10 ms·

What’s the best way to spend $20K to help the common good?

159 points by BenjaminTodd 11y ago

michaelsbradley 11y ago
There's a crisis-pregnancy center a block from where I live (in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA). I do volunteer work there, and one of my friends is their director of child-care: https://www.ourladysinn.org/ https://www.ourladysinn.org/ They do great work helping poor women in Saint Louis and their already-born children through difficult times. In addition to food, shelter and other basics, they provide professional counseling (many of their clients struggle with drug addiction) and try to help their clients get a solid footing with respect to employment and a safe place to live after they finish the program (about six weeks to several months after their child is born). Great attention is given to making sure the clients' children get to school on time, do their homework and are being given proper care. I know the organization to be extremely thrifty – nothing goes to waste and they are very careful regarding how they spend money donated to the center. The organization also owns and runs a couple of resale shops in the same neighborhood, where many of the clients take their first steps (or first steps in awhile) carrying out job responsibilities, working under a manager. All proceeds from those shops flow back into the crisis-pregnancy center.
x0ra 11y ago
Hooker and blow. You'll help them pay for college.
ams6110 11y ago
I would generalize the finding to: spend the money on something that rewards success and not failure. Giving money to failing schools rewards failing schools. Giving money to the poor and unemployed rewards being poor and unemployed. Giving money to the homeless rewards being homeless. Use the money to create opportunity, not to reward failure.
- jat850 11y ago
  Your reply rubbed me the wrong way, as it implies that being poor, unemployed, or homeless are by definition failures. Perhaps you didn't intend that (or perhaps you do believe it). Not looking for a philosophical argument - just stating my opinion contrary to what yours comes across as.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    How is being homeless not a failure on multiple levels? You can be poor by choice and happy with it, I agree. But is any sane person homeless by choice? Not traveling, hermit, not able to function in society, or many other cases. Just wanting to live somewhere and able to do work, but not having a home. To me that seems like a failure on multiple levels: country - global situation that allows people to be homeless, local - no community support or path to employment or investment into people, self - well... unless we give some income to everyone, and you can't claim benefits for not being able to work, you're expected to work for a place to live. Unemployed is an artifact of the economy. I'd like to be successful enough to be unemployed, but rich and not homeless.
    - jat850 11y ago
      It is a failure on many levels - systematic ones, mostly. But if you read OP's post as not singling out the failure as being personally and solely responsible for their plight, rather than as a systematic failure, then we might simply differ on reading it. Donating money to combat homelessness at a systematic level is (in my opinion) probably a good thing. I just didn't get that sentiment in what I saw, though I allow for the (frequent and possible) chance that I am wrong in my interpretation.
    - robotresearcher 11y ago
      Empathy failure. I hope if you ever screw up really badly there is someone else to give you a hand.
      - viraptor 11y ago
        This is exactly what I wrote. Not having a community-level support for cases of "you screwed up badly" is a failure. Same for no benefits when "life screws you up badly". Not sure where you see the empathy failure.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 11y ago
  But a "safety net" enables people to take risks that work out positive for society. E.g. in the US people are much more willing to start a business (something that should be a net positive for society) once they pass the Medicaid eligibility age, since they can be assured they'll have healthcare even if their business fails. Heck, the joint-stock corporation, the big innovation of capitalism, is basically a way to reward failure (by limiting investors' liability in failure cases). You do need to be careful about perverse incentives, but being homeless or unemployed is so bad for you that I can't imagine a few hundred dollars make it suddenly worth doing deliberately.
rmason 11y ago
Sounds very high minded. I'd research and find a need in your local community. Find some group doing good work already and allow them to expand. Maybe it's a bigger kitchen for a group feeding the poor. Or a bigger office for college kids that are tutoring kids in math. If you take some time you will find something that has personal meaning for you.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  What's wrong with being high minded? Why should personal meaningfulness be an important criteria?
- cdcarter 11y ago
  As a sibling commenter somewhat flippantly notes, orgs like GiveWell, 80,000 hours (publisher of the post), Centre for Effective Altruism, and Giving What We Can are all focused on highly effective non-personal philanthropy. They are targeted toward "logical givers" and "impact investors" who do not need the sort of donor centric language and personal touches that many NPOs rely on for their fund development strategies. This can be seen by orgs like OpenPhil that won't even take unsolicited minor donations. These are orgs that are supporting "truly altruistic" giving, and trying to remove the personal connection from giving. These organization tend to use lines of thinking that remind me personally (though may or may not be inspired by) Mylan Engel and "Taking Hunger Seriously" (http://www.niu.edu/engel/_pdf/TakingHungerSeriously.pdf http://www.niu.edu/engel/_pdf/TakingHungerSeriously.pdf)
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  The question was framed in terms of helping the "common good". If you want to support your local community that's a different question.
shaftoe 11y ago
You could always check that box on your tax form that says you wish to make an additional contribution. That is, assuming taxes benefit the common good. I'm sure the money will be spent wisely.
- cdcarter 11y ago
  The article addresses that giving to the US is likely to be less positive than giving to an international cause.
- uhwhat 11y ago
  501(c)3 non-profits are tax deductible. I'd recommend http://machineproject.com/ http://machineproject.com/ for the HN crowd Also funding for workshops/education through makerspace type groups. Also funding for clean water infrastructure in 3rd world regions.
  - xur17 11y ago
    I've been struggling with this a little bit - my income / spending currently results in me taking the standard deductible, so I'm not able to take advantage of this tax deduction. Therefore, it makes the most sense for me to hold off on donating, and save the money until I'm not taking the standard deduction, and then donate it all at once. I've been shuffling money off into a separate savings account every month to get into the habit, and then I plan to use the balance of this account once I am in a situation where I am able to take advantage of this tax deduction. I do still donate money out of this account, just not a substantial account. edit: I went back and read the article now :) - this chart [0] was helpful. If you're at the beginning of your career, this makes the argument for holding off on significant donation even stronger. [0] https://3d4k2r1b9zry49ki142owdm5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Now-vs-Later-flowchart4.png https://3d4k2r1b9zry49ki142owdm5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      I do a similar thing, but I have a fairly aggressive portfolio on Betterment that I store my eventual philanthropy in. I fund it out of my credit card's cash back, and unexpected extra income. It's very frustrating to not be able to take advantage of tax deductible gifts seemingly just because I don't own a home!
melling 11y ago
Americans gave $358 billion last year. $20k is a drop in the bucket. https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015 https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015 If you really want to make a big difference, start a company, create jobs, make millions then donate a larger sum of money.
- tootie 11y ago
  I worked briefly for a philanthropic organization that had high visibility among super wealthy people. They accepted whatever donations, but didn't really pay attention unless you had at least $100K. The vast majority of their endowment came in multimillion dollar gifts from people who wanted hospitals named after themselves.
  - melling 11y ago
    It's unfortunate that HN readers would rather run through the weeds trying to add zero to infinity, rather than try to actually make a real difference. If we could make medical research donations more efficient, for example, we could make a big difference. Say, for instance, we identified the best medical research charities, and have people donate to those.
    - reagency 11y ago
      Givewell.org. basically does what you propose.
      - melling 11y ago
        I don't see any medical research charities: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
- lambda 11y ago
  Did you read the article? Their top two recommendations were invest in a startup, or give to the Gates foundation.
kendallpark 11y ago
One thing this article didn't mention is giving money towards research. There's no lack of underfunded labs filled with scientists researching rarer diseases or unique approaches to humanitarian issues. 20K could go a long way in helping these smaller labs. It would take some searching and talking on the giver's end to find the right cause and scientists he or she trusts, but it wouldn't be too hard with the powers of the internet.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  $20K is roughly one annual PhD student stipend in Canada. Attending one major conference is $1000 - $2500 for a student depending how far they travel.
- te 11y ago
  You might find what you are looking for here: https://www.consano.org/ https://www.consano.org/
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  The Open Philanthropy Project is aiming to fund research. I'd prefer to let them do the research working out where to donate, rather than picking scientists myself.
  - kendallpark 11y ago
    See, I'd prefer to do the research myself and have a relationship with the scientists.
    - reagency 11y ago
      OK, but that is entertainment, not charity of philanthropy.
      - kendallpark 11y ago
        No, I would see that as taking the initiative to actually understand the projects that you're funding for yourself. In doing this you become more invested in that cause and the community surrounding it.
