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

211–220 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#211

Post by nemo44x »

longtimegoogler wrote: post #131
ssorallen wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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…

Agree. I think the greatest ill of our society is the death of the middle class and the widening gap between the haves and the have nots. Some suggest that taxation is the answer but maybe another answer is for companies to distribute their wealth more widely.

The middle class hasn't died at all. In fact it is larger today than ever before. It's just a bad narrative people have bought into. [1]

In essence what has happened as the upper-middle class has grown over the last 40 years. Poor, lower-middle and regular middle class percentage has shrunk to its lowest levels. We have fewer poor people than ever before. But because the upper middle class has grown so much, middle class people feel closer to poor people.

We have more well to do people than ever before. The middle class is smaller but the lower-middle and poor classes are even smaller. So people have generally moved up.

[1] https://www.aei.org/economics/the-us-middle-class-is-disappe...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#212

Post by hamburglar »

colinmhayes wrote: post #171
hamburglar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible the guy giving away the money sees something about this organization that you don't.

Or, more likely, he's not maximizing the impact of his donation.

Not only is whether or not he's maximizing the impact of his donation a call he gets to make, whether or not he even wants to maximize the impact of his donation at the cost of other considerations is a call he gets to make.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#213

Post by csharptwdec19 »

frenchy wrote: post #132
Cederfjard wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And with the added bonus that the negative effects of they got to be billionaires don't cause more problems Sorry, I’m not able to parse this sentence. Could you please rephrase?

I think the jist was that BrainInAJar believes that most people who get super rich do so, not by simply providing value, but by exploiting vulnerabilities in how society works so that they create a need for the value they are going to provide. I'm not sure how accurate of a representation this is, but it certainly appears to work that way in some places. Realtors are a really good example of this, and of course, Butl…

Comcast is my favorite example of this.

Cable originally started because people in valleys of PA and the like could not get antenna reception. So the CATV companies put up lines and started selling the service.

Sure, they were filling a 'need'. But I think when we look back at how the CATV Industry itself punishes 'piracy' there is more than a little irony. The only reason they started paying was because it was codified into law.

Also, the CATV Industry's general union-busting structure; lots of linework invovles 2-3 layers of contractor companies. By doing so, they help prevent unionizaiton (which is a thing in the Phone line side of things, their workers tend to get paid more and be happier in my experience) and also 'absolve' themselves of much of the responsibility when something goes wrong (especially in the contractor industry, that 'last layer' may not be around in 1-2 years.)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#214

Post by Xavdidtheshadow »

smattiso wrote: post #203
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

Why not "SF General Hospital"?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#215

Post by Kevin_S »

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/

Givewell.org is another great resource for identifying extremely impactful organizations.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#216

Post by alasdair_ »

anonAndOn wrote: post #197
benatkin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm OK with his name on it. It seems to be a mutually beneficial branding move. Also it's Marc Benioff. Edit: I'm more than fine with it because it makes Zuckerberg seem less special.

How is it mutually beneficial for the guy who donated the most money?

The guy who donated the most money explicitly wanted anonymity.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#217

Post by brightball »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #59
dougmccune wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Seems like that was by design.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

There’s millions of people in this country that donate anonymously.

People’s ability to agree where money should be given isn’t great. Worse so when the people who are giving the most have less say in where it goes.

In my experience, most appeals like the above tend to be driven by the idea that they would make better decisions than the philanthropist.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#218

Post by ahmedalsudani »

smattiso wrote: post #203
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

And yet, I would venture to guess he’s more satisfied than somebody trying to get his name onto a big building.

Recognizing what’s important to you and knowing that you have it is what’s actually valuable.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#219

Post by colinmhayes »

hamburglar wrote: post #212
colinmhayes wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more likely, he's not maximizing the impact of his donation.

Not only is whether or not he's maximizing the impact of his donation a call he gets to make, whether or not he even wants to maximize the impact of his donation at the cost of other considerations is a call he gets to make.

And I get to judge him for making the wrong call.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#220

Post by HenryKissinger »

smattiso wrote: post #203
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

> But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets?

Basic numbers and letters. Building 4, Building C, Building 97, Building Z, etc.

Post reply on HN