I realize I've been posting a lot, and they've all been long, and I apologize for taking up so much thread space.
Also: this is going to be another one.
See, these posts have been going through my mind the past couple days, keeping me up at night, distracting me at work, and I think I have finally pinned down exactly what it is that has been bothering me so much about the outlook that has been expressed here multiple times by different people in regards to donating money versus volunteering or consuming less or other forms of bettering the world.
Up until now I've mostly been participating in a philosophical kind of way, but the more I think about it, the more I think the arguments I've seen made here are actually counter-productive - ironically enough, in the exact kind of way that Sol's very first post was talking about. So now I'm going to have to make the same disclaimer that was given to me a couple times recently: I don't mean this as a personal attack one anyone specifically. I respect you guys, and I enjoy the discussions we have here, and most of all, I recognize that everyone here means well. The topic of how much we do to make the world better has been broached, and now that pandora's box has been opened, I'll go ahead and tell you what I really think:
Your privileged is showing.
I realize that the average level of income among MMM readers is higher than the average US citizen (although it often seems that many of you forget that). The upper middle class is disproportionately represented, and we even have some of the infamous "1%".
I grew up in on of the poorest cities in the SF Bay Area, with subsidized rent and government food programs, and then went on to live in various trailer parks across the US. Even now that I am finally able to save a portion of my income, I have always lived around poverty.
Among the people I voluntarily associate with, my friends and co-workers and associates, the majority of my circles don't have much money - and here's the key part - because they have chosen to do something with their lives which is meaningful, but doesn't pay well.
D_ has a law degree, and gave up a successful career as a corporate lawyer in favor of working as an advocate for bicycle access in urban planning.
A_ graduated from UC Berkeley with a physics degree - at the age of 18. Smart enough to do anything. She went on to get a Master's in education, so she could work as a math teacher in low-performing public schools.
J_ makes around 20k a year working as a special education assistant for special needs preschoolers.
B_ works for the local food bank
N_ is a fundraiser for a major non-profit foundation - one which has received a number of bomb threats due to a certain Fox News commentator's insane conspiracy theories.
M_ manages a non-profit community bike shop who's primary service is free of charge
JH_ runs a tiny underfunded non-profit which aims to educate poor inner city people about healthy nutrition as well as providing them access to fresh local produce by setting up farm stands and school gardens deep in the ghetto.
My friends with Master's degrees use said degree to work as teachers in public schools.
This is just a sample, but there are a lot more.
None of these people make much money.
And they don't make much money because they choose to do meaningful work instead of high paying work.
There has been a lot of mention - and general consensus - about how us in the first world have access to a life of luxury, how we have more than our fair share, and how this is largely at the expense of the rest of humanity.
But there seems to be some sort of disconnect about what that actually means.
That excess we have is in the form of fancy coffee drinks and iPads and new cars and cable TV and large wardrobes and the chance to travel to interesting places on vacation.
The destructive thing we do is consume.
The more one consumes, the higher their negative impact is.
There is a direct relationship between how much you spend and how much you consume, and between how much you consume, and the size of your negative impact on the world.
Again, to be clear, because this is important: there is a DIRECT relationship between how much you spend and the size of your negative impact on the world.
I think the real issue, in terms of our personal responsibility to the world is - has to be - our net impact. You can not just look at how much one gives while ignoring how much they take.
You need to take all the charity and donations and volunteering and self-sacrifice, and then subtract all the consumption, and only then do you get a meaningful result.
If you are taking more than your share in the first place, then hell yeah, you should feel obligated to give something back. But if you are taking 20 times your share, then giving back 10% is hardly anything to be proud of. You are still in the red. Way, way in the red.
Maybe the reason yall in the upper-middle-class feel so strongly about giving cash is because on some level you know you have more than your share to begin with.
But then, instead of acknowledging that imbalance in your own mind, you make it about the principal of giving, which basically lets you off the hook for giving back 2 units (after you took 20 units in the first place) - and then that in turn leads to the idea that everyone else should be giving back 10%, even if they didn't take so much extra to begin with.