webreac 11y ago
I do not have a quote under hand, but preserving our history is important to make us better. Most of the recent history would already be lost if archive.org was not there. I do not see how giving to this cause could turn wrong.
z3ugma 11y ago
It's probably shipping $20,000 of iodized salt to the developing world: Iodine deficiency is a leading cause of preventable mental impairment, as iodine is a micronutrient crucial to brain development. An estimated 2 billion people-- almost a third of the earth’s population--have low iodine intake and are at risk for suffering from the complications of iodine deficiency. Eradication of iodine deficiency is highly cost-effective— worldwide, the cost of salt iodization per year is estimated at $0.02-0.05 per child covered, and the cost per child's death averted is $1000 and per disability-adjusted life year gained is $34-36.
- 77ko 11y ago
  What about delivery? Without a delivery mechanism to those who need it this would be a well meaning but not very useful.
  - knodi123 11y ago
    haha, well I think that was implied. It's not as if you can literally write "the developing world" on a shipping label and just pour in a ton of morton's. I agree that the advice given is overly vague. GP should list an actionable way to to give iodized salt.
    - jqm 11y ago
      How about just sending the iodine and let them iodize their existing salt supplies?
      - knodi123 11y ago
        flaws: 1. same 'who do I write on the shipping label' concern 2. assumes a sufficient existing salt supply (perhaps these people already needed salt, so this aid healed two birds with one bandaid) 3. assumes knowledge about proper iodization (ratios, sanitation, etc)
  - aaron695 11y ago
    > What about delivery? Without a delivery mechanism to those who need it this would be a well meaning but not very useful. It doesn't, which is why it's a really bad idea, there exist charities that can deliver it already just give them the money. Even if you could get it to people they possibly won't use it without the complex knowledge of local issues. Similar - http://www.luckyironfish.com/ http://www.luckyironfish.com/
Fundlab 11y ago
If I had access to that kind of money i will be providing clean water to millions of people around the world
reasonattlm 11y ago
If you want to be utilitarian about it, maximizing common good derived from a modest donation, then pick (a) the venture that will produce the greatest gain in common good if implemented, and (b) an organization with a low administrative overhead that is in your opinion doing a good job of making progress towards (a). That is the 80/20 calculation. You'll never know if you got it right, but it has the best chance of doing something rather than nothing. For my money, (a) is ending degenerative aging by periodic repair of that damage that causes it, and (b) is the SENS Research Foundation. There is no other single cause of death and suffering as large as the biological wear and tear that causes degeneration and death in aging. There is no other organization I know of that will definitely put all donations to research, advocacy, and scientific organization relating to this task. There are other single-disease or single-field patient advocate and research organizations out there that do a little work relevant to age-related damage, but you've got no way to ensure a donation as small as a few thousand dollars will actually go to the aging-relevant 1% of what they do. Even cancer and stem cell fields are doing a large amount of work that has no bearing on the best path forward. In fact I'm personally donating $25K to the SENS Research Foundation this year, and running a matching campaign in search of others willing to do the same. There are other options for using modest amounts of money that are more of a lottery; use your money to persuade other people to give money, try to grow your money to give later, etc, etc. But these are much more unreliable, or for a few thousand dollars just not even worth trying versus outright donation to a cause.
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  I don't agree with (b) low overhead ratio, mainly for these reasons: http://overheadmyth.com/ http://overheadmyth.com/
- cdcarter 11y ago
  Planning to give later is a VERY effective use of money for early career professionals (who will be able to make stable investments over long periods of time and then give larger payouts when their own situations are more stable as well) or people who do not as strongly believe in a given cause as you do (who can wait until the causes they believe in are more stable or until they have researched more sufficiently). I have a retirement portfolio and a wealth building portfolio. The latter is currently funded by my credit cards cash back policy, aggressively seeks market gains, and forms the basis of my personal philanthropic efforts. My giving currently focuses on arts organizations and local community development, as that's a personal passion. My long term giving is hunger focused, where a $50 donation is less meaningful and it makes sense for me to grow my money first.
jastanton 11y ago
Another option is a local Church that support missions such as building schools for impoverished nations. I support a church that does this along with a missionary that runs an after school sports program in very poor area of Elkhart, Indiana. This helps gets kids off of streets, gives them food, shelter and a develops the community. Benefit of this is that I get to actually see the faces of the youth this impacts both in my backyard as well as in other nations. Say what you will about religion but there are a lot of people out there who have a heart that yearns to help others, I don't care if they do it in the name of a god or not, the fact of the matter is they are going out there every day and touching peoples lives.
- toolz 11y ago
  it certainly helps more than it hurts, but you can find the same thing without the baggage in many different charities. I've seen one too many missionaries get screwed because rumors overseas start telling congregations they aren't doing religion the right way. Usually it's just one supporting congregation and nothing comes of it, just hard times for the missionary, but I have seen one case personally where some epic rumors started and every supporting church pulled out at once and left a guy stranded overseas away from his family. The guy apparent was doing religion wrong or something. I was acquaintances with the guy and spoke with him regularly, although I never did get the low down on the whole story so maybe he deserves it for all I know.
- superuser2 11y ago
  The concern here is that the purpose of a church mission is first to convert locals to Christianity, then to provide follow-on benefits like education and economic development. Donating the same amount of money to a secular organization should create more of those secondary benefits, because no effort needs to be spent on collecting followers for Christ. However, you are right that church missions seem to have the easiest access to donations and labor, so they might be able to provide better secular education out of sheer scale.
  - kendallpark 11y ago
    > The concern here is that the purpose of a church mission is first to convert locals to Christianity, then to provide follow-on benefits like education and economic development. So cynical. This definitely isn't true across the board. I grew up Southern Baptist, where charity was literally treated like a foot-in-the-door to evangelization and saving souls was the #1 agenda. So I get your sentiment. But in other veins of Christianity like Catholicism (which is roughly where I am now), the theology around charity is very different and it really is about serving others as Christ would--no strings attached. I think the proportion of Christian charities that behave as you describe is pretty small compared to those that focus on service first.
davidmr 11y ago
> Invest in a startup. This is better than investing in the S&P500. The expected return is higher. Is that actually true, or is the author using some meaning of the phrase "expected return" that isn't common?
- tptacek 11y ago
  My understanding is that it isn't even true for professional startup investors, and they have preferential access to dealflow that your $20,000 doesn't.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    The median return is certainly lower, but the expected return at least should be higher. So most startup investments, and probably most startup investors will fail, but some will succeed spectacularly. The point is, if everyone who is interested in investing to eventually donate did so by investing in startups, their aggregate returns should be higher than if they invested in the S&P or whatever instead - so it's superior even if most of them end up with a negative return. (As opposed to when you're investing to fund your own retirement, in which case you don't so much care how others' investments go.)
    - tptacek 11y ago
      My understanding is that the median fund underperforms the S&P, and that investment managers at pension funds and endowments put money into VC funds because their strategies require them to put a slice of money into that asset class. And, again: that's the outcome for investors that have preferred access to dealflow.
      - tempestn 11y ago
        I don't have evidence to back up my assertion - only the theory that in an efficient market riskier assets should be priced appropriately. So I don't know for a fact that the expected return is higher. That said, the fact that the median fund underperforms the S&P doesn't necessarily prove that the expected return on an individual startup investment will do so. For one thing, funds will have overhead - probably significant overhead in startup investing. (Of course, they provide valuable diversification, but as mentioned above, that shouldn't be the priority in this particular case.) Also, even if the median fund underforms before costs, the average might still outperform, if the winners are relatively concentrated.
monk_e_boy 11y ago
If I had the money, I think I'd give half to my local primary school. They could do with some books and PCs. The other half I spend in Uganda, I'd just do random acts of kindness. Buy medicine for someone, school books for a kid. Shoes or clothed for someone else. Would be a really fun way to spend the money. Rich people seem so clinical about their money. Get yer hands dirty, talk to some people in need.
- reagency 11y ago
  These rich people are trying to do something impactful and sustainable, not just personally entertaining "poverty porn"
aaron695 11y ago
$20,000 is possibly not enough but some sort of import export business to funnel money from a rich nation to a poor nation. $1 stores do more to help the poor than a lot of charities (But not all charities)
Osmium 11y ago
