6 ms·

You need it explained why helping vulnerable and poor groups instead of giving a bonus to your already well payed employees is considered philanthropic? I reall

You need it explained why helping vulnerable and poor groups instead of giving a bonus to your already well payed employees is considered philanthropic? I really don't see what you're driving at here.

d-d 7y ago
Isn't it just depriving the employees of the philanthropy money they labored to produce?
- gargs 7y ago
  It is. Also, philanthropy is tax advantaged. It's the giving that keeps on giving back.
  - ggtfggyyy 7y ago
    This is rediculous and dripping with silicon valley "we're workers too" attitude. Employees, especially tech employees, have the luxury of being able to go elsewhere if they don't feel they're being adequately compensated. There is no comparison between helping poor african groups or donating to education and giving your employees, who agreed their wages were fair, a raise. Even if you don't like it, it's ultimately his money. This isn't the alms that could have kept the poor coders from having to endure hardahip. It's difficult to comprehend the mentality that could see the workers as the victims in this situation. They were paid the wages they were promised, is the argument that somehow he's a bad person for amassing more than them?
  - darawk 7y ago
    "Philanthropy is tax advantaged" just means that you don't have to pay tax on the money you donate. You don't keep any extra money for yourself.
    - gargs 7y ago
      Unless the philanthropy is run like a business with you as the investor/stakeholder.
- darawk 7y ago
  They are not being 'deprived' of anything. They agreed to exchange their labor for a fixed price, and they received that price. There was no 'deprivation' anywhere in the system.
  - d-d 7y ago
    That's legalistic though. If you're withholding the fruits of labor from workers because "too bad, bro; you signed the paper" then you're not really trying to be kind to anyone. You just want to be rich and appear to be kind.
    - mamon 7y ago
      >> withholding fruits of labor from worker How much of the worker output actually is his personal accomplishment, and how much is synergy effect coming from the fact that the employer gave them tools, materials, support of other workers, standard operating procedures, know-how? Therefore not all "fruits of labor" actually belong to a worker.
    - darawk 7y ago
      Respecting human choices and agency is 'legalistic'? That's quite the reductionist leap.
cjslep 7y ago
Let the market decide. Paying your employees better would be "trickle down economics" in actual action. If those employees decide to use it for philanthropy then the "trickle down" continues. Except "trickle down" hasn't happened, isn't happening, and won't happen.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  There’s no such thing as “trickle down economics”, the phrase “trickle down” was a joke created by a comedian named Will Rogers. So if you’re waiting for a satirical critique of politics to start shaping the economy, then I don’t know what to tell you. What growth does do is increase competition for labor, so if your economic life plan resolves around earning income from labour, then you benefit from growth. You can see the effect our most recent growth trend has had in the fact that the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since the 60s [0], wage growth is double CPI [1], and workforce participation is starting to creep back up after a rather long downward trend [2]. [0] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/mobile/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-workers-increased-4-point-0-percent-in-2019.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/mobile/median-weekly-earni... [2] https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...
  - cjslep 7y ago
    I think giving me a charitable interpretation would be a good start. The origin of the phrase is lost in modern day culture and has a well understood meaning, and you denying me that makes it clear what kind of engagement you are looking for: one in which you feel justified and correct. I'll give it to you: You're right! Good facts! Moving on now... I don't care if my neighbors can get one decent job or more-than-one-shitty job (your [0] and [2]) nor do I care that for X years we had growth in wages (your [1]) when the previous N*X years (for large N) that "real growth in wages" was 0. I would love to sell you stock that will grow at 0% for 30 years and only the last 5 have 2% over inflation. I don't want that toxic shit in my portfolio. What I care about is the mentality that is justifying making "the market" be one or a handful of people, who happen to own a massive amount of wealth. It's no longer a free market. They are the market. Its self delusional to think someone shouting "I am the State!" has a democratic government, just as someone shouting "I am the market!" is a free and open capitalist market. Basically, I can't believe my free-market loving friends are ok with its own dismantlement by the concentration of wealth by the ultra wealthy. And I am trying to get through to them. Give the money to the employees. Who cares if they're already overpaid, because if they are then they'll also make philanthropic donations.

