Holiday Myths: Giving to Charity

[The_Q]

'Tis the season for weight gain, party music, drunken slobs, gift giving (and receiving, you can't forget receiving), and most of all, the sense of charity that encompases all of us who believe in doing good for the common man.

Which is why I decided to make this thread. Like many holiday traditions, the tradition of holiday charities is all mixed up with morality and contains only small fragments of logic. The worst case scenario of these mxed up holiday customs is giving to charity.

Charity is a great idea that went the way of stupidity. For one thing, there are way too many kinds of charities that just don't work out well, but only three can really be discussed here. These three would happen to be Abstinence, Donation, and Volunteer. All three of these are very common forms of charity that just work out better if they are performed less frequently.

The worst logic in all of these would have to be Abstinence. In Abstinence you abstain from participating in certain activities (buying a turkey) so that the prices of that activity drop enough for the poor to participate in it in your own stead. The sad part about this is that the person who participates in Abstinence is obviously not thinking about the people who do NOT participate in Abstinence. These people just see lower prices and jump on them, just like good consumers do, and end up making the prices remain constant. In order for Abstinence to work, all consumers must participate in it. Thankfully, this doesn't happen. The most horrid part of this method is that the participant automatically assumes that the poor want to have a turkey but can't because they all can't afford it. This is what they base their price drop scheme on (that the poor need lower prices in order to buy things). In actuallity, the best method that looks only slightly similar to Abstinance but is infinately more simple than coordinating a mass boycott. Raising the price beyond that which a consumer above poverty level would want to buy it for. When a gallon of water is seven dollars, the middle class and rich will not buy it and complain of higher prices. When all that water is left, the poor will humbly pay seven bucks a pop for their water. If you want it to go who it matters to, make sure you charge too much.

Another mythical form of charity is Donation. Sure Donation seems to work well, but so did Abstinence, didn't it? Not donating, in fact, is more helpful than donating. Let's say that a man donates a dollar to the Salvation Army. What could he have done with his dollar instead of having it sent to the needy straight away? He could have bought a candy bar from Kwik-E-Mart and enjoyed the chocolatey goodness. Apu, the owner of Kwik-E-Mart then decides to spend his extra dollar in buying his children toys. Toys R Us uses the extra dollar to buy cotton (for packaging. I don't know, really ). The cotton manufacturer spends it's extra dollar buying more cotton (duh). The cotton picker spends his extra dollar buying his family a Christmas dinner. The cycle goes onward and onward, benefiting more people than if it went directly to the cause.

Lastly, we have Volunteer. This is basically Donation but instead of money you use hours of your life (which is more precious, something you can make up or hours of your life, an unrenewable resource?). Would you rather spend that extra hour working hard for nothing or being productive and getting paid overtime. Etc. It's just the same, but people consider it entirely different and it is therefore addressed differently.

There you have it, the lies of the holidays! Well, not all of them, just the most disgusting and hypocritical. At least, in my opinion.

Merry Christmas, Hannuka, Kwanza, and whatever holiday you might be celebrating right now! Just don't do charity work!

Q

[GuidoHunter]

But Q, it's the THOUGHT that counts! </sarcasm>

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[sleeplessdragn]

i have never heard of the abstinance...movement? most likely because i have never had to purchase a turkey and go through the stress and pressures of the ordeal. but i do have one thing to input about the donations. i was curious, how are corporations that are running solely on donations supposed to survive/exist without donations. IMO the comsumer method of giving back to the community would work, but i think that it only applies to those who have the ability to actually participate in the economy. but how could it benefit those who cannot be a part of the economy, for example a jobless person? i am sure that you are only referring to cash type donations, because i think that material donations do make sense, if not simply because of resource recycling. and i think that you may have to factor in a consciousness variable into this. people are on a constant quest for innocence, i think thats just fact.

[Squeek]

Be glad that our generation doesn't care about giving at all.

Now, that's not morally incorrect. That's our mindset. Sure, we give sometimes, but not for a large amount or for a large amount of time. We figure it's a waste. That's precisely what it is, as you have pointed out.

This is going to stem many people hating me, but.. Why am I donating to lazy people in the first place? The rule in this country is "If you're poor, get a job". I already pay tax dollars to lazy people who are on unemployment and welfare, why should I give away more of my hard-earned cash to help someone else instead of myself?

