4 ms·

Yes, you are right. Because there is always someone else who is paid less than you who will run around and do the actual work whilst you take all the credit. Ge

Yes, you are right. Because there is always someone else who is paid less than you who will run around and do the actual work whilst you take all the credit. Genius.

pessimizer 6y ago
It's far more important to be there and take the credit in person, doing the job of someone who could be doing a better job than you for $15/hr, while not just doing the job you get paid $50/hr to do and sending the money. Everybody knows the most important parts of charity are who gets the credit and one's own personal growth.
- hogFeast 6y ago
  I am always amazed by the poor comprehension ability of people on HackerNews. I am saying that credit isn't the point. Also, I am not entirely clear on why you would require $15/hour to volunteer at a charity...but...good for you turning charity into a second source of income. Btw, my point (I will spell it out) is that the problem is almost never money. Money is required to the extent that is required to pay other people...but, particularly for almost all local problems, the issue is not money but time. There is no reality in which people donate enough income to solve these problems but they could donate time, and that would be effective.
  - thinkharderdev 6y ago
    I respectfully disagree. Trying to accomplish something with lasting impact with volunteer labor is really hard. Sure you can clean up litter and staff a soup kitchen on the weekends but to make a meaningful, lasting difference requires organizational structure and sustained effort by dedicated people. In other words, you can have volunteers ladle out soup, but running the actual soup kitchen as an institution requires a professional staff. That requires money to pay those people's salaries. By all mean, volunteer at your local soup kitchen. It is a great thing to do! But the money is more helpful on an ongoing basis.

Yes, you are right. Because there is always someone else who is paid less than you who will run around and do the actual work whilst you take all the credit. Genius.

pessimizer 6y ago

It's far more important to be there and take the credit in person, doing the job of someone who could be doing a better job than you for $15/hr, while not just doing the job you get paid $50/hr to do and sending the money. Everybody knows the most important parts of charity are who gets the credit and one's own personal growth.

hogFeast 6y ago
I am always amazed by the poor comprehension ability of people on HackerNews. I am saying that credit isn't the point. Also, I am not entirely clear on why you would require $15/hour to volunteer at a charity...but...good for you turning charity into a second source of income. Btw, my point (I will spell it out) is that the problem is almost never money. Money is required to the extent that is required to pay other people...but, particularly for almost all local problems, the issue is not money but time. There is no reality in which people donate enough income to solve these problems but they could donate time, and that would be effective.
- thinkharderdev 6y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Trying to accomplish something with lasting impact with volunteer labor is really hard. Sure you can clean up litter and staff a soup kitchen on the weekends but to make a meaningful, lasting difference requires organizational structure and sustained effort by dedicated people. In other words, you can have volunteers ladle out soup, but running the actual soup kitchen as an institution requires a professional staff. That requires money to pay those people's salaries. By all mean, volunteer at your local soup kitchen. It is a great thing to do! But the money is more helpful on an ongoing basis.