41–50 of 64 posts
I would expect there to be a lot less food insecurity if we actually knew how to solve it.
So, I can totally believe that this particular idea didn't work well. I can totally agree that we should learn from it, perhaps that people want to give $ to feed the poor only when they don't have to sit next to them, or that people on lunch break don't want to have to tackle a moral quandary just then. But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to…
These kinds of things are typically done for optics rather than any actual empathy for the vulnerable/less fortunate, It's just a failed attempt to win over the hearts of more of those consumers that can and will pay. Wealth/income inequality can only be solved by a redistribution. And such a redistribution can't rely on the same dynamics that caused the inequality in the first place. (How did these people become so…
FWIW, Raleigh has had an independent non-profit pay-what-you-can restaurant for about 16 months now: https://tableraleigh.org/about Customers have multiple options to pay and to pay-it-forward. - Pay the suggested price - At least half of the suggested price - By volunteering with us Pay it Forward - Tip to fulfill our mission - Buy a $10 token to hand out yourself in the community I suspect these may work better as…
Agreed. I am always skeptical of large corporations doing charity work. It’s never clear clear where the money is going and whether they just do it for PR. I find it easier to trust smaller organize.
So, I can totally believe that this particular idea didn't work well. I can totally agree that we should learn from it, perhaps that people want to give $ to feed the poor only when they don't have to sit next to them, or that people on lunch break don't want to have to tackle a moral quandary just then. But, the article seemed needlessly negative. So, the CEO of Panera tried something, put his business experience to…
In the U.S. a large segment of the population (100M+) is told over-and-over again that they should rely on the expertise and charity of the elite in business and politics to take care of them. Examples like this just show how naive and detached from reality that self appointed elite is and how little value their "charity" provides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer my country’s social services delivered by professionals, inefficiencies and all, over church volunteers. Inefficiencies are okay, expected even, when operating at scale. Sometimes universal availability and coverage take priority (know what you’re optimizing for). Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effec…
I really don't know why inefficiency is ok, sorry. If a system is less efficient at scale then engineering approach teaches us to modularize/split it into smaller chunks. Btw, you used "professional" word as if it's something good in itself. That's far from truth. Professional bureaucrats, and state officials quite often are directly interested in growing inefficiency because it can be exploited to expand budgets, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…
> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…
> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason it's so negative is because it already notes that prior research showed consumer responsibilization doesn't work. Shaich might see himself as good-minded, even volunteering as cashier, but he comes off more as misguided (what with his Ted Talk enthusiasm) and out of touch (note the vast gap between the customers and this man who made $2 million that year). I'm not sure why you expected some bland analytica…
Exactly. It's negative because Shaich acted without doing any research, purely trusting his "gut" about how he, a rich white man, thought food insecurity could be "solved" despite being the last person in the world who would know anything about it. It's negative because it was a waste of time and money that could have been applied much more effectively to help the problem if some research was done first instead of tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer my country’s social services delivered by professionals, inefficiencies and all, over church volunteers. Inefficiencies are okay, expected even, when operating at scale. Sometimes universal availability and coverage take priority (know what you’re optimizing for). Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effec…
I really don't know why inefficiency is ok, sorry. If a system is less efficient at scale then engineering approach teaches us to modularize/split it into smaller chunks. Btw, you used "professional" word as if it's something good in itself. That's far from truth. Professional bureaucrats, and state officials quite often are directly interested in growing inefficiency because it can be exploited to expand budgets, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Your original comment said: > When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local…
Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.