You could always find someone you like and give it to them ;) http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 In seriousness, GiveWell ranks charities by their effectiveness. You could give to one of their top charities: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities "These are evidence-backed, thoroughly vetted, underfunded organizations." Edit: (in reference to z3ugma's comment) further down that page is actually a charity whose mission is to aid salt iodization programmes in developing countries. I honestly had no idea this was even an issue until now.
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  GiveWell is great, and I seriously considered making "give to GiveWell recommended charities" the recommendation of the article. However, I think it's even better to give to the Open Philanthropy Project (a collaboration between GiveWell and Good Ventures) or to give to GiveWell itself, rather than their recommended charities (which has the effect of increasing OpenPhil's funds). It depends on the extent to which you share GiveWell's values though.
  - melling 11y ago
    It's only 20 grand. As I tried to mention below, aim higher. You've got the nerds running around in the weeds here on HN. This other story on HN is not gaining any traction but it's interesting because a 33 year old Malayasian billionaire is financing using Watson to assist with cancer treatment. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons-next-feat-taking-on-cancer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons... "Jho Low, the 33-year-old billionaire who is bankrolling the $50 million MD Anderson project with Watson, said the effort grew out of his grandfather’s treatment for leukemia in Malaysia. Low said that he felt fortunate to be able to connect his grandfather’s doctors remotely with MD Anderson specialists to devise the best treatment plan. He believes everyone, rich or poor, should have the same access to that kind of expertise."
    - BenjaminTodd 11y ago
spectrum1234 11y ago
What's really interesting is that if you are (far) less intelligent than the average person you should almost certainly destroy it (assuming you can't just give it to someone smarter than you.) This assures you don't do something stupid and guarantees everyone else is at least a tiny bit better off (because their money is now worth more).
- eru 11y ago
  `Burning' the cash is actually an interesting idea. Especially if you think inflation is a problem.
icanhackit 11y ago
Use it to lobby people of influence to release even more funds for your hobby-horse charity. More abstract; use it to fund the creation of a site that's a merger of Getup.org and Kickstarter so that we can crowd-source lobbying. That way the common person can compete with the petrochemical and military industrial companies by dropping a dollar or ten on their chosen hobby-horse issue. Small donations multiplied by many participants will result in considerable funds. Politicians are an interface to policy and money is the API.
- antjanus 11y ago
  The idea of crowdsourcing lobbying is fucking fantastic.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  There's a rule of thumb called the Tullock Paradox that suggests the ROI from lobbying is stupidly large, though no one is really sure why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox On the other hand, and this is something I've always felt about Bill Gates, I'd need to see a full economic accounting of all the loss to global society from their monopolostic rent-seeking behaviour, before I'd believe that their giving the profits away to charity would counterbalance that behaviour.
  - innguest 11y ago
    So you believe the whole of Microsoft's contribution to the world has been a net negative? It seems to me they've made possible for countless businesses to do their day-to-day work more efficiently.
the_cat_kittles 11y ago
despite the many ways you could interpret "common good", i'd bet that feeding a couple of kids healthy food for several years would rank up there with just about anything.
elektromekatron 11y ago
Burn it.
blazespin 11y ago
He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to better the environment, you don't get what your are doing.
- tempestn 11y ago
  You make a decent point, but I think you're being downvoted due to a mix of poor grammar and the unsupported (and rather blunt) statement, "He's wrong." Yes there is a greater benefit to buying a hybrid than the direct CO2 offset; however, I strongly suspect that no, that doesn't make it superior to the other options, so his main point stands.
blazespin 11y ago
He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to directly (rather than indirectly) improve the environment, you don't get what your are doing.
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  That's true it's another effect, but I doubt it means hybrid cars win e.g. it seems you could have a greater impact by speeding up the development of hybrid cars just by giving the $20,000 in cash directly to Toyota.
apeace 11y ago
Charged at $200/hr, $20k = 100 hours. Keep the money for yourself, and spend 100 hours of your time talking to a poor person. Help them find a better job, or make a better financial plan, or eat healthier, or just listen to what they have to say and tell them they can call you if they need someone. This is by far the biggest impact a person like Paul Buchheit could make on the world. Even if his $20k could go 100% to a better water bottle in Africa, or a more efficient hybrid, or whatever, it will pale in comparison to how he could personally change someone's life if he walked up to them and took the time to try. So go blow $20k at the club or on a cool car, after you've earned it by hitting the streets and solving your neighbor's problems for 100 hours. Someday your neighbors might do the same ;)
- kiba 11y ago
  You're only helping a few by doing that. Tell me why is that efficient?
  - nightski 11y ago
    Is helping people always about efficiency? It comes back to the give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish concept.
    - cgag 11y ago
      That concept is about efficiency. You could teach way more people to fish in the third world than you could by helping homeless people here.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cdcarter 11y ago
  This doesn't do much for the common good though. Let's dive into Bentham and see how good this is. Obviously the hedonistic calculus is not completely numeric, but we can do some work here. Let's compare malaria nets with getting a poor person a job. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? -- Well, many "common good" philanthropic causes deal with terrible diseases. That said, getting a job probably is better than not getting malaria. Passive vs active. Duration: How long will the pleasure last? -- Here, not getting malaria is obviously longer lasting than a job. Jobs go away. Malaria nets when properly utilized are pretty solid for the long term. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur? -- Probably equal here. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur? -- Probably equal here. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind. -- This one is hardest to quantify. There's obviously a ratchet quality to someone experiencing success. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. --- Malaria nets DEFINITELY can win out here. See above notes re: firing. Extent: How many people will be affected? -- And here malaria nets take the cake and win the entire calculus. 20k invested in malaria nets will affect MANY more people than your hundred hours.
pkkim 11y ago
I had the opportunity to speak with some Bangladeshi labor organizers who help workers organize unions in the textile factories there. It sounds like they are doing some great work[0][1]. Organizers' salaries are apparently well under five hundred USD per month, and they are on the front lines of a struggle against the global wage race to the bottom and unsafe working conditions. There are some organizations I've worked with in the US that have connections with some of them, and I am strongly considering to these groups in Bangladesh. The main question is whether or not this will simply lead to these jobs being pushed to even poorer countries with even lower wages -- though that would probably help those poorer countries. 0: http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/ http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/ Compensation to victims of the Rana Plaza factory disaster. 1: http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garment-industry/2744414.html http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garme... "Since 2010, the number of active garment industry unions grew from seven to 200. They represent some 150,000 workers."
puredemo 11y ago
Two months of rent in SF
futuravenir 11y ago
How about spending financial wealth on an educational program that redefines wealth? I've started studying what Arthur Brock is doing and am trying to implement it into my alternative economics startup as much as possible. You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars...It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate. http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-new-economy http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-ne...
- eru 11y ago
  > It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate. That certainly puts a floor under the value of a human being. > You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars Why not?
  - futuravenir 11y ago
    The point is that this is the value obtained through extraction. There are other values that are non-financial that are not being calculated into the equation. Trees are ecosystems. Human beings are ecosystems. They interact in incredibly complex ways with their external ecosystems. To answer more simply, you can't break down the Co2 into dollar-value because it isn't the only value that a tree has. It has an incredible amount of all kinds of values. It helps create shade for other types of plants to grow, so we need to factor that in. It creates a habitat for certain insects that help with pollination. Those insects help keep away another type of insect that are bad for reasons X, Y, Z. The relationship is so vast and complicated, that to simply say, a tree is worth $40,000 is judging it by the wrong qualities. It's like judging Einstein's Theory of Relativity based on the amount of words, but not on the ideas that are created when someone reads it and is inspired to create something new. Or judging a healthy diet simply by the amount of calories. It just doesn't work like that in the real world. The financial extraction of value is based on limited qualifiers that do not take into account the complexity of true-to-life value.
    - 11y ago
shoo 11y ago
