3 ms·

I like your question very much. IMHO, every entreprise is a social entreprise. No matter what it does, it affects society, does it not? So, giving away a % of

by dupouy 8y ago

I like your question very much. IMHO, every entreprise is a social entreprise. No matter what it does, it affects society, does it not? So, giving away a % of the revenues shouldn't be necessary, as long as the business does something meaningful for society. Looks like you would help people make a living, while helping companies find talent. That seems more-than-enough meaningful. And if you'd like to be even more meaningful, you may experiment with how you select your clients -- so they, too, do meaningful things. I'd keep all the revenues, not out of greed, but simply so that you don't suffer, allowing you to keep helping society in the long run.

zwaps 8y ago
Others have downvoted you, so I want to add some ideas why you may not be right here. From an economist's view, it is clear that such "market behavior" may be efficient in allocation of ressources, but not morally or ethically efficient. There are many "pareto efficient" equilibria, for example, but the subset of those which are socially desireable is small. Since we are not aware of a good regulatory mechanism that ensures both allocative and distributive efficiency, it is certainly commendable for individuals with wealth to throw their weight into making society better for more people. Another sense of how this may be desirable is that the more we look toward the long term, the more important social incentives should become - while we as humans often think very myopically. This is a view of efficiency. From a sociologist's perspective, one may say that social norms - for example how much we can and should help other people - are driven by both the behavior around us, and what we observed in the past. So, being able to help people and improve society is something that can move us, collectively, to a better path. And not doing so, may cement a system that is not really desirable, yet binding for individuals. So indeed, doing things like this may not only feel meaningful, but they are meaningful. And meaning in our actions is important for personal happiness.

by dupouy 8y ago

zwaps 8y ago

Others have downvoted you, so I want to add some ideas why you may not be right here. From an economist's view, it is clear that such "market behavior" may be efficient in allocation of ressources, but not morally or ethically efficient. There are many "pareto efficient" equilibria, for example, but the subset of those which are socially desireable is small. Since we are not aware of a good regulatory mechanism that ensures both allocative and distributive efficiency, it is certainly commendable for individuals with wealth to throw their weight into making society better for more people. Another sense of how this may be desirable is that the more we look toward the long term, the more important social incentives should become - while we as humans often think very myopically. This is a view of efficiency. From a sociologist's perspective, one may say that social norms - for example how much we can and should help other people - are driven by both the behavior around us, and what we observed in the past. So, being able to help people and improve society is something that can move us, collectively, to a better path. And not doing so, may cement a system that is not really desirable, yet binding for individuals. So indeed, doing things like this may not only feel meaningful, but they are meaningful. And meaning in our actions is important for personal happiness.