3 ms·
This is called "effective altruism"; you are more effective if you maximize your skills and then turn the profits of those skills over to a charity. The only a
by jbob2000 7y ago
This is called "effective altruism"; you are more effective if you maximize your skills and then turn the profits of those skills over to a charity.
The only argument against it is that people tend seek out and perform charity work for their own sake (eg. vanity, restitution, relaxation).
- Qwertystop 7y agoUnless your skills happen to be those that a charity could make good use of. Someone has to do the work in the end.
- jbob2000 7y agoCharities are usually focused around the bottom of mazlow’s hierarchy of needs, that is, food-shelter-water. You don’t need skilled and educated people to dig wells, build houses, stock shelves, fold clothing, serve food, etc. These jobs can be done for the minimum wage or by people outside of the workforce (youth and elderly). I kind of disagree with charities that get so big that they need skilled workers. If your charity gets that big, it should just become a social program as part of the government. Like why is Red Cross a charity? That should be an arm of the UN, not a private entity.
- Qwertystop 7y agoSome charities are food-shelter-water. Other charities are, for example, medical or legal aid for particularly burdened communities. And even for food-shelter-water you need someone deciding where to dig the wells, what to stock on the shelves, what food is most cost-effective and nutritious in bulk. And building houses definitely isn't unskilled; it's manual labor but that doesn't mean there's no skill involved.