I believe that I come first. I am the most important thing in my life. Everything else comes second. Now, if you want to call that self-centered, go right ahead. Who are you living your life for if not for yourself?

~Squeek

[DracIV]

The Q, I'd have to say this is the worst post I've ever seen from you. Some of the stuff is you said is flat out stupid.

Abstinance - Yeah, this is a dumb idea. You're right about that. I've never heard of this done and I shouldn't expect to see any smart person doing it anyways. However, the problem you pointed out and the suggestion you gave are completely wrong. Not buying a product so that someone else can buy it has no positive effect whatsoever in terms of mass-produced products. A mass boycott doesn't mean the product will be cheaper; companies only usually have about a 5% price leeway before it is too low to make a profit and they have to cut out hunks of the company. A mass boycott doesn't mean cheaper turkeys, it means no turkeys. It means the companies lowered the price $2, but then they just couldn't sell enough and they went bankrupt and they stopped selling turkeys. This entire idea is just stupid. Not buying a mass-produced item so that someone else can buy it because you affected the price is self-delusional and ineffectual. Oh yeah, and charging insane prices doesn't do anything, either. The company goes out of business if you try either tactic.

Donation - Donation is highly effective. The entire point is to help people who aren't in the loop and need aid, not to spread the wealth around. That's the rest of the year. They are poor because that tiny bit each person gets is too small to matter and doesn't help them enough.

Volunteering - Would you rather spend five hours working as a disaster relief volunteer providing food and clothing and aid to thousands of people who lost everything in a massive flood, or spend five hours doing frustrating work for only a few more dollars in gain. In very literal terms, volunteering produces hundreds of times more money per hour than your job. Helping those in need is priceless (or nearly so) but work is only a few bucks an hour.

Oh yeah, and I'm fairly bad at seeing sarcasm because I consider it a waste of time, so please have the sarcasm tags there like Guido. This is the only decent post in nearly a week and it's something to argue about, even if that was entirely sarcastic and I am arguing to myself.

[The_Q]

No, none of this is intended as sarcasm. It is serious.

Let's explore the price change theory once more. There cannot be some huge boycott for the very reason that the masses are too stupid to organize it (I belong to the masses, too. Just to let you know). Even if it is organized, there are hypocrites and people that follow the Indifference Principle going off and stealing their fair share. When the price goes down, even more people do this. Why? The price is low! Why not? If the price is low, shouldn't you buy it? Yes, because now it's cheap, same quality, and you get the advantage over your competition in having a happy holiday. Raising the price does end up bankrupting the company in many occassions. There is documented evidence of this sort of thing occuring, though. Why did I mention it if the companies go out of business? We're talking about the moral thing to do, not the economical thing to do.

Let's hit Donation, now. First, I'd like to point out the purpose of donations. It's not love or compassion, it's greed. Yes, we donate so that we have more stuff. If we don't donate to the poor they'll riot and steal my stuff. I don't want my stuff stolen so I'll give them money not to. It's the unspoken contract that has lasted through the centuries. Let's further the whole notion of the cycle. Everyone, that is everyone, is in it and is affected by it in one way or another (like the Blondie song). This means that a marooned man on a deserted island will feel the effects of it...eventually.

Volunteer work costs much more than you think. It's far from priceless ( in fact, some economists might consider it wasted hours. You're helping those who cannot benefit you. I don't like those economists, but they have a point.) and it costs the amount of hours you could be spending enjoying yourself or working on something that you can profit off of.

"That good feeling" is not profit.

Q

[talisman]

Since when do people donate to a charity because they are afraid the poor are going to riot and steal their stuff? That is ludicrous.

And what if you do enjoy volunteering? Then why wouldn't you do it?

If the marginal benefit of "That good feeling" exceeds the opportunity cost of what you would be doing, then you will volunteer. Do you think the majority of volunteers volunteer because they are forced to?

And what is the big deal with "Abstinence"? I've never even heard of this, and I don't see how it could work. If you decrease demand, the equilibrium price rises.

