Toys 4 tots, wasteful stupidity?

[Scandium]

Pardon the rant, but how awfully wasteful is this supposed "charity"?!
First of all the 'hometown' bias. Yes many poor people in the US have it bad, it's cruel and punishing country, but it barely register on the scale of suffering from millions of people around the rest of the world. How many children die every day because they lack vaccine, or food? But for our charity let's give to the poor in the richest country in the world (which to be fair treats its poor worse than any other developed country). And then; lets to give them... toys?! Plastic garbage that kids will play with for a few hours, before they just take up space in the house, and then a landfill!

Well, ok, I figured my kids have tons of old toys they don't play with anymore (and we're not even close to the junk-piles other families I know). At least I can give them to some less fortunate. Better than nothing, or passing it on to other upper-middle class parents. But no!! They only take NEW toys! In the packaging! So I see parents drag boxes of plastic garbage from china from the toy store, straight to the donation box! Meanwhile every family with kids I know have endless piles of toys sitting around! Facebook groups are dedicated to just passing unused toys on to other families! I'm sure a survey would show there are so many toys in this country already that all kids could play with 10 at a time for the next 8 years!

I'm sure the kids like the toys, but since the "charitable" person basically just spent money, maybe the receiving family would have had more benefit from just getting the cash?! What good is a barbie doll if your parents can't heat your house, or buy food? And if lack of toys is the only need they have left unfilled, then there is surely another family with greater need! Every dollar spent on this is a dollar not donated to something else!

Lastly, yes play is important, but is a $60 paw patrol pile of junk required for that? Some of my kid's best play has been walking around with paper grocery bags on their heads ("I'm a robot!"), or stacking cardboard boxes.

[chemistk]

I mean this with the utmost cordiality and respect: you sure sound like quite a Scrooge!

We don't donate to T4T for the exact crux of your argument - I don't really want to buy a new toy in general, let alone for someone else who may not even be looking for that toy.

But just because you and I don't feel like buying and donating new toys when used toys would be acceptable doesn't mean the mission behind the charity isn't laudable.

I'm going to make a generalization - do you think that if you give $60 to parents of a child who otherwise wouldn't be receiving a gift, that the whole of the $60 would go to gifts? If I were a betting person, I would bet that little of that would actually go to kids.

It's important to remove your worldview on Christmas, on toys, and their value or worth in a child's development. Most families give Christmas gifts. Most kids talk about Christmas and about Santa and about all the cool things they're going to receive. Chances are that if a child is living in poverty, its parents aren't well-equipped to show them that they can have a wonderful childhood with few new toys. Poor kids already feel like a social 'other' and I can only imagine that around Christmas and birthdays*, that feeling is exacerbated tenfold. A kid writes a letter to Santa, asking why they didn't get anything last year, why their parents try so hard (regardless of whether they actually do), and that all they want this year is just one or two gifts. Just something to feel like they get to participate in this cultural event.

How can you diminish the experiences of the less fortunate in this country, I am genuinely curious? What else would you give kids? There's already programs that provide coats and backpacks and books (which T4T also collects) and clothes and shoes and diapers and formula and food and toiletries (albeit, all those programs could always use more). Why can't there also be a program that allows them to participate in something that's almost an afterthought to other kids?

Are new-in-box (especially branded or themed) toys wasteful? Of course they are for the most part. But does that mean that because you find them wasteful, kids who go without should be given something else? A $60 Paw Patrol Lookout isn't going to heat a 4 year old's house or give him a Christmas dinner - but it is going to bring a huge smile to his face, give him something to play with and lose himself in for hours, and (hopefully) bring some joy to his parent(s).

In my county last year, 87k toys were distributed to 18k children. That's a heck of a lot of kid who get to feel like they're not completely deprived for at least a day or two.

*Specifically with birthdays, our local food pantry explicitly asks for cake mix, oil & icing as well as cash donations so they can buy eggs and milk - many kids receiving food from food banks have to forego a birthday cake. Those ingredients cost no more than $10 all-in. From a calorie perspective, that's not a great use of food bank resources, and yet those supplies are some of the top requested by the bank. I like to think that T4T and Christmas is along those same lines.

[Askel]

Yep, I enjoy giving to toys 4 tots every year. Gives me an excuse to hang out in the lego aisle and see what's new. :D 

It's all win win win win in my book. I get the joy of buying a lego set, the kid gets the joy of playing with it, their parents have a little less financial pressure during christmas, and the event organizers get the satisfaction of putting it all together.   

And legos can be resused over and over again. I had no problems finding somebody willing to take my collection amassed during my 80s childhood. Local school was more than happy to have them.   

[ixtap]

I mostly give to charities that are giving cash, food and shelter, but I love dropping off a new toy or picking a card from the Angel tree, as well. As someone who got a lot of hand me downs and homemade knock offs growing up, it is nice to get the real thing once in awhile!

This program works because most people like an excuse to visit the toy aisle and move the idea of giving Christmas joy. No idea how they decide which kind gets which toy, so no idea how well it works on the receiving side. This one may be all about the givers and the organizers feeling good about themselves.

[Scandium]

How can you diminish the experiences of the less fortunate in this country, I am genuinely curious? What else would you give kids? There's already programs that provide coats and backpacks and books (which T4T also collects) and clothes and shoes and diapers and formula and food and toiletries (albeit, all those programs could always use more). Why can't there also be a program that allows them to participate in something that's almost an afterthought to other kids?

That's the problem though. Most people consider it "also", but money is money, it's always one or the other. People have X dollars to donate. If it goes to buying new Lego, it will not go to food, or coats, or heating.

Did I diminish the experience of the poor? I think I said several times it's pretty rough being poor in the US. But I yeah, I suppose I do; I do think it's worse dying from malaria while starving, and not having seen a toy in your life, compared to feeling left out because they don't have as many toys as other kids. It's all relative. Fixing the latter, is less money to help the former, no way around it.

"a child is happy" is not really a rational analysis of cost/benefit for donations.

Actually, how are 87k toys only distributed to 18k kids? That means each child received 4.8 toys. That doesn't seem very fair! 

I don't really know, but lets assume each toy cost $25. So that's just over $2 mill donated. Taking a look at givewell, one charity giving vitamin supplements estimate a life saved per $3000. So that means instead of toys, 725 lives could have been saved. Are the 18k kids (who presumably are otherwise cared for) happy? Sure. Is lego happy for $2 million in sales? sure! Is that better, and  more important, than 725 children not dying? That's the math we have to do.
https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

[Askel]

No idea how they decide which kind gets which toy, so no idea how well it works on the receiving side.

Not sure how toys 4 tots does it specifically, but I have volunteered at my local salvation army during the holidays.   Typically, all the toys are laid out and the parents come in and choose something for their kid.

And Scandium, not to diminish the problems of people elsewhere in the world, but I live in a somewhat small community with limited employment options and some horrific substance abuse issues.  Some of what these kids have to deal with is appalling.  I can't fix the systemic problems that make it so, but if some new legos can make them a little happier for a bit, it's money well spent.     

[maisymouser]

I struggle with donating not just toys but coats, clothes to organizations for the holidays.

It pains me to be pressured into buying a new $30+ item for a child when I don't spend more than $5 on the same item used for my own kid. There are plenty of clothes and toys to go around in the world, honest- if people could only get over the idea that wearing used stuff or giving used toys to children equates to a total loss of dignity.

I'm not ANTI toys for tots or programs like it, but I agree with Scandium and prefer to put my $ to work in other ways that I think have more tangible and lasting impact when it comes to poverty.

[BookLoverL]

I think providing kids with something to play with is definitely worth doing.

But it's silly that they only accept brand new toys in the box. Of course there should be a rule that the toy must be clean, not broken, and all parts present. But a good condition used toy should absolutely be acceptable.

[FINate]

I'm conflicted about these types of charities.

