3 ms·

The article starts of suggesting a strategy of working and then donating your money, referencing Bill Gates and a Google software developer as examples. This s

The article starts of suggesting a strategy of working and then donating your money, referencing Bill Gates and a Google software developer as examples. This strategy is basically, vacuum up a bunch of money and then pour it into doing good. But necessarily a lot of this money gets pulled out of places where it would do good, even if that good is simply putting food on the table of a poor family. If you're an engineer or someone who creates things, it's probably actually creating value, not just moving it around and siphoning off some of it. But often that value you create is harmful: the Google engineers, for example, probably spend a lot of time working on ads, user data collection, partnerships with banks, etc. And with CEOs like Bill Gates, the harm is much clearer. The money that has been spent by for example the US government, on Microsoft products could have been spent on building equivalent Linux products for a fraction of the cost, and the remainder spent directly on help programs. Bill Gates isn't some savior because he inserted himself as a middle man in the process of spending money on good. Sure, he's putting money into good now, but only after taking money out of good for decades, spending a lot of it on himself, and still keeping a sizable chunk for himself. This applies to almost any rich philanthropist. They look good when they donate billions of dollars, but the world would have been better off if they hadn't amassed those billions of dollars in the first place. I'm not impressed when people decide to do a little good after building a fortune on a mountain of skulls.

robertwiblin 10y ago
Hey Devishard - keep in mind this is only one of four suggested approaches. We also say if you think your work to make money is going to do harm you shouldn't do it and link to a list of jobs you shouldn't take because they are harmful. I don't personally agree with you that Microsoft has done much harm - maybe not even any harm at all on balance, given the positive inventions they made. Certainly I don't think Microsoft was so bad that saving 10 million people's lives wouldn't go a long way to making up for it. But if I did think Microsoft was very harmful, like you, I would agree you shouldn't earn to give there.
- devishard 10y ago
  Even if we buy that Microsoft hasn't done any harm at all in balance (which I don't) why would them collecting billions of dollars and then disbursing them be considered a net good when the alternative is that money not going into their pockets in the first place, and doing good earlier? Microsoft was founded in 1975. The Gates Foundation was founded in 2000. Why did we have to wait 25 years to see any money go into good instead of Gates' pockets? Also, Gates is still very, very rich, even after giving away a lot of his money. He also helped a lot of his friends get very, very rich, and even the ones of them who give to charity will remain very, very rich. That's billions and billions of dollars that came from crushing smaller businesses, hardening monopolies, and pulling money from governments that could have gone to aid programs. I am not sure where you got the "saving 10 million people's lives" statistic from, but if it's true, then how many millions more would have been saved by the billions of dollars that Gates and his friends have siphoned off by being middle men? Do you really think even half the money that has gone into MS will come out in the form of aid? If $x spent to save 10 million lives saved between 2000 and 2015 are good, wouldn't $2x spent between 1975 and 2000 have been better?
  - robertwiblin 10y ago
    Gates mostly earned money by selling products to people in the top 10% of global incomes - products they willingly bought. Most of his philanthropy has gone to people in the bottom 20% - people who earn a hundredth as much as people typically buying Microsoft software. Read more on this: https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-much-difference-can-one-person-make/ https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-much-difference-can-... I think he intends to give away most of his money before he does - like 90% or so. As for why the Foundation was started in 2000 - Microsoft wasn't making much money before the 90s so there wasn't much to give. Judging by Microsoft's share price, Gates only truly got rich after 1997.
    - ex_amazon_se 10y ago
      > selling products to people in the top 10% of global incomes No, the majority of customers are big corporation with a very large customer base (aka lower and middle class). The customers are the ones ultimately paying for that - e.g. when they buy food at McDonalds.
dasil003 10y ago
I agree every billionaire has some insanely cut-throat business activities behind them, and they shouldn't necessarily be absolved of their sins by philanthropy; but on the other hand it doesn't mean they were parasites either, I mean Microsoft made a ton of software, much of it quite good.
afarrell 10y ago
> building equivalent Linux products for a fraction of the cost. Would this have actually been cheaper for the government to integrate into their processes? Even though the sticker price is $0, Linux is not actually Free as in Beer for most people and organizations.
- devishard 10y ago
  Agreed, but equally, the cost of Windows products doesn't stop at paying for a license. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the cost of using Linux is higher than Windows, and when you throw in licensing and support, Windows is almost certainly more expensive. When you take my full proposal, which is that perhaps 10% of the money spent on Windows were spent on Linux instead, I think that 10% would go very far toward making Linux cheaper than Windows even if you discount fees. Keep in mind that a lot of the money put into developing Windows goes into branding and creating vendor lock-in, which Linux doesn't have any reason to pursue.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    The fact Microsoft gets money from their customers, makes them extremely interested in making software that's a very good fit for business and end users. Linux other hand is very good for developers, sysadmins and technical people. This is mainly because its created by them for them. Microsoft has added value for business because of this focus.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    I'm not saying that Linux is wrong or higher cost. I can't know enough to make such a claim. I'm merely saying that one cannot dismiss Windows as obviously higher-cost without examination. > goes into branding...which Linux doesn't have any reason to pursue. I strongly disagree, though I suspect we have a different view of what "branding" is. Branding isn't just logos and advertisements. Branding is creating a certain intuitive impression in the minds of prospective customers and partners. This can often involve serious technical investment. To give a specific example, look at the company DigitalOcean. They try to maintain a brand of "easy to get set up and learn how to do stuff". To do this, they pay people to write good tutorials and they spend a lot of effort designing their user interactions. As a result, when run into someone who wants to learn how to set something up on a Linux server, I point them at digitalocean. Yes, their branding involves some nice graphics, but it also involves solving problems for their users. Windows at times spent a lot of effort on solving engineering problems in service of their brand. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html Canonical actually spent a fair amount of engineering effort on branding for Ubuntu, but they just didn't have the resources to create a clean experience around things like wifi and peripherals (at least by 2013, when I switched to OSX).
jdminhbg 10y ago
No, the economy is not zero-sum.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
I don't think we can assume that if the government saved $50 billion dollars using Linux instead of buying Windows that we would see that money going towards aid. In reality, that money would be going into the pocket of some other business owner for some other reason. I doubt anyone in charge of a large public budget says "Hey we saved a lot of money with that decision, that's take that saved money and give it away".

robertwiblin 10y ago

Hey Devishard - keep in mind this is only one of four suggested approaches. We also say if you think your work to make money is going to do harm you shouldn't do it and link to a list of jobs you shouldn't take because they are harmful. I don't personally agree with you that Microsoft has done much harm - maybe not even any harm at all on balance, given the positive inventions they made. Certainly I don't think Microsoft was so bad that saving 10 million people's lives wouldn't go a long way to making up for it. But if I did think Microsoft was very harmful, like you, I would agree you shouldn't earn to give there.

devishard 10y ago
Even if we buy that Microsoft hasn't done any harm at all in balance (which I don't) why would them collecting billions of dollars and then disbursing them be considered a net good when the alternative is that money not going into their pockets in the first place, and doing good earlier? Microsoft was founded in 1975. The Gates Foundation was founded in 2000. Why did we have to wait 25 years to see any money go into good instead of Gates' pockets? Also, Gates is still very, very rich, even after giving away a lot of his money. He also helped a lot of his friends get very, very rich, and even the ones of them who give to charity will remain very, very rich. That's billions and billions of dollars that came from crushing smaller businesses, hardening monopolies, and pulling money from governments that could have gone to aid programs. I am not sure where you got the "saving 10 million people's lives" statistic from, but if it's true, then how many millions more would have been saved by the billions of dollars that Gates and his friends have siphoned off by being middle men? Do you really think even half the money that has gone into MS will come out in the form of aid? If $x spent to save 10 million lives saved between 2000 and 2015 are good, wouldn't $2x spent between 1975 and 2000 have been better?
- robertwiblin 10y ago
  Gates mostly earned money by selling products to people in the top 10% of global incomes - products they willingly bought. Most of his philanthropy has gone to people in the bottom 20% - people who earn a hundredth as much as people typically buying Microsoft software. Read more on this: https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-much-difference-can-one-person-make/ https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-much-difference-can-... I think he intends to give away most of his money before he does - like 90% or so. As for why the Foundation was started in 2000 - Microsoft wasn't making much money before the 90s so there wasn't much to give. Judging by Microsoft's share price, Gates only truly got rich after 1997.
  - ex_amazon_se 10y ago
    > selling products to people in the top 10% of global incomes No, the majority of customers are big corporation with a very large customer base (aka lower and middle class). The customers are the ones ultimately paying for that - e.g. when they buy food at McDonalds.

dasil003 10y ago

I agree every billionaire has some insanely cut-throat business activities behind them, and they shouldn't necessarily be absolved of their sins by philanthropy; but on the other hand it doesn't mean they were parasites either, I mean Microsoft made a ton of software, much of it quite good.

afarrell 10y ago

> building equivalent Linux products for a fraction of the cost. Would this have actually been cheaper for the government to integrate into their processes? Even though the sticker price is $0, Linux is not actually Free as in Beer for most people and organizations.

devishard 10y ago
Agreed, but equally, the cost of Windows products doesn't stop at paying for a license. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the cost of using Linux is higher than Windows, and when you throw in licensing and support, Windows is almost certainly more expensive. When you take my full proposal, which is that perhaps 10% of the money spent on Windows were spent on Linux instead, I think that 10% would go very far toward making Linux cheaper than Windows even if you discount fees. Keep in mind that a lot of the money put into developing Windows goes into branding and creating vendor lock-in, which Linux doesn't have any reason to pursue.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  The fact Microsoft gets money from their customers, makes them extremely interested in making software that's a very good fit for business and end users. Linux other hand is very good for developers, sysadmins and technical people. This is mainly because its created by them for them. Microsoft has added value for business because of this focus.
- afarrell 10y ago
  I'm not saying that Linux is wrong or higher cost. I can't know enough to make such a claim. I'm merely saying that one cannot dismiss Windows as obviously higher-cost without examination. > goes into branding...which Linux doesn't have any reason to pursue. I strongly disagree, though I suspect we have a different view of what "branding" is. Branding isn't just logos and advertisements. Branding is creating a certain intuitive impression in the minds of prospective customers and partners. This can often involve serious technical investment. To give a specific example, look at the company DigitalOcean. They try to maintain a brand of "easy to get set up and learn how to do stuff". To do this, they pay people to write good tutorials and they spend a lot of effort designing their user interactions. As a result, when run into someone who wants to learn how to set something up on a Linux server, I point them at digitalocean. Yes, their branding involves some nice graphics, but it also involves solving problems for their users. Windows at times spent a lot of effort on solving engineering problems in service of their brand. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html Canonical actually spent a fair amount of engineering effort on branding for Ubuntu, but they just didn't have the resources to create a clean experience around things like wifi and peripherals (at least by 2013, when I switched to OSX).

jdminhbg 10y ago

No, the economy is not zero-sum.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

I don't think we can assume that if the government saved $50 billion dollars using Linux instead of buying Windows that we would see that money going towards aid. In reality, that money would be going into the pocket of some other business owner for some other reason. I doubt anyone in charge of a large public budget says "Hey we saved a lot of money with that decision, that's take that saved money and give it away".