7 ms·

In 2016, Google donated $167 million in cash and $1 billion in their own products to charitable causes. Microsoft - $135 million in cash, $922 million in produ

In 2016, Google donated $167 million in cash and $1 billion in their own products to charitable causes. Microsoft - $135 million in cash, $922 million in product Cisco - $41 million in cash, $245 million in product AT&T - $112 million in cash, $7 million in product Verizon - $56 million in cash, $32 million in product While these companies are around primarily to make a profit, I'm sure that their $460 million dollars in cash donations sure helped a lot of people. Not to mention all the jobs they create (also helping people), the wealth they generate for their shareholders (also helping people), and the individual charitable donations of those shareholders. http://www.businessinsider.com/most-generous-companies-in-america-2015-2016-6#23-verizon-communications-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/most-generous-companies-in-am...

fredley 8y ago
A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't. Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes that benefit everyone, not just the company's PR department. You could call this system 'taxation'. A case study: Flint water. Nobody's done anything about it for years. Now there's a PR opportunity so Elon's going to fix it. The people of Flint will get drinkable water (hopefully) and Elon will get another PR lift. This problem could have been fixed years ago (and perhaps should never even have happened), but the people who decide when these big social problems get fixed is no longer the people (almost all of whom think it's an unacceptable travesty, especially in a rich, developed nation), but the billionaire class, who require something back in return.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  > A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't. They are more likely to spend it on things that make them look good, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that these companies are helping people, even if their primary goal is not to help people. > Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes that benefit everyone, not just the company's PR department. You could call this system 'taxation'. All of these companies are taxed, according to the rules set by the democratically appointed body you mention. I don't understand why you included this part of your comment. > This problem could have been fixed years ago (and perhaps should never even have happened), but the people who decide when these big social problems get fixed is no longer the people (almost all of whom think it's an unacceptable travesty, especially in a rich, developed nation), but the billionaire class, who require something back in return. Just so I have this straight - you're saying the reason that the people of Flint haven't had their water problems fixed yet is because the billionaire class only cares about getting something in return from such an action? I'd like you to tell me what exactly you think should have been done in Flint and how the billionaire class subverted the will of the American people by not doing it.
  - Caillebotte 8y ago
    Yes, I agree they are helping people. But who are they helping? They don't seem to be helping the little people like that Tanzanian hospital the way the developers did who found a free software solution. It seems we weaponize situations of desperate need in order to accomplish our own means. If these companies truly cared for the people they are helping, they wouldn't even bother with the PR side of it at all. Their help certainly makes a huge difference, I agree, but intention is everything, and if they intend to aid their own purposes, that is what will see the most benefit from their efforts.
    - wilsonnb2 8y ago
      > intention is everything I'm sure the people that received Google's millions of dollars would disagree with that statement. > If these companies truly cared for the people they are helping, they wouldn't even bother with the PR side of it at all. Why? Does getting good PR from helping someone diminish the help that said person receives? > if they intend to aid their own purposes, that is what will see the most benefit from their efforts. I have not once disagreed with this statement - companies primary goal is to make a profit. However, they also provide a tremendous amount of help to those who need it and I don't think people should dismiss that so easily. > They don't seem to be helping the little people like that Tanzanian hospital the way the developers did who found a free software solution. It's easier for us to grasp a situation in which a few developers help out a few people who need it. It's not easy for us to parse "$150 million in charitable donations" in the same way, but I assure you there are thousands of "helping the little guy" stories you can craft out of $150 million.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "Just so I have this straight - you're saying the reason that the people of Flint haven't had their water problems fixed yet is because the billionaire class only cares about getting something in return from such an action?" Musk could have easily acted back when it happened. He didn't.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Pedantic point: Elon's not going to fix Flint's water. He's going to offer to install filters on people's homes.
hanshan 8y ago
That's a lot like saying FB and GOOG are charitable because they give their products away for "free". How much money/data are those product donations extracting from the people they donated to?
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  It's not like saying that. This is literally Google donating money to charity. That's the definition of being charitable. Even so, many would agree that Facebook and Google are charitable for giving their products away for free even if they extract value from them in other ways.
  - hanshan 8y ago
    >This is literally Google donating money to charity. I specifically said "product" donations. >Even so, many would agree that Facebook and Google are charitable for giving their products away for free And they would be ignorant of the value of their information, attention spans, and technology in general. Many such people would also agree that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about"
Jyaif 8y ago
Why are companies allowed to give money to charities? Aren't they supposed to only try to make profit?

