|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "The way we think about charity is dead wrong"
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In this TED talk, social entrepreneur Dan Pallotta blames the Puritans for impoverishing charities by separating giving from capitalism to assuage their guilt at making money, argues the case for relatively large amounts of donations going on "overhead" (including, for instance, non-direct aid such as long-term research, and fundraising), and seeks to put nonprofit organisations on the same footing as companies (enabling them, for instance, to attract better talent by paying top executives more, and get risk capital).
I find it hard to counter his economic arguments (a large, well-organised fundraiser may be more efficient in terms of donations brought in than a local bake sale, thus increasing the total size of the pie available to fund the cause), but I'm disquieted by his apparent assmuption that giving money is an appropriate and acceptable substitute for doing the charitable work oneself and that bigger is necessarily better.
Is the way we think about charity dead wrong?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
There are two differences between the charity and a company that make me uneasy about some of the argument.
1) The goal of a company is to make money. If they can get away with doing less for more good on them (ish)
2) We give to a company because we know they have what they need. We give to a charity because they don't.
This gives some odd incentives. I'm sure at one point most of the paid people have thought 'wouldn't it be awful if we solved X'. Just by the nature of the thing (I know in similar cases, similar thoughts cross my head).
And if the business thing gets increased then onm the balance sheet the actual charity stuff (including research) is an expense without real benefit.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Well, there are charities and charities, and then there is charity.
I give to a medical charity working on the front line because (a) the work they do is vital (read ebola) and (b) I can't go out to wherever because I don't have appropriate qualifications and I'm far too old!
Ssome small, local charities, which make a real difference locally, are entirely run by volunteers, and in no way could be called a business. there are probably hundreds of those.
Then there is charity, which we are all called upon to practice, as Christians, defined, I think by "love your neighbour as yourself". that doesn't necessarily involve money, though it may do, but almost certainly involves action and a "Christian charity" frame of mind.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Doing the charity work ourselves often does us as much good as the recipients.
My friend works on a soup run for the homeless, she clearly loves the work. It gives her purpose and a reason to get up in the morning.
I do puppy raising for Guide Dogs. I love the work - which is not easy at times! It's also wonderful to meet the people who benefit and gain their independence from owning guide dogs. Some of their stories are truly heart breaking/warming. Last week I met a 19 year old student who had been a prisoner in her student flat every weekend Friday to Tuesday and can now get out and about whenever she wants.
But giving money matters too imo, especially for charities where specialist skills are needed. It's very important to do your research and be sure the money gets where it's supposed to.
I don't give any money to Church ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) as they tend to spend it on evangelism, which I think is a waste of time and money. But I do give a lot of my income to a variety of charities.
(I becaue I feel rather guilty about giving nothing but time to Church - maybe I shouldn't feel that way, but I do)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
When I give to a charity, I want the money to be spent on the cause. Our office held weekly raffles raising money to 'buy a brick' for a young people's hospice, over a few years. We were shocked when we read that the hospice would not be built, as the money had all been given as salary to a fundraiser who never raised enough to build it!
Yes, some administrative costs are inevitable, but these should be kept to a minimum. I hate the idea of running a charity like a business, as the accumulation of money is likely to become the main aim. I don't give to charities who have used their donations to put adverts on the TV, or to send me pens and bookmarks.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Then there is charity, which we are all called upon to practice, as Christians, defined, I think by "love your neighbour as yourself". that doesn't necessarily involve money, though it may do, but almost certainly involves action and a "Christian charity" frame of mind.
This use for the word 'Charity' is little used these days. But I would translate it as 'kindness'. If kindness is our motivation then we are half way there imo (The second half involves a mixture of wisdom, energy and common sense!)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
I know! I was being clever and linking it with 'charities' (sigh)! But an awful lot of people know the quotation as 'Faith, hope and charity'. The AV refuses to die!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
FWIW, I thought it was a good insight. Indeed, it was part of my thinking in the OP that our own expression of charity cannot be replaced by our giving money. I like to think I do a lot of the former, but I do none of the latter.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm disquieted by his apparent assmuption that giving money is an appropriate and acceptable substitute for doing the charitable work oneself and that bigger is necessarily better.
I hope that there's room for monetary donations - otherwise groups like MSF would be screwed.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Of course there is always room for a purely financial donation, especially given the technical nature of the kind of help delivered by MSF.
But I still have a sense of unease about making the leap from that to seeing charity operations purely in financial and economic terms, which is the feeling I got from this video.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I know! I was being clever and linking it with 'charities' (sigh)! But an awful lot of people know the quotation as 'Faith, hope and charity'. The AV refuses to die!
