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

Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#141

Post by newsclues »

beefield wrote: post #85

Okay, I think I have some weird blind spot here. I have really hard time understanding the reasoning behind philanthropy being a societal good that should be subsidized by taxpayers. Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that . And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if…

Charity should fill the gap left by the government services and the market. (Government food stamps, charity soup kitchens, grocery stores)

But charity became its own distorted industry.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#142

Post by axlee »

BobbyJo wrote: post #138
suture wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.

> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale. I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely? The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit pe…

> The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem.

This is definitely not an ideological and dogmatic statement obscuring centuries of experience across hundreds of government systems, oh no-no-no. Government is bad at everything, get it?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#143

Post by s1artibartfast »

analog31 wrote: post #43
s1artibartfast wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite for the same reasons. I think charitable donations are far better than taxes because the donors get to direct where the money goes and have say over its use. Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met. I also…

I've thought about this in the context of charities, since the US is a highly charitable country, with popular distrust of the government, yet is relatively impoverished compared to some other advanced countries. From the viewpoint of the beneficiaries of charity, who I presume are the poor, do they tend to be better off in countries where they are heavily supported by private charity, or in countries where taxes pay…

I think this is a faulty premise. The US is actually quite heavily taxed, at a level greater than most of the OECD and many European countries, Especially in nominal dollars collected, but also as a percent of GDP, or when adjusting for local costs (PPP).

In the US, when you add federal, state, and local revenue, about $8.3 trillion dollars are collected in taxes and fees. The GDP of the US is $20 trillion, so 40% of every dollar produced goes to the government.

This is about $25,000 of tax per person, or $32,000 if you only count adults.

My personal thought is that the main difference between the US and countries with generous public institutions is not the amount of tax revenue collected, but the percent of that revenue effectively spent on said institutions.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#144

Post by concordDance »

barry-cotter wrote: post #114
concordDance wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidize things with positive externalities (e.g. territorial defence) and tax things with negative ones (e.g. industrial processes that pollute the air). In this case the donor gets his entertainment and good feelings and as a positive externality a child doesn't get malaria.

> tax things with negative ones Graduate degrees, pollution, loud cars/motorcycles, ugly buildings, mountain climbing, alcohol, marijuana, fashion magazines. So many possibilities.

I get 2, 3 and 4. A bit unsure how the logic works for the others? Mountain climbing could cause damage to the mountain I suppose...

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#145

Post by raspberry1337 »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #98
krageon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze…

I guess what I really care about is "how much good does my donated dollar do?". Compare a dollar donated to expensive cancer research in the west with a dollar spent on cheap treatments which we already know to work in a developing country. How much of my dollar goes to CEO and staff pay is part of the calculation, but not the only part. The Effective Altruism movement aims to direct money towards these activities wi…

The first thing that website shows is a TED talk, how ironic.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#146

Post by sokoloff »

throw__away7391 wrote: post #132
krageon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze…

I worked for several different charities for a few years. Supposedly "good ones", a couple of big names. After what I have seen I don't think I'd ever donate to a charity. The CEO's pay is almost the least concern, everything runs according to the whims of people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in a for-profit business. The people donating just want to feel good about themselves or get some positive press for donating. T…

I still donate to several causes, and take a slightly different view on the expenses associated with fundraising. No one objects when for-profit businesses spend right up to the microeconomic theoretical optimal point where the marginal profit is zero. Yet we seem to object when charities do it.

If I ran a charity and had an exclusive choice to either spend $X to raise $Y or spend ($X + $0.99M) to raise ($Y + $1.00M), why wouldn't I choose the latter, assuming the charity has a use for the additional net $10K?

Having friends working in charities, it was eye-opening to see the divide between "development" and "programming" in charities. Development (fundraising) rarely struggled for money, so long as they could show a positive RoI. Programming (the actual, intended work of the charity) got whatever was left over, but that seems like the natural and intended way to run a charity.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#147

Post by sokoloff »

mschuster91 wrote: post #117
zozbot234 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But of course there is a reason. A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Small-scale philanthropy thus has a key role to play here. Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's…

> A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Of course it has: pissed-off voters . Mismanaged government-funded institutions such as DMVs or social security systems are a regular troublemaker for politicians.

Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#148

Post by suture »

maccard wrote: post #137
suture wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.

I'm definitely in the pro-government-involvement camp but > There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. This is just false. Literally right now we have the case where food banks are filling in the gaps of the UK government at a national scale.

Remove UK government support for food for the poor. This includes school lunches and whatnot. Will the charities be able to fill the need? The answer is no. Charities can fill gaps but not beyond that.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#149

Post by mattferderer »

croon wrote: post #97
krageon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze…

Use some comparison service to get some insight into how the money is distributed and pick one with the most impact: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/

Please be careful using these services. They show you high level data & many times do more harm than good due to misinterpretations.

Working with many non-profits, they're very careful to keep expenses below a certain percentage of their donations. Otherwise sites likes these cause them to lose donations.

Unfortunately this results in low salaries for employees which means the employees gain skills but can't afford to keep working there. The non-profit loses talent they helped build.

I know of some non-profits who have gotten around this by creating a 2nd non-profit where they receive donations just for business & administrative costs. Than use their 1st non-profit to say 100% of donations goes to our causes.

In reality, you should get to know your non-profits. Volunteer & help them out. Then you'll have a better understanding of how they use their money. Sometimes those high administrative costs result in a lot of value being achieved, even if the percentages don't look great.

Personally I'm a huge fan of a lot of community non-profits like local YMCA's if anyone is looking for a good place to start. I also tend to work with other small, local non-profits.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#150

Post by suture »

BobbyJo wrote: post #138
suture wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.

> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale. I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely? The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit pe…

Efficiency at solving the problem at scale. What good does it do to have the most efficient system in terms benefit per dollar spent if it helps only a few people? Government is the most efficient at providing help at scale. For example helping Ukraine defeat Putin requires government and not charity. Want clean water across the country? Need government intervention. Want to provide universal healthcare? Need government intervention. Want everyone to read and write? Need government intervention. Charity is not sufficient to provide the needs of the populace. For one thing, relying on charities quickly runs into the free rider problem.
Post reply on HN