On the negative side, I do think there's a sense of "isn't it terrible that poor children aren't being brought up in the consumerism of the West" - almost like this is part of their training to enter into our society.

On the other hand, there is grinding poverty in this country that is hidden to many. There are towns in California that do not have safe reliable drinking water. Many kids experience food and shelter insecurity. Those that live in highly educated affluent areas don't typically see it and assume there must be plenty to go around because everyone is so wealthy. California is probably the wealthiest state in the nation, but once COL is accounted for it has the highest poverty. All this to say, there are kids that don't have any real possessions other than a few basic outfits (no toys, no books), and for whom home life is chaotic.

Despite conflicted feelings, we've decided to participate in some of these toy drives. Not T4T specifically, but similar. This year the gift box included some toiletries as well, like toothbrush and floss and such because, yes, there are kids in this country that don't even get these basics. Additionally, I'm all for anything that inspires people to generosity. Strangers going out of their way to spent time and money buying gifts for kids they don't know, it's actually really amazing when you stop to think about it. Are there greater needs in the world? Of course, but we shouldn't let perfect be enemy of the good. A kid in a terrible situation that gets a new, nice gift (not a left-over) they at least know that someone somewhere out there cares.

[chemistk]

How can you diminish the experiences of the less fortunate in this country, I am genuinely curious? What else would you give kids? There's already programs that provide coats and backpacks and books (which T4T also collects) and clothes and shoes and diapers and formula and food and toiletries (albeit, all those programs could always use more). Why can't there also be a program that allows them to participate in something that's almost an afterthought to other kids?

That's the problem though. Most people consider it "also", but money is money, it's always one or the other. People have X dollars to donate. If it goes to buying new Lego, it will not go to food, or coats, or heating.

Did I diminish the experience of the poor? I think I said several times it's pretty rough being poor in the US. But I yeah, I suppose I do; I do think it's worse dying from malaria while starving, and not having seen a toy in your life, compared to feeling left out because they don't have as many toys as other kids. It's all relative. Fixing the latter, is less money to help the former, no way around it.

"a child is happy" is not really a rational analysis of cost/benefit for donations.

Actually, how are 87k toys only distributed to 18k kids? That means each child received 4.8 toys. That doesn't seem very fair! 

I don't really know, but lets assume each toy cost $25. So that's just over $2 mill donated. Taking a look at givewell, one charity giving vitamin supplements estimate a life saved per $3000. So that means instead of toys, 725 lives could have been saved. Are the 18k kids (who presumably are otherwise cared for) happy? Sure. Is lego happy for $2 million in sales? sure! Is that better, and  more important, than 725 children not dying? That's the math we have to do.
https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

I do not insinuate that you carry this line of thought but the exact same argument could be made for the Make A Wish Foundation, at least if you're going to look at it mostly from a utilitarian perspective. Is the money spent to fly the kid dying in 6 months from leukemia and his family out to Disney World for a week better spent elsewhere in the world? Is the money spent giving a kid a $59.99 LEGO set for Christmas when he would otherwise get a pack of gum and a dollar store pack of sidewalk chalk better spent elsewhere in the world?

I'll reiterate - I do not insinuate that anyone in this thread would automatically adopt this line of thought but in my mind, they're all but equivalent.

My own take on poverty and the relative wealth and opportunity between poor from different nations is that nobody asks to be born where they are. Statistically any of us in the United States is pretty lucky to have been born here. So why is it that the experience of a child in poverty here at home is any less impactful than a child in poverty abroad?

Taking the utilitarian perspective, of course the best return on donation would be to go to a country with extreme poverty. And yet in doing so, the kids living in hunger and without winter clothes in our own neighborhood are then overlooked.

Poverty is an institution and the only true solution is an institutional one. I guess I don't see an issue if ~1 out of every 7 kids in my county gets a couple extra toys for Christmas.

And FWIW, even if T4T didn't exist, just about every church I've ever encountered does some sort of Angel tree. Not to mention people asking on Nextdoor/FB/etc. for donations for a few families they know who are going without. I'd rather see the process handled in a transparent and relatively unbiased way (as is the case for T4T).

I think ultimately the frustration with the concept is misplaced - rather than the issue being that people and businesses are donating toys to kids who would otherwise have no Christmas presents, the real issue is that we live in a society where 1 out of every 7 kids in a given county is needy enough to be the recipient of those donations.

[nessness]

I disagree that most people have $X to donate, and that donating to Toys for Tots takes away from other charitable donations.

Sure, some people do have a set monthly/annual charity budget. But a lot of other people donate more sporadically, when they feel moved to do so. Those people may pull that money from what they would have spent on themselves or on gifts for people they know - maybe because they have fond memories of Christmas as a child (or sad memories of doing without at Christmas), or because it's a good way to teach their kids about giving, etc.

If your goal is to maximize the amount of life improvement per dollar of giving, than Toys for Tots isn't the right charity for you. But it might help not to think of other people's giving as a zero-sum game.

[ixtap]

I disagree that most people have $X to donate, and that donating to Toys for Tots takes away from other charitable donations.

Sure, some people do have a set monthly/annual charity budget. But a lot of other people donate more sporadically, when they feel moved to do so. Those people may pull that money from what they would have spent on themselves or on gifts for people they know - maybe because they have fond memories of Christmas as a child (or sad memories of doing without at Christmas), or because it's a good way to teach their kids about giving, etc.

If your goal is to maximize the amount of life improvement per dollar of giving, than Toys for Tots isn't the right charity for you. But it might help not to think of other people's giving as a zero-sum game.

I am only intimately familiar with the way my parents give and the way we give. In both cases, our charitable budget is what goes directly from checking to the charities. For DH and I, it actually goes through a credit card and gets a company match, but toys and cash are both separate from that and just part of our general spending.

I do know that when we visited the Christmas tree charity event and voted with toys, my brother and his wife didn't want us to get a toy for them to vote with. But when we asked them to vote with my aunt's toy since she couldn't come, they did participate, so not sure if the issue was philosophical or financial.

I will also add that while Mom enjoys shopping for an age group she no longer has in the family, buying toys for charities can also be a concrete way of getting kids involved in giving. They can relate to the joy of it in a way that dropping coins in a bucket doesn't inspire.

Looks like part of the toys for tots process involves sorting the toys by age and gender. Good luck deciding that one on my carefully chosen gender neutral toys!

[boarder42]

i used to think like you did OP.  I watched the new netflix movie a boy called christmas and it changed how i felt.  While middle and upper middle class people live in a world of bloat and excess the people these toys go to dont have much of anything and that one toy means a whole lot to those children.  We adopt families every year and make sure we get their wants as well as needs.  I didn't understand my wife's side of the wants part until this movie.  even the wants are pretty basic like a nerf football.

[PoutineLover]

My partner and I donated to a charity that provides gifts to kids in foster care. The kids were able to submit a wish and we were given a suggestion of $50 per kid. Three of them (teens) asked for gift cards, and the toddler asked for a truck, and we gladly obliged. I assume they don't get much spending money or much new stuff, so it probably means a lot to them. That's just one of the ways we participate in charity, but I think it's kinda fun picking something out vs just sending a cheque to an organization, even if it may be less optimal financially.

[Sibley]

It's not the suffering Olympics. Suffering is not zero-sum. Just because Johnny has it worse doesn't mean that Jane doesn't have problems.

No, giving a child a toy isn't going to fix the world. But it is very likely going to make that world a whole lot better for that one child, even for a for a day. Why isn't that desirable?

The same concept is often used with animals. Ever hear the phrase "Saving one dog will not change the world. But surely for that one dog the world will change forever."

You don't have to like T4T. Be careful you're not being cruel however.

[RetiredAt63]

The concept is not new.  We had White Gift Sunday a few weeks before Christmas back in the 50's.  A new toy, wrapped, with a label - boy/girl and age.  Usually mid-December, maybe the second Sunday in Advent?  And my church was in a relatively wealthy suburb.

