Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

[KBecks2]

This brings up a question......do people budget for charity?  I expect religious people why regularly give X% to their church/org plan for this expense, but I'll consider that a membership fee, i.e. to keep the org up and running.

For general cash donations, do people budget for it while working and include it in their FIRE calc?  The reason I ask is that it is inconceivable to me for one to delay retirement so they can donate.  Those extra years would then truly be working for the sole benefit of someone else.

Well, isn't that the definition of generosity?  Sacrificing to benefit someone other than yourself?   It may sound strange, but it shouldn't be an entirely foreign concept.

I don't know, life isn't all about retirement.  And… there is generosity after retirement too.   It seems like being a giving person can be a lifelong hobby, and even a lifelong passion.  :)   

Here's a question, does giving feel good?   Does it help you when you help someone else?   I think this is one of the wonderful things that pulls people out of feeling bad about life, when they leave loneliness behind and reach out to other people and give and receive in positive ways. 

Added:  Sorry, I meant to answer your question!  I want to discuss charitable giving as a line item with my husband.   We give monthly to our church, but we could also expand that to additional charities.  Which ones?  I'm not sure but the choosing can be a fun and interesting project.  And, we get to model giving for our kids.  I want to teach my children to be generous, to save, spend and give.  I want them to be caring and helpful people, and giving is part of that.  Even if it's small.  The kids are naturally generous and I hope they preserve that throughout life (better than we have). 

[ChrisLansing]

I have not read all the pages of the thread, but I appreciate the topic.  I want to look at charitable giving as part of what we do and do more than what we are doing now, both in time and money given.  I am surprised by how many people believe that paying taxes is equivalent to giving to charity -- in my mind they are not the same at all.  Government covers so little, and there is a wide world of people who would benefit from our generosity.

Anyway, I can control and change my behavior, and I was already thinking about that, how I can help make the world a better place, and not just for myself and my family.  Dave Ramsey says that you can live and give like no one else, but encourages giving all along the way because when you give, you will also receive.  It's a little obscure, but when you are giving, and involved with charity, your mindset may change, to be more generous and more caring to people and open to possibility, you may meet more people, etc. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think MMM has minimized charity for now but plans to give in his will.  Or at least that is the plan for now. I also hear many MMMers who mention that charity is more like a luxury that can be or even should be put off.    It is a good discussion to have and to reflect on as individuals.  (I think MMM has changed many people's lives, and for that I am thankful for his generosity to us!)

One thing I like about MMM is the environmental impact that the behaviors have.  But there are also many other ways we can make a positive difference in the world.

Hmmm, I guess I don't see your point that govt. does so little.   In my neighborhood there are people on welfare.    They may be eligible to get food from the private food bank, or clothing from a church clothing drive, but the majority of their welfare benefits come from the govt.    That's why I keep saying govt. is doing the heavy lifting.   

I wonder if there is a visibility problem?   That is, I bet a lot of people on this forum do not live in neighborhoods where many people are on welfare.   One might see the homeless  lined up at the soup kitchen and get the impression that govt. does very little.    I see the people in my neighborhood using their EBT cards at the grocery store and living in their section 8 paid housing (next door to me and down the street, a few on each side of the street) and I see the free job training programs for the poor, and I conclude that govt is indeed doing quite a lot.   

But I'd agree there are some people that are not receiving govt. help.   I don't think it's because they aren't eligible.    It's good that charities are doing something for them.   

I'd also agree that my taxes do little for people in Africa, or Asia, etc.   

[marblejane]

This might be behind a paywall, but here's an interesting article on how US govt assistance has changed over time: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/business/economy/aid-to-needy-often-excludes-the-poorest-in-america.html?_r=0

[ChrisLansing]

This might be behind a paywall, but here's an interesting article on how US govt assistance has changed over time: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/business/economy/aid-to-needy-often-excludes-the-poorest-in-america.html?_r=0

Thank you, that was interesting.   And it's not behind an paywall.   

[sheepstache]

Hmmm, I guess I don't see your point that govt. does so little.   In my neighborhood there are people on welfare.    They may be eligible to get food from the private food bank, or clothing from a church clothing drive, but the majority of their welfare benefits come from the govt.    That's why I keep saying govt. is doing the heavy lifting.   

I wonder if there is a visibility problem?   That is, I bet a lot of people on this forum do not live in neighborhoods where many people are on welfare.   One might see the homeless  lined up at the soup kitchen and get the impression that govt. does very little.    I see the people in my neighborhood using their EBT cards at the grocery store and living in their section 8 paid housing (next door to me and down the street, a few on each side of the street) and I see the free job training programs for the poor, and I conclude that govt is indeed doing quite a lot.   

<snip>
I'd also agree that my taxes do little for people in Africa, or Asia, etc.   

In the case of my city's food bank, they also receive funding from the government, not just private and corporate donors.  They already have the structure in place to get emergency food to people and the government's food assistance funding has some allotted to emergency food for people who may need temporary assistance but not to the point of applying for SNAP.

Same for the Red Cross. They don't get regular federal funding but often do in the event of emergencies, because they already have the system and expertise in place.

Likewise, foreign aid, let's talk about the US Agency for International Development for simplicity's sake, frequently simply funds NGOs that people on this thread might also be donating to. (Just linking the practicalities of how these things work; I realize the objection is probably that not enough money goes to foreign aid for people to feel it qualifies.)

[MayDay]

Well what it's done to me is make me think you are pushy and rude.

That's nice. Do you have anything constructive to add, other than name-calling?

And for the record, since I didn't reply to your last post, I agree that there are tons of life choices that mean much more than a charity line item. I share your concern for the environment, reducing consumption, and other things MMMers tend to prioritize.

Well, the "do I have something constructive" would be the post I already made.  And I hope maybe if enough people are telling you that you are coming off as pushy and rude, maybe you will self reflect.  Because yes, you are in fact making people want to dig their heels in NAND so the opposite of what you are suggesting, purely because you are coming across as pushy and rude (and those were the polite words I am substituting for what I really think). 

But if you want to assume you did what you came for because you got a few people to agree with you who either changed their minds or already gave charitably anyway, fine.  You probably did.  Go ahead and ignore the fact that you are pissing off at least a few people as well.  Maybe more than you are convincing.  I'm not convinced you are having a net positive effect, PM's notwithstanding.  I'd put my 10$ on the opposite. 

[TheGibberingPotato]

Actually I did read the entire thread, most of it was like a train wreak, where you know it is bad but you just can't look away.  Yes there were a couple people on here that posted useful information, like Rural and her grant writing and the poster with the exercise app, but those posts could and probably would have come out over other threads that were not as rude as this one.  And frankly, if I did not have those charities I want to donate to, your behavior would have made me less likely to donate.  However, I am not going to harm others because of your rudeness.  You did say something along the lines of, "can't everyone donate $10/month".  I am not going to go through the thread to find the exact quote but I remember it because my response was no, I can't.  Your behavior was trollish and not at all useful.