d-d 7y ago

Isn't it just depriving the employees of the philanthropy money they labored to produce?

gargs 7y ago
It is. Also, philanthropy is tax advantaged. It's the giving that keeps on giving back.
- ggtfggyyy 7y ago
  This is rediculous and dripping with silicon valley "we're workers too" attitude. Employees, especially tech employees, have the luxury of being able to go elsewhere if they don't feel they're being adequately compensated. There is no comparison between helping poor african groups or donating to education and giving your employees, who agreed their wages were fair, a raise. Even if you don't like it, it's ultimately his money. This isn't the alms that could have kept the poor coders from having to endure hardahip. It's difficult to comprehend the mentality that could see the workers as the victims in this situation. They were paid the wages they were promised, is the argument that somehow he's a bad person for amassing more than them?
- darawk 7y ago
  "Philanthropy is tax advantaged" just means that you don't have to pay tax on the money you donate. You don't keep any extra money for yourself.
  - gargs 7y ago
    Unless the philanthropy is run like a business with you as the investor/stakeholder.
darawk 7y ago
They are not being 'deprived' of anything. They agreed to exchange their labor for a fixed price, and they received that price. There was no 'deprivation' anywhere in the system.
- d-d 7y ago
  That's legalistic though. If you're withholding the fruits of labor from workers because "too bad, bro; you signed the paper" then you're not really trying to be kind to anyone. You just want to be rich and appear to be kind.
  - mamon 7y ago
    >> withholding fruits of labor from worker How much of the worker output actually is his personal accomplishment, and how much is synergy effect coming from the fact that the employer gave them tools, materials, support of other workers, standard operating procedures, know-how? Therefore not all "fruits of labor" actually belong to a worker.
  - darawk 7y ago
    Respecting human choices and agency is 'legalistic'? That's quite the reductionist leap.

cjslep 7y ago

Let the market decide. Paying your employees better would be "trickle down economics" in actual action. If those employees decide to use it for philanthropy then the "trickle down" continues. Except "trickle down" hasn't happened, isn't happening, and won't happen.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
There’s no such thing as “trickle down economics”, the phrase “trickle down” was a joke created by a comedian named Will Rogers. So if you’re waiting for a satirical critique of politics to start shaping the economy, then I don’t know what to tell you. What growth does do is increase competition for labor, so if your economic life plan resolves around earning income from labour, then you benefit from growth. You can see the effect our most recent growth trend has had in the fact that the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since the 60s [0], wage growth is double CPI [1], and workforce participation is starting to creep back up after a rather long downward trend [2]. [0] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/mobile/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-workers-increased-4-point-0-percent-in-2019.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/mobile/median-weekly-earni... [2] https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...
- cjslep 7y ago
  I think giving me a charitable interpretation would be a good start. The origin of the phrase is lost in modern day culture and has a well understood meaning, and you denying me that makes it clear what kind of engagement you are looking for: one in which you feel justified and correct. I'll give it to you: You're right! Good facts! Moving on now... I don't care if my neighbors can get one decent job or more-than-one-shitty job (your [0] and [2]) nor do I care that for X years we had growth in wages (your [1]) when the previous N*X years (for large N) that "real growth in wages" was 0. I would love to sell you stock that will grow at 0% for 30 years and only the last 5 have 2% over inflation. I don't want that toxic shit in my portfolio. What I care about is the mentality that is justifying making "the market" be one or a handful of people, who happen to own a massive amount of wealth. It's no longer a free market. They are the market. Its self delusional to think someone shouting "I am the State!" has a democratic government, just as someone shouting "I am the market!" is a free and open capitalist market. Basically, I can't believe my free-market loving friends are ok with its own dismantlement by the concentration of wealth by the ultra wealthy. And I am trying to get through to them. Give the money to the employees. Who cares if they're already overpaid, because if they are then they'll also make philanthropic donations.