5 ms·

Let's Dial Down our Enthusiasm over the Billionare Giving Pledge

16 points by dcaldwell 16y ago

dcaldwell 16y ago
Here are a couple other reasons why I don't think the Giving Pledge will have an enormous impact on philanthropy or nonprofits in general. First, not every billionaire is going to make the pledge. I double that it will be more than a third of them. So, instead of the $15 billion given annually as the article suggest, it will probably be more like $5 billion. Secondly, since 1957 giving to non-profits has increased all but about 3 years (2 of those being the last.) Some estimates say that in the next 5-10 years, annual giving will be at around $400 billion instead of the current $300 billion. So, the $5 billion in giving from the Giving Pledge will be a much smaller percentage of total giving than it currently would be. I certainly applaud the generosity of these individuals and families but we need to maintain perspective. If we could get the average American to increase their giving by 1%, we would probably have a greater impact on total giving.
nlwhittemore 16y ago
There are a bunch of fine reasons to be low-to-medium excited about the Giving Pledge instead of totally amped, but Dorfman's argument - that they might not spend it that well- is a pretty stupid one. First, Gates and Buffett are, in two very different ways, reinventing the rules of how to spend it: Gates by going all in and running his foundation full time, Buffett by saying "forget having my name on things" and giving it to the person he thinks can spend it best. Zuckerberg is already in this category of smarter giving with his $100mm Newark gift. And there's lots of good reasons to think that the era of the $billion ballet gift is over. Second, Dorfman runs a center that works to make philanthropy better, but for some reason, instead of being a leading voice in the best strategies for spending it effectively, he's become the leading voice in shitting all over the commitments. Smart. Not. @dcaldwell's points about the significantly higher amount of annual philanthropy that comes from individuals of average means than from the ultra wealthy is a much better reason to have tempered excitement. For my money, the most exciting part of this is the precedent that Moskovitz and Zuckerberg are setting to start this incredibly early in their lives. That means we get not only hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, but at least part of their time and attention for decades and decades.
masterponomo 16y ago
Um...you're welcome?
torme 16y ago
I'd say that having anyone pledge to donate anything is something to be immensely enthusiastic about.
lionhearted 16y ago
I'll say it - This guy is a fucking jerk. When confronted with something that conflicts with his worldview that the rich are bad, he cooks up a bunch of caveats and concerns so he can keep his current worldview. Many of his arguments aren't even right - > Wealthy donors don't tend to prioritize lower-income communities, communities of color or other marginalized groups as beneficiaries of their giving. You mean, like, eradicating Malaria in Africa [1] or funding the USA's worst performing school districts [2]? Jerks like this have been beating the "the rich are evil and don't care about poor people drum" for so long that they can't adapt now. What's this? In addition to building world changing companies, they're also giving the wealth they got personally to charity? Well, it's still not so good, because you know the rich are evil and don't care about poor people. I'll say it - he's a jerk. When confronted with effective pragmatic people moving into his backwards-poorly-managed idealistic space, he complains and slings mud and adds doubt. Screw him. We need less people doing stuff that he's doing, and more people doing entrepreneurship, taking strong pragmatic action to fix problems, and giving voluntarily. [1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/malaria.aspx http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/malaria.aspx [2] http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/24/techcrunch-interview-with-mark-zuckerberg-on-100-million-education-donation/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/24/techcrunch-interview-with-m...
- tptacek 16y ago
  He acknowledged all your points in his article (really, go read it again), and he didn't call you a jerk.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > He acknolwedged all your points in his article, and he didn't call you a jerk. He acknowledged that charity-as-is is currently failing, largely thanks to poor leadership by people like him? He acknowledged that he dislikes wealthy people as an almost fundamental belief (as opposed to just having it be an undertone of the article)? No, he didn't. And you know, when you take time to write a series of articles encouraging people to "Dial Down our Enthusiasm over the Billionare Giving Pledge" - that deserves being called a jerk. He could be building the world, doing things, but no - he's slinging mud. That qualifies as jerk behavior. Edit: He also doesn't mention the conflict of interest here - he's currently a philanthropy director who stands to lose a lot of influence, power, and prestige as a result of this. He used to be a top dog in philanthropy, and now he's slinging mud at people who are doing different, probably more effective things than him.
grandalf 16y ago
The cotton gin ended slavery. Any Billionaire who chooses to give money to charity is opting out of the quest for new innovations that will let people willingly free others from the bonds that hold them in poverty. Imagine if Whitney had instead donated the capital he used to invent the cotton gin to the local orphanage. I think it's an interesting commentary on the perception of capitalism that the world's richest view themselves as having been one-hit-wonders unlikely ever to eclipse their initial accomplishment with their own sweat and insight... Instead, I'd prefer that these people follow in the steps of Gates himself, who has delved into asking the question of what the big problems are and how they're most effectively solved. His TED talk about power generation was incredibly inspiring, and assuming his wealth is $50B, he's not rich enough to self-fund it beyond the second stage.
- klbarry 16y ago
  I get the idea, but that's a terrible, terrible example: The cotton gin made slavery much more tenable as a business by decreasing the price of labor, and it is almost universally agreed amongst historians that it contributed unbelievably to slavery.
- notahacker 16y ago
  Whitney should have donated the capital he used to invent the cotton gin unsuccessfully defend his IP to the local orphanage. Attributed to the Eli Whitney Museum site by Wikipedia: "Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave" So whilst there are many inventions driven by capitalist investment that have had a far more benign or positive impact on society than your unfortunate choice of example, I think it's fair to say that profit-driven innovation by the already wealthy is far from certain to liberate people from the bonds that hold them in poverty even if it succeeds. I also think it's absurd to suggest that charitable giving can't foster innovation. Imagine if the local orphanage had given some smart, self-sufficient kids a good education focused on entrepreneurial values...
kirinkalia 16y ago
Having recently worked in the nonprofit world (and for one that received Gates Foundation money), it's important to note that Gates shook up the philanthropy world when he started his foundation and again when Buffett committed to giving his billions to the Gates Foundation. Lots of smaller foundations began asking themselves why they were working in certain areas and if they could be as effective as Gates with Gates in that same space (e.g., malaria prevention). Gates is not asking billionaires to do what he did, but he should have -- really get involved with the issues you care about and spend that money smartly to make a lasting impact.

16 points by dcaldwell 16y ago

Here are a couple other reasons why I don't think the Giving Pledge will have an enormous impact on philanthropy or nonprofits in general. First, not every billionaire is going to make the pledge. I double that it will be more than a third of them. So, instead of the $15 billion given annually as the article suggest, it will probably be more like $5 billion. Secondly, since 1957 giving to non-profits has increased all but about 3 years (2 of those being the last.) Some estimates say that in the next 5-10 years, annual giving will be at around $400 billion instead of the current $300 billion. So, the $5 billion in giving from the Giving Pledge will be a much smaller percentage of total giving than it currently would be. I certainly applaud the generosity of these individuals and families but we need to maintain perspective. If we could get the average American to increase their giving by 1%, we would probably have a greater impact on total giving.

nlwhittemore 16y ago

There are a bunch of fine reasons to be low-to-medium excited about the Giving Pledge instead of totally amped, but Dorfman's argument - that they might not spend it that well- is a pretty stupid one. First, Gates and Buffett are, in two very different ways, reinventing the rules of how to spend it: Gates by going all in and running his foundation full time, Buffett by saying "forget having my name on things" and giving it to the person he thinks can spend it best. Zuckerberg is already in this category of smarter giving with his $100mm Newark gift. And there's lots of good reasons to think that the era of the $billion ballet gift is over. Second, Dorfman runs a center that works to make philanthropy better, but for some reason, instead of being a leading voice in the best strategies for spending it effectively, he's become the leading voice in shitting all over the commitments. Smart. Not. @dcaldwell's points about the significantly higher amount of annual philanthropy that comes from individuals of average means than from the ultra wealthy is a much better reason to have tempered excitement. For my money, the most exciting part of this is the precedent that Moskovitz and Zuckerberg are setting to start this incredibly early in their lives. That means we get not only hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, but at least part of their time and attention for decades and decades.

masterponomo 16y ago

Um...you're welcome?

torme 16y ago

I'd say that having anyone pledge to donate anything is something to be immensely enthusiastic about.