So some asshole on the Internet affects you to the extent that you might not give money to a charity? I don't buy it, you're an adult. If I can seriously have that sort of effect on you I'd recommend you take a break from the Internet. There are people wayyyyy worse.

And again with the name calling ("troll"). Nah, it was a success because of the aforementioned posts plus the other ones where people said they'd reconsider what they're doing. There are at least 5 of those. Also a PM in my inbox. Also 7k views. You didn't like the thread, that's fine. Don't go claiming it didn't work because it didn't work for you.

Finally, the quote on $10/month, that is clearly a comment regarding scalability based upon on your income/situation. Even people living in squalid conditions often help people out, usually with family members, close friends, or fellow villagers.

I wouldn't call your post a failure, but I definitely wouldn't call it a success.  I haven't seen many people saying, "hey, i see the light, I'm going to donate more to charity now". 
You should wake up to the possibility that your asshole personality is not as convincing as you think it is, and that you are more likely having no benefit (or even hurting your cause).  Free speech, "get-out-if-you-can't-handle-mean-internets-people", blah blah blah. 
You're not helping your cause; that's what matters.

[Hotstreak]

I usually give $10 per year or so to charity.  There's a form on my state income taxes where I can donate part of my refund, and this amount is enough for my goals.  There can be some harsh social consequences for not giving any money to charity and I do what I can to avoid them.  Being able to say "I regularly give money to XXXX and YYYY charities" is enough to shut most people up, nobody (except on a message board!) has ever asked how much is given. 


I don't plan to give more; I don't have any desire to give money to strangers without some quid pro quo.

[cashstasherat23]

Wow, what a thread. I also think I have an inside perspective, as I also have worked for several non-profits, from a very small local non-profit to a large research NPO. There is a HUGE amount of money waste in any of these organizations, and they all have had amazing ratings on charity navigator. Is there a huge amount of waste in private companies as well? Maybe, but they are not relying on donations from people in order to stay in business, and I think have less obligation to spend their money wisely.

Not sure if working at NPO's has turned me off to donating, but I don't feel the need to donate at this point in my life. I volunteer occasionally for a group that teaches kids to snowboard, but if I hadn't found that, I am not sure I would be actively searching for something to give my time too either.

As for money, as mentioned above, I think most charities waste money. Besides that, when it comes down to it, I don't think I  or anyone else have any obligation to spend the money earned working on someone in Africa or the Middle East or in the poor neighborhoods of your city, or wherever your cause of choice is. Are there people suffering everywhere? Yes. Would it be a nice thing to do to donate? Sure. But in no way do I think that anyone should be required to donate, or be looked down on because they don't donate, or their donation is not as much as anyone else's donation.

Also, one more thing that bothered me: one of the points I saw many people on this thread making for donating was because it makes them feel good. You can crusade all you want for helping the cause, and it's the right thing to do, and so on, but to me, it seemed like when it came down to it, people were saying they donate because it makes them feel morally superior to others, if not said in so many words.

Basically my thoughts are, if you want to/feel a need to donate, that is great and hopefully will do some good in the world, but no one is obligated to support any charities or causes, and it doesn't make you a bad person if you don't. Also don't understand the people with hair on fire debt allocating 200 or 300 dollars to charity every month-that is insane to me!

[TheGibberingPotato]

Wow, what a thread. I also think I have an inside perspective, as I also have worked for several non-profits, from a very small local non-profit to a large research NPO. There is a HUGE amount of money waste in any of these organizations, and they all have had amazing ratings on charity navigator. Is there a huge amount of waste in private companies as well? Maybe, but they are not relying on donations from people in order to stay in business, and I think have less obligation to spend their money wisely.

Not sure if working at NPO's has turned me off to donating, but I don't feel the need to donate at this point in my life. I volunteer occasionally for a group that teaches kids to snowboard, but if I hadn't found that, I am not sure I would be actively searching for something to give my time too either.

As for money, as mentioned above, I think most charities waste money. Besides that, when it comes down to it, I don't think I  or anyone else have any obligation to spend the money earned working on someone in Africa or the Middle East or in the poor neighborhoods of your city, or wherever your cause of choice is. Are there people suffering everywhere? Yes. Would it be a nice thing to do to donate? Sure. But in no way do I think that anyone should be required to donate, or be looked down on because they don't donate, or their donation is not as much as anyone else's donation.

Also, one more thing that bothered me: one of the points I saw many people on this thread making for donating was because it makes them feel good. You can crusade all you want for helping the cause, and it's the right thing to do, and so on, but to me, it seemed like when it came down to it, people were saying they donate because it makes them feel morally superior to others, if not said in so many words.

Basically my thoughts are, if you want to/feel a need to donate, that is great and hopefully will do some good in the world, but no one is obligated to support any charities or causes, and it doesn't make you a bad person if you don't. Also don't understand the people with hair on fire debt allocating 200 or 300 dollars to charity every month-that is insane to me!

I have not worked for a non-profit before.  I have worked for the government.  And I currently work in the private sector.  There is a YOUR-HAIR-IS-ON-FIRE amount of waste in the government... to the point that I can't believe it is tolerated (everyone knows how lazy so many government employees are).  In the private industry I have seen so far, there is nowhere near the level of waste... sure, there are occasional bad apples that get away with it, but people are fired for that crap more regularly in the private sector.

There is no way i could donate money to an organization unless I was ABSOLUTELY certain that they were as efficient as possible and that all employees were truly in it for the higher good.  I would go see the head quarters myself and thoroughly inspect before giving a dime.  I would never donate to an organization that pays it's employees anything more than a 'living' wage (whatever that means nowadays).  It just defeats the purpose. 

[firewalker]

Will the moderators PLEASE trash this hateful thread? I am sure that "NICE!" had good intentions, but this thread should be tossed and forgotten.

[Gin1984]

The OP asked, in a subsequent post, why can't we give $10/month?    The obvious answer is we can.    But why not $20 ?   or $100 ?   $1000?      Why is it so important to you that we give something above and beyond taxation, as though if we don't give any of our take home pay to charity we aren't doing anything?    And why, buy implication, is any amount "OK" ?    Is 10% really enough?    Shouldn't it be 35% ?     Why?  Why not?   

Finally, it seems that many, including the OP (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong) see any charity you want to give to as being worthwhile.   The thing is to pick one and support it.    I'm afraid I don't get this.    How is the aids epidemic in parts of Africa the moral equivalent of saving stray kitties from being put down by the local animal shelter?

