6 ms·

It ain't working that bad so far. I mean we have increasing gap, but the 0.0001%, which arguably is pretty smart, is in the end using both their wealth and wisd

by comboy 8y ago

It ain't working that bad so far. I mean we have increasing gap, but the 0.0001%, which arguably is pretty smart, is in the end using both their wealth and wisdom to try to selflessly make the world a better place. I just checked the numbers and indeed, relative amount of money spend on philanthropy seems to be increasing[1][2], I couldn't find any global numbers though. 1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&... 2. https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/ https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-g...

lovich 8y ago
A Chinese company is probably a bad example since their real wages have been increasing, but do you think relative charity might be increasing because the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer? More people need help and the rich feel the pain less.
- comboy 8y ago
  Just to be super clear, I don't think that the increasing gap is a good thing. I was just commenting on the fact that surprisingly many super rich people decide to go into philanthropy instead of letting their wealth dissolve within their families. Buffet had a nice, pretty old article about why leaving huge loads of money to your children is a bad idea but I can't find it at the moment.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/09/29/68098/index.htm http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive... Summary quote: Buffett is not cutting his children out of his fortune because they are wastrels or wantons or refuse to go into the family business -- the traditional reasons rich parents withhold money. Says he: ''My kids are going , to carve out their own place in this world, and they know I'm for them whatever they want to do.'' But he believes that setting up his heirs with ''a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb'' can be ''harmful'' for them and is ''an antisocial act.'' To him the perfect amount to leave children is ''enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.'' For a college graduate, Buffett reckons ''a few hundred thousand dollars'' sounds about right. That’s in 1986, so the equivalent figure is more like a million bucks and change today.
  - opportune 8y ago
    Philanthropy is in many cases personal PR for the rich, or just something easy to do rather than work or do nothing. I’m sure Buffett and Gates are doing it for other reasons. But generic_billionaire donating paltry amounts of money is just buying goodwill from the public, other rich people, the local community, politicians, etc. A rich person donating 1% of their wealth each year may be donating a lot in absolute terms but very little relative to what they have
    - analognoise 8y ago
      They're still donating. Are we seriously chastising people for giving money to causes of their own volition because we feel it isn't enough?
      - icelancer 8y ago
        Yes, this is basically where we are at today. Apparently we are to hold every rich person to some esoteric standard because every wealthy person made their money by exploiting others; none of them were positive-sum contributors to society. And when someone donates a lot of money, we just say they are buying PR and have calculated the ROI like the terrible capitalist they are, with zero evidence at all this is the case.
        lovich 8y ago
        If it's a straight donation maybe it's PRless. The number of people like Trump's or Zuckerberg's who donate to family foundations that give them tax breaks and give them a way to funnel money to their family through jobs that are paid by the foundations, has seriously degraded trust in the concept of charities as organizations. It's like running a company nowadays and wondering why your employees have no loyalty. Yea, maybe you're the one group that has acted honorably, but 90% of your peers have been rat bastards and you can't be surprised if the average person assumes you are too
        icelancer 8y ago
        Showing loyalty for the sake of loyalty as a worker has nothing to do with honor. It's... stupid. I do not expect my employees to show loyalty to me because they should. I expect them to remain employed with me because it is their best option, and I compete for their labor business with the other employers in the pool.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    Considering that the gap also means increasing disdain against the rich, I'm not that surprised. Not saying it's all just PR and getting on the good side of the mob, but it's still true that before being revered for his philanthropy, Bill Gates was one of the most hated people in tech.
    - throwaway080383 8y ago
      Among other tech people, right? Was he ever hated by random people in South Dakota?
- maxerickson 8y ago
  The gap is increasing but the poor are overwhelmingly getting richer, not poorer. I'm talking about in real terms, standard of living has gone up across the world for decades, even as the population has grown.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    But considering the gap, it could be better. This is like the tax-cuts-- "Oh, you should be happy you're getting a few hundred dollars back!". Well yeah, but if the cuts had been made fairly across income brackets, I'd be getting thousands.
  - lovich 8y ago
    It's gone up in the developing world. It hasn't gone up in the US. Infrastructure that the common man relied on is crumbling or is just gone, ie Flint water, and the rich are just importing everything they need to themselves
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      Portions of the US are worse off. It's still easily the case that the standard of living has increased for most people.
      - lovich 8y ago
        Does the average American born after 1990 have more house or a better retirement plan than their parents? There's luxuries like smartphones that have increased but the basics have been slipping out of more and more people's hands
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Does the average American born after 1990 have more house or a better retirement plan than their parents? No, but their parents had longer to save. The average person born in 1990 has a higher average real wage than their parents did. Given the novelty of college debt, it’s difficult to say much more, but mean statistics point to a wealthier American population at all levels today than any time before. The issue is the rich have gotten richer faster, not that the poor are getting poorer.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by comboy 8y ago

lovich 8y ago

A Chinese company is probably a bad example since their real wages have been increasing, but do you think relative charity might be increasing because the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer? More people need help and the rich feel the pain less.

