Wealth guilt

[Mellabella]

I am currently in South America with my partner who is from there for a year. We are not FI but on our way. I feel so guilty looking at all the poverty around me. I feel a sense of responsibility but also powerlessness. How do you balance saving and looking after your future with philanthropy and knowing you can help everyone? I had a sponsor child for the last 17 years and am naturally on the generous side but I feel like I don’t deserve to have any savings when so many people don’t have enough to live on. How do you handle this responsibility and the guilt that comes with massive privilege? Thanks for your thoughts. I know moustachians are smart thoughtful people so I’m sure I’m not the first to struggle with this.

[DadJokes]

Here are the options I came up with off the top of my head:

1) Pretend the poverty doesn't exist. You go back to America, live in a nice area where you don't actually see poverty on that level, and it becomes less important to you.
2) Do everything you can to help right now. You stunt your future growth, but you lift a lot of people out of poverty (or at least make their immediate and/or future lives a little better).
3) Put on your own oxygen mask first. You work, save, reach FI. Once you have that much money working for you, you can help a whole lot more people. Unfortunately, the people suffering today do not benefit. You can even do small things along the way to help that don't derail your path to FI.
4) You complain about systemic injustice but don't actually do anything. It's the job of various governments to solve people's problems. Nothing changes, but at least you feel like you did something.
5) Despair at your inability to make even the smallest dent in worldwide poverty and inequality. After all, if Bill Gates and all his wealth can't fix sanitation problems in Africa, how can you hope to do anything?

I'm sorry, that went way off the rails. However, I'd argue that #3 is the best choice.

[FIPurpose]

I remember when I did a stint of volunteering in rural Africa through Peace Corps. People would regularly ask me, "how do I move to America so that I can make money?" I had no better answer than "be born there". That's honestly the truth. And it eats at the heart of our current economic status. Our economic privileges were afforded to us simply because of our location. We chose America just as much as anyone else chose their own country. No one did.

We equally have no way to move mountains and suddenly flip an economy where the average wage is $2/hr to $6/hr. I don't think even the POTUS could do that if he wanted. The way that our economy and the economy of other wealthy countries has succeeded is by maintaining a relative political stability for >150 years and growing at a steady pace of about 2-3% every year on average. So that means that fledgling countries who have been around <50 years have a lot to do to catch up. It's possible, but it's a very difficult process.

As an individual, I think the best that you could hope to do is find a way to spur economic activity. Not where you're paying employees a charity wage. But where you are providing capital so that people can start businesses, learning new skills, and slowly building their own ability to build value for themselves and their economy. I knew several people in Africa that tried to run a farm. It takes a lot to get people who are used to stealing or cheating to work in a way that respects both the owner and people who depend on what the farm produces. That mindset can't change overnight, and you can't do it alone.

[BECABECA]

I try to remember how lucky I am and let that influence how I act. I agree, none of us deserve to have massive wealth while so many others are destitute, so I feel responsible to try to improve the situation. Part of my retirement plan was to fund a donor advised fund (DAF) that I donate 4% to charity every year from (just like the 4% rule that I follow for living off my stash). And I use GiveWell to ensure my charitable contributions are effective (the most good per dollar can be done abroad but most Americans only donate to local issues). And my long term plan is to leave the bulk of my estate to charity.

I also try to help the people around me when I see them struggling. A big portion of my retirement is visiting family/friends and helping them with house projects, retirement planning, navigating health problems, etc. It’s a rewarding way to travel and keep in contact.

And finally, I vote for policies that seek to improve things for the most people, even if it might slightly reduce my own advantage.

[mathlete]

I suggest a two pronged approach.

1.) Acceptance: You're a fundamentally selfish person. Almost everyone is. If you're rich enough to pursue FIRE, then you're rich enough to go on to GiveWell and find places where your money can make an appreciable difference in someone's life.

2.) Rationalization:

-Okay, so you could do more, but everyone could do more.
-I could buy someone in Sub Saharan Africa a mosquito net for their bed, and that would appreciably reduce their mortality. But on the other hand, Bill Gates is gonna cure malaria in a few decades anyway. I support his work, but to do so financially would be pissing in the wind.
-I don't have global resources at my disposal to solve these problems, but at least I vote for globally progressive policies when I visit the polls
-If I'm not giving my money away to effective, targeted, scientifically validated charities, then the next best thing I can do is support globalization. When I buy a new iPhone, some worker in China has to make it. And making iPhones for dollars a day, while not an ideal job, is better than the subsistence farming that person was doing 50 years ago.
-If I'm not going to be a global mega-consumer, then the next best thing I can do is take my winnings and go home. If I don't need this job and the paycheck anymore, it's better for me to hand it off to a global mega-consumer and let them collect the check and consume.

[SunnyDays]

I have heard a few things over the years that relate to this issue.  One was from my sociology professor who said something along the lines of "If all the world's wealth was evenly distributed, we would all live in poverty."  Another was from Wayne Dyer, who said something like "I can't be poor enough to makes others rich."  And lastly was a poster at my former work place (a social service agency) that said "You can't help everyone, but you can help someone.  Start with the person next to you."  Wealth is no different than any other attribute, such as intelligence, attractiveness or physical ability.  It's not equal in all people, and there's no way to make it so.  Just do the best you can.  Also, don't assume that happiness is equated to bank account - there are studies that show it is not.

[FIPurpose]

I have heard a few things over the years that relate to this issue.  One was from my sociology professor who said something along the lines of "If all the world's wealth was evenly distributed, we would all live in poverty."  Another was from Wayne Dyer, who said something like "I can't be poor enough to makes others rich."  And lastly was a poster at my former work place (a social service agency) that said "You can't help everyone, but you can help someone.  Start with the person next to you."  Wealth is no different than any other attribute, such as intelligence, attractiveness or physical ability.  It's not equal in all people, and there's no way to make it so.  Just do the best you can.  Also, don't assume that happiness is equated to bank account - there are studies that show it is not.

That's an interesting thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

The per capita PPP GWP in 2017 was approximately Int$17,500 according to the World Factbook.

Which is technically even above the US' poverty line.

[kei te pai]

I have times of difficulty with this. I split my charity donations locally, nationally and internationally. I try to practise gratitude and not to inflate my lifestyle for a multitude of reasons. I worked in impovished communities during my working life, and now remind myself that I did that and did not climb the income ladder instead.

Those experiences can be useful to counter simplistic and right wing attitudes to poverty. And to challenge the sense of entitlement I see around me at times. In my will most of my remaining resources will be charitably gifted and in the meantime I will use what I have wisely and kindly in gratitude for being born in a safe and beautiful place with a stable family.

[tipster350]

I try to achieve a balance of saving and generosity. I give a considerable amount to charity, and volunteer in political actvities fir those who share my values, and if elected could spur action on a broader level. During retirement, I will have more time to get involved. And lastly, I am leaving a good chunk of my estate to charity.

I feel grateful to every day for the privileges conferred upon me just by luck, living in the US, born to a stable family  valuing education and civic responsibility. So much is down to luck.

[sui generis]

I just listened to a great podcast interviewing Peter Singer (philosopher and author of "The Life You Can Save") that is a thought-provoking discussion of exactly this.  And more, like whether it's best to get a super high paying job in tech and just donate 75% of it, or actually work in the field doing direct action, and how far you should go and how to feel about it if you aren't willing to go as far as logical reasoning tells you you should. Check it out: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/65717914

The Life You Can Save is available for download for free right now at his website: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/share-the-book/.  I just dowloaded it and look forward to reading it soon.

Personally, I will probably never make total peace with the fact that I could give more and don't.  But I did donate more than the average American before I FIREd, