I think the question is - would you have donated, to any cause, without your Uncle? I'm not asking to be combative - it's a legitimate question millions have t

I think the question is - would you have donated, to any cause, without your Uncle? I'm not asking to be combative - it's a legitimate question millions have to ask themselves. My friends and I participated in the ice-bucket challenge. We would not have done what we did w/o such a ridiculous, yet fun, method of virality. To me, it is about 'effective' money. With your uncle + the organization, was the money more effective with or without? There is an interesting TED talk from 2013 that highlights a semi-counterintuitive problem - if you can't pay top dollar, you can't get top dollar talent except in extremely narrow cases[0]. My interpretation is, we would love 100% of our charitable donations to reach the village who needs water or a toilet, but the reality is, people who run the org need to get paid as well. Measuring a charity by how stingy it is might actually be less effective overall. Anecdote: Bill and Melinda Gates foundation absolutely pays top dollar (of charities) to gain some of the smartest former execs in the industry. They're wildly effective. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...