One who cannot resist putting his 2d in writes:
A fine example of how limited is the English language. The 'love' here is from caritas, the specifically caring form of love.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I question the whole notion of charity - is is plastering over cracks when, instead, we need to get to the root causes of those cracks - that requires political action.
I would hate the charity I work for to be in the hands of politicians!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I question the whole notion of charity - is is plastering over cracks when, instead, we need to get to the root causes of those cracks - that requires political action.
Yes ... but some people need help now and can't wait years for the political process to kick in. It's both/and, not either/or.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I question the whole notion of charity - is is plastering over cracks when, instead, we need to get to the root causes of those cracks - that requires political action.
There's nothing to prevent charities campaigning for political change. It's one of their purposes.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there is always room for a purely financial donation, especially given the technical nature of the kind of help delivered by MSF.
But I still have a sense of unease about making the leap from that to seeing charity operations purely in financial and economic terms, which is the feeling I got from this video.
I got the feeling from this: quote:
... our own expression of charity cannot be replaced by our giving money. I like to think I do a lot of the former, but I do none of the latter.
that you considered financial donations to be much inferior in some way (quite apart from your reservations about the specific opinions in the video.)
Would you elaborate? I'd be interested to hear reasons for drawing distinctions between the two forms of charity. I imagine they'd have to do with some notion of the different effects on (and perhaps meanings for) the recipients, givers, and society in general.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
that you considered financial donations to be much inferior in some way (...)
Would you elaborate? I'd be interested to hear reasons for drawing distinctions between the two forms of charity. I imagine they'd have to do with some notion of the different effects on (and perhaps meanings for) the recipients, givers, and society in general.
There's a personal aspect to this for me.
After previously having given massively and sacrificially for several years, I tend not to give financially because of past trauma within and at the hands of nonprofit organisations. Simply put, I feel sufficiently ripped off by mission organisations for it to dampen my financial generosity considerably. But that's just me. These days, I rationalise my miserliness in this respect by looking at all the pro bono hours I put into chaplaincy (for instance) and the resulting loss of earnings.
Less personally, as I said while I think the video presents economically compelling arguments, I think the economic components of large nonprofit organisations are poorly understood and they demotivate me. (For instance, I hear a good way to get rich in Africa with the onset of any humanitarian disaster is to get one's hands on a 4x4 and rent it out to aid agencies. This kind of thing makes my head hurt).
All that said, I am under no illusions that within the direct charity work I do, there is a huge amount of secondary benefit for me which I wouldn't get by simply writing a cheque, which I suppose kind of offsets any virtue there might be in doing it.
I find non-guilt-induced giving and stewardship a real headache.
[ 07. December 2014, 16:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I sympathize with your concerns about large non-profits. I've recently been trying to decide whether to continue to give to the American Red Cross; they've come in for some pretty harsh criticism lately.
When you say direct charity gives you a "secondary benefit" that offsets virtue, what did you have in mind? And in what ways does giving induce guilt?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
When you say direct charity gives you a "secondary benefit" that offsets virtue, what did you have in mind?
Simply put, as Boogie has related upthread, you feel good about doing good.
There's nothing wrong with that, but one needs to be clear-headed about it. Anyone who thinks that prison chaplaincy is going to be a life fraught with sacrifice, danger, frustration, and emotional exhaustion and nothing good - or more importantly, depicts it as such - is not lucid about their real motivations which are at best mixed in that it's also tremendously fulfilling. quote:
And in what ways does giving induce guilt?
It's not so much giving that induces guilt as the methods used to induce giving!
[ETA it was a discussion on the Red Cross elsewhere that led me to the above video]
[ 07. December 2014, 18:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It may be a cultural thing, but having watched the TED talk, and I can't think of many things I've disagreed so completely with. It seems to me that underneath his slick arguments, what he's advocating is that secular charities should model themselves on the worst tele-evangelists.
IMHO, what he's saying is so fundamentally wrong headed and spirited, that I'm not sure I could properly be friends with someone who thinks he is right.
If I discovered a charity I supported was upping the proportion of its donations that it spent on overheads, and big salaries for its key managers, I'd stop giving to it. It's turning a charity into something like a privately run hospital or old peoples' home. There are plenty of those, and and I don't believe any of them manages to get any proper balance between their profit and the care they are supposed to provide.
His understanding of Puritanism is also tosh.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I question the whole notion of charity - is is plastering over cracks when, instead, we need to get to the root causes of those cracks - that requires political action.
