3 ms·

> I'll believe it when they give away enough that they have to get real jobs and work for a living "In the meantime he works as a $115-an-hour SAT tutor for an

by whack 7y ago

> I'll believe it when they give away enough that they have to get real jobs and work for a living "In the meantime he works as a $115-an-hour SAT tutor for an agency." > Maybe that's overly snarky, but to me something rings hollow about people sitting in a multi-million dollar loft in Manhattan Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. Call me weird, but I think it's commendable that people are trying to find a middle ground instead of giving away absolutely everything. > Would it be worse to invest the money in a way that employs people fairly even if makes a profit for yourself? I don't think so Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Your overall tone appears to be very snarky and condescending towards people who haven't done anything to deserve it. It it motivated by envy? I can understand you not wanting to shower them with plaudits, but at least we could reserve judgement until they do something that's worthy of condescension.

imgabe 7y ago
> Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. I don't and I thought someone might bring this up. Let me explain. To me, Bill Gates is intellectually honest and consistent. He isn't apologizing for being rich. He doesn't believe it's wrong that he got rich. From my outside perspective he seems like he's just someone who likes to solve problems. He solved some problems that made him a lot of money. Now he wants to use that money to solve other problems. Ok. Fine. Contrast that to these kids. They are: 1. Saying that is bad and wrong that they have the money they have. They don't believe they should have it. 2. Continuing to hold on to the money they think it is wrong that they have. To me, that is intellectually dishonest. If I honestly believe that something I'm doing is fundamentally wrong, then I should stop doing that thing. I understand they probably can't dissolve their trust funds on their own. They could however choose to get a job and live off that income while directing 100% of their trust income to charity, while not living in a multi-million dollar loft they didn't pay for. Let me be clear, that's if they believe it's wrong. If they don't believe it's wrong, then they'd be acting consistently with their beliefs. It's not that I disagree with what they're doing, I'm bothered by the inconsistency between their words and their actions. > Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Eh, maybe not necessarily. If their trust is invested in a high-frequency trading fund that makes money by front-running trades, is that really a productive activity? Would it be better to make money in some rent-seeking activity and give it away or, for example, invest it in a steel mill where you accept reduced profits in favor of paying high wages and benefits? To me the latter helps people more and also produces steel, which is useful. (This is just an example, I'm not interested in a debate about the economics of running a steel mill in the US.)
- whack 7y ago
  I agree with your point about the importance of intellectual honesty. I think you're misrepresenting their beliefs though. Here's their stated goals and beliefs: "As part of a coordinated strategy to systematically redistribute wealth and repair the harm created by wealth extraction, RG asks our members to take bold action with the resources currently under our and our families’ control, moving toward greater alignment with humanity and the planet ... its primary goal is to “redistribute all or almost all inherited wealth and/or excess wealth to social justice movements.” Their goal is perfectly aligned with someone choosing to give away the majority of their inherited wealth, while still keeping enough to live comfortably in a loft in Manhattan. I don't see any hypocrisy there. There seems to be a common belief that being a do-gooder implies giving away all your wealth and living a spartan existence. I disagree with that. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to find a middle ground of comfort + philanthropy.
- dbtqgoat 7y ago
  You can recognize the advantages of the system, and leverage them, while working to change the system. They could live like a monk and it would have far less an impact on the system as a whole then what they’re trying to do here.

by whack 7y ago

imgabe 7y ago

> Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. I don't and I thought someone might bring this up. Let me explain. To me, Bill Gates is intellectually honest and consistent. He isn't apologizing for being rich. He doesn't believe it's wrong that he got rich. From my outside perspective he seems like he's just someone who likes to solve problems. He solved some problems that made him a lot of money. Now he wants to use that money to solve other problems. Ok. Fine. Contrast that to these kids. They are: 1. Saying that is bad and wrong that they have the money they have. They don't believe they should have it. 2. Continuing to hold on to the money they think it is wrong that they have. To me, that is intellectually dishonest. If I honestly believe that something I'm doing is fundamentally wrong, then I should stop doing that thing. I understand they probably can't dissolve their trust funds on their own. They could however choose to get a job and live off that income while directing 100% of their trust income to charity, while not living in a multi-million dollar loft they didn't pay for. Let me be clear, that's if they believe it's wrong. If they don't believe it's wrong, then they'd be acting consistently with their beliefs. It's not that I disagree with what they're doing, I'm bothered by the inconsistency between their words and their actions. > Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Eh, maybe not necessarily. If their trust is invested in a high-frequency trading fund that makes money by front-running trades, is that really a productive activity? Would it be better to make money in some rent-seeking activity and give it away or, for example, invest it in a steel mill where you accept reduced profits in favor of paying high wages and benefits? To me the latter helps people more and also produces steel, which is useful. (This is just an example, I'm not interested in a debate about the economics of running a steel mill in the US.)

whack 7y ago
I agree with your point about the importance of intellectual honesty. I think you're misrepresenting their beliefs though. Here's their stated goals and beliefs: "As part of a coordinated strategy to systematically redistribute wealth and repair the harm created by wealth extraction, RG asks our members to take bold action with the resources currently under our and our families’ control, moving toward greater alignment with humanity and the planet ... its primary goal is to “redistribute all or almost all inherited wealth and/or excess wealth to social justice movements.” Their goal is perfectly aligned with someone choosing to give away the majority of their inherited wealth, while still keeping enough to live comfortably in a loft in Manhattan. I don't see any hypocrisy there. There seems to be a common belief that being a do-gooder implies giving away all your wealth and living a spartan existence. I disagree with that. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to find a middle ground of comfort + philanthropy.
dbtqgoat 7y ago
You can recognize the advantages of the system, and leverage them, while working to change the system. They could live like a monk and it would have far less an impact on the system as a whole then what they’re trying to do here.