Another important aspect might be to consider how the $20k was obtained in the first place. What resources were consumed to generate that wealth? What pollution was generated? Which parts of society benefited, and which did not? Here is a contrived example: Suppose you obtained $20k by applying your skills as a consultant where you helped some business make an additional $200k profit by more effectively advertising their products. Suppose that business has a profit of 20% for each item they sell, so you've actually lifted their revenue by $1m. Now, suppose these products are essentially useless consumer products that will go out of fashion within 1 year. I claim without evidence that the environmental impact of producing, advertising, distributing and disposing of $1m of useless products may, in many cases, be well in excess of how much of that impact you could attempt to reverse with a $20k budget. So, another option is to consider is that the world may be better off if you didn't earn that $20k in the first place. It very much depends on the direct and indirect effects of how you did it. edit: I am curious if I am copping the odd down-vote because this argument is complete nonsense (in which case please help me modify my beliefs!) or simply because I mention something that is perhaps uncomfortable to reflect upon. I claim no moral high ground here.
- reagency 11y ago
  People don't like their lifestyle called into question. When they and their peers each consume 10-100x average per capita consumption, there are some uncomfortable truths.
- newman8r 11y ago
  mind... blown... hah I've definitely read things like this before but.... damn it just sounds so much like people thinking electric cars will save the world without considering where the energy is actually (not hypothetically) coming from.... then that example starts to gets recursive because electric cars are expensive, HOW did you get that extra 40k to be able to afford it? hah
- lmm 11y ago
  When people try to make these judgements you end up repeating the mistakes of communism, where (e.g.) very good research into genetics and psychology was abandoned because people thought it wouldn't be useful, and resources were wasted producing old manufactured goods (inefficient machines and the like) that no-one wanted. Even if in this one example the $20k was obtained through a net negative action, overall it seems like the invisible hand is better at allocating resources than well-intentioned human judgement. So the best strategy for the world, as counterintuitive as it seems, is to blindly do whatever makes you the most money.
bogrollben 11y ago
Give it to Charity:Water or Water.org. Save lives, prevent disease, 4x economic multiple return on investment.
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/charity-water http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/charity-wate...
dylanjermiah 11y ago
If I were to donate it, it would go to Khan Academy. Education is the most important thing too invest in, IMO.
godgod 11y ago
Go out and find 20 single mothers and stock their pantries with full of food.
rasengan 11y ago
Pop some bottles at a club.
zaroth 11y ago
I always liked the idea of Benjamin Franklin's two century trust. In 1790 when he died, he left £1,000 each to the cities of Boston and Philly, to be kept in trust for 100 years. There was supposed to be £130,000 by 1890, of which £100,000 would be spent, and another £30,000 left to compound for another 100 years. [1] Even after a significant distribution in 1890, the funds distributed about $7 million to the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in 1990. The original investment was about $80,000 (for both cities) in today's dollars. [2] [1] - http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/what_miracle_of_compound_interest http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_ph... [2] - http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.htm http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.ht...
newman8r 11y ago
I would make STEM kits for $20 each (common lab compounds, electronic components, microcontroller, lenses, list of online resources, etc.) I would give them to high school kids rather than the younger kids they're usually geared towards. Make it a little bit edgy - high schoolers love fire we all know this - not like a bit of rocket candy is more dangerous that whatever else they have access to. If they want the next kit they pay $20, but they also have to give the previous kit to a noob first. The second kit would how them how to get all the components/compounds they need generally free or cheap.
lucaspiller 11y ago
Instead of getting a more efficient car, how about spending it on moving somewhere where you don't need a car? That $20k could go towards a more expensive home that is closer to downtown or public transport links. As a European who has lived in cities with pretty decent public transport for the last 10+ years (I lived in the countryside before that), it's mind boggling to me that most American cities are so car-centric.
- VLM 11y ago
  Something to think about with cars and trucks is Americans love to spend thousands to save tens. So the best way to spend $20K on vehicles is probably $20K of delivery services / delivery truck drivers in order to obtain some economy of scale effects. Hauling 800 pounds of dirt in a small hybrid is bad, spending $25K extra to buy a truck to avoid the home depot $19 rental truck is worse, but best of all is spending $100 to have the giant home depot truck deliver it next time it swings by, repeated 200 times. Also $20K of purchasing in bulk to eliminate extra trips. The best way to drive to walmart to buy a 4-pack of toilet paper that you just ran out of, is not a 8 mpg truck or a 10 mpg SUV or even an electric car, but to spend a little more $$$ up front to buy the giant pack of toilet paper to avoid running out and eliminate making an extra trip in the first place.
atc 11y ago
Invest in a project/startup/charity combating global warming.
learnstats2 11y ago
This seems like helping people is something to be kept at arm's length. Even the list of options seem predicated on hyper-capitalism. Where's the compassion?
- eru 11y ago
  Compassion makes you a nice person to hang out with. It doesn't make you an effective person.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    No, compassion does not make you a nice person to hang out with: "Compassion is the response to the suffering of others that motivates a desire to help. Compassion is really the act of going out of your way to help physical, spiritual, or emotional hurts or pains of another." Giving your money to the Gates Foundation concentrates it on areas that are already receiving disproportionate help (e.g. from the Gates Foundation).
- mori 11y ago
  Compassion is the feeling compelling on to help others, no? In that case, the best thing to do is to help others as much as one can- that is, as effectively as one can.
2anon4this1 11y ago
I did a stint in a rural bangladeshi hospital while a medical student. I went on an outreach camp with an opthalmologist. In one village we saw dozens of elderly people partially or fully blind from cataracts. None of them could afford the surgery. I asked the opthalmologist how much the operation was and he said "$40 each", so I said "ok choose the 20 people who need this operation the most and ill give you the $800". They put 20 of them in minivans and took them to the hospital the next day and all 20 got their operations. Had a whole ward of really delighted people.
- jacalata 11y ago
  This is probably the ideal outcome of volunteer tourism.
- J-dawg 11y ago
  I've seen fundraising campaigns from the big charities (Oxfam, Unicef etc) where they put a price on different interventions. E.g. £5 buys a dose of medicine, £10 vaccinates a child, £50 buys a goat for a family, etc. I've often found this sort of fundraising slightly off-putting because it implies that there is literally a line of people waiting to be vaccinated, and they're just waiting for your money before they can move on to the next child. I find this scenario hard to believe, and I think the over-simplification is patronising. However you've described a situation where there literally was a line of people waiting for cataract operations, and your donation had an incredible impact on 20 people's lives. It would be great if there were easier ways to donate money directly to people like you did. Donating money via huge organisations that employ hundreds of people in developed countries seems like an incredibly inefficient way of doing it. To put it another way, I'm sure most people would rather pay for 20 cataract surgeries for 20 real people than 20 notional goats
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    street wisdom (or they...) says that roughly 95% of charity/help donations go to management and delivery of those donations, and only 5% is spent on actual goods (be it medicine, blanket, food etc.) that help people. it seems a bit over-the top statement, but then you realize how massive organizations (or corporations?) like UN are, employing thousands and thousands of people in most expensive parts of the world (New York, Geneva... seriously WTF?). Here in Geneva, there are gazillions of non-profit orgs, then there are various organizations grouping those non profits and so on. Still talking about one of most expensive cities in the world. Yes, those people probably don't have private bank-levels of salary, but I know a people or two who are curently buying high-priced properties over the border in France, so they are more than OK. Friend in quite high position in Red cross hates UN with passion, stating they are useless in real crysis scenarios, just bureaucrats etc. Not sure if that's an objective statement, but there is probably at least some truth there. What I decided to do, at least for now - Amnesty International. Rather than putting bandage where bleeding, it might lead to improvement of system. And I pay directly organization of lawyers who actually try to do good stuff, not bureaucrats who travel all around the world and check some spreadsheets and do presentations. But what one poster says here is probably one of best things - directly invest into treating people, no useless middlemen who, like it or not, also need to be payed.
anon4 11y ago
Burn it and decrease inflation.
beatpanda 11y ago
I think "effective altruism" is a big part of the reason why tech workers can't be moved to give a shit about solving the extreme social problems in their own backyards, that they have in many cases exacerbated, because solving them would be "inefficient".
oliao 11y ago
Give it to the Greek Government - just kidding
bezalmighty 11y ago
The article states "Indeed, you may be able to offset a ton of CO2 for as little as $1" and also: "... If we were to use the mean rather than the median estimate, we would get a social cost of carbon of $48 per metric ton of CO2." So for every $1 spent, you can save society a cost of $48? A 4,800% social return on your money seems pretty good!