comboy 8y ago
Just to be super clear, I don't think that the increasing gap is a good thing. I was just commenting on the fact that surprisingly many super rich people decide to go into philanthropy instead of letting their wealth dissolve within their families. Buffet had a nice, pretty old article about why leaving huge loads of money to your children is a bad idea but I can't find it at the moment.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/09/29/68098/index.htm http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive... Summary quote: Buffett is not cutting his children out of his fortune because they are wastrels or wantons or refuse to go into the family business -- the traditional reasons rich parents withhold money. Says he: ''My kids are going , to carve out their own place in this world, and they know I'm for them whatever they want to do.'' But he believes that setting up his heirs with ''a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb'' can be ''harmful'' for them and is ''an antisocial act.'' To him the perfect amount to leave children is ''enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.'' For a college graduate, Buffett reckons ''a few hundred thousand dollars'' sounds about right. That’s in 1986, so the equivalent figure is more like a million bucks and change today.
- opportune 8y ago
  Philanthropy is in many cases personal PR for the rich, or just something easy to do rather than work or do nothing. I’m sure Buffett and Gates are doing it for other reasons. But generic_billionaire donating paltry amounts of money is just buying goodwill from the public, other rich people, the local community, politicians, etc. A rich person donating 1% of their wealth each year may be donating a lot in absolute terms but very little relative to what they have
  - analognoise 8y ago
    They're still donating. Are we seriously chastising people for giving money to causes of their own volition because we feel it isn't enough?
    - icelancer 8y ago
      Yes, this is basically where we are at today. Apparently we are to hold every rich person to some esoteric standard because every wealthy person made their money by exploiting others; none of them were positive-sum contributors to society. And when someone donates a lot of money, we just say they are buying PR and have calculated the ROI like the terrible capitalist they are, with zero evidence at all this is the case.
      - lovich 8y ago
        If it's a straight donation maybe it's PRless. The number of people like Trump's or Zuckerberg's who donate to family foundations that give them tax breaks and give them a way to funnel money to their family through jobs that are paid by the foundations, has seriously degraded trust in the concept of charities as organizations. It's like running a company nowadays and wondering why your employees have no loyalty. Yea, maybe you're the one group that has acted honorably, but 90% of your peers have been rat bastards and you can't be surprised if the average person assumes you are too
        icelancer 8y ago
        Showing loyalty for the sake of loyalty as a worker has nothing to do with honor. It's... stupid. I do not expect my employees to show loyalty to me because they should. I expect them to remain employed with me because it is their best option, and I compete for their labor business with the other employers in the pool.
- aylmao 8y ago
  Considering that the gap also means increasing disdain against the rich, I'm not that surprised. Not saying it's all just PR and getting on the good side of the mob, but it's still true that before being revered for his philanthropy, Bill Gates was one of the most hated people in tech.
  - throwaway080383 8y ago
    Among other tech people, right? Was he ever hated by random people in South Dakota?
maxerickson 8y ago
The gap is increasing but the poor are overwhelmingly getting richer, not poorer. I'm talking about in real terms, standard of living has gone up across the world for decades, even as the population has grown.
- aylmao 8y ago
  But considering the gap, it could be better. This is like the tax-cuts-- "Oh, you should be happy you're getting a few hundred dollars back!". Well yeah, but if the cuts had been made fairly across income brackets, I'd be getting thousands.
- lovich 8y ago
  It's gone up in the developing world. It hasn't gone up in the US. Infrastructure that the common man relied on is crumbling or is just gone, ie Flint water, and the rich are just importing everything they need to themselves
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    Portions of the US are worse off. It's still easily the case that the standard of living has increased for most people.
    - lovich 8y ago
      Does the average American born after 1990 have more house or a better retirement plan than their parents? There's luxuries like smartphones that have increased but the basics have been slipping out of more and more people's hands
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Does the average American born after 1990 have more house or a better retirement plan than their parents? No, but their parents had longer to save. The average person born in 1990 has a higher average real wage than their parents did. Given the novelty of college debt, it’s difficult to say much more, but mean statistics point to a wealthier American population at all levels today than any time before. The issue is the rich have gotten richer faster, not that the poor are getting poorer.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]