lionhearted 16y ago

I'll say it - This guy is a fucking jerk. When confronted with something that conflicts with his worldview that the rich are bad, he cooks up a bunch of caveats and concerns so he can keep his current worldview. Many of his arguments aren't even right - > Wealthy donors don't tend to prioritize lower-income communities, communities of color or other marginalized groups as beneficiaries of their giving. You mean, like, eradicating Malaria in Africa [1] or funding the USA's worst performing school districts [2]? Jerks like this have been beating the "the rich are evil and don't care about poor people drum" for so long that they can't adapt now. What's this? In addition to building world changing companies, they're also giving the wealth they got personally to charity? Well, it's still not so good, because you know the rich are evil and don't care about poor people. I'll say it - he's a jerk. When confronted with effective pragmatic people moving into his backwards-poorly-managed idealistic space, he complains and slings mud and adds doubt. Screw him. We need less people doing stuff that he's doing, and more people doing entrepreneurship, taking strong pragmatic action to fix problems, and giving voluntarily. [1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/malaria.aspx http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/malaria.aspx [2] http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/24/techcrunch-interview-with-mark-zuckerberg-on-100-million-education-donation/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/24/techcrunch-interview-with-m...

tptacek 16y ago
He acknowledged all your points in his article (really, go read it again), and he didn't call you a jerk.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > He acknolwedged all your points in his article, and he didn't call you a jerk. He acknowledged that charity-as-is is currently failing, largely thanks to poor leadership by people like him? He acknowledged that he dislikes wealthy people as an almost fundamental belief (as opposed to just having it be an undertone of the article)? No, he didn't. And you know, when you take time to write a series of articles encouraging people to "Dial Down our Enthusiasm over the Billionare Giving Pledge" - that deserves being called a jerk. He could be building the world, doing things, but no - he's slinging mud. That qualifies as jerk behavior. Edit: He also doesn't mention the conflict of interest here - he's currently a philanthropy director who stands to lose a lot of influence, power, and prestige as a result of this. He used to be a top dog in philanthropy, and now he's slinging mud at people who are doing different, probably more effective things than him.

grandalf 16y ago

The cotton gin ended slavery. Any Billionaire who chooses to give money to charity is opting out of the quest for new innovations that will let people willingly free others from the bonds that hold them in poverty. Imagine if Whitney had instead donated the capital he used to invent the cotton gin to the local orphanage. I think it's an interesting commentary on the perception of capitalism that the world's richest view themselves as having been one-hit-wonders unlikely ever to eclipse their initial accomplishment with their own sweat and insight... Instead, I'd prefer that these people follow in the steps of Gates himself, who has delved into asking the question of what the big problems are and how they're most effectively solved. His TED talk about power generation was incredibly inspiring, and assuming his wealth is $50B, he's not rich enough to self-fund it beyond the second stage.

klbarry 16y ago
I get the idea, but that's a terrible, terrible example: The cotton gin made slavery much more tenable as a business by decreasing the price of labor, and it is almost universally agreed amongst historians that it contributed unbelievably to slavery.
notahacker 16y ago
Whitney should have donated the capital he used to invent the cotton gin unsuccessfully defend his IP to the local orphanage. Attributed to the Eli Whitney Museum site by Wikipedia: "Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave" So whilst there are many inventions driven by capitalist investment that have had a far more benign or positive impact on society than your unfortunate choice of example, I think it's fair to say that profit-driven innovation by the already wealthy is far from certain to liberate people from the bonds that hold them in poverty even if it succeeds. I also think it's absurd to suggest that charitable giving can't foster innovation. Imagine if the local orphanage had given some smart, self-sufficient kids a good education focused on entrepreneurial values...

kirinkalia 16y ago

Having recently worked in the nonprofit world (and for one that received Gates Foundation money), it's important to note that Gates shook up the philanthropy world when he started his foundation and again when Buffett committed to giving his billions to the Gates Foundation. Lots of smaller foundations began asking themselves why they were working in certain areas and if they could be as effective as Gates with Gates in that same space (e.g., malaria prevention). Gates is not asking billionaires to do what he did, but he should have -- really get involved with the issues you care about and spend that money smartly to make a lasting impact.