159 points by BenjaminTodd 11y ago

There's a crisis-pregnancy center a block from where I live (in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA). I do volunteer work there, and one of my friends is their director of child-care: https://www.ourladysinn.org/ https://www.ourladysinn.org/ They do great work helping poor women in Saint Louis and their already-born children through difficult times. In addition to food, shelter and other basics, they provide professional counseling (many of their clients struggle with drug addiction) and try to help their clients get a solid footing with respect to employment and a safe place to live after they finish the program (about six weeks to several months after their child is born). Great attention is given to making sure the clients' children get to school on time, do their homework and are being given proper care. I know the organization to be extremely thrifty – nothing goes to waste and they are very careful regarding how they spend money donated to the center. The organization also owns and runs a couple of resale shops in the same neighborhood, where many of the clients take their first steps (or first steps in awhile) carrying out job responsibilities, working under a manager. All proceeds from those shops flow back into the crisis-pregnancy center.

x0ra 11y ago

Hooker and blow. You'll help them pay for college.

ams6110 11y ago

I would generalize the finding to: spend the money on something that rewards success and not failure. Giving money to failing schools rewards failing schools. Giving money to the poor and unemployed rewards being poor and unemployed. Giving money to the homeless rewards being homeless. Use the money to create opportunity, not to reward failure.

jat850 11y ago
Your reply rubbed me the wrong way, as it implies that being poor, unemployed, or homeless are by definition failures. Perhaps you didn't intend that (or perhaps you do believe it). Not looking for a philosophical argument - just stating my opinion contrary to what yours comes across as.
- viraptor 11y ago
  How is being homeless not a failure on multiple levels? You can be poor by choice and happy with it, I agree. But is any sane person homeless by choice? Not traveling, hermit, not able to function in society, or many other cases. Just wanting to live somewhere and able to do work, but not having a home. To me that seems like a failure on multiple levels: country - global situation that allows people to be homeless, local - no community support or path to employment or investment into people, self - well... unless we give some income to everyone, and you can't claim benefits for not being able to work, you're expected to work for a place to live. Unemployed is an artifact of the economy. I'd like to be successful enough to be unemployed, but rich and not homeless.
  - jat850 11y ago
    It is a failure on many levels - systematic ones, mostly. But if you read OP's post as not singling out the failure as being personally and solely responsible for their plight, rather than as a systematic failure, then we might simply differ on reading it. Donating money to combat homelessness at a systematic level is (in my opinion) probably a good thing. I just didn't get that sentiment in what I saw, though I allow for the (frequent and possible) chance that I am wrong in my interpretation.
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    Empathy failure. I hope if you ever screw up really badly there is someone else to give you a hand.
    - viraptor 11y ago
      This is exactly what I wrote. Not having a community-level support for cases of "you screwed up badly" is a failure. Same for no benefits when "life screws you up badly". Not sure where you see the empathy failure.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lmm 11y ago
But a "safety net" enables people to take risks that work out positive for society. E.g. in the US people are much more willing to start a business (something that should be a net positive for society) once they pass the Medicaid eligibility age, since they can be assured they'll have healthcare even if their business fails. Heck, the joint-stock corporation, the big innovation of capitalism, is basically a way to reward failure (by limiting investors' liability in failure cases). You do need to be careful about perverse incentives, but being homeless or unemployed is so bad for you that I can't imagine a few hundred dollars make it suddenly worth doing deliberately.

rmason 11y ago

Sounds very high minded. I'd research and find a need in your local community. Find some group doing good work already and allow them to expand. Maybe it's a bigger kitchen for a group feeding the poor. Or a bigger office for college kids that are tutoring kids in math. If you take some time you will find something that has personal meaning for you.

jessriedel 11y ago
What's wrong with being high minded? Why should personal meaningfulness be an important criteria?
cdcarter 11y ago
As a sibling commenter somewhat flippantly notes, orgs like GiveWell, 80,000 hours (publisher of the post), Centre for Effective Altruism, and Giving What We Can are all focused on highly effective non-personal philanthropy. They are targeted toward "logical givers" and "impact investors" who do not need the sort of donor centric language and personal touches that many NPOs rely on for their fund development strategies. This can be seen by orgs like OpenPhil that won't even take unsolicited minor donations. These are orgs that are supporting "truly altruistic" giving, and trying to remove the personal connection from giving. These organization tend to use lines of thinking that remind me personally (though may or may not be inspired by) Mylan Engel and "Taking Hunger Seriously" (http://www.niu.edu/engel/_pdf/TakingHungerSeriously.pdf http://www.niu.edu/engel/_pdf/TakingHungerSeriously.pdf)
BenjaminTodd 11y ago
The question was framed in terms of helping the "common good". If you want to support your local community that's a different question.

shaftoe 11y ago

You could always check that box on your tax form that says you wish to make an additional contribution. That is, assuming taxes benefit the common good. I'm sure the money will be spent wisely.

cdcarter 11y ago
The article addresses that giving to the US is likely to be less positive than giving to an international cause.
uhwhat 11y ago
501(c)3 non-profits are tax deductible. I'd recommend http://machineproject.com/ http://machineproject.com/ for the HN crowd Also funding for workshops/education through makerspace type groups. Also funding for clean water infrastructure in 3rd world regions.
- xur17 11y ago
  I've been struggling with this a little bit - my income / spending currently results in me taking the standard deductible, so I'm not able to take advantage of this tax deduction. Therefore, it makes the most sense for me to hold off on donating, and save the money until I'm not taking the standard deduction, and then donate it all at once. I've been shuffling money off into a separate savings account every month to get into the habit, and then I plan to use the balance of this account once I am in a situation where I am able to take advantage of this tax deduction. I do still donate money out of this account, just not a substantial account. edit: I went back and read the article now :) - this chart [0] was helpful. If you're at the beginning of your career, this makes the argument for holding off on significant donation even stronger. [0] https://3d4k2r1b9zry49ki142owdm5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Now-vs-Later-flowchart4.png https://3d4k2r1b9zry49ki142owdm5-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
  - cdcarter 11y ago
    I do a similar thing, but I have a fairly aggressive portfolio on Betterment that I store my eventual philanthropy in. I fund it out of my credit card's cash back, and unexpected extra income. It's very frustrating to not be able to take advantage of tax deductible gifts seemingly just because I don't own a home!

melling 11y ago

Americans gave $358 billion last year. $20k is a drop in the bucket. https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015 https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015 If you really want to make a big difference, start a company, create jobs, make millions then donate a larger sum of money.

tootie 11y ago
I worked briefly for a philanthropic organization that had high visibility among super wealthy people. They accepted whatever donations, but didn't really pay attention unless you had at least $100K. The vast majority of their endowment came in multimillion dollar gifts from people who wanted hospitals named after themselves.
- melling 11y ago
  It's unfortunate that HN readers would rather run through the weeds trying to add zero to infinity, rather than try to actually make a real difference. If we could make medical research donations more efficient, for example, we could make a big difference. Say, for instance, we identified the best medical research charities, and have people donate to those.
  - reagency 11y ago
    Givewell.org. basically does what you propose.
    - melling 11y ago
      I don't see any medical research charities: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
lambda 11y ago
Did you read the article? Their top two recommendations were invest in a startup, or give to the Gates foundation.

kendallpark 11y ago

One thing this article didn't mention is giving money towards research. There's no lack of underfunded labs filled with scientists researching rarer diseases or unique approaches to humanitarian issues. 20K could go a long way in helping these smaller labs. It would take some searching and talking on the giver's end to find the right cause and scientists he or she trusts, but it wouldn't be too hard with the powers of the internet.

robotresearcher 11y ago
$20K is roughly one annual PhD student stipend in Canada. Attending one major conference is $1000 - $2500 for a student depending how far they travel.
te 11y ago
You might find what you are looking for here: https://www.consano.org/ https://www.consano.org/
BenjaminTodd 11y ago
The Open Philanthropy Project is aiming to fund research. I'd prefer to let them do the research working out where to donate, rather than picking scientists myself.
- kendallpark 11y ago
  See, I'd prefer to do the research myself and have a relationship with the scientists.
  - reagency 11y ago
    OK, but that is entertainment, not charity of philanthropy.
    - kendallpark 11y ago
      No, I would see that as taking the initiative to actually understand the projects that you're funding for yourself. In doing this you become more invested in that cause and the community surrounding it.

webreac 11y ago

I do not have a quote under hand, but preserving our history is important to make us better. Most of the recent history would already be lost if archive.org was not there. I do not see how giving to this cause could turn wrong.

z3ugma 11y ago

It's probably shipping $20,000 of iodized salt to the developing world: Iodine deficiency is a leading cause of preventable mental impairment, as iodine is a micronutrient crucial to brain development. An estimated 2 billion people-- almost a third of the earth’s population--have low iodine intake and are at risk for suffering from the complications of iodine deficiency. Eradication of iodine deficiency is highly cost-effective— worldwide, the cost of salt iodization per year is estimated at $0.02-0.05 per child covered, and the cost per child's death averted is $1000 and per disability-adjusted life year gained is $34-36.

