Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#91

Post by lapetitejort »

zozbot234 wrote: post #36
hogFeast wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also donate your time.

Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally-relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.

I would say the best place where everyone could donate time effectively would be a mentorship program like the Boys and Girls club. Having a positive role model, even just hanging around doing "boring" stuff, makes a huge difference at a young age [0]. One day I'll psyche myself up to actually being a mentor.

[0] https://youth.gov/youth-topics/mentoring/benefits-mentoring-...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#93

Post by nitrogen »

mulmen wrote: post #46
zozbot234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally-relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.

I disagree. I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about what other people have done. Just what I can do. Just working in a food bank or picking up roadside trash on a weekend. It doesn't take much.

I think their point is similar to the one from this article: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-f...

Basically if you make a high tier engineer's salary, you could do more utilitarian good by hiring several people to work at a food bank on the weekends. Roadside trash pickup is an example of a problem in need of a systemic solution, so if you can reduce litter in the first place, or build a machine that cleans everything, you might be doing more good that way, even though it doesn't look or feel as "noble".

But others have pointed out that it is useful to donate your time if you are giving your skills, and not just effort.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#94

Post by read_if_gay_ »

yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

That point about cost effectiveness is what always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when donating. I didn't realize people put lists of recommendations together, that's nice to see.

But how would you go about verifying any stated claims?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#95

Post by [deleted] »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #68
bena wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the people get to choose?

One of the reasons that private charity is somewhat looked down upon in certain countries with a robust welfare state is that historically, private charities were selective in whom they helped. If the private charity felt that your "lifestyle" (i.e. you were a mother out of wedlock, you were LGBT) or ethnicity was objectionable, you were just left to suffer. Or those private charities would assist you, but you were o…

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#96

Post by guerrilla »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #68
bena wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the people get to choose?

One of the reasons that private charity is somewhat looked down upon in certain countries with a robust welfare state is that historically, private charities were selective in whom they helped. If the private charity felt that your "lifestyle" (i.e. you were a mother out of wedlock, you were LGBT) or ethnicity was objectionable, you were just left to suffer. Or those private charities would assist you, but you were o…

That and the fact that such charity systems are demonstrably less efficient than welfare. It seems that many of people just want to ignore that evidence though and continue to scaremonger.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#97

Post by JackFr »

dangus wrote: post #63
raiyu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government has such a great track record of collecting tax revenue and then investing it where it is appropriate? Questions can be raised about some of his specific donations, but when someone gives away $8B of his wealth, spending nearly none on himself, does it globally, influences other billionaires to do the same, picking at any one of his specific donations seems counter productive. Yes Cornell is an…

My argument is that a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be controlled by one person has already failed. The US government is actually really impressively good in a lot of areas, and I personally get fatigued of the oft-repeated notion that government “can’t possibly work” or that they “can’t possibly spend tax dollars responsibly.”

> a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be controlled by one person has already failed

I think you have little appreciation of how wealth is created.

Jeff Bezos became the wealthiest person in the world neither by stealing or exploiting , but rather by improving peoples lives. Amazon was able to organize systems, take advantage of technological developments and put capital to work to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of consumers.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#98

Post by Cederfjard »

guerrilla wrote: post #84
chadrs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.

There'd be less need for such trust if there were more democracy [1] as well. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

It also depends on how much you trust the electorate. Recent developments around the world have shaken my faith a bit.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#99

Post by bby »

yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

why stop there? I think even as high as 50% is fine given that most people here are in tech.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#100

Post by ssorallen »

dangus wrote: post #15

Some questions lingered in the back of my mind after I read this article: - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? Is their healthcare fully covered? Do they have generous paid time off and access to higher education for themselves and their children? Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place? - Does this dude realize how difficult it is…

> - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make?

I have similar thoughts when I hear about the philanthropy of the mega wealthy. Instead of a single person like Chuck Feeney or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates amassing ungodly amounts of wealth and then later choosing how to distribute it, why couldn't the companies they built have made 1,000 or 10,000 or X other people relatively rich instead of one man mega rich?

Post reply on HN