5 ms·

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

by 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.
        lovich 8y ago
        Which is an appropriate belief based on reality. The same way that assuming someone rich donating to charity has ulterior motives, because rich people donating to charity have demonstrated repeatedly that they have ulterior motives
    - TuGuQuKu 8y ago
      >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. Yes, that's correct. What, you think Bezos and Ma are genius visionaries for coming up with the idea of buying things on the internet? A democratically managed worker's co-op could have accomplished the same things as Amazon and Alibaba with almost none of the disgusting exploitative labor practices and wide scale human suffering.
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?

by comboy 8y ago

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.
      - lovich 8y ago
        Which is an appropriate belief based on reality. The same way that assuming someone rich donating to charity has ulterior motives, because rich people donating to charity have demonstrated repeatedly that they have ulterior motives
  - TuGuQuKu 8y ago
    >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. Yes, that's correct. What, you think Bezos and Ma are genius visionaries for coming up with the idea of buying things on the internet? A democratically managed worker's co-op could have accomplished the same things as Amazon and Alibaba with almost none of the disgusting exploitative labor practices and wide scale human suffering.

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?