10 ms·
Free doesn’t imply better outcomes or efficiency (doesn’t imply the reverse either). Imagine a charity could hire someone that would 100x the amount of donatio
by yellow_postit 7y ago
Free doesn’t imply better outcomes or efficiency (doesn’t imply the reverse either).
Imagine a charity could hire someone that would 100x the amount of donations, whether that’s through more effective marketing, connections, etc. how much should a charity be willing to pay for that?
- ddingus 7y agoAt that scale, aren't we talking more about systemic problems? The charity is about need. If it is also about that kind of growth, there is serious need. We may be better served by a policy change so that charity remains at a lean scale.
- lazyasciiart 7y agoYes, there are massive systemic problems everywhere. Feel free to go ahead and policy change away the war, disease, hunger, homelessness and so on if you can do that?
- ddingus 7y agoThat's exactly the progressives plan. We can't get at all of that, and for sure, not at once. But, there can be much better basics in place for people, and with those, a reduced need for charity to somehow perform at very large scale. It can target, operate locally more, all good. Disease, hunger, homelessness are all massive artifacts of long overdue policy reforms in the US.
- coryrc 7y agoDepends, are they just shifting donations from other non-profits doing work without paid overhead?