It may not have been your intention, but more than one person has implied that they are morally superior to the friends and associates I listed above, because those people don't donate cash.
These are people who are spending their lives following their values, while you are sitting there feeling morally superior because once a month you open up your checkbook and give 10% of your massive wealth from the comfort of your living room - money that goes to paying my friends' living expenses while they go about doing the real work that needs to be done.
I'm calling BS on that.
That's like the investor who thinks he deserves the credit for creating the tangible things of value that the worker actually built with his hands. Take away all the investors, and society still functions. Take away all the workers, and it does not.
While y'all talk about the savings you can have by cutting cable or buying used cars, the people in my circles have never paid for cable, don't own cars, and still live with roommates as middle aged adults. They don't do these things so they can retire early. They do these things because that is what life is like when you aren't middle class. Buying a new car isn't an option.
When someone actually donates so much money that all they have left is the $20k a year my friend makes as a special-ed teacher - 20k to spend on both living expenses AND savings, then come back and tell me about how meaningful it is to donate cash, or that it is a mandatory part of ethical living. In other words, if you make 100k gross, donate 80%, not 10%. Then, and only then, will I even consider donations to be as meaningful as actually living ones life according to their values.
The fact that I believe that the root of the first worlds destructiveness is consumption is the whole reason I am here (on the MMM forum) and promote MMM to everyone in my real life.
I really don't care about getting rich. I would enjoy the freedom of FI, but it has never been a primary goal. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I could easily expand my business following the standard capital model and make lots of money, but I find it unethical to skim money off the top of a worker's labor, so I will not expand and hire employees.
I rarely even read the investing posts. They don't interest me. I'm here to give bicycle and composting advice, to learn and teach about saving energy, to have thought provoking political and philosophical discussions like this one.
I'm a fan of MMM because it has a reason for everyone to consume less. Whether you are rich or poor, selfish or socially minded or environmental, or just interested in being a badass human being, the message is the same: consume less. Yes, it would be great if everyone in the world acknowledged their own privileged and wanted to give something back - but they don't. That will never be universal. And MMM says, even if you don't care about the developing world, even if you don't care about the environment, you should still drive less, you should still buy less clothes and electronics. The wider that message spreads, the better the world becomes, as peoples' negative impact becomes smaller - even the people who don't give a damn about charity and are not going to change their minds no matter what you say. And it gets all the people who care, but don't realize that the single most important thing they can do is stop being so destructive.
You want to donate cash, fine. But get your priorities in order.
A person who drives an SUV 20 miles to work each day, eats meat with every meal, owns all the latest gadgets and has 4 kids is not making up for the damage they do to the world by donating a few thousand dollars a year.
Its like if you are trying to get out of debt and start saving by clipping coupons when you live in a 2500sq ft home and own a car bought new on financing. If you want to do good, take care of the big stuff first. Then, if you still feel like you need to do more, then by all means add in some donations and call it charity.
But don't tell me that because you give away some of your excess wealth you are morally superior to people who actually are avoiding the destructive habits that so many American's think of as normal.
In fact, there is my challenge for everyone in this thread:
Stop doing the major destructive things that we Americans (and to a lesser - but still large extent, the rest of the first world) do
Don't have (biological) children. If you already do, fine, of course an existing person has inherent value. But don't have more. If you want to raise a child, adopt.
Don't eat meat (unless you personally raised it, hunted it, or at least went to the farm and witnessed the practices of the farm)
Don't drive a car
Don't take (voluntary) plane trips
Keep your spending for all (new) stuff less than however much you donate each year
Y'all brought this topic up, and have been fierce in suggesting it is everyone's responsibility to do the right thing.
So now I'm stepping it up a notch.
Lets get serious. Not this feel good donate a little and feel good about it crap. Actual personal sacrifice so that we don't take more than our share of the world's resources.
That should really be the minimum - the absolute minimum - that is expected of each and every one of us, and buying indulgences, carbon offsets, or charitable donations does not let anyone off the hook