There's nothing to prevent charities campaigning for political change. It's one of their purposes.
There is in Canada. And it is severe. It's been in the news on and off. Even if a charity sticks to the recent Conservative government rule of no more than 10% spending on political advocacy, they expose themselves to the Canada Revenue Agency's (the gov't tax authority) attention which can and does use their very onerous audits to instil fear of being auditted and thus prevent charities from saying or doing anything political whatsoever.
They are currently focussed on charities saying anything negative about tar sand oil and related pipelines. The transparent purpose of this is of course is to control information and public opinion, which is also why they completely gagged scientists doing any work for the gov't from ever talking to the media. Corporations on the other hand hire lobbyists and deduct the costs from their already low taxable income.
[ 07. December 2014, 20:27: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Canucklehead
Shipmate
# 1595
|
Posted
Speaking for myself, I would prefer not to see any of the charities I'm involved with get too wrapped up in political campaigning. If I want to affect political change then I would rather do it through other channels, but if I'm supporting a relief agency then I want to see my contributions going toward the relief they provide, not towards political campaigning.
As for the topic of the OP, I'm not enamoured with the idea of charitable organizations being run like for-profit companies. Although I think I can see the validity of the argument being made, I don't think it's been thought all the way through.
Posts: 135 | From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
In relation to NP's post re the present Canadian gov't, I note that the present incumbent and many of his close circle are members of the kind of church that says that the poor choose to be that way, so there is no obligation to help them.
What little positive action previous governments have taken may be discussed in the light of the fact that the last six PMs were RC, while Pearson was brought up UCC and Diefenbaker was a Baptist who had lived in Depression-era Saskatchewan, as did Tommy Douglas.
Either we are far enough away from the Depression and wars that we have forgotten what we have learned, or the American-influenced churches have been successful at imposing a GOP-style mindset on the present gang.
Or both.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
I feel pretty half-and-half about the thrust of the TED talk. I recognise that any organisation has overheads, and these include publicity and salaries. Occasionally charities ask if you want to earmark to a particular cause, or just to general funds. We always give to general funds on the basis that most people want to see their money going directly to the cause, and we can understand that there is more to aid or charity organisations than simply whats at the other end.
On the other hand the idea that someone can make a lot of money out of other people's generosity feels a bit yucky. I feel a bit ambiguous about all this.
Im am a member of an organisation which claims that 100% of the funds raised goes to the intended recipient. This is almost true. There are some bank charges, but all the board members are rich enough to be unpaid for the time they put in, and it is reltively small-scale - 100,000 Euro p.a. roughly.
I tend not to give to medical charities because I believe this is, or should be, a concern of the government. Also I hate being guilt-tripped into buying in to the latest big thing in charity. Or the thing that everybody is supposed to give to (like poppy appeal).
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Instinctively, I'm disgusted by charity execs pulling six-figure salaries, but as a pragmatist, I can stomach it if, and only if, the returns justify the outlay, and the extra money is spent wisely.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I've now watched the video and read up a bit on Dan Pallotta and his now-defunct company, Pallotta TeamWorks.
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that it's possible to focus too hard on low overhead ratios; as he notes, flyers in laundromats are low overhead advertising, but also not particularly effective.
At the same time there's something a bit irritating about hearing a guy go on and on about how "we" have to change "our" views on charitable giving to be more profit-oriented, when his for-profit company went down in flames after key clients pulled their business. He sees this evidence of other people's failure to see the objective superiority of his new paradigm, but it could also be seen as just another case of an entrepreneurial hopeful failing to understand the values and satisfy the desires of his customers. He can bitch and moan about how those values and desires should be different, but I suspect all the TED talks in the world aren't going to make a difference.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
Speaking for myself, I would prefer not to see any of the charities I'm involved with get too wrapped up in political campaigning. If I want to affect political change then I would rather do it through other channels, but if I'm supporting a relief agency then I want to see my contributions going toward the relief they provide, not towards political campaigning. ...
That's a common point of view which puts those charities in the position of always treating symptoms but never the cause; or picking up the pieces, rather than keeping things from getting broken in the first place. So money gets poured into whatever, but nothing ever changes. Eventually, there's donor fatigue and accusations that those charities don't really want to solve the problem, because they're more interested in sustaining themselves indefinitely.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
Speaking for myself, I would prefer not to see any of the charities I'm involved with get too wrapped up in political campaigning. If I want to affect political change then I would rather do it through other channels, but if I'm supporting a relief agency then I want to see my contributions going toward the relief they provide, not towards political campaigning.