Great questions. No, any charity is not good enough. That's why I said to do your research. I personally feel that food, water, and health are the key issues with environment closely behind those. I'd also throw stopping oppression in there, too. But I do realize that it is better to have someone highly motivated about something because they'll give more of their time, money, and effort. So if you're a doctor and really care about vaccines, go work for MSF and give them a shit ton of money. You'll probably do a better job of that than if you donate to Catholic Charities.

Your other questions are exactly what I struggle with in my own life - how much is enough, given the massive luck I had to be born where I was, when I was, and to whom I was. Right now my # is 10% and it goes to a mixture of charities that I find to be effecient and doing great work, but I'm not satisfied with this. I don't know if I'm giving enough or if I should cut my list of charities down so I can have a greater effect on a bigger problem. What do you think?

I give fairly modestly (certainly less than 5%) now. 

The title is based upon people who "skip" charity. You're clearly not doing that. Also, you worked for nonprofits.

Also, while your anecdotal experience is valuable, you know that not all nonprofits work the way that you saw. Furthermore, some level of waste is inevitable, as it is in our personal budgets.

I'm not a libertarian (I'm a grown-up)   

You may be a grown-up, but that's a childish comment. There's no need to derail this thread with politics, though.

Talk about bullshit! The OP is bullshit. Why no details on your approach to charity?

Please clean up your mess or we'll have to call the mods. Call me bullshit? Fantastic.

Read the damn thread. My ideas have been pretty clear for about the last 50 posts.

Also, you're straight up wrong about your other point. Several (more than 5) people have said they're reconsidering their approach on this matter. I had a long discussion with Lyssa and now understand her ideas a bit better.

One reason I brought up the relative importance of one charity compared to another is that I don't see how it can be avoided.    We've been avoiding it but should we?     Just as we could talk about where to find the best ROI we can talk about how to get the most bang for our charitable buck.  We can also ask about the risk or opportunity cost of giving to one charity versus another.     It's an allocation problem.   I'm not sure individual decision making is necessarily the right way to go.   Maybe a lot of you are giving generously but ineffectively -not ineffective in terms of administrative/program costs (We've hashed that point enough I think) but in terms of really having the greatest impact for the greatest good.    Maybe we should (attempt) to form a consensus as to what the single most pressing problem is and address it until it's solved?   Then move on to the next most pressing problem.      Then again, maybe problems can't be solved one at a time.    I don't know the answer.     


I don't have any definite answers, but it does strike me that giving to humans is more compelling than giving to the ASPCA (and I love dogs and cats, and most animals)   It might be argued that preventing global warming is more important than keeping a couple bag laddies from freezing to death tonight.  (Though we probably can't prevent global warming with any act taken tonight whereas we probably can save some people from freezing)  If we save the bag laddies and destroy the environment (at least for human habitation) have we done "good" ?      What is the most pressing need?    How can we decide the best place to put our money?   
The other reason I brought up the point is this - if we can't (or won't) decide that one charity is more worthwhile than another, then how can some of you decide that giving is better than not giving (beyond taxation) ?     

As an aside, someone else mentioned food banks, and I think that's something I'm willing to donate to out of pocket.    I'm going to look into which of the local food banks to give to.       

Also, domestic violence shelters take food, especially baby food if you don't find a local food banks you like.

[JustTrying]

Oh wow. I didn't read through all the replies, but many of the few that I read made my heart hurt. I can't even imagine thinking that giving is not an important value, which is really the message that came across in many of the replies.

I agree with you, OP, that many mustachians seem to value generosity far less than your average human being. Or maybe I'm wrong about that, and it's just that mustachians are more honest about their lack of giving???

Being mustachian HAS made me more critically-thinking in the charities that I give to. I regularly give to a charity that provides basic needs to people around the world - think clean water, life-saving vaccinations, etc. Because of this, I hate it when friends ask me to donate to causes they care about, as their preferred charities rarely seemed to make as big of an impact as my chosen charity.

[neil]

There is no way i could donate money to an organization unless I was ABSOLUTELY certain that they were as efficient as possible and that all employees were truly in it for the higher good.

A lot of organizations do a pretty good job of simply providing employment and little in benefits.  That is pretty much the entire point of Goodwill.  I can see how it can be hard to tell the difference between giving to a charity and buying a latte.  The odd part is the for-profit companies are probably better at providing jobs, though I have no data to back that up.  They are motivated by efficiency.

I donate but probably not to levels people think I should.  I do want to FIRE so I can donate time to educational causes, which is harder to do on my schedule with regularity.  I would rather have the freedom to give that extensively in the future than simply providing dollar amounts.

I wish this thread had a poll tied to it.  I think "many" people don't skip charity like the title implies and it would have been interesting to see numbers tied to it.

[Otsog]

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth. I said do stuff now AND later.

But your idea of do stuff now is 10%.  Buffett and Gates demonstrably came nowhere close to that. Buffett has been compounding his Snowball for decades while giving practically nothing (%-wise).

I would wager everyone who signed the Giving Pledge has averaged less than 1% of their earnings in their accumulation phases. 

You are very specifically against this. You are philosophically opposed to the Giving Pledge.


What about that janitor who had amassed $8 million and bequeathed most of it to charity. How cold hearted is he?

[JLee]

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth. I said do stuff now AND later.

But your idea of do stuff now is 10%.  Buffett and Gates demonstrably came nowhere close to that. Buffett has been compounding his Snowball for decades while giving practically nothing (%-wise).

I would wager everyone who signed the Giving Pledge has averaged less than 1% of their earnings in their accumulation phases. 

You are very specifically against this. You are philosophically opposed to the Giving Pledge.


What about that janitor who had amassed $8 million and bequeathed most of it to charity. How cold hearted is he?

Heh Buffett's "practically nothing" is over $5 billion in two years.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2014/07/15/buffett-donates-2-8-billion-breaks-personal-giving-record/

[Dimitri]

I believe the reason a lot of people give to charity is to feel good about themselves.  And if that works for them it is absolutely fantastic.  Their money - their choice.

My charitable giving?  I doubt more than 100 yen last year.  I remember tossing in a coin into the saisen box at two small shrines.  And I know that since I wouldn't throw in a 100 yen coin (Gods don't really care about money) then the most it could have been would be two 50 yen coins.

As far as I'm concerned I give plenty to charity now - it is deducted weekly from my paycheck and remitted directly to the government. 

Will I give money to charity in the future?  Yes.  I can't imagine going to a shrine and not throwing a coin or two.  But beyond that?  I sincerely doubt it.

[Luck12]

For some reason the OP and others think that MMMers don't give to charity.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because many don't list charity as a line item or in their case studies.  I prefer to think that they give as/and when they see fit, not on a schedule.

