Though I disagree with some of the logistics of this comment (like paying yourself or 'earning' a car), I agree that sometimes what people need are more people,

Though I disagree with some of the logistics of this comment (like paying yourself or 'earning' a car), I agree that sometimes what people need are more people, not money or handouts or programs. There are some problems that can't be solved just by throwing money at them. Time and commitment are valuable resources as well. There are lots of people willing to donate money towards a cause. But how many would, say, foster a kid? That's a huge time commitment and an emotional commitment as well. It's also riskier on your end because you open yourself up to all the heartache that human relationships can bring. It's weird how so many commenters here seem obsessed with this utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest amount of people" approach to charity. Option A gives clean drinking water to 1000 people. Option B adds a drop in the bucket of funding for breast cancer research. Option C helps one child escape a life of violence on the streets. Who are you to look at these and try to quantity which has done the greatest good? It's one thing to compare the effectiveness of programs in achieving their own goals, it's another thing to try and rank totally different humanitarian efforts. These types of things can't be quantified.