and that there is enough funding to begin the program and see the program through but profit is not their core motivation and thus, I would argue, are more committed in their programs and investments. Those exploiting inefficiencies for gain should be reprimanded by the system granting these special business types.