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

The Moral Order of Panera

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#51

Post by wDcBKgt66V8WDs »

rossdavidh wrote: post #8

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…

I think the point the article was trying to make was that what the CEO tried is classically delusioned thought processes from a rich privileged person. His business experience was not applicable to the situation but he thought it was. And it's people like him, and his broader political views, that are stymieing the things that have been shown to work.

It's negative because it's tiresome. Will these people ever realize that their time, money, and lobbying are better put towards programs that work?

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#52

Post by TimTheTinker »

scarface74 wrote: post #47
TimTheTinker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As far as churches, I’ve seen a number of places that 70% of the church’s budget goes to keeping the church afloat. https://get.tithe.ly/blog/church-wasting-money

That sounds reasonable to me, as long as donations can be specifically earmarked for helping needy people or charity work.

Paying a pastor a median wage (if he’s full time—many have a job besides pastoring), having a building to meet in, and helping needy people in the church adds up quickly. For small and/or rural congregations, that might be most or all of what they can manage.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#53

Post by [deleted] »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #6
panarky wrote: post #4

We all collectively benefit when children get a good education, when everyone has fast and safe transportation, when everyone has enough nutritious food, and when healthcare is available to all. These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem I will gladly pay my share to secure these social goods, but I won't shoulde…

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of charities and churches — where many people can (and do) give generously to help others. When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. I challenge anyone who cares about the poor and wants to make a big difference to give to, volunteer at…

[deleted]

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#54

Post by panarky »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10
TimTheTinker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These collective goods must be paid for collectively, or the free-rider problem guarantees failure. That’s close to the truth, but it ignores the efficacy of charities and churches — where many people can (and do) give generously to help others. When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. I challenge anyone who cares about the poor and wants to make a big difference to give to, volunteer at…

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…

When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church.

Why should people who need help have to contend with this?

Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#55

Post by smadge »

rossdavidh wrote: post #8

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…

This article isn’t a criticism of the CEO of Panera, per se, it is a criticism of conscious capitalism and libertarian ideology trying to solve collective problems with individual actions, that the marketplace is the proper place to express our morality.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#56

Post by TimTheTinker »

panarky wrote: post #54
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

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…

When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church. Why should people who need help have to contend with this? Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

> When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church.

You might as well say God has an ulterior motive for providing for our needs - that we would come to know and love him. The two statements are analogous.

It’s true, churches that truly love people and believe the Bible will want people to be saved through belief in Jesus. Hell is so bad, nothing could be more unloving than to not care about people’s souls and offer them the gospel.

To be clear, the assumption that non-Christians are going to hell is not because of any moral superiority. All deserve hell, including Christians, because all have sinned. But free forgiveness is offered. It’s like a flag being waved over a well in the desert by a once-thirsty man who has found water. The statement “I’ve found water” or the assumption that we’re all in a desert carries no overtone of personal superiority.

At the same time, if people need help but don’t want to hear anything, fine. That is no reason to turn them away or treat them less favorably in charity/outreach.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#57

Post by freshm087 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #49
freshm087 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Saying you prefer a welfare state provided by "professionals" does not necessary mean bureaucrats. It also includes things like social workers who have undergone rigorous training to better deal with the mentally ill, those suffering from addiction, and vulnerable minorities. A church or charity worker, no matter how well-meaning they might be, does not necessarily have those skills.

I agree it also includes some usefully prepared people, nevertheless no state welfare program exists without bureacrats.

Also, preparedness/trainings are not exclusive feature of gov't system. I know what I'm saying here because I volunteered in private charity (not in US, so American mileage may vary), and I dare to say people who worked there were more competent then relevant state officials, at least target group always preferred them.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#58

Post by freshm087 »

skybrian wrote: post #32
freshm087 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends what it is. The government is efficient at sending people checks and retail stores like Walmart are efficient places to buy things. It's hard to see how to do much better for supplying people with new stuff. On the other hand, thrift stores also have an important role for getting used stuff like clothing to people who need it, and charities do some of that. Then there are various services that charities do…

I agree that gov't is relatively good at sending checks (except in some economic circumstances, e.g. when the currency it prints is no more in demand - like in Venezuela, or late USSR). However it doesn't necessary make a particular welfare program efficient in general. Maybe recipients are poorly determined (which happens more often with larger programs), or sending checks is not the best idea at all.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#59

Post by freshm087 »

mikestew wrote: post #50
freshm087 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You...”doubt it”? I guess the issue is settled, then. I’ll take it that the underlying argument is “government bad, private good”. It doesn’t really contribute anything, but at least we can guess at the reasoning.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments. But you are welcome to present some sarcasm instead, even if very general.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#60

Post by mikestew »

freshm087 wrote: post #59
mikestew wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You...”doubt it”? I guess the issue is settled, then. I’ll take it that the underlying argument is “government bad, private good”. It doesn’t really contribute anything, but at least we can guess at the reasoning.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments. But you are welcome to present some sarcasm instead, even if very general.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments.

Present an argue against what? “Is not!” doesn’t give a lot to work with. “Doubt it” does a fine job of presenting one’s biases, but it is most certainly not an invitation to stimulating discussion, quite the opposite.

Post reply on HN