[Imma]

*Specifically with birthdays, our local food pantry explicitly asks for cake mix, oil & icing as well as cash donations so they can buy eggs and milk - many kids receiving food from food banks have to forego a birthday cake. Those ingredients cost no more than $10 all-in. From a calorie perspective, that's not a great use of food bank resources, and yet those supplies are some of the top requested by the bank. I like to think that T4T and Christmas is along those same lines.

I'm so glad to hear your local food pantry is doing this!! It means the world to a kid. One of my favourite charities provides a birthday box for kids. The box contains a gift for the child, a treat to take to school, some decorations, cake mix and some snacks to serve to visitors. I think the box is worth €35 or €40. That's a tiny amount of money for me, but for a child, being able to take a bag of mini candybars to school to hand out to their classmates, instead of being ridiculed, being able to tell their friends what they got for their birthday, that's a lifelong memory. For a child, being able to invite a few friends for their birthday for the first time, because they know there are a few balloons, a cake, a bag of crisps, a carton of juice, that's life changing for a kid.

I'm sure not everyone can imagine that, and I'm happy for them if they can't even imagine that experience because it means they didn't go through it. My partner and I can remember being the left out kids. Something as small as this is something the child will remember their whole life.

[Frankies Girl]

When I did the Christmas/holiday shopping for kids that had the wishlists, I'd get a few items off their list including a gift card if that's what they asked for, but then I'd get them clothes, books, building and art supplies. This is absolutely so I can enjoy a little bit of shopping for fun stuff as much as it's about gifting things for me, and I acknowledge that about myself. ;)

I do also donate to food pantries, but I give them actual money, because they can use it much better than I could and get items that are most needed and wanted in bulk purchases, with their charitable discounts. I think donating actual food items is nice and all, but I've read and seen so much junky or unusable stuff - hard to make a box of mac and cheese without milk and butter, and so many people "donate" the rejects from their pantry. And there are a surprising number of folks that don't have the ability/skill to cook other than in a microwave.

If you don't like giving gifts or donating to certain charities, that's completely your choice- find stuff that makes you feel good and suits your giving style. I mean, I get it; lots of crap in the stores marketed to kids and xmas can totally become over-commercialized, but I personally feel like there are higher level things to be worrying about other than if a poor kid gets a few toys for Christmas.

[Scandium]

No, giving a child a toy isn't going to fix the world. But it is very likely going to make that world a whole lot better for that one child, even for a for a day. Why isn't that desirable?

Sure it's desirable. But is it more desirable than the alternative use of that money? I spend my allocated donation money on for example the above mentioned Give well fund. Which helps prevent children from dying of disease or malnutrition, alone, hungry in excruciating pain. So same question to you: isn't that desirable?

[JoePublic3.14]

i used to think like you did OP.  I watched the new netflix movie a boy called christmas and it changed how i felt.  While middle and upper middle class people live in a world of bloat and excess the people these toys go to dont have much of anything and that one toy means a whole lot to those children.  We adopt families every year and make sure we get their wants as well as needs.  I didn't understand my wife's side of the wants part until this movie.  even the wants are pretty basic like a nerf football.

Yeah, i have sort of evolved in this manner also. We would sometimes take in a collection of things for a local shelter, toiletries and such. I would mention to my group to at least think through how nice a high quality product might feel to someone in need.  Nothing against good off brand generic products in general, but I know I prefer some higher quality items for some things (where’s that TP thread…) i could see some spouse who finally escaped an abusive situation really appreciating a strong, well made hairbrush for example. Or some soap that has a reputation of treating the skin nice, and so on. I’ve thought a similar thing about food drives. Sometimes name brand cereal just tastes better.

If anyone has more first hand knowledge/ feedback about this sort of thing I’d love to hear it.

We do most of our giving as a monthly payment via payroll to the United Way, but try to grab some things for the various collections.

[Scandium]

*Specifically with birthdays, our local food pantry explicitly asks for cake mix, oil & icing as well as cash donations so they can buy eggs and milk - many kids receiving food from food banks have to forego a birthday cake. Those ingredients cost no more than $10 all-in. From a calorie perspective, that's not a great use of food bank resources, and yet those supplies are some of the top requested by the bank. I like to think that T4T and Christmas is along those same lines.

I'm so glad to hear your local food pantry is doing this!! It means the world to a kid. One of my favourite charities provides a birthday box for kids. The box contains a gift for the child, a treat to take to school, some decorations, cake mix and some snacks to serve to visitors. I think the box is worth €35 or €40. That's a tiny amount of money for me, but for a child, being able to take a bag of mini candybars to school to hand out to their classmates, instead of being ridiculed, being able to tell their friends what they got for their birthday, that's a lifelong memory. For a child, being able to invite a few friends for their birthday for the first time, because they know there are a few balloons, a cake, a bag of crisps, a carton of juice, that's life changing for a kid.

I'm sure not everyone can imagine that, and I'm happy for them if they can't even imagine that experience because it means they didn't go through it. My partner and I can remember being the left out kids. Something as small as this is something the child will remember their whole life.

Sorry, I'm trying. I see the appeal, but still struggling to understand the logic. The criteria seems to be that the gift is "appreciated" (something they'll remember forever..) But it's applied one-sidedly. How does that prioritize these kids over others?

A child somewhere else in the world receiving food for the first time in days? A child getting a cure for parasites eating them up and causing terrible pain? Someone receiving treatment for an infection that's making them go blind? I would think these kids would appreciate this immensely and be an experience they'll remember forever? How does a birthday value over this?

My wife and I brought supplies to a rural school in Africa when we were there years ago. It was nothing to us, but also quite life-changing for those kids. They sang to use and practiced English thanking us. Quite lovely. I only wish I could have done more (and I hope to)

[Sibley]

No, giving a child a toy isn't going to fix the world. But it is very likely going to make that world a whole lot better for that one child, even for a for a day. Why isn't that desirable?

Sure it's desirable. But is it more desirable than the alternative use of that money? I spend my allocated donation money on for example the above mentioned Give well fund. Which helps prevent children from dying of disease or malnutrition, alone, hungry in excruciating pain. So same question to you: isn't that desirable?

And I repeat, suffering isn't zero sum.

If you withhold a minor joy in favor of treating a big illness, yes you treated the illness which is good BUT you also didn't bring the joy, which is bad. The good doesn't cancel out the bad, the bad doesn't invalidate the good.

It's perfectly valid to choose to focus on disease and malnutrition. But don't dismiss those who choose to give a toy to a child for Christmas as purely wasteful and useless. Both can do good.

If it helps you make the connection, I'm reminded of the (Romanian? Russian?) orphanages where the children were fed and sheltered, but spent all of their time alone and without touch, and what the consequences were for those children. I'm sure there's other examples as well, that's just the one that came to mind.

It's not JUST food and clothes and medical care. The intangible things are equally important, and I've heard the argument made that the intangibles are sometimes more important.

[Scandium]

No, giving a child a toy isn't going to fix the world. But it is very likely going to make that world a whole lot better for that one child, even for a for a day. Why isn't that desirable?

Sure it's desirable. But is it more desirable than the alternative use of that money? I spend my allocated donation money on for example the above mentioned Give well fund. Which helps prevent children from dying of disease or malnutrition, alone, hungry in excruciating pain. So same question to you: isn't that desirable?

And I repeat, suffering isn't zero sum.

If you withhold a minor joy in favor of treating a big illness, yes you treated the illness which is good BUT you also didn't bring the joy, which is bad. The good doesn't cancel out the bad, the bad doesn't invalidate the good.

It's perfectly valid to choose to focus on disease and malnutrition. But don't dismiss those who choose to give a toy to a child for Christmas as purely wasteful and useless. Both can do good.