fredley 8y ago

A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't. Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes that benefit everyone, not just the company's PR department. You could call this system 'taxation'. A case study: Flint water. Nobody's done anything about it for years. Now there's a PR opportunity so Elon's going to fix it. The people of Flint will get drinkable water (hopefully) and Elon will get another PR lift. This problem could have been fixed years ago (and perhaps should never even have happened), but the people who decide when these big social problems get fixed is no longer the people (almost all of whom think it's an unacceptable travesty, especially in a rich, developed nation), but the billionaire class, who require something back in return.

wilsonnb2 8y ago
> A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't. They are more likely to spend it on things that make them look good, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that these companies are helping people, even if their primary goal is not to help people. > Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes that benefit everyone, not just the company's PR department. You could call this system 'taxation'. All of these companies are taxed, according to the rules set by the democratically appointed body you mention. I don't understand why you included this part of your comment. > This problem could have been fixed years ago (and perhaps should never even have happened), but the people who decide when these big social problems get fixed is no longer the people (almost all of whom think it's an unacceptable travesty, especially in a rich, developed nation), but the billionaire class, who require something back in return. Just so I have this straight - you're saying the reason that the people of Flint haven't had their water problems fixed yet is because the billionaire class only cares about getting something in return from such an action? I'd like you to tell me what exactly you think should have been done in Flint and how the billionaire class subverted the will of the American people by not doing it.
- Caillebotte 8y ago
  Yes, I agree they are helping people. But who are they helping? They don't seem to be helping the little people like that Tanzanian hospital the way the developers did who found a free software solution. It seems we weaponize situations of desperate need in order to accomplish our own means. If these companies truly cared for the people they are helping, they wouldn't even bother with the PR side of it at all. Their help certainly makes a huge difference, I agree, but intention is everything, and if they intend to aid their own purposes, that is what will see the most benefit from their efforts.
  - wilsonnb2 8y ago
    > intention is everything I'm sure the people that received Google's millions of dollars would disagree with that statement. > If these companies truly cared for the people they are helping, they wouldn't even bother with the PR side of it at all. Why? Does getting good PR from helping someone diminish the help that said person receives? > if they intend to aid their own purposes, that is what will see the most benefit from their efforts. I have not once disagreed with this statement - companies primary goal is to make a profit. However, they also provide a tremendous amount of help to those who need it and I don't think people should dismiss that so easily. > They don't seem to be helping the little people like that Tanzanian hospital the way the developers did who found a free software solution. It's easier for us to grasp a situation in which a few developers help out a few people who need it. It's not easy for us to parse "$150 million in charitable donations" in the same way, but I assure you there are thousands of "helping the little guy" stories you can craft out of $150 million.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Just so I have this straight - you're saying the reason that the people of Flint haven't had their water problems fixed yet is because the billionaire class only cares about getting something in return from such an action?" Musk could have easily acted back when it happened. He didn't.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Pedantic point: Elon's not going to fix Flint's water. He's going to offer to install filters on people's homes.

hanshan 8y ago

That's a lot like saying FB and GOOG are charitable because they give their products away for "free". How much money/data are those product donations extracting from the people they donated to?

wilsonnb2 8y ago
It's not like saying that. This is literally Google donating money to charity. That's the definition of being charitable. Even so, many would agree that Facebook and Google are charitable for giving their products away for free even if they extract value from them in other ways.
- hanshan 8y ago
  >This is literally Google donating money to charity. I specifically said "product" donations. >Even so, many would agree that Facebook and Google are charitable for giving their products away for free And they would be ignorant of the value of their information, attention spans, and technology in general. Many such people would also agree that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about"

Jyaif 8y ago

Why are companies allowed to give money to charities? Aren't they supposed to only try to make profit?