Gee I wonder why?  Could it be the many downright assholish responses stating they don't give and describing why they don't give?  Sure are a lot of Ebineezer Scrooges on here.    It's also funny how some of the same people who bemoan gov't aid to the poor are the ones who don't give to charity:  Assholes like you who refuse to part with a dime to help someone less fortunate is why we need gov't aid. 

I really weep for humanity reading many of the responses.  And I thought MMMers as a whole were generally nicer people than average.   Damn, people in general must really be mostly assholes or I overestimated people on this forum.     

[Gin1984]

For some reason the OP and others think that MMMers don't give to charity.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because many don't list charity as a line item or in their case studies.  I prefer to think that they give as/and when they see fit, not on a schedule.

Gee I wonder why?  Could it be the many downright assholish responses stating they don't give and describing why they don't give?  Sure are a lot of Ebineezer Scrooges on here.    It's also funny how some of the same people who bemoan gov't aid to the poor are the ones who don't give to charity:  Assholes like you who refuse to part with a dime to help someone less fortunate is why we need gov't aid. 

I really weep for humanity reading many of the responses.  And I thought MMMers as a whole were generally nicer people than average.   Damn, people in general must really be mostly assholes or I overestimated people on this forum.     

Or maybe the respond you (general) get is based, in part by your (again general) behavior.  Look at the OP, look at the OP's statements to people and is it any wonder those who do donated may not say anything and those who don't are angry at the verbal attacks. 

[Otsog]

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth. I said do stuff now AND later.

But your idea of do stuff now is 10%.  Buffett and Gates demonstrably came nowhere close to that. Buffett has been compounding his Snowball for decades while giving practically nothing (%-wise).

I would wager everyone who signed the Giving Pledge has averaged less than 1% of their earnings in their accumulation phases. 

You are very specifically against this. You are philosophically opposed to the Giving Pledge.


What about that janitor who had amassed $8 million and bequeathed most of it to charity. How cold hearted is he?

Heh Buffett's "practically nothing" is over $5 billion in two years.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2014/07/15/buffett-donates-2-8-billion-breaks-personal-giving-record/

He started compounding in the 1950's. He created the Giving Pledge in 2006.  He started the Billion+ donations in his 80s.  That's kind of my point.

[southern granny]

Added:  Sorry, I meant to answer your question!  I want to discuss charitable giving as a line item with my husband.   We give monthly to our church, but we could also expand that to additional charities.  Which ones?  I'm not sure but the choosing can be a fun and interesting project.  And, we get to model giving for our kids.  I want to teach my children to be generous, to save, spend and give.  I want them to be caring and helpful people, and giving is part of that.  Even if it's small.  The kids are naturally generous and I hope they preserve that throughout life (better than we have).

Maybe you should look for a charity that you might have a personal connection with.  I have charities  that I give to every year, but also I will give to charities that have impacted me or people I know during that year.  After my mother died, I gave to hospice because I saw what a god-send it was for her while she was in the last stages of cancer.   I gave to spina bifida research when a grandchild was born with spina bifida.  I gave to an orphanage in Haiti after a friend went there on a mission trip.    To teach my grandchildren to be generous we pick an angel from the angel tree at christmas and buy presents for a child that we will never meet and they were thrilled about doing that.     An eight year old girl we know asked people to bring bags of dog food to her birthday party instead of presents so she could donate them to the animal shelter.  I thought that was amazing. 

[cashstasherat23]

For some reason the OP and others think that MMMers don't give to charity.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because many don't list charity as a line item or in their case studies.  I prefer to think that they give as/and when they see fit, not on a schedule.

Gee I wonder why?  Could it be the many downright assholish responses stating they don't give and describing why they don't give?  Sure are a lot of Ebineezer Scrooges on here.    It's also funny how some of the same people who bemoan gov't aid to the poor are the ones who don't give to charity:  Assholes like you who refuse to part with a dime to help someone less fortunate is why we need gov't aid. 

I really weep for humanity reading many of the responses.  And I thought MMMers as a whole were generally nicer people than average.   Damn, people in general must really be mostly assholes or I overestimated people on this forum.     

I am one of the people who stated I don't regularly give money to charity, and I do believe that the government should aid people in it's country who need help. I am happy to have my taxes go to that. It's a necessary service, along with the other ways that our taxes are used that I may not completely agree with, but am obligated to pay for anyway.

I do not agree with giving a percentage of my salary to charity each month. I donate to and shop at Goodwill regularly, donate time above and beyond what I am obligated to my non-profit employer, and will regularly offer any food I have on me or a warm cup of coffee to any homeless person I encounter. I genuinely care about other people in my life, and would not hesitate to help out a family member or friend if they were in dire need. However,  to me what's important is saving as much as I can to RE and not have to depend on a 9-5 job or the government to pay my way through life. Is it selfish? Maybe...in the same way that I also do not want to have kids because I do not want to pay the expenses of having kids, among other reasons. I may be selfish, or I may be choosing to spend my money and my time in a way that is different than you are choosing to spend yours, as I value other things. If I'm selfish, so be it. I only have a limited time on earth, and I will not live them according to what you think is morally superior. Doesn't make me an asshole.

Also, in what world is calling people a selfish asshole going to make them amicable to listening to your ideas?

[kathrynd]

Even though I have read this thread from the start, it hasn't been an enjoyable experience.
I could have chosen not to read it, but I honestly thought it may improve...it didn't.

Charity giving is something you should never be guilted into doing.
If you feel your tax dollars suffice, that should be good enough for the ones who choose to give extra.

As I stated, in one of the first posts, when I give my time or money, I do it for my own selfish reasons...it makes ME feel good.
Who wouldn't want to come home each day with a bunch of kittens (or momma cat) greeting them?  (we foster cats for the SPCA)

If charity givers, such as the OP, feels 10% isnt enough for him, and he still feels guilty, maybe he needs too increase his donation until it hurts?
This may take his time away from playing xbox/ video games...but at 31 yrs old,he may want to consider volunteering his time?
Maybe become a big brother, and play video games with a little brother ( as a suggestion)

[NICE!]

But your idea of do stuff now is 10%.  Buffett and Gates demonstrably came nowhere close to that. Buffett has been compounding his Snowball for decades while giving practically nothing (%-wise).

I would wager everyone who signed the Giving Pledge has averaged less than 1% of their earnings in their accumulation phases. 

You are very specifically against this. You are philosophically opposed to the Giving Pledge.

I'm very specifically not. My idea is very specifically NOT 10%. I said that's what I do, but I haven't figured out the 'right' amount. It is one of the reasons I'm here.

Buffet and Gates already give a tonnnn.

I never once used the phrase "cold-hearted."

But if you want to assume you did what you came for because you got a few people to agree with you who either changed their minds or already gave charitably anyway, fine.  You probably did.  Go ahead and ignore the fact that you are pissing off at least a few people as well.  Maybe more than you are convincing.  I'm not convinced you are having a net positive effect, PM's notwithstanding.  I'd put my 10$ on the opposite.

You're trying to come off as the sober, above-the-fray one, yet you're using the thread to call me names. If you really truly care about making me self-reflect, please send me a PM. I'm more than happy to discuss whatever you like and I'm sure you'll find that whatever impression you have from this thread isn't the whole picture. I will readily admit that I failed in my tone at several points in time. I'm definitely not perfect and will try to do better next time.

And as far as whether or not it is net positive, by the only quantative measures we have...it is.

your asshole personality

Are you serious? What is the purpose of this? Do you know me?



arebelspy - how is this OT?

[NICE!]

Even though I have read this thread from the start, it hasn't been an enjoyable experience.
I could have chosen not to read it, but I honestly thought it may improve...it didn't.

If charity givers, such as the OP, feels 10% isnt enough for him, and he still feels guilty, maybe he needs too increase his donation until it hurts?
This may take his time away from playing xbox/ video games...but at 31 yrs old,he may want to consider volunteering his time?
Maybe become a big brother, and play video games with a little brother ( as a suggestion)

Disagreed on point #1. I think some people are honestly trying to torpedo the thread. We've had a ton of great discussion (especially on pages 2-4.

I do volunteer my time and have done big brothers in the past. I'm trying to find more ways to give my time now.

[Otsog]

2) I can't speak for others, but I'm pretty hard on people when they say things like you said - "when I'm rich." You. Already. Are. You live in the Bay Area. You're a lawyer (if I recall correctly) and thus well educated. You were born in the 21st century in a developed country where women can have a career and have equal rights. You have a computer and the Internet. You aren't starving. You are (presumably) not dying of polio or malaria. Do I know your life story? No, but Americans in general are pretty damn wealthy in the grand scheme of things.

3) Again, people need help now. Your help later doesn't save the life that needs saving now. It doesn't put the money into Alzheimers research today that may solve it in 10 years. It doesn't protect more acres of rainforest that need to be protected right now.

If you're a pure utilitarian, which the vast majority of people simply are not, then your "giving later" might make sense. But you don't know the future, you only know that things need to be fixed now. Furthermore, such an idea fails to take into account human nature, which tells us that we'll pretty much keep the habits and values we have now. If you're not giving now, I sincerely doubt you'll completely change because you have some extra cash. Or maybe you will, but it won't be nearly as much if you built the habits now. Kind of like the debt snowball, it works for a lot of people because it takes into account our nature and not just math.

All these points are anti-Giving Pledge

Warren Buffett was notorious for turning down Charities, Universities and other causes for decades.  I don't think it was ever due to selfishness and that he radically changed.  He just happens to be an astute capital allocator and knew how to get the most bang for his buck.

I think the Gates/Buffett method is far more effective. I realize it's not for everyone, but if there was ever a group of people who could appreciate and execute it, it would be the MMM community.

[marty998]

Settle petals. This is all starting to get a bit out of hand.

I mean come on, we're flaming eachother over (of all things lol) charity! I'll risk my neck and try and give a measured contribution...

I give to various local organisations and a little through my workplace giving fund, because I know the funds are administered efficiently and effectively.

Should I be giving more because I'm the top 1% worldwide? Probably. Must be all that catholic guilt. Does it make me a bad person for not giving more? No I don't believe so.

Many of us here try to practice self reliance. Planning and actioning a plan for you and your family's future is what we do. On the whole, we don't get hit with surprises we can't cope with, because we have provisioned for it.

Some people (in our Western wealthy countries) who require charity are those who find themselves hit with surprises that they couldn't cope with. Be it an illness, job loss, sudden death of an income earning spouse, unplanned pregnancy, whatever. I understand why sympathy from people on these boards may be lacking in these scenarios. Granted there are many who get hit with genuine left field events, but I think most are smart enough to recognise the genuinely needy from the ratbag undeserving feral pests.

NICE - I get your point of view and I'm not going to argue one way or another on it. But I ask you to appreciate that you are talking to a group of people who would largely like to see all people be self reliant, and not dependant on charity. I for one, would like to see recipients of charity in my country given the tools and education to help them out of their predicament, so they no longer need to be reliant on charity. Frequently instead we'll just give a christmas hamper filled with food, clothes and personal care items and then feel satisfied that we've helped. It's not good enough imo. LOL there was a story on the news last Christmas about a husband and wife with 9 kids complaining they couldn't afford Christmas. I'm mean hello, sad but true, some people just don't put 2 and 2 together and do need to be told that more kids beyond a certain number will mean financial difficulty.

Regarding charity internationally, I hold the view that countries should be responsible for the wellbeing of their own citizens. If we must give aid, it must be strictly conditional on certain social and economic steps being taken to improve the wellbeing of the people (end to civil conflict being an example). Far too much aid is handed out to failed states which kicks the can down the road a couple of years until the next crisis pops up. Somalia being a prime example.

Big problems require big solutions. Organisations like MSF treat the victims of these conflicts. Lets be honest, governments (and perhaps Buffet/Gates) are the only organisations powerful enough to actually fix the root causes of international conflict and poverty. My $10 a month given to a poor community is not going to stop the American military complex selling guns to various militia in the Middle East and Africa, who then go and rape/kill said community.

The $10 a month will help the local Wesley Mission, or St Vincent de Paul, or Salvation Army keep its doors open here in my backyard, so that's where I donate instead. Does it mean kids die in Africa because the $10 is not going there? Sure, but then I'm a bit cynical that what's leftover from my $10 after all the middlemen take their cut will make a long lasting difference.

Sounds callous. I see it as being realistic perhaps, but then I expect that my government will use our taxpayer funded aid dollars to do what individuals cannot.

TL/DR Sorry for the rambling thoughts. Point I'd emphasise is about self reliance - I practice it, and with few exceptions in my own country, I see no reason why others shouldn't be self reliant too. I'll give towards getting people towards that ideal.

Internationally it's a different story, admittedly one I don't have an answer for beyond saying I can't be sure what I give will make a difference.

[NICE!]

All these points are anti-Giving Pledge

Warren Buffett was notorious for turning down Charities, Universities and other causes for decades.  I don't think it was ever due to selfishness and that he radically changed.  He just happens to be an astute capital allocator and knew how to get the most bang for his buck.

I think the Gates/Buffett method is far more effective. I realize it's not for everyone, but if there was ever a group of people who could appreciate and execute it, it would be the MMM community.