If it helps you make the connection, I'm reminded of the (Romanian? Russian?) orphanages where the children were fed and sheltered, but spent all of their time alone and without touch, and what the consequences were for those children. I'm sure there's other examples as well, that's just the one that came to mind.

It's not JUST food and clothes and medical care. The intangible things are equally important, and I've heard the argument made that the intangibles are sometimes more important.

How is it not zero sum exactly? We have a finite amount of dollars to donate. It can go to say toys for a child in the US, or medicine to a child in a developing country. Either you bring joy, or alleviate suffering (which I would argue will also bring joy). You can only do one or the other.

You have to weight how much good you do per dollar. I think I've laid out my reasoning, I think toys (new in box!) are very low ROI. I can get 10good/$, or I can get 2 good/$ with t4t; easy choice.

Do you agree some charity is "more important" or "better" than the other? You must have, since you seem to prefer one (from what you've said here: toys or similar). How did you reach that conclusion? You could also donate to save dolphins, or the rain forest. So why did you choose this? What is the thought process to conclude this is the most good/dollar?

That's why I have an issue with this I guess; I don't understand how this analysis can reach the conclusion that this is the most beneficial, and I struggle to figure out others have done so?

[Sailor Sam]

That's why I have an issue with this I guess; I don't understand how this analysis can reach the conclusion that this is the most beneficial, and I struggle to figure out others have done so?

@Scandium, you should look into effective altruism, if you haven’t already. I think the philosophy is right up your alley.

Personally, EA leaves me cold. I don’t want to ignore my neighbor, for the sake of the starving child. Nor do I want to ignore the starving child, for the sake of my neighbor. Luckily, I’m my financial position allows me to support both. I get to help bring children in one nation life saving interventions, and I get to help bring children of my own nation joy, and it ties me to community both micro and macro. How fucking awesome is it to be me? It’s pretty goddamn awesome.

If you are feeling, instead, unawesome about a charity at Christmas, then I feel for you bruh. That’s rough.

[PoutineLover]

I don't think it's about absolute most beneficial, at least not to me. I donate to many causes that resonate with me, and that tends to be helping unhoused people by giving them care kits, delivering groceries to low income elderly people, buying gifts for foster children, raising money for a children's hospital, and donating to causes that my friends participate in. Each of these things is helping people, mostly people in my own community, and it makes me feel good.

Sometimes overseas donation seems like the biggest bang for your buck, but it can often have negative secondary effects, like in-kind donations undermining the local economy for those types of goods, or building infrastructure that isn't used or maintained, or pushing religious propaganda on people in exchange for services.

There may be some sort of grid or evaluation criteria to determine the "best" use of a charity dollar, but I don't think it would come to the same result for every person. We each have preferences and causes that matter more to us, and there is no master list where we could donate all dollars to  the "most worthy cause" first and then work our way down the list until all needs are met.

[SunnyDays]

I’ve bought toys some years and some years not, because the money went to “make a BIG difference” causes, but I think both have value.

I agree that a lot of toys are utter crap, but 1. it might make a kid happier than you can imagine and 2. it might make them feel more loved by their parent(s), because most of the time the plan is to make it appear that the parents gave it, not some stranger.  And any kid over the age of 4 likely knows the difference between new and used, with the latter making them possibly feel less worthy.

When I have given toys, I’ve bought games that families can play together and that will help kids learn while playing, because then they have to read, cooperate, be patient with others’ turns, learn to win or lose graciously, etc.  Even though it’s all plastic and parts will be lost, it will still have some benefits.

Everything has pros and cons, but in this situation, I think the pros prevail.

[Sibley]

No, giving a child a toy isn't going to fix the world. But it is very likely going to make that world a whole lot better for that one child, even for a for a day. Why isn't that desirable?

Sure it's desirable. But is it more desirable than the alternative use of that money? I spend my allocated donation money on for example the above mentioned Give well fund. Which helps prevent children from dying of disease or malnutrition, alone, hungry in excruciating pain. So same question to you: isn't that desirable?

And I repeat, suffering isn't zero sum.

If you withhold a minor joy in favor of treating a big illness, yes you treated the illness which is good BUT you also didn't bring the joy, which is bad. The good doesn't cancel out the bad, the bad doesn't invalidate the good.

It's perfectly valid to choose to focus on disease and malnutrition. But don't dismiss those who choose to give a toy to a child for Christmas as purely wasteful and useless. Both can do good.

If it helps you make the connection, I'm reminded of the (Romanian? Russian?) orphanages where the children were fed and sheltered, but spent all of their time alone and without touch, and what the consequences were for those children. I'm sure there's other examples as well, that's just the one that came to mind.

It's not JUST food and clothes and medical care. The intangible things are equally important, and I've heard the argument made that the intangibles are sometimes more important.

How is it not zero sum exactly? We have a finite amount of dollars to donate. It can go to say toys for a child in the US, or medicine to a child in a developing country. Either you bring joy, or alleviate suffering (which I would argue will also bring joy). You can only do one or the other.

You have to weight how much good you do per dollar. I think I've laid out my reasoning, I think toys (new in box!) are very low ROI. I can get 10good/$, or I can get 2 good/$ with t4t; easy choice.

Do you agree some charity is "more important" or "better" than the other? You must have, since you seem to prefer one (from what you've said here: toys or similar). How did you reach that conclusion? You could also donate to save dolphins, or the rain forest. So why did you choose this? What is the thought process to conclude this is the most good/dollar?

That's why I have an issue with this I guess; I don't understand how this analysis can reach the conclusion that this is the most beneficial, and I struggle to figure out others have done so?

Your mistake I believe is assuming that people have done some detailed analysis, some calculation, and come up with the conclusion that buying a cheap toy and giving it to T4T is better than something else. That's not the case.

They thought, oh I can make some little kid happy this Christmas and they bought a toy and donated it hoping that some child will have some joy, some happiness that they wouldn't have had otherwise. They DIDN'T think "buying this toy is way better than donating it to <insert cause>". You had that thought process, and sure some proportion of people have had that thought process, but it's no where near the majority. Most people I believe donate money or goods or time because they get something in return, whether that is a feeling of happiness, or status, or ego, or whatever.

And you're right, there's a finite amount of money that can be donated. But you also make the mistake of thinking that all of it will be donated. It won't be. Plenty of it will ONLY be donated to whatever specific charity or cause that the individual prefers. So if you take the $20 out of the T4T bucket, there's a chance that it's removed from the potential donation pool entirely.

I'm guessing that you're highly logical and analytical? The ultimate answer to your confusion is emotion, not logic. That's why people donate to T4T, because it makes them feel good. And they don't donate to treating hookworm because it's too remote, it doesn't make them feel good.

If that lowers your view of humanity, well, at least you will hopefully understand.

But yeah, I don't like T4T either. I donate to the animal shelter.

Late addition: Sailor Sam mentioned effective altruism. I think this is probably where you are, or at least in the general vicinity. I'm not. A lot of people are not. Just remember, good is good.

[Scandium]

That's why I have an issue with this I guess; I don't understand how this analysis can reach the conclusion that this is the most beneficial, and I struggle to figure out others have done so?

@Scandium, you should look into effective altruism, if you haven’t already. I think the philosophy is right up your alley.

Personally, EA leaves me cold. I don’t want to ignore my neighbor, for the sake of the starving child. Nor do I want to ignore the starving child, for the sake of my neighbor. Luckily, I’m my financial position allows me to support both. I get to help bring children in one nation life saving interventions, and I get to help bring children of my own nation joy, and it ties me to community both micro and macro. How fucking awesome is it to be me? It’s pretty goddamn awesome.

If you are feeling, instead, unawesome about a charity at Christmas, then I feel for you bruh. That’s rough.

I just want to point out that you say EA leave you "cold", and someone else insinuated I lack (or ignore?) emotion. But ignoring children who are actively, physically suffering? In favor of my neighbor who's lacking Lego? Just because they happen to not live near me? Man, that's cold! I don't have the strengt to do that. And I feel "warm and fussy" thinking something I do can help alleviate the greatest suffering. No matter where they are.

Precisely because of emotions, feeling ill thinking of people in the poorest parts of the world, is why I can't bring myself to donated to charities in the "west", as long as much greater suffering is happening. I can't do both, so I will do the most where I can. The conclusion is reached both rationally and emotionally.

[Sailor Sam]

That's why I have an issue with this I guess; I don't understand how this analysis can reach the conclusion that this is the most beneficial, and I struggle to figure out others have done so?

@Scandium, you should look into effective altruism, if you haven’t already. I think the philosophy is right up your alley.

Personally, EA leaves me cold. I don’t want to ignore my neighbor, for the sake of the starving child. Nor do I want to ignore the starving child, for the sake of my neighbor. Luckily, I’m my financial position allows me to support both. I get to help bring children in one nation life saving interventions, and I get to help bring children of my own nation joy, and it ties me to community both micro and macro. How fucking awesome is it to be me? It’s pretty goddamn awesome.

If you are feeling, instead, unawesome about a charity at Christmas, then I feel for you bruh. That’s rough.

I just want to point out that you say EA leave you "cold", and someone else insinuated I lack (or ignore?) emotion. But ignoring children who are actively, physically suffering? In favor of my neighbor who's lacking Lego? Just because they happen to not live near me? Man, that's cold! I don't have the strengt to do that. And I feel "warm and fussy" thinking something I do can help alleviate the greatest suffering. No matter where they are.

Precisely because of emotions, feeling ill thinking of people in the poorest parts of the world, is why I can't bring myself to donated to charities in the "west", as long as much greater suffering is happening. I can't do both, so I will do the most where I can. The conclusion is reached both rationally and emotionally.

Sounds like we both have the warm fuzzies from conclusions we've reached using both logic and emotions. What's the issue?

[havregryn]

This reminds me of one of my biggest pet peeves here in Western Europe: people who are obsessed with giving their old crap to charity.

Not a day goes by here that I don't see someone on Facebook asking where they could donate their old clothes and toys to charity, with the inevitable caveat that they only want to give it to someone who will actually use them, God forbid that some charity who will sell them for materials and use the money for some actual good gets them.

Here's the thing - here in Western Europe the kind of material poverty that they imagine when they want a new home for their rags is virtually non-existent and the environmental cost of shipping their shit to poor countries is most probably not at all worth it, even without touching on the subject of it actually being damaging for local economies. Hell, this was a thing 20 years ago in what was at best a middle income country where I volunteered in a group home that constantly had to find creative ways to get rid of all the old clothes people kept dropping off there, because they had contracts with several large importers of clothing to donate their unsold stock, meaning that kids were able to wear actual trendy and new clothes AS THEY WOULD HAVE WANTED and not someone's old rags. Now at least it is easier to recycle that shit.

If it was an issue over there and back then, I can only imagine how bad it must be here where you can buy a bag of clothes and toys for what is a half day's minimum wage.
If people genuinely cared about poor kids, they'd be doing something about the growing divides in educational opportunities, health etc., and not just trying to offload their old junk so that they can feel less guilt when they buy new.

No idea what Toys 4 tots are and I am guessing from the comments that these are new toys so at least there's that, but yeah, I'd go with wasteful stupidity. If not for the environmental effect then for the fact that it's been found in studies that doing pointless acts of charity like those can fill someone's "altruism quota" and make them less likely to get involved around much more important issues. You can really see that everywhere, it bugs me quite a bit because I grew up in what was a sort of poor country and now live in what is the cream of the world's crop in terms of standard of living and I can really see the difference in how clueless people can become.

Sometimes I literally want to start screaming when I watch people crowdfund someone's private school or collect crappy school supplies to lug to Africa on a photo-op trip, all the while knowing the kind of miserable, hopeless lives some people lead in my home country, without ever really lacking clothes or toys or school supplies,  But lacking any kind of support for children with disabilities, any kind of solution for domestic violence, I could go on and on. 

Yes, maybe one could say that a child who lives an otherwise miserable life can have a happy day when handed a toy, that part is not the issue here. The issue is that the person giving the toy is going to go home convinced they made the world a better place and not care at all when someone tries to lobby politically for a more systemic solution to the kid's situation.

[ixtap]

My SIL will hold garage sales and say things like " this is too good to go to Goodwill, I will just hold onto until the next sale. This is stained, it can go to Goodwill." And that, folks is a big reason why they require new toys. They don't want your junk to sort through, slowing down the process.

[eyesonthehorizon]

I can understand the frustration of grappling with the fact that $20 of purchasing power directed to an American child would mean one toy to play with, but could buy ten antimalarial insecticidal nets, enabling ten children to live healthily enough to play at all - with toys, sandcastles, or each other. It's probably good to take a hard look at that no matter what you decide - not everyone will come to the same conclusions, of course; we all draw our own lines, & any of us here could theoretically sacrifice our stash for the wellbeing of countless thousands, some of us even millions, yet we don't: we prioritize ourselves & those we're close to. Charities like this touch on those same nerves: kids who we might see at the bus stop, relatable desires, & our own memories of childhood. There's an argument that this ekes out some donations that otherwise wouldn't get made. There's a counterargument that some people judge whether they give "enough" by whether they get "enough" warm fuzzies with charitable acts, like picking out a toy or sponsoring their favorite dog breed.

However, if one American kid & ten Malawian kids were in front of you, one asking for a toy, the other ten for nets so they can sleep comfortably at night without being absolutely eaten alive by mosquitoes & not get cripplingly sick? I do think most of us would choose to ensure those nets got distributed - probably by reaching for the wallet a second time... but all the same, I bet it'd be the nets if we could only give to one. I'd go so far as to bet the toy-seeking American kid would even agree. So no, I don't think geography "should" matter, there's no difference to me between a kid in my town vs. one overseas. I donate accordingly.

I only give significant money to food banks domestically, otherwise I send it abroad to medical & conservation/ sustainable agricultural concerns. There is no joy for a child emaciated or confined to a sickbed. There is no happiness or comfort for a child like your parents looking hopeful (e.g. about their children's future.) Within my own wealthy country, where arbitrage isn't on my side, I'd rather donate my time. I don't discount a child's joy or relief to be included - until it's against the question of another kid's health, because I do have finite resources to donate & I give more than my own discretionary spend most years, now. Seems to me the best thing I can do for vulnerable people in my own nation is to organize & vote on every level for the systemic social supports that we are currently failing to provide.

I'll otherwise contribute my material resources to help as many at-risk children as possible to access sufficient food & medicine to grow up at all, to help in their local communities... including, perhaps, giving out toys, glad that the hunger or sickness of their own youth is no longer a concern to the children around them.

[iris lily]

"a child is happy" is not really a rational analysis of cost/benefit for donations.

Oh my dude! Applying rationality to Happiness of children especially during this time of twinkling
fairy light gifting frenzy is UnAmerican.

[nessness]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

[Scandium]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

[BookLoverL]

Isn't there some point at which malaria nets become no longer the best donation, surely? At the moment not enough people are doing specifically "effective altruism" to have reached the optimum number of malaria nets, but I suspect that if every other charitable donation in the world immediately switched to buying malaria nets, the relevant countries would be drowning in the things. Plus, there's allowed to be more than one worthy cause in the world. Personally I admittedly only usually think about effective altruism in terms of "is this charity using their money on the things they say they are and not on e.g. staff salaries and advertising costs".

Plus, this whole calculus for what's effective *does* assume that an individual's moral system is set up to prioritise quantity of life above all else. I do think making sure children have specifically *new* toys is not really necessary, but it's valid for someone to think that quality of life is also important. Examples of quality of life category might be charities to do things like provide disabled people with mobility equipment that they can't afford, or donating towards a local community centre that provides a lot of free or low cost activities for people in the neighbourhood and helps build a sense of community.

When I feel like I can spare money to donate, I often donate to things like wildlife conservation / environment conservation charities.

There are also factors like whether a given charity is working to solve the symptoms of a problem or the cause of it. Some level of charity towards the symptoms of an issue is important to prevent people suffering right now (e.g. direct food donations) so these should definitely exist, but overall it's better in the long run if a charity can help fix an issue all together so the same symptoms don't reoccur year after year.

[Scandium]

Isn't there some point at which malaria nets become no longer the best donation, surely? At the moment not enough people are doing specifically "effective altruism" to have reached the optimum number of malaria nets, but I suspect that if every other charitable donation in the world immediately switched to buying malaria nets, the relevant countries would be drowning in the things. Plus, there's allowed to be more than one worthy cause in the world. Personally I admittedly only usually think about effective altruism in terms of "is this charity using their money on the things they say they are and not on e.g. staff salaries and advertising costs".

Plus, this whole calculus for what's effective *does* assume that an individual's moral system is set up to prioritise quantity of life above all else. I do think making sure children have specifically *new* toys is not really necessary, but it's valid for someone to think that quality of life is also important. Examples of quality of life category might be charities to do things like provide disabled people with mobility equipment that they can't afford, or donating towards a local community centre that provides a lot of free or low cost activities for people in the neighbourhood and helps build a sense of community.

When I feel like I can spare money to donate, I often donate to things like wildlife conservation / environment conservation charities.

There are also factors like whether a given charity is working to solve the symptoms of a problem or the cause of it. Some level of charity towards the symptoms of an issue is important to prevent people suffering right now (e.g. direct food donations) so these should definitely exist, but overall it's better in the long run if a charity can help fix an issue all together so the same symptoms don't reoccur year after year.

I recently set up to donate the $500/month child tax credit, because it seemed kinda silly to go to US who are pretty well off (yes it's arbitrary, I could sure have given more, or less). I ended up going with the give well fund, where they donate as needed, based on their research. To avoid what you said about too many nets, etc. They have great transparency on their website.

I heard a Ted talk once about how the obsession with "no donations to marketing!" isn't always good. If $1 mill in donations can market and bring in $5 mill, that's better than using $1mill for "work".

[nessness]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

My point is that you're judging Toys for Tots against whether it reduces the most worldwide suffering, but not applying the same standard to everything else. All money is fungible, not just what you put in your charitable "bucket", so why not judge all purchases by the same standard?

To be clear, I'm not judging your giving choices - I also prioritize charities that do the most "good" per dollar (if you're not familiar with GiveWell, check it out). But calling giving toys to poor children "wasteful stupidity" really rubs me the wrong way.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

My point is that you're judging Toys for Tots against whether it reduces the most worldwide suffering, but not applying the same standard to everything else. All money is fungible, not just what you put in your charitable "bucket", so why not judge all purchases by the same standard?

To be clear, I'm not judging your giving choices - I also prioritize charities that do the most "good" per dollar (if you're not familiar with GiveWell, check it out). But calling giving toys to poor children "wasteful stupidity" really rubs me the wrong way.

Exactly this. The problem is the tone. No one is begrudging you the ability to donate as you choose to do. However when you criticize others. You freely admit you are donating an arbitrary amount based off the US tax credit. You may donate more. That's great! Donate. Help others. However, again,  if you're going to go with the strictly utilitarian stance not just for your own donations but to criticize others donations that are objectively a net positive even if it's not a big one,  then I have a right to criticize you for not taking every dime you possibly could and donating it to save the maximum lives per dollar possible. Anytime I see someone in real life donating to a homeless shelter or pet organization,  or the aclu,  I should critique them.  Either there's an objective right answer or there's not. Either there's a continuum and good reason to donate to many places or there's not. It sounds like pure practicality is what you think is best for you. That's great for you,  but you're going beyond what's right for you into prescriptive statements about what others should do.

[NaN]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

My point is that you're judging Toys for Tots against whether it reduces the most worldwide suffering, but not applying the same standard to everything else. All money is fungible, not just what you put in your charitable "bucket", so why not judge all purchases by the same standard?

To be clear, I'm not judging your giving choices - I also prioritize charities that do the most "good" per dollar (if you're not familiar with GiveWell, check it out). But calling giving toys to poor children "wasteful stupidity" really rubs me the wrong way.

Exactly this. The problem is the tone. No one is begrudging you the ability to donate as you choose to do. However when you criticize others. You freely admit you are donating an arbitrary amount based off the US tax credit. You may donate more. That's great! Donate. Help others. However, again,  if you're going to go with the strictly utilitarian stance not just for your own donations but to criticize others donations that are objectively a net positive even if it's not a big one,  then I have a right to criticize you for not taking every dime you possibly could and donating it to save the maximum lives per dollar possible. Anytime I see someone in real life donating to a homeless shelter or pet organization,  or the aclu,  I should critique them.  Either there's an objective right answer or there's not. Either there's a continuum and good reason to donate to many places or there's not. It sounds like pure practicality is what you think is best for you. That's great for you,  but you're going beyond what's right for you into prescriptive statements about what others should do.

Yeah, the tone is a little raw. But I can visualize a situation (whether it is OPs or not) that you are passing by the T4T bin, or there is pressure at work, or whatever and then you evaluate the utility of this charity, apply some wasteful opinions, and boom post to MMM. It seems like posting though, in "AM Wall of Shame and Comedy" thread didn't really hit the comedy or shame part, but hit with more of Scrooge like thud.

[Scandium]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

My point is that you're judging Toys for Tots against whether it reduces the most worldwide suffering, but not applying the same standard to everything else. All money is fungible, not just what you put in your charitable "bucket", so why not judge all purchases by the same standard?

To be clear, I'm not judging your giving choices - I also prioritize charities that do the most "good" per dollar (if you're not familiar with GiveWell, check it out). But calling giving toys to poor children "wasteful stupidity" really rubs me the wrong way.

Exactly this. The problem is the tone. No one is begrudging you the ability to donate as you choose to do. However when you criticize others. You freely admit you are donating an arbitrary amount based off the US tax credit. You may donate more. That's great! Donate. Help others. However, again,  if you're going to go with the strictly utilitarian stance not just for your own donations but to criticize others donations that are objectively a net positive even if it's not a big one,  then I have a right to criticize you for not taking every dime you possibly could and donating it to save the maximum lives per dollar possible. Anytime I see someone in real life donating to a homeless shelter or pet organization,  or the aclu,  I should critique them.  Either there's an objective right answer or there's not. Either there's a continuum and good reason to donate to many places or there's not. It sounds like pure practicality is what you think is best for you. That's great for you,  but you're going beyond what's right for you into prescriptive statements about what others should do.

Now we're almost just falling into silly "don't criticise others unless you're perfect yourself!" or even worse: "don't ever criticise what other people do, ever". Which are goofy, feelgood sentiments I see in more weak-willed fora, where people don't have the balls to strongly examine decisions. I thought this group was better than that??

It's not just "gifts to kids" I have an issue with. It's brand new in the box plastic garbage straight from the store. Purchased from super-rich, tax-doing corporations. That will soon end up in a landfill, or an ocean, already filled with similar junk. When every kid I know has so many toys it's actually detrimental to their development (e.g. see "simplicity parenting" by Dr Payne). But "uses" is some dirty word? That not even those with nothing should suffer such indignities? My spoiled kids take used stuff no problem! When too many kids sit inside with mindless toys as it is, rather than having, god forbid; learn to be bored, and actually engage some creativity! Rather than be constantly entertained. It's when people do this and feel they've "helped enough" and don't need to do anything else

[NaN]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

My point is that you're judging Toys for Tots against whether it reduces the most worldwide suffering, but not applying the same standard to everything else. All money is fungible, not just what you put in your charitable "bucket", so why not judge all purchases by the same standard?