[Tasselfoot]

the only times in my life that i've ever volunteered, its because i was forced too. freshman and sophomore year of college i was in a scholars program that had a mandatory 30 hours of community service per year. not much, but it was a waste of my time regardless.

you can't talk about opportunity cost in volunteering, because you're wrong. lets weigh this... on one side we have wasting precious hours by helping people that can't help themselves. profit=0. on the other side we have working and/or relaxing (as those are the 2 main other things we could be doing). profit=more than 0. if we are unable to relax, we stress. if we stress, it negatively affects our ability to generate a profit. relaxing is worth more than volunteering.

as i said to Q over AIM... the ONLY way i will EVER donate money is if it gives me a positive net gain through a tax loophole. i work for my money, and i'll be damned if i give it away to heathens who are unable to earn it themselves.

lastly... if you really think about it talisman... if no one donated money, then a large portion of the poor would be flat broke instead of poor. then Darwin kicks in and they start robbing/stealing to get money/food for survival. luckily for me there are enough people giving their money away so i don't have to.

[The_Q]

Talisman does point out that every so often you hit someone who enjoys work. These people are all good friends of mine, as they draw in lots of money. Enjoying the volunteer work enough to exceed the opprotunity cost means that you are probably two things.

1. Crazy
2.You can get away with being productive and enjoy it more than normal.

I respect that. It's a very Consucian thing to believe. It's also good economics.

Q

[DracIV]

There are several fairly good reasons for donating and volunteering.

A. Donating and volunteering earns you "Go to Heaven" points or erases "Go to Hell" points

B. A decent percentage of the population is atleast partly selfless and believes that helping others is equal to or better than just helping yourself

C. Volunteering to do work (particularly easy labor or manual labor) is an effective means to relax and feel like you achieved something. Work or home life can often have a stress-inducing effect, especially if you have a bad job or annoying kids.

D. Certain morals or the desire to help others is often instilled in children, and you should pity those who do not have either.

E. It is a simple law in society that those who help others become successful. If you don't help others no one wants you and you fail at life. Why is Bill Gates rich? Because he helped millions of people by giving them a good operating system for PCs and making PCs accessible to a huge portion of the population. Why is Donald Trump rich? Because he has a ton of good apartments and land that people can use and live in. You do well in life because you help people, even if you aren't getting any profit whatsoever from helping them.

Volunteering and donating are extremely effective and productive. Anyone who is selfish enough or greedy enough or deluded enough to unswervingly (<- key word) believe that "we donate to keep the poor from rioting" or that "we donate for greed/to have more stuff" has been raised improperly by their parents and will have a tough time functioning within society. Donating and volunteering are done to help, and (usually) nothing else. It's common knowledge that volunteering produces positives feelings of accomplishment, relaxation, and contentment, and donating is done for the purpose of helping other people who need aid. I can hardly believe you two would be serious about such thoughts about donating and volunteering.

[CypherToorima]

Some people don't believe in Heaven or Hell
Some people just think for themselfs (which isn't really a bad thing)

[Squeek]

A) Void if a person does not believe in such places.

B) Better mentally or better financially?

C) So, adding more work into your schedule is relaxing?

D) Helping others does not mean wasting time.

E) See D.

Simple enough.

~Squeek

PS - I am an Eagle Scout. I helped enough as it is. Let somebody else help others now.

[talisman]

Selfish bastards run the Internet these days.....

I mean, I'm one of them, I just don't denigrate the people who do volunteer.

[GuidoHunter]

I, for one, really dislike voluteering because of the obvious reason that I could be doing something more beneficial to myself. However, that reasoning doesn't fail to make me feel at least slightly bad when I realize that I'm not the only person running this world. There are people who need help out there, and if I help them they may at some time be in a position to give me help when I need it. So, volunteering (in addition to erasing the "go to hell" points and the like) can build up a karma buffer that could act as an emergency reserve.

Okay, my mother volunteers her time to run an organization (funded completely by donations) called Compassion Ministry. This organization provides housing, education, rehab, and life training to the homeless in Waco. It takes relatively worthless members of society and turns them into productive citizens who then have the means to stimulate the economy by working good jobs and spending money. These people wouldn't have done it on their own, so can you honestly tell me that volunteering time and money wasn't productive for society? What about the car dealer who donates money to Compassion Ministry? Once people graduate they're making a decent living with which they could by cars from the dealer.

