5 ms·

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

by d-d 7y ago

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.

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

by 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.