77ko 11y ago
What about delivery? Without a delivery mechanism to those who need it this would be a well meaning but not very useful.
- knodi123 11y ago
  haha, well I think that was implied. It's not as if you can literally write "the developing world" on a shipping label and just pour in a ton of morton's. I agree that the advice given is overly vague. GP should list an actionable way to to give iodized salt.
  - jqm 11y ago
    How about just sending the iodine and let them iodize their existing salt supplies?
    - knodi123 11y ago
      flaws: 1. same 'who do I write on the shipping label' concern 2. assumes a sufficient existing salt supply (perhaps these people already needed salt, so this aid healed two birds with one bandaid) 3. assumes knowledge about proper iodization (ratios, sanitation, etc)
- aaron695 11y ago
  > What about delivery? Without a delivery mechanism to those who need it this would be a well meaning but not very useful. It doesn't, which is why it's a really bad idea, there exist charities that can deliver it already just give them the money. Even if you could get it to people they possibly won't use it without the complex knowledge of local issues. Similar - http://www.luckyironfish.com/ http://www.luckyironfish.com/

Fundlab 11y ago

If I had access to that kind of money i will be providing clean water to millions of people around the world

reasonattlm 11y ago

If you want to be utilitarian about it, maximizing common good derived from a modest donation, then pick (a) the venture that will produce the greatest gain in common good if implemented, and (b) an organization with a low administrative overhead that is in your opinion doing a good job of making progress towards (a). That is the 80/20 calculation. You'll never know if you got it right, but it has the best chance of doing something rather than nothing. For my money, (a) is ending degenerative aging by periodic repair of that damage that causes it, and (b) is the SENS Research Foundation. There is no other single cause of death and suffering as large as the biological wear and tear that causes degeneration and death in aging. There is no other organization I know of that will definitely put all donations to research, advocacy, and scientific organization relating to this task. There are other single-disease or single-field patient advocate and research organizations out there that do a little work relevant to age-related damage, but you've got no way to ensure a donation as small as a few thousand dollars will actually go to the aging-relevant 1% of what they do. Even cancer and stem cell fields are doing a large amount of work that has no bearing on the best path forward. In fact I'm personally donating $25K to the SENS Research Foundation this year, and running a matching campaign in search of others willing to do the same. There are other options for using modest amounts of money that are more of a lottery; use your money to persuade other people to give money, try to grow your money to give later, etc, etc. But these are much more unreliable, or for a few thousand dollars just not even worth trying versus outright donation to a cause.

BenjaminTodd 11y ago
I don't agree with (b) low overhead ratio, mainly for these reasons: http://overheadmyth.com/ http://overheadmyth.com/
cdcarter 11y ago
Planning to give later is a VERY effective use of money for early career professionals (who will be able to make stable investments over long periods of time and then give larger payouts when their own situations are more stable as well) or people who do not as strongly believe in a given cause as you do (who can wait until the causes they believe in are more stable or until they have researched more sufficiently). I have a retirement portfolio and a wealth building portfolio. The latter is currently funded by my credit cards cash back policy, aggressively seeks market gains, and forms the basis of my personal philanthropic efforts. My giving currently focuses on arts organizations and local community development, as that's a personal passion. My long term giving is hunger focused, where a $50 donation is less meaningful and it makes sense for me to grow my money first.

jastanton 11y ago

Another option is a local Church that support missions such as building schools for impoverished nations. I support a church that does this along with a missionary that runs an after school sports program in very poor area of Elkhart, Indiana. This helps gets kids off of streets, gives them food, shelter and a develops the community. Benefit of this is that I get to actually see the faces of the youth this impacts both in my backyard as well as in other nations. Say what you will about religion but there are a lot of people out there who have a heart that yearns to help others, I don't care if they do it in the name of a god or not, the fact of the matter is they are going out there every day and touching peoples lives.

toolz 11y ago
it certainly helps more than it hurts, but you can find the same thing without the baggage in many different charities. I've seen one too many missionaries get screwed because rumors overseas start telling congregations they aren't doing religion the right way. Usually it's just one supporting congregation and nothing comes of it, just hard times for the missionary, but I have seen one case personally where some epic rumors started and every supporting church pulled out at once and left a guy stranded overseas away from his family. The guy apparent was doing religion wrong or something. I was acquaintances with the guy and spoke with him regularly, although I never did get the low down on the whole story so maybe he deserves it for all I know.
superuser2 11y ago
The concern here is that the purpose of a church mission is first to convert locals to Christianity, then to provide follow-on benefits like education and economic development. Donating the same amount of money to a secular organization should create more of those secondary benefits, because no effort needs to be spent on collecting followers for Christ. However, you are right that church missions seem to have the easiest access to donations and labor, so they might be able to provide better secular education out of sheer scale.
- kendallpark 11y ago
  > The concern here is that the purpose of a church mission is first to convert locals to Christianity, then to provide follow-on benefits like education and economic development. So cynical. This definitely isn't true across the board. I grew up Southern Baptist, where charity was literally treated like a foot-in-the-door to evangelization and saving souls was the #1 agenda. So I get your sentiment. But in other veins of Christianity like Catholicism (which is roughly where I am now), the theology around charity is very different and it really is about serving others as Christ would--no strings attached. I think the proportion of Christian charities that behave as you describe is pretty small compared to those that focus on service first.

davidmr 11y ago

> Invest in a startup. This is better than investing in the S&P500. The expected return is higher. Is that actually true, or is the author using some meaning of the phrase "expected return" that isn't common?

tptacek 11y ago
My understanding is that it isn't even true for professional startup investors, and they have preferential access to dealflow that your $20,000 doesn't.
- tempestn 11y ago
  The median return is certainly lower, but the expected return at least should be higher. So most startup investments, and probably most startup investors will fail, but some will succeed spectacularly. The point is, if everyone who is interested in investing to eventually donate did so by investing in startups, their aggregate returns should be higher than if they invested in the S&P or whatever instead - so it's superior even if most of them end up with a negative return. (As opposed to when you're investing to fund your own retirement, in which case you don't so much care how others' investments go.)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    My understanding is that the median fund underperforms the S&P, and that investment managers at pension funds and endowments put money into VC funds because their strategies require them to put a slice of money into that asset class. And, again: that's the outcome for investors that have preferred access to dealflow.
    - tempestn 11y ago
      I don't have evidence to back up my assertion - only the theory that in an efficient market riskier assets should be priced appropriately. So I don't know for a fact that the expected return is higher. That said, the fact that the median fund underperforms the S&P doesn't necessarily prove that the expected return on an individual startup investment will do so. For one thing, funds will have overhead - probably significant overhead in startup investing. (Of course, they provide valuable diversification, but as mentioned above, that shouldn't be the priority in this particular case.) Also, even if the median fund underforms before costs, the average might still outperform, if the winners are relatively concentrated.

monk_e_boy 11y ago

If I had the money, I think I'd give half to my local primary school. They could do with some books and PCs. The other half I spend in Uganda, I'd just do random acts of kindness. Buy medicine for someone, school books for a kid. Shoes or clothed for someone else. Would be a really fun way to spend the money. Rich people seem so clinical about their money. Get yer hands dirty, talk to some people in need.

reagency 11y ago
These rich people are trying to do something impactful and sustainable, not just personally entertaining "poverty porn"

aaron695 11y ago

$20,000 is possibly not enough but some sort of import export business to funnel money from a rich nation to a poor nation. $1 stores do more to help the poor than a lot of charities (But not all charities)

Osmium 11y ago

You could always find someone you like and give it to them ;) http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569 In seriousness, GiveWell ranks charities by their effectiveness. You could give to one of their top charities: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities "These are evidence-backed, thoroughly vetted, underfunded organizations." Edit: (in reference to z3ugma's comment) further down that page is actually a charity whose mission is to aid salt iodization programmes in developing countries. I honestly had no idea this was even an issue until now.