Some charities relieve suffering directly, eg by flying medical staff into war zones or getting food supplies into places where the infrastructure has failed, while others are openly campaigning organisations. So long as charities stay within the terms of their letters of association (or whatever they are called), as do limited companies, I don't see why they should be constrained.
quote:
As for the topic of the OP, I'm not enamoured with the idea of charitable organizations being run like for-profit companies. Although I think I can see the validity of the argument being made, I don't think it's been thought all the way through.
If a charity can become more effective and more efficient as a consequence of being run in that way I don't see a problem. I'm sure it helps some charity's more than others but it's a matter for the charity's trustees, as in so many areas.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Instinctively, I'm disgusted by charity execs pulling six-figure salaries, but as a pragmatist, I can stomach it if, and only if, the returns justify the outlay, and the extra money is spent wisely.
We're told that executives in the private sector are worth those six and seven and eight figure salaries (plus expenses, bonuses, stock options, etc.) because that's what it takes to get the best people. Should charities hire crappy people because they're cheaper? Or are talented people expected to work for less because it's a good cause? What does that say about how we value the work they do?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Boogie - totally get the reluctance to give to church when you're uncomfortable with evangelism, but unless your church is in a modern building they're most likely spending most of the money on upkeep of the building. Heating and lighting traditional church buildings is incredibly expensive - personally I give to church to help support that, having been in churches whose heating has failed. It's not fun!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
We're told that executives in the private sector are worth those six and seven and eight figure salaries (plus expenses, bonuses, stock options, etc.) because that's what it takes to get the best people. Should charities hire crappy people because they're cheaper? Or are talented people expected to work for less because it's a good cause? What does that say about how we value the work they do?
Ideally, hell yeah they should work for less, it's a charity, not a business. Folk volunteer their time and effort by the thousands, it's not asking a lot for an exec to take home a modest salary.
Realistically, many execs don't think like that and never will, high salaries may be justified if they're as good as they claim, and get results. Better a charity has $10,000,000 and shells out a million of that on salaries than it has $1,000,000 earned by righteous execs.
What's intolerable is crappy execs still pulling in the big bucks. High salaries must be tied to high expectations.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Execs at artsy non-profits get six-figure salaries for the same reason - their expertise is valued. It's only the folks working at charities serving the poor who are supposed to be satisfied with mediocre pay.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
A major part of the problem is the mindset that equates salary and worth. It's not even simple greed: folk really believe their measure is represented by how much they pull in each month.
So long as it continues (and it ain't going anywhere soon), scrutinizing performance and demanding a lot for the cash seems the best compromise.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Ideally, hell yeah they should work for less, it's a charity, not a business. Folk volunteer their time and effort by the thousands, it's not asking a lot for an exec to take home a modest salary.
It is in fact a lot to ask. Volunteers aren't depending on that work for their livelihoods; employees are. How much money you make deeply affects just about every aspect of someone's life.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Sure, but we're talking six-figure exec pay, not subsistence wages. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If someone wants to rake in the green, fine, go into business and knock yourself out. If they go into charity, it's not too much to ask that they be motivated by a vocation to do good, not to do good at six figures.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I've heard the "we need a high salary to get the best execs" argument many times, and I can't help wondering whether anybody, seriously, is that good. Profit or nonprofit. I really don't think so.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
In relation to NP's post re the present Canadian gov't, I note that the present incumbent and many of his close circle are members of the kind of church that says that the poor choose to be that way, so there is no obligation to help them.
This is significant. The message that the religious right has been doling out since at least 1980 in this country, at least, is that the poor should be taken care of by private charity rather than by the government. They have now changed their rhetoric to say that the poor shouldn't be taken care of at all because they deserve whatever they get.
Next logical step would to call for rounding up the poor and putting them into labor camps. I'm just cynical enough to believe them capable of calling for this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
In relation to NP's post re the present Canadian gov't, I note that the present incumbent and many of his close circle are members of the kind of church that says that the poor choose to be that way, so there is no obligation to help them.
This is significant. The message that the religious right has been doling out since at least 1980 in this country, at least, is that the poor should be taken care of by private charity rather than by the government. They have now changed their rhetoric to say that the poor shouldn't be taken care of at all because they deserve whatever they get.
Next logical step would to call for rounding up the poor and putting them into labor camps. I'm just cynical enough to believe them capable of calling for this.
Maybe my irony detectors are misfiring but I am sure industrialisation did just that two hundred years ago.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Next logical step would to call for rounding up the poor and putting them into labor camps. I'm just cynical enough to believe them capable of calling for this.