Buffet gives money now. Is he an idiot for doing so? Is he anti-Giving Pledge? I'm advocating for something like Buffet does, but obviously the numbers will be far different because we're not billionaires (presumably).

[Otsog]

Buffett gives now, after decades of accumulation.

If he was 20 he would not be giving now.

Everyone in the Giving Pledge has accumulated a massive amount of wealth.  That sort of accumulation, as hard as it is already, would be effectively impossible to accomplish while giving away 10% of earnings every year.

[firelight]

Give what makes you happy (0-100%) in the form that makes you happy (time, money, goods, etc) whenever and wherever it makes sense.

Why limit yourself to a particular amount per year or insist on spending a particular amount even it makes you unhappy?

[TheGibberingPotato]

your asshole personality

Are you serious? What is the purpose of this? Do you know me?




Yes, of course I'm serious.  So many of your responses on this thread wreak of being an asshole.  Just go back and read your responses.

The purpose is to make you reconsider how you treat people in regards to this subject, because your alienating people from giving to charity which is a bad thing.  I agree that giving to charity is a good thing, and if you could convince people to do more of it it would be a good thing.  But you're going to be way more effective if you stop acting like an asshole.  And some people are still going to choose to wait until later in their lives to donate, or to only give time, or not at all; and that's ok.

[Lyssa]

Side note for Lyssa - that's one thing I really like about German culture (lived there for a year when I was younger) - in my experience, Germans are forthright and just call things as they see them. It took me awhile to get used to because to an American it can sometimes sound like a biting criticism when it is really just a statement of what the person perceives as reality.

 

True. We also tell you all about our messy divorce when you casually greet us with 'Hi, how are you?'. :-)

Singer is on my reading list now.

[KBecks2]

I think what's interesting is how people struggle to cope with international charity.  Do most people feel there is need internationally, such as for clean water, and basic sanitation?  Do most people feel that those countries need to figure it out for themselves, or there is some reason that the poor in other countries are poor?

I agree it is challenging to remember the people who are struggling and suffering around the world, with some basic things, like food, basic healthcare, access to clean water, sanitation, etc. 

Other governments are usually not like ours, and some seem to be concerned about maintaining power than caring for the population.

I hear the concern and share the concern of -- if I give internationally, how do I know the money even gets to people instead of taken by inefficient administration, or corrupt government?   

The other thing is that you never really know if your donation makes a difference, you can't see the results, you often will get letters from the organization typically saying things are great (and asking for more), but how do you know?   It's largely a matter of trust and faith.

However, there must be some international initiatives that do work.  Our church has outreach to Haiti, and sends supplies and health care workers to assist people in need in that country.  (What is helpful about church outreach is that they don't bombard you with mailers asking for more, making you feel that your whole donation was spend back on postage to ask you to give at higher levels.)

I feel that international help is probably where I could help the most.  But I am also struggling with how to do it best.

But… maybe it's not about worrying whether the donation is used 100% efficiently, it's about making any difference whatsoever.  If I can help a well get built, if I can help provide basic health services, that is something, and perhaps something is better than nothing.

It's like that story about the child with hundreds of starfish on the beach who is throwing them back in the ocean one by one.  A small difference is still something that matters.

Anyway, no advice to others, I am just thinking through the mental challenges and blocks that I and maybe others experience when considering donations to organizations that serve internationally. 

I believe there is need and I believe that I could do something to help, even just a little bit.   And I believe a little bit does matter to someone out there.

[pipercat]

There has absolutely been change in my life and perspective because of this thread.
1.  I added charitable donations back into my monthly budget.  It's a small amount IMO, but I know my chosen charity will use it wisely (it's a local charity, and I see their work first-hand).

2.  I've changed my position on the value of giving time.  I had previously considered it sort of an excuse for not giving money.  That was based on my personal experiences knowing the way specific people have defined that.  I now recognize that donating time can be a very necessary, and valuable choice.

3.  My eyes have been opened to the practice of donating time to pad one's resume.  I guess I always knew people did this, but I recognize there are many problems with this.  I was adding my info to linkedin.com, and I noticed there was an entire section on charitable work.  If the charity was related to my profession, I understand using it, but otherwise, I'm not sure it's needed on a CV.

As with most controversial topics, people have also dug in their heels and resorted to posting some pretty childish comments.  I just wanted to express that I have tried to pay attention to the relevant details, and I want to thank those of you who chimed in.

[coin]

While I sort of agree with the concept that ideally, charities should not be needed, my attitude is not to let perfect be the enemy of good and donate. I can't say I cast much judgement on those who choose not to, because it's just that - a choice. It's their money, they can do what they want with it.

The only issue I have with charity is the "voluntourism" industry, because I believe it can cause more harm than good.  For example, here in Australia we would get really angry if wealthy tourists with no relevant skills or qualifications (or background checks) came to visit specifically to interact with some of our most vulnerable children.  Yet hardly anyone going overseas to work for an orphanage stops to think if the children will truly benefit from the experience.

[justajane]

Those of you who have worked for non-profits or charities and noticed much waste, can you be more specific? What kind of waste? High salaries? Too big offices? Too many employees? I'm especially curious about what you've noticed in smaller, regional charities.

[Lyssa]

Warren Buffett was notorious for turning down Charities, Universities and other causes for decades.  I don't think it was ever due to selfishness and that he radically changed.  He just happens to be an astute capital allocator and knew how to get the most bang for his buck.

That and he is very aware that the first purpose of any institution is to keep such institution in business...

The few occassions were he made donations in his early years have been one-time things like supporting a specific case about to go to court etc.

Afaik his giving pledge includes the condition that the money must be spent in a specific no of years. No 'Buffet Foundation' asking for donations in 50 years... He explained in an interview that it is all too easy to imagine some board meeting telling itself that 'this is exactly what old Warren would have wanted' while inefficiently blowing away the proceeds of his capital year after year.

[Daley]

Those of you who have worked for non-profits or charities and noticed much waste, can you be more specific? What kind of waste? High salaries? Too big offices? Too many employees? I'm especially curious about what you've noticed in smaller, regional charities.

I've never hung my shingle with the larger destinations, but only the smaller ones that're barely scrapin' to survive themselves.

I will say this towards the subject and appearance of waste, however. Sometimes it's impossible not to do. Why? Because of people who donate money and insist on earmarking that cash to some pet belief or project within the org that probably doesn't actually need it instead of letting it go to the general fund. If money gets earmarked, the NPO is bound by law to only spend that money as the person who earmarked their donation saw fit. It can be frustrating, especially when you hear stories from well-intentioned fools who want to serve in the non-profit sector either as a volunteer or as paid staff, go into it cold and not knowing the actual lay of the land or how these things have to function as a legal entity in relation to the money they're given, and then piss and moan about the waste and redundant work.