BenjaminTodd 11y ago
GiveWell is great, and I seriously considered making "give to GiveWell recommended charities" the recommendation of the article. However, I think it's even better to give to the Open Philanthropy Project (a collaboration between GiveWell and Good Ventures) or to give to GiveWell itself, rather than their recommended charities (which has the effect of increasing OpenPhil's funds). It depends on the extent to which you share GiveWell's values though.
- melling 11y ago
  It's only 20 grand. As I tried to mention below, aim higher. You've got the nerds running around in the weeds here on HN. This other story on HN is not gaining any traction but it's interesting because a 33 year old Malayasian billionaire is financing using Watson to assist with cancer treatment. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons-next-feat-taking-on-cancer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons... "Jho Low, the 33-year-old billionaire who is bankrolling the $50 million MD Anderson project with Watson, said the effort grew out of his grandfather’s treatment for leukemia in Malaysia. Low said that he felt fortunate to be able to connect his grandfather’s doctors remotely with MD Anderson specialists to devise the best treatment plan. He believes everyone, rich or poor, should have the same access to that kind of expertise."
  - BenjaminTodd 11y ago

spectrum1234 11y ago

What's really interesting is that if you are (far) less intelligent than the average person you should almost certainly destroy it (assuming you can't just give it to someone smarter than you.) This assures you don't do something stupid and guarantees everyone else is at least a tiny bit better off (because their money is now worth more).

eru 11y ago
`Burning' the cash is actually an interesting idea. Especially if you think inflation is a problem.

icanhackit 11y ago

Use it to lobby people of influence to release even more funds for your hobby-horse charity. More abstract; use it to fund the creation of a site that's a merger of Getup.org and Kickstarter so that we can crowd-source lobbying. That way the common person can compete with the petrochemical and military industrial companies by dropping a dollar or ten on their chosen hobby-horse issue. Small donations multiplied by many participants will result in considerable funds. Politicians are an interface to policy and money is the API.

antjanus 11y ago
The idea of crowdsourcing lobbying is fucking fantastic.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
There's a rule of thumb called the Tullock Paradox that suggests the ROI from lobbying is stupidly large, though no one is really sure why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox On the other hand, and this is something I've always felt about Bill Gates, I'd need to see a full economic accounting of all the loss to global society from their monopolostic rent-seeking behaviour, before I'd believe that their giving the profits away to charity would counterbalance that behaviour.
- innguest 11y ago
  So you believe the whole of Microsoft's contribution to the world has been a net negative? It seems to me they've made possible for countless businesses to do their day-to-day work more efficiently.

the_cat_kittles 11y ago

despite the many ways you could interpret "common good", i'd bet that feeding a couple of kids healthy food for several years would rank up there with just about anything.

elektromekatron 11y ago

Burn it.

blazespin 11y ago

He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to better the environment, you don't get what your are doing.

tempestn 11y ago
You make a decent point, but I think you're being downvoted due to a mix of poor grammar and the unsupported (and rather blunt) statement, "He's wrong." Yes there is a greater benefit to buying a hybrid than the direct CO2 offset; however, I strongly suspect that no, that doesn't make it superior to the other options, so his main point stands.

blazespin 11y ago

He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to directly (rather than indirectly) improve the environment, you don't get what your are doing.

BenjaminTodd 11y ago
That's true it's another effect, but I doubt it means hybrid cars win e.g. it seems you could have a greater impact by speeding up the development of hybrid cars just by giving the $20,000 in cash directly to Toyota.

apeace 11y ago

Charged at $200/hr, $20k = 100 hours. Keep the money for yourself, and spend 100 hours of your time talking to a poor person. Help them find a better job, or make a better financial plan, or eat healthier, or just listen to what they have to say and tell them they can call you if they need someone. This is by far the biggest impact a person like Paul Buchheit could make on the world. Even if his $20k could go 100% to a better water bottle in Africa, or a more efficient hybrid, or whatever, it will pale in comparison to how he could personally change someone's life if he walked up to them and took the time to try. So go blow $20k at the club or on a cool car, after you've earned it by hitting the streets and solving your neighbor's problems for 100 hours. Someday your neighbors might do the same ;)

kiba 11y ago
You're only helping a few by doing that. Tell me why is that efficient?
- nightski 11y ago
  Is helping people always about efficiency? It comes back to the give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish concept.
  - cgag 11y ago
    That concept is about efficiency. You could teach way more people to fish in the third world than you could by helping homeless people here.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cdcarter 11y ago
This doesn't do much for the common good though. Let's dive into Bentham and see how good this is. Obviously the hedonistic calculus is not completely numeric, but we can do some work here. Let's compare malaria nets with getting a poor person a job. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? -- Well, many "common good" philanthropic causes deal with terrible diseases. That said, getting a job probably is better than not getting malaria. Passive vs active. Duration: How long will the pleasure last? -- Here, not getting malaria is obviously longer lasting than a job. Jobs go away. Malaria nets when properly utilized are pretty solid for the long term. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur? -- Probably equal here. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur? -- Probably equal here. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind. -- This one is hardest to quantify. There's obviously a ratchet quality to someone experiencing success. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. --- Malaria nets DEFINITELY can win out here. See above notes re: firing. Extent: How many people will be affected? -- And here malaria nets take the cake and win the entire calculus. 20k invested in malaria nets will affect MANY more people than your hundred hours.

pkkim 11y ago

I had the opportunity to speak with some Bangladeshi labor organizers who help workers organize unions in the textile factories there. It sounds like they are doing some great work[0][1]. Organizers' salaries are apparently well under five hundred USD per month, and they are on the front lines of a struggle against the global wage race to the bottom and unsafe working conditions. There are some organizations I've worked with in the US that have connections with some of them, and I am strongly considering to these groups in Bangladesh. The main question is whether or not this will simply lead to these jobs being pushed to even poorer countries with even lower wages -- though that would probably help those poorer countries. 0: http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/ http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/ Compensation to victims of the Rana Plaza factory disaster. 1: http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garment-industry/2744414.html http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garme... "Since 2010, the number of active garment industry unions grew from seven to 200. They represent some 150,000 workers."

puredemo 11y ago

Two months of rent in SF

futuravenir 11y ago

How about spending financial wealth on an educational program that redefines wealth? I've started studying what Arthur Brock is doing and am trying to implement it into my alternative economics startup as much as possible. You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars...It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate. http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-new-economy http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-ne...

eru 11y ago
> It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate. That certainly puts a floor under the value of a human being. > You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars Why not?
- futuravenir 11y ago
  The point is that this is the value obtained through extraction. There are other values that are non-financial that are not being calculated into the equation. Trees are ecosystems. Human beings are ecosystems. They interact in incredibly complex ways with their external ecosystems. To answer more simply, you can't break down the Co2 into dollar-value because it isn't the only value that a tree has. It has an incredible amount of all kinds of values. It helps create shade for other types of plants to grow, so we need to factor that in. It creates a habitat for certain insects that help with pollination. Those insects help keep away another type of insect that are bad for reasons X, Y, Z. The relationship is so vast and complicated, that to simply say, a tree is worth $40,000 is judging it by the wrong qualities. It's like judging Einstein's Theory of Relativity based on the amount of words, but not on the ideas that are created when someone reads it and is inspired to create something new. Or judging a healthy diet simply by the amount of calories. It just doesn't work like that in the real world. The financial extraction of value is based on limited qualifiers that do not take into account the complexity of true-to-life value.
  - 11y ago

shoo 11y ago

Another important aspect might be to consider how the $20k was obtained in the first place. What resources were consumed to generate that wealth? What pollution was generated? Which parts of society benefited, and which did not? Here is a contrived example: Suppose you obtained $20k by applying your skills as a consultant where you helped some business make an additional $200k profit by more effectively advertising their products. Suppose that business has a profit of 20% for each item they sell, so you've actually lifted their revenue by $1m. Now, suppose these products are essentially useless consumer products that will go out of fashion within 1 year. I claim without evidence that the environmental impact of producing, advertising, distributing and disposing of $1m of useless products may, in many cases, be well in excess of how much of that impact you could attempt to reverse with a $20k budget. So, another option is to consider is that the world may be better off if you didn't earn that $20k in the first place. It very much depends on the direct and indirect effects of how you did it. edit: I am curious if I am copping the odd down-vote because this argument is complete nonsense (in which case please help me modify my beliefs!) or simply because I mention something that is perhaps uncomfortable to reflect upon. I claim no moral high ground here.