To be clear, I'm not judging your giving choices - I also prioritize charities that do the most "good" per dollar (if you're not familiar with GiveWell, check it out). But calling giving toys to poor children "wasteful stupidity" really rubs me the wrong way.

Exactly this. The problem is the tone. No one is begrudging you the ability to donate as you choose to do. However when you criticize others. You freely admit you are donating an arbitrary amount based off the US tax credit. You may donate more. That's great! Donate. Help others. However, again,  if you're going to go with the strictly utilitarian stance not just for your own donations but to criticize others donations that are objectively a net positive even if it's not a big one,  then I have a right to criticize you for not taking every dime you possibly could and donating it to save the maximum lives per dollar possible. Anytime I see someone in real life donating to a homeless shelter or pet organization,  or the aclu,  I should critique them.  Either there's an objective right answer or there's not. Either there's a continuum and good reason to donate to many places or there's not. It sounds like pure practicality is what you think is best for you. That's great for you,  but you're going beyond what's right for you into prescriptive statements about what others should do.

Now we're almost just falling into silly "don't criticise others unless you're perfect yourself!" or even worse: "don't ever criticise what other people do, ever". Which are goofy, feelgood sentiments I see in more weak-willed fora, where people don't have the balls to strongly examine decisions. I thought this group was better than that??

It's not just "gifts to kids" I have an issue with. It's brand new in the box plastic garbage straight from the store. Purchased from super-rich, tax-doing corporations. That will soon end up in a landfill, or an ocean, already filled with similar junk. When every kid I know has so many toys it's actually detrimental to their development (e.g. see "simplicity parenting" by Dr Payne). But "uses" is some dirty word? That not even those with nothing should suffer such indignities? My spoiled kids take used stuff no problem! When too many kids sit inside with mindless toys as it is, rather than having, god forbid; learn to be bored, and actually engage some creativity! Rather than be constantly entertained.

The best thing to do for the environment is to not have kids at all.

[iris lily]

OP, I live in the urban core and I can assure you the number of cheap plastic toys abandoned in alley
dumpsters in poorer neighborhoods is extreme. Often they are simply strewn around the alley and not even put neatly into the dumpster.

I’m not a charitable giver to human welfare efforts and I would never in 1 million years donate to Toys for  Tots.  However — I see some value in one of the Xmas toys programs—maybe it’s toys for tots maybe not— that specifically gives absent fathers the opportunity to “shop “for their dependent children. I am all for supporting a family bond in cases like this, And if the price is more cheap crap in the environment, well, I think that’s pricey but it is what it is.

I hope no one is pressuring you to donate to Toys for Tots. If it’s one of those workplace group efforts, I always try to find a way around it. We didn’t do that at my workplace but several of my hobby groups get wild hairs to donate for things that I’m not a fan of, but I can usually find a way to participate without being too much of a Grinch and still remain true to my giving values.

This points out a bigger issue during holiday gifting frenzy time: living our values during this period of giving everyone cheap crap from the dollar store is tough. It is a time of special challenge.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Yesterday, at the grocery store, I spent $11 that could have been used to buy malaria nets on coffee beans, solely because coffee makes me happy. I also spent an extra $1 on organic carrots, because I feel good about buying organic when I can. Heck, I could have skipped buying vegetables altogether and instead foraged for miner's lettuce, which grows wild in my neighborhood, and donated my vegetable budget for more malaria nets. But it makes me happy to be able to eat a variety of vegetables.

The point is, EVERY dollar that we spend that isn't strictly necessary to our survival is a dollar that could be better spent on helping people in third world countries, if our sole aim is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But all of us (OP included, I can confidently say) make decisions based at least in part on what will make ourselves and people we care about happy.

Yeah, duh. And?...
You're posting on a site all about thinking about the value of each dollar spent. Everyone here does this. Yes I know each $1 I spend could be used for something else. Isn't that all the more reason to make sure what I do donate gets the maximum value?!

My point is that you're judging Toys for Tots against whether it reduces the most worldwide suffering, but not applying the same standard to everything else. All money is fungible, not just what you put in your charitable "bucket", so why not judge all purchases by the same standard?

To be clear, I'm not judging your giving choices - I also prioritize charities that do the most "good" per dollar (if you're not familiar with GiveWell, check it out). But calling giving toys to poor children "wasteful stupidity" really rubs me the wrong way.

Exactly this. The problem is the tone. No one is begrudging you the ability to donate as you choose to do. However when you criticize others. You freely admit you are donating an arbitrary amount based off the US tax credit. You may donate more. That's great! Donate. Help others. However, again,  if you're going to go with the strictly utilitarian stance not just for your own donations but to criticize others donations that are objectively a net positive even if it's not a big one,  then I have a right to criticize you for not taking every dime you possibly could and donating it to save the maximum lives per dollar possible. Anytime I see someone in real life donating to a homeless shelter or pet organization,  or the aclu,  I should critique them.  Either there's an objective right answer or there's not. Either there's a continuum and good reason to donate to many places or there's not. It sounds like pure practicality is what you think is best for you. That's great for you,  but you're going beyond what's right for you into prescriptive statements about what others should do.

Now we're almost just falling into silly "don't criticise others unless you're perfect yourself!" or even worse: "don't ever criticise what other people do, ever". Which are goofy, feelgood sentiments I see in more weak-willed fora, where people don't have the balls to strongly examine decisions. I thought this group was better than that??

It's not just "gifts to kids" I have an issue with. It's brand new in the box plastic garbage straight from the store. Purchased from super-rich, tax-doing corporations. That will soon end up in a landfill, or an ocean, already filled with similar junk. When every kid I know has so many toys it's actually detrimental to their development (e.g. see "simplicity parenting" by Dr Payne). But "uses" is some dirty word? That not even those with nothing should suffer such indignities? My spoiled kids take used stuff no problem! When too many kids sit inside with mindless toys as it is, rather than having, god forbid; learn to be bored, and actually engage some creativity! Rather than be constantly entertained. It's when people do this and feel they've "helped enough" and don't need to do anything else

Sure, if you're just criticizing T4T alone because of the specific environmental impact, I wouldn't have said what I said. However, you're oversimplifying this thread if you think my statements are goofy or feel good. You're going much beyond just throwing out a general, let's take a look at T4T and examine the decision to donate.

First, as NaN said, you posted this in the wall of shame. This is usually reserved for things that need to be shamed because they're so silly or whatnot - clown cars, pathetic comments about how six figure salaries can't keep you out of the poor house and the like. The reply you just gave me seems to indicate more that you're looking for a well reasoned argument. Not saying you were wrong to post it in this section, but it seems to indicate a different perspective than you're taking of, let's rationally criticize something that's well meaning but actually a poor idea.

Additionally, your posts moved on to statements like "Sure it's desirable. But is it more desirable than the alternative use of that money? I spend my allocated donation money on for example the above mentioned Give well fund. Which helps prevent children from dying of disease or malnutrition, alone, hungry in excruciating pain. So same question to you: isn't that desirable?" Also: "I recently set up to donate the $500/month child tax credit, because it seemed kinda silly to go to US who are pretty well off." These seems to indicate that you're looking beyond just T4T and applying a similar level of criticism to other people donating to "non-essential" things beyond just T4T - leading to my examples of other charities that wouldn't seem to fit your criteria. Maybe you didn't mean that, but it seemed that way from my perspective.

All of that to say, if all you're saying is, you feel that T4T is not the best use of money and has an environmental impact that people should consider before donating, I'm fine with that, let's take a realistic look at it....but that's not what's coming off to me when I'm reading your posts.