I remember hearing stories from back after the 2004 tsunami. A lot of people donated, earmarking their money for "rebuilding" homes for the people impacted. Well, so much money was donated, that money was having to be wastefully burned off in construction to ensure the money wouldn't just sit in limbo unused for eternity. This resulted in McMansions with 2-4 bathrooms being built in place for people who had ramshackle huts. On one hand, being able to provide a better place to live isn't bad, but there's such a thing as excess as we all know.

It goes back to my first statement about people who are good intentioned but wind up causing more work than they otherwise complete. It happens with volunteers, and it happens with donations. If you're going to donate time or money, make sure it's an actual benefit to the NPO you're "blessing" with that donation, and not just your dumping ground pet project to pat yourself on the back with in front of your friends.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm going to go on a bit of a side tangent here.

When I was a Department Head in a College and we were hiring, we looked for this sort of thing.  We had lots of applicants who were perfectly qualified to do the teaching, but it was much harder to find people who would step up to all the extras that really make a department great.  Things like committees can be hellish, but they are necessary.  All the little extras that gave our students encouragement and inspiration took time.  So does being involved with outside organizations that relate to your area, or relate to the field your graduates will be entering.  I have heard so many teachers complain about those who come in, do the minimum of what they are supposed to do, and leave - it puts more burden on the others and hurts the students.  I know that I got both my teaching jobs (one College, one University) partly because those hiring me had seen me volunteer and get involved, and they gambled that I would do the same for them.  And I did. At those levels the teaching is structured so that most people can do the extra as part of their work, even though it is not explicit.  The trick, again, is to look around and see what needs doing that will be served by your skills.  And really, that is true for any volunteering - I was at Beaver Camp once (my DD went through Scouting, not Guides) and one of the other leaders commented that some leaders were treating camp as if they were at camp, only doing the activities they had signed up for, and others were just going all the time, stepping up to do whatever needed doing whether or not it was something they had committed to do. Even among volunteers, which we all were, there are those who do the minimum and those who look around and see what needs doing and do it.

In my eyes, time is more valuable than money - we all get 24 hours in each day, and there are so many demands on those 24 hours.   MMM pushes living close to work to minimize commuting time, even if it costs more.  You can get more money.  You can't get more time.

3.  My eyes have been opened to the practice of donating time to pad one's resume.  I guess I always knew people did this, but I recognize there are many problems with this.  I was adding my info to linkedin.com, and I noticed there was an entire section on charitable work.  If the charity was related to my profession, I understand using it, but otherwise, I'm not sure it's needed on a CV.

[NICE!]

your asshole personality

Are you serious? What is the purpose of this? Do you know me?




Yes, of course I'm serious.  So many of your responses on this thread wreak of being an asshole.  Just go back and read your responses.

The purpose is to make you reconsider how you treat people in regards to this subject, because your alienating people from giving to charity which is a bad thing.  I agree that giving to charity is a good thing, and if you could convince people to do more of it it would be a good thing.  But you're going to be way more effective if you stop acting like an asshole.  And some people are still going to choose to wait until later in their lives to donate, or to only give time, or not at all; and that's ok.

Again, you aren't paying attention to the myriad people who are saying the opposite of you. You're the only one calling anyone an asshole. What does that say to you? How about you reconsider the names you call people?

PM me if you want to talk more, I don't know how you think calling someone an asshole in the thread itself will do anything constructive.

[Gin1984]

your asshole personality

Are you serious? What is the purpose of this? Do you know me?




Yes, of course I'm serious.  So many of your responses on this thread wreak of being an asshole.  Just go back and read your responses.

The purpose is to make you reconsider how you treat people in regards to this subject, because your alienating people from giving to charity which is a bad thing.  I agree that giving to charity is a good thing, and if you could convince people to do more of it it would be a good thing.  But you're going to be way more effective if you stop acting like an asshole.  And some people are still going to choose to wait until later in their lives to donate, or to only give time, or not at all; and that's ok.

Again, you aren't paying attention to the myriad people who are saying the opposite of you. You're the only one calling anyone an asshole. What does that say to you? How about you reconsider the names you call people?

PM me if you want to talk more, I don't know how you think calling someone an asshole in the thread itself will do anything constructive.

She is the only one to say it directly, plenty of us have implied it.

[Emilyngh]

I'm going to go on a bit of a side tangent here.

When I was a Department Head in a College and we were hiring, we looked for this sort of thing.  We had lots of applicants who were perfectly qualified to do the teaching, but it was much harder to find people who would step up to all the extras that really make a department great.  Things like committees can be hellish, but they are necessary.  All the little extras that gave our students encouragement and inspiration took time.  So does being involved with outside organizations that relate to your area, or relate to the field your graduates will be entering.  I have heard so many teachers complain about those who come in, do the minimum of what they are supposed to do, and leave - it puts more burden on the others and hurts the students.  I know that I got both my teaching jobs (one College, one University) partly because those hiring me had seen me volunteer and get involved, and they gambled that I would do the same for them.  And I did. At those levels the teaching is structured so that most people can do the extra as part of their work, even though it is not explicit.  The trick, again, is to look around and see what needs doing that will be served by your skills.  And really, that is true for any volunteering - I was at Beaver Camp once (my DD went through Scouting, not Guides) and one of the other leaders commented that some leaders were treating camp as if they were at camp, only doing the activities they had signed up for, and others were just going all the time, stepping up to do whatever needed doing whether or not it was something they had committed to do. Even among volunteers, which we all were, there are those who do the minimum and those who look around and see what needs doing and do it.

In my eyes, time is more valuable than money - we all get 24 hours in each day, and there are so many demands on those 24 hours.   MMM pushes living close to work to minimize commuting time, even if it costs more.  You can get more money.  You can't get more time.

3.  My eyes have been opened to the practice of donating time to pad one's resume.  I guess I always knew people did this, but I recognize there are many problems with this.  I was adding my info to linkedin.com, and I noticed there was an entire section on charitable work.  If the charity was related to my profession, I understand using it, but otherwise, I'm not sure it's needed on a CV.

Wellll, to add another POV: I'm currently a dept chair at a college, and I do not want to see volunteer activities listed unless they are directly related to your scholarship or service to your college.   Which really, if they are, they're probably not volunteer anymore but part of one's job.   While it's true that specific service activities are not usually contracted, I find it hard to believe that there's nothing in one's contract or handbook regarding participating in committees and service activities in general, and as such, doing them is part of one's job and no longer what I'd consider "volunteering."   I would look at someone's CV for indications that they've adequately fulfilled these aspects of their current jobs, although at many other larger schools, and even to a degree at mine, the presence or absence of these activities would probably realistically be overshadowed by one's publication record anyway.