Maybe my irony detectors are misfiring but I am sure industrialisation did just that two hundred years ago.
Then it failed because there are millions of poor people not in camps at this very moment.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Sure, but we're talking six-figure exec pay, not subsistence wages.
If someone wants to rake in the green, fine, go into business and knock yourself out. If they go into charity, it's not too much to ask that they be motivated by a vocation to do good, not to do good at six figures.
But why should we ask this of them? They can't just want to do good, they have to take oath of - well, not poverty, but of never making more than, say, an associate professor of accounting? Just how little should they be allowed to earn? And should everyone working for a charity get paid less than they could get elsewhere?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
One small charity that I support covers its overheads by means of supporters subscribing as members. Anything I give on top of that goes completely to the charitable purpose. That means I know exactly how much of what I give goes to overheads.
It is a small charity and I don't know if the approach would scale, but it's an approach I like.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
We're told that executives in the private sector are worth those six and seven and eight figure salaries (plus expenses, bonuses, stock options, etc.) because that's what it takes to get the best people. Should charities hire crappy people because they're cheaper? Or are talented people expected to work for less because it's a good cause? What does that say about how we value the work they do?
That's part of the ugliness.
It's ugly enough when Mr Corp 'deserves' his pay rise for his skill at keeping everyone elses wages low (or otherwise expecting his workers to bail him out). But you can vaguely argue that the workers could move or the business should fail if he misjudges it,
But when it's the government, public-good sector and charities. It's not just taking advantage of apathy and misplaced loyalty. It's exploitation of other peoples commitment and basically using the target of the operation as a hostage.
Or in other words making Talented people work for less is what their asking of all their staff (and very slightly less of everyone else).
[ 08. December 2014, 07:16: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've heard the "we need a high salary to get the best execs" argument many times, and I can't help wondering whether anybody, seriously, is that good. Profit or nonprofit. I really don't think so.
I couldn't agree more. They don't get the 'best' they get the greediest - the banking crisis proved that.
Let them be 'head hunted' I say - there are queues and queues of people just as good right behind them.
Blaming the poor for being poor is pervasive through all society imo. It's very, very hard to get out of poverty - and it's not about lack of ability or motivation - it's about lack of cash!
This article puts it well.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
We're told that executives in the private sector are worth those six and seven and eight figure salaries (plus expenses, bonuses, stock options, etc.) because that's what it takes to get the best people.
That's what we're told by the executives. If they're worth that much money they must be right.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I question the whole notion of charity - is is plastering over cracks when, instead, we need to get to the root causes of those cracks - that requires political action.
I would hate the charity I work for to be in the hands of politicians!
Don't equate 'political action' with politicians'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The corporate model is trying to take over everything isn't it? I get really cranky with the phrase "giving back to the community". Which generally applies to rich people who've come to ponder their own mortality (during their midlife crisis) after exploiting the community as much they possibly could. And they don't really give anything that costs them. They get their name on the donor plaque wall and eat their $500 a plate banquet meal while listening to other temporarily thoughtful giver-backers talk about their thoughtfulness.
I personally support MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières, Doctors Without Borders) with money both through my companies and personally. With my time, the therapy dog program in the province, for which I'm a certified assessor of candidate therapy teams (handler + dog).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Because importing those corporate models of leadership into church leadership the last few decades has worked out so well, right? (shudder)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
The flaw in this argument, IMO, is that a culture that encourages people to pursue wealth as a driving goal for their lives is not generally a culture that encourages people to give to others as a central goal of their lives. Obviously, there are some famous, wealthy philanthropists, but on the whole people in western societies consume gross amounts and only give marginal amounts to charity. Of contrast is the widow who gave 'all that she had'. What is it that produces true altruism?
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
But why should we ask this of them? They can't just want to do good, they have to take oath of - well, not poverty, but of never making more than, say, an associate professor of accounting? Just how little should they be allowed to earn? And should everyone working for a charity get paid less than they could get elsewhere?
Every red cent a charity exec pockets is taken from the charity's goal. It doesn't even stop at six-figure salaries: most hospitals are non-profit, yet members of the board can rake in million dollar salaries while patients are beggared and bankrupted by medical bills.
Do I think charities are a vocation? Yes. Do I think a vocation's compatible with driving around in a new Lexus? Sure, if it's not at the cost of the folk you're supposed to be helping. Am I pragmatic enough to accept the world doesn't work that way? Sure, but doesn't mean I have to like it, or stop trying to nudge it a bit in the right direction.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