Obviously, this story is merely anecdotal, and with examples of organizations that just give toys to people for Christmas I can see where your logic fits in, but it seems you're trying to apply your reasoning to the broadest base, in the outskirts of which the line can crumble.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tasselfoot]

was gonna say most of that squeek... alot of us don't believe in an afterlife. won't bother on most of the other points...

just about Bill Gates and Donald Trump. Bill Gates dropped out of college to found Microsoft. He is so powerhungry that he has almost a complete monopoly in his industry, and probably gained it thought illegal ways, which is why he has been and continues to be investigated. I can't speak for him, but i'd assume that when you are worth 40 billion dollars, you have to pay an ASSLOAD of taxes... donating 100 million sure is a big tax break.

also... i don't get how you can or can not say Donald Trump's (or Bill Gates') motives are charitable. i mean, Trump started his empire off of his fathers name (his dad has hundreds of millions... if not billions), and is willing to sell himself out for TV time. Visa commercials and Reality TV to name the most obvious.

[GuidoHunter]

Nobody cares about your motives except you. It's his actions that were "charitable" because he helped many people, regardless of the fact that he was most likely doing it to make a lot of money for himself.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[The_Q]

E. It is a simple law in society that those who help others become successful. If you don't help others no one wants you and you fail at life. Why is Bill Gates rich? Because he helped millions of people by giving them a good operating system for PCs and making PCs accessible to a huge portion of the population. Why is Donald Trump rich? Because he has a ton of good apartments and land that people can use and live in. You do well in life because you help people, even if you aren't getting any profit whatsoever from helping them.

I'm sorry, but you have this mixed up. Bill Gates is a marketing genius, that's why he's rich. Donald Trump is rich because he's a freeloader. Gates came up with marketing and sales techniques that made him more money than he can ever hope for. Trump doesn't help or give to charity because he's a bona fide arse. They do, however, provide meaningful products to many people. But it's not in the order you seem to think of it. Because he made a good quality product many people got to benefit from this product's ability to allow them greater productiivity (how many times did I say product, now?). Gates did not make the product intending to make people's lives better. He made it intending to get rich. In fact, Gates didn't even product Microsoft and from what I understand, he doens't code at all. He just sells it.

Now, on to volunteer and charity. Volunteer work can be gratifying, yes, but it is often not as productive as enjoying yourself. We went over opprotunity cost already, didn't we? Allow me to add to it. By helping myself, I help everyone. How do I do this? It is a proven fact that happier workers produce more. If I make myself happier, will I produce more? Yes. Do you benefit when I produce more? Yes. Do I benefit when I'm not only happy but get paid more for being happy (because I produced more)? Yes.

Also, to go with the "Hell" and "Heaven" points. If you think God is that exclusive, I'd love to recommend a book to you. It's called the Bible and it's an international bestseller. I'd also go with the Koran, and almost any other religious text that God has produced. He's much more forgiving than that. And it's not the point of this thread anyway. Don't mention it again.

Q

[Tasselfoot]

to clarify Q... i do believe Gates helped to write the original Microsoft code (and if not, it was his idea, with Paul Allen). from my remembering... he was a Harvard dropout who would have gotten a major in CS, or its 70s equivalent.

[PowerCosmic]

I am sure that accumulating as much temporary pleasure as you can feels good at the time, but people who only live for themselves are nothing. They don't care about anyone, and no one cares about them. When they die, they are forgotten quickly. They contributed nothing, they were just a speck on the shoe of eternity. Giving something like money, time, or effort not only improve the lives of others, but also increase the quality of life as a whole. I realize that happier workers are more productive, but some people don't like to see or hear about other people suffering. There are such things as motives beyond personal pleasure. They like to offer relief to those in pain, because it is the right thing to do. When you die, everything you did for yourself is gone, and only what you did for others remains. Of course, there are exceptions, but how good you felt during your life is never remembered after you are gone.

[Tasselfoot]

its called weakness...

i wish our society was more like the jungle. those not strong enough to survive on their own are killed and eaten by those that are.

and for the record... i care almost entirely for myself, and people care about me. they happen to be less selfish than i am, but this is not my fault.

and i could care less about someone else's suffering. not my problem. i don't get how you get to decide what is the right thing to do. you may feel that wasting your own time for one cause or another is the right thing to do... i feel that its a waste of time and extremely unproductive.

lastly, i don't care if i'm remembered when i die. i don't care about the lives of my children (if i have any), or wife, after i die. its their responsibility to care for themselves.