I really don't think it's any of my business if someone also then volunteers with their child's girl/boy scouts or not.   Frankly, I would cringe a little at this being listed and question the professionalism of someone who did so.   I do not have my personal activities (volunteer or not) listed on my CV and would not recommend others do so either, so there are different perspectives here.

[Metta]

I'm going to go on a bit of a side tangent here.

When I was a Department Head in a College and we were hiring, we looked for this sort of thing.  We had lots of applicants who were perfectly qualified to do the teaching, but it was much harder to find people who would step up to all the extras that really make a department great.  Things like committees can be hellish, but they are necessary.  All the little extras that gave our students encouragement and inspiration took time.  So does being involved with outside organizations that relate to your area, or relate to the field your graduates will be entering.  I have heard so many teachers complain about those who come in, do the minimum of what they are supposed to do, and leave - it puts more burden on the others and hurts the students.  I know that I got both my teaching jobs (one College, one University) partly because those hiring me had seen me volunteer and get involved, and they gambled that I would do the same for them.  And I did. At those levels the teaching is structured so that most people can do the extra as part of their work, even though it is not explicit.  The trick, again, is to look around and see what needs doing that will be served by your skills.  And really, that is true for any volunteering - I was at Beaver Camp once (my DD went through Scouting, not Guides) and one of the other leaders commented that some leaders were treating camp as if they were at camp, only doing the activities they had signed up for, and others were just going all the time, stepping up to do whatever needed doing whether or not it was something they had committed to do. Even among volunteers, which we all were, there are those who do the minimum and those who look around and see what needs doing and do it.

In my eyes, time is more valuable than money - we all get 24 hours in each day, and there are so many demands on those 24 hours.   MMM pushes living close to work to minimize commuting time, even if it costs more.  You can get more money.  You can't get more time.

3.  My eyes have been opened to the practice of donating time to pad one's resume.  I guess I always knew people did this, but I recognize there are many problems with this.  I was adding my info to linkedin.com, and I noticed there was an entire section on charitable work.  If the charity was related to my profession, I understand using it, but otherwise, I'm not sure it's needed on a CV.

Wellll, to add another POV: I'm currently a dept chair at a college, and I do not want to see volunteer activities listed unless they are directly related to your scholarship or service to your college.   Which really, if they are, they're probably not volunteer anymore but part of one's job.   While it's true that specific service activities are not usually contracted, I find it hard to believe that there's nothing in one's contract or handbook regarding participating in committees and service activities in general, and as such, doing them is part of one's job and no longer what I'd consider "volunteering."   I would look at someone's CV for indications that they've adequately fulfilled these aspects of their current jobs, although at many other larger schools, and even to a degree at mine, the presence or absence of these activities would probably realistically be overshadowed by one's publication record anyway.

I really don't think it's any of my business if someone also then volunteers with their child's girl/boy scouts or not.   Frankly, I would cringe a little at this being listed and question the professionalism of someone who did so.   I do not have my personal activities (volunteer or not) listed on my CV and would not recommend others do so either, so there are different perspectives here.

Perhaps it matters what sort of academic you are hiring? I know that my husband looks for a records of participation in "service" type activities. My sense is that this comes out in conversations rather than on the vitae, but I wouldn't really know. He keeps most of the details to himself. They hire a number of freshly minted Ph.D.s, so I imagine they do not have much of a record serving on departmental committees or the like. However, if they served in some sort of editorial function or assisted with putting on a conference or similar things, perhaps those are equivalent to other service opportunities.

I know that he has said many times that if you hire people only on the basis of their publications and ignore their willingness to participate in the other work of the department, you get lazy, self-centered colleagues.

[Emilyngh]

 They hire a number of freshly minted Ph.D.s, so I imagine they do not have much of a record serving on departmental committees or the like. However, if they served in some sort of editorial function or assisted with putting on a conference or similar things, perhaps those are equivalent to other service opportunities.

I know that he has said many times that if you hire people only on the basis of their publications and ignore their willingness to participate in the other work of the department, you get lazy, self-centered colleagues.

Yes.   Other examples of service that I would expect freshly minted PhD's to have been involved in include things like: service to professional societies (eg., as leadership, organizing conferences, serving as a judge for undergrad presentations, etc), reviewing for professional journals, participating in their college's honor societies and their activities, etc.  There are also occasionally opportunities for grad students to serve on college committees, eg, I served on a grad admission committee as a grad student.   

I do consider professional service important, but to me it is not "volunteering" and while I'd look for professional service, I would not want to see personal volunteering that is not related to one's profession listed.   I'm not saying one shouldn't do personal volunteering, I'm saying that I don't find it appropriate to consider when evaluating an academic candidate, unless it directly relates to their field.

[minority_finance_mo]

Ugh, why isn't there an unsubscribe button to this shit show...??

[NICE!]

She is the only one to say it directly, plenty of us have implied it.

Again, this does nothing while posted in the thread itself. If you have something to say, I'm more than happy to discuss it in depth with you via PM.

[mxt0133]

I have to admit that this thread has gone beyond the scope of the OP's original intent.

But as I'm currently reevaluating my one thoughts on charity and doing some research.  I can't help but share this video about how some people are just in such difficult situations that it's almost impossible for them to improve their situation.

Here's a video, warning this is a tear jerker, and my intent for sharing it is not to convince anyone that they should or feel the need to donate to charity.  But to bring this thread back to focus on helping each other.  It doesn't matter how much you contribute or if you contribute with money or time, what matter is that you help if you feel the slightest urge to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axL22VURuFk

[MayDay]

She is the only one to say it directly, plenty of us have implied it.

Again, this does nothing while posted in the thread itself. If you have something to say, I'm more than happy to discuss it in depth with you via PM.

You are being an asshole in the thread, but you want us to tell you it in a PM.  Well, I've said all I need to say, but to re-phrase, using the word asshole since you claim only one person thinks it, you are coming off as an asshole and turning people off charity.  You've now had 3 people tell you that explicitly.  There is nothing further that I need to discuss with you via PM. 

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: Multiple different posts in this thread have been reported by multiple different people.

I'm going to leave it open for now, as there's perhaps a little productive discussion left to have, but know that it is close to getting locked, so feel free to say what you'd like to say that is on topic and within the rules now.

If you have a direct issue with someone, take it up over PMs.

And note that just because you don't like a post or someone's tone doesn't make it a personal attack, but please try to be kind and respectful towards each other, even when you disagree.

MOD NOTE: Okay, this thread has gone on long enough.

Hopefully everyone said what they'd like about charities in the last 7 pages.  Please keep in mind the forum rules in all discussions.

Thanks.