reagency 11y ago
People don't like their lifestyle called into question. When they and their peers each consume 10-100x average per capita consumption, there are some uncomfortable truths.
newman8r 11y ago
mind... blown... hah I've definitely read things like this before but.... damn it just sounds so much like people thinking electric cars will save the world without considering where the energy is actually (not hypothetically) coming from.... then that example starts to gets recursive because electric cars are expensive, HOW did you get that extra 40k to be able to afford it? hah
lmm 11y ago
When people try to make these judgements you end up repeating the mistakes of communism, where (e.g.) very good research into genetics and psychology was abandoned because people thought it wouldn't be useful, and resources were wasted producing old manufactured goods (inefficient machines and the like) that no-one wanted. Even if in this one example the $20k was obtained through a net negative action, overall it seems like the invisible hand is better at allocating resources than well-intentioned human judgement. So the best strategy for the world, as counterintuitive as it seems, is to blindly do whatever makes you the most money.

bogrollben 11y ago

Give it to Charity:Water or Water.org. Save lives, prevent disease, 4x economic multiple return on investment.

BenjaminTodd 11y ago
http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/charity-water http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/charity-wate...

dylanjermiah 11y ago

If I were to donate it, it would go to Khan Academy. Education is the most important thing too invest in, IMO.

godgod 11y ago

Go out and find 20 single mothers and stock their pantries with full of food.

rasengan 11y ago

Pop some bottles at a club.

zaroth 11y ago

I always liked the idea of Benjamin Franklin's two century trust. In 1790 when he died, he left £1,000 each to the cities of Boston and Philly, to be kept in trust for 100 years. There was supposed to be £130,000 by 1890, of which £100,000 would be spent, and another £30,000 left to compound for another 100 years. [1] Even after a significant distribution in 1890, the funds distributed about $7 million to the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in 1990. The original investment was about $80,000 (for both cities) in today's dollars. [2] [1] - http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/what_miracle_of_compound_interest http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_ph... [2] - http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.htm http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.ht...

newman8r 11y ago

I would make STEM kits for $20 each (common lab compounds, electronic components, microcontroller, lenses, list of online resources, etc.) I would give them to high school kids rather than the younger kids they're usually geared towards. Make it a little bit edgy - high schoolers love fire we all know this - not like a bit of rocket candy is more dangerous that whatever else they have access to. If they want the next kit they pay $20, but they also have to give the previous kit to a noob first. The second kit would how them how to get all the components/compounds they need generally free or cheap.

lucaspiller 11y ago

Instead of getting a more efficient car, how about spending it on moving somewhere where you don't need a car? That $20k could go towards a more expensive home that is closer to downtown or public transport links. As a European who has lived in cities with pretty decent public transport for the last 10+ years (I lived in the countryside before that), it's mind boggling to me that most American cities are so car-centric.

VLM 11y ago
Something to think about with cars and trucks is Americans love to spend thousands to save tens. So the best way to spend $20K on vehicles is probably $20K of delivery services / delivery truck drivers in order to obtain some economy of scale effects. Hauling 800 pounds of dirt in a small hybrid is bad, spending $25K extra to buy a truck to avoid the home depot $19 rental truck is worse, but best of all is spending $100 to have the giant home depot truck deliver it next time it swings by, repeated 200 times. Also $20K of purchasing in bulk to eliminate extra trips. The best way to drive to walmart to buy a 4-pack of toilet paper that you just ran out of, is not a 8 mpg truck or a 10 mpg SUV or even an electric car, but to spend a little more $$$ up front to buy the giant pack of toilet paper to avoid running out and eliminate making an extra trip in the first place.

atc 11y ago

Invest in a project/startup/charity combating global warming.

learnstats2 11y ago

This seems like helping people is something to be kept at arm's length. Even the list of options seem predicated on hyper-capitalism. Where's the compassion?

eru 11y ago
Compassion makes you a nice person to hang out with. It doesn't make you an effective person.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  No, compassion does not make you a nice person to hang out with: "Compassion is the response to the suffering of others that motivates a desire to help. Compassion is really the act of going out of your way to help physical, spiritual, or emotional hurts or pains of another." Giving your money to the Gates Foundation concentrates it on areas that are already receiving disproportionate help (e.g. from the Gates Foundation).
mori 11y ago
Compassion is the feeling compelling on to help others, no? In that case, the best thing to do is to help others as much as one can- that is, as effectively as one can.

2anon4this1 11y ago

I did a stint in a rural bangladeshi hospital while a medical student. I went on an outreach camp with an opthalmologist. In one village we saw dozens of elderly people partially or fully blind from cataracts. None of them could afford the surgery. I asked the opthalmologist how much the operation was and he said "$40 each", so I said "ok choose the 20 people who need this operation the most and ill give you the $800". They put 20 of them in minivans and took them to the hospital the next day and all 20 got their operations. Had a whole ward of really delighted people.

jacalata 11y ago
This is probably the ideal outcome of volunteer tourism.
J-dawg 11y ago
I've seen fundraising campaigns from the big charities (Oxfam, Unicef etc) where they put a price on different interventions. E.g. £5 buys a dose of medicine, £10 vaccinates a child, £50 buys a goat for a family, etc. I've often found this sort of fundraising slightly off-putting because it implies that there is literally a line of people waiting to be vaccinated, and they're just waiting for your money before they can move on to the next child. I find this scenario hard to believe, and I think the over-simplification is patronising. However you've described a situation where there literally was a line of people waiting for cataract operations, and your donation had an incredible impact on 20 people's lives. It would be great if there were easier ways to donate money directly to people like you did. Donating money via huge organisations that employ hundreds of people in developed countries seems like an incredibly inefficient way of doing it. To put it another way, I'm sure most people would rather pay for 20 cataract surgeries for 20 real people than 20 notional goats
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  street wisdom (or they...) says that roughly 95% of charity/help donations go to management and delivery of those donations, and only 5% is spent on actual goods (be it medicine, blanket, food etc.) that help people. it seems a bit over-the top statement, but then you realize how massive organizations (or corporations?) like UN are, employing thousands and thousands of people in most expensive parts of the world (New York, Geneva... seriously WTF?). Here in Geneva, there are gazillions of non-profit orgs, then there are various organizations grouping those non profits and so on. Still talking about one of most expensive cities in the world. Yes, those people probably don't have private bank-levels of salary, but I know a people or two who are curently buying high-priced properties over the border in France, so they are more than OK. Friend in quite high position in Red cross hates UN with passion, stating they are useless in real crysis scenarios, just bureaucrats etc. Not sure if that's an objective statement, but there is probably at least some truth there. What I decided to do, at least for now - Amnesty International. Rather than putting bandage where bleeding, it might lead to improvement of system. And I pay directly organization of lawyers who actually try to do good stuff, not bureaucrats who travel all around the world and check some spreadsheets and do presentations. But what one poster says here is probably one of best things - directly invest into treating people, no useless middlemen who, like it or not, also need to be payed.

anon4 11y ago

Burn it and decrease inflation.

beatpanda 11y ago

I think "effective altruism" is a big part of the reason why tech workers can't be moved to give a shit about solving the extreme social problems in their own backyards, that they have in many cases exacerbated, because solving them would be "inefficient".

oliao 11y ago

Give it to the Greek Government - just kidding

bezalmighty 11y ago

The article states "Indeed, you may be able to offset a ton of CO2 for as little as $1" and also: "... If we were to use the mean rather than the median estimate, we would get a social cost of carbon of $48 per metric ton of CO2." So for every $1 spent, you can save society a cost of $48? A 4,800% social return on your money seems pretty good!