[Imma]

*Specifically with birthdays, our local food pantry explicitly asks for cake mix, oil & icing as well as cash donations so they can buy eggs and milk - many kids receiving food from food banks have to forego a birthday cake. Those ingredients cost no more than $10 all-in. From a calorie perspective, that's not a great use of food bank resources, and yet those supplies are some of the top requested by the bank. I like to think that T4T and Christmas is along those same lines.

I'm so glad to hear your local food pantry is doing this!! It means the world to a kid. One of my favourite charities provides a birthday box for kids. The box contains a gift for the child, a treat to take to school, some decorations, cake mix and some snacks to serve to visitors. I think the box is worth €35 or €40. That's a tiny amount of money for me, but for a child, being able to take a bag of mini candybars to school to hand out to their classmates, instead of being ridiculed, being able to tell their friends what they got for their birthday, that's a lifelong memory. For a child, being able to invite a few friends for their birthday for the first time, because they know there are a few balloons, a cake, a bag of crisps, a carton of juice, that's life changing for a kid.

I'm sure not everyone can imagine that, and I'm happy for them if they can't even imagine that experience because it means they didn't go through it. My partner and I can remember being the left out kids. Something as small as this is something the child will remember their whole life.

Sorry, I'm trying. I see the appeal, but still struggling to understand the logic. The criteria seems to be that the gift is "appreciated" (something they'll remember forever..) But it's applied one-sidedly. How does that prioritize these kids over others?

A child somewhere else in the world receiving food for the first time in days? A child getting a cure for parasites eating them up and causing terrible pain? Someone receiving treatment for an infection that's making them go blind? I would think these kids would appreciate this immensely and be an experience they'll remember forever? How does a birthday value over this?

My wife and I brought supplies to a rural school in Africa when we were there years ago. It was nothing to us, but also quite life-changing for those kids. They sang to use and practiced English thanking us. Quite lovely. I only wish I could have done more (and I hope to)

I think this question has pretty much been answered, but, yes, sure, there are many people having it way worse than children in first world countries that don't get to celebrate their birthdays. By that logic we should all donate all of our money to the poorest countries in Africa.

And we should donate plenty of money to effective charities in developing countries. And I do. But I also choose to donate to my own community, for several reasons:
- I am confronted with poverty in my own community very frequently and I hate seeing that
- While no one kids are starving and dying from preventable illness in my city, plenty of children do suffer from relative deprivation.
- Relative means they're way worse off than their peers, which causes suffering
- Relative deprivation is one of the main causes of issues within a community
- To live in a stable, high-trust society, and to continue to have a stable, high-trust society, we need to reduce relative deprivation as much as possible.

Relative deprivation is growing in my country and it's one of the major causes of the growing gap between rich and poor. I grew up low income, but not deprived.  My partner did grow up way more deprived than I did - as in, they couldn't join school day trips because their parents couldn't afford it, and had to sit with a different class while classmates where having fun somewhere, couldn't afford school books for all of their subjects etc. Sure, that's not as bad as starving. No one is saying that it is. But many people with a background that's relatively deprived end up as low-income, low-opportunity adults. They have a much lower chance of learning a trade or going to college because those opportunities require stability, they have a much higher chance of ending up in crime, they are much more likely to raise children that are relatively deprived too.

My grandparents lived through the Depression and WWII and they never felt deprived even though they literally lived through starvation. But in their case, everyone was going through the same experience. I think that makes a huge difference in society. That's why there are way more riots and violent clashes now during Covid. The professional class (people like me) have thrived during Covid. We're all working from home, saving money, the value of our investments have gone up, we're all donating to the foodbank now. People who have blue collar and pink collar jobs are in insecure situations, are in danger of infection, some entire industries have closed down, their income is a lot lower and with the rising prices for petrol and gas for heating, many can barely afford to turn on the heating or drive their old cars to work. And then they see people like me, happily working from home and getting richer every day. No wonder that causes riots.

I absolutely agree with @havregryn that the idea that many people in Western Europe have about poverty is based on Dickensian stories and that poverty in this day and age looks differently. And I am always so extremely annoyed when people post free shit on Facebook and require people to send in an essay about why they deserve this and they pick the one with the most tearjerking story and then complain if people aren't thankful enough. But even in Western European countries there's still poverty behind front doors. And if my little gesture of sending a box of cake mix to a deprived kid allows them to invite people for their birthday for the first time, yes, that little moment of happiness is important. Not just to me but to the stability of society.

That doesn't mean that we don't need to also massively change things at the systemic level. In Europe, most importantly the massive gap between richer and poorer countries. Many people from poorer European countries move to my country for work and they are treated like dirt. They live in inhumane conditions. People say "well, they come here voluntarily" but there's a reason they come here and still stay. It's because the alternative is even worse. If we want the EU to survive we need to fix this. One of the tiny things I do to improve this is to donate to a charity that helps Polish people in my country that are in need of help. I know it's not much but it's better than nothing.

[PDXTabs]

When my first wife and I were at university full time while raising a child we had $0 for Christmas presents for our daughter one year. The university had its own toy drive for families in our situation. All I can say is that our faculty Santa was very generous with our family and it made me feel incredibly loved and supported by the institution. It might be the nicest thing that a stranger has ever done for me in my entire life. I can not overstate how much it meant to me and how much it sticks with me and has encouraged me to be generous to others.

[Paper Chaser]

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. T4T may not be perfect, but it does a pretty good job of bringing joy to innocent kids that probably don't have much joy in their lives. Donating doesn't have to be cheap plastic crap destined for a landfill in no time. A bike, or books, or learning toys are options too.

[NaN]

And I am always so extremely annoyed when people post free shit on Facebook and require people to send in an essay about why they deserve this and they pick the one with the most tearjerking story and then complain if people aren't thankful enough.

This is a thing? How awful.

[RetiredAt63]

That doesn't mean that we don't need to also massively change things at the systemic level. In Europe, most importantly the massive gap between richer and poorer countries. Many people from poorer European countries move to my country for work and they are treated like dirt. They live in inhumane conditions. People say "well, they come here voluntarily" but there's a reason they come here and still stay. It's because the alternative is even worse. If we want the EU to survive we need to fix this. One of the tiny things I do to improve this is to donate to a charity that helps Polish people in my country that are in need of help. I know it's not much but it's better than nothing.

One of my big donations every year is to an organization that helps refugees settle in.  When I moved they got all my excess furniture when I downsized - I downsized by 2/3, so no matter how nice something was, I just didn't have that much space. Most of it was really nice and I am sure it is being used.  And now I give money.  I want them to settle in and be productive and happy Canadians.

My other big donation is to our local food bank.  Just because people look prosperous on the outside doesn't mean their jobs haven't been cut and their income is way down.  A food bank is going to use that money a lot more effectively than I can by buying something at the store and dropping it in the donation bin on the way out. 

The rest is scholarships and health research and animal rehab places.

I never had a lot of spare cash to donate when I was working, most of my charitable activity was my time.  Now I am a bit less cash strapped, and with Covid I am not doing anything in person.  So money where I think it will be well used it is.

[Villanelle]

OP, I'd love to know what charity it is that you deem is the most worthy of all charities and that addresses the most icky of all Ickiness, and is therefore, apparently, the only one worth suffering, and perhaps even the only one that it is even moral to support.

I don't have the patience, understanding, or resources to do that evaluation on my own. And I'm unable to root out some of the philosophical conundrums that have plagued philosophers for centuries.   Like, is animal suffering more egregious than human suffering, especially when it is caused by humans?  Heavy stuff, that! 

Or maybe, for $15, I can make a kid feel joyful and normal and not less-than and not reminded of his families struggles.  Maybe someone on welfare  buys a Twinkie with the SNAP money because they just want to eat a weird, yellow sweet thingy, and it's okay for tax-payer money to give them that strange moment of dignity even though it isn't the best calories/$ calculation. 

IDK, but I'm never going to feel bad about making a child smile and feel some happiness and dignity, even if it solves a problem that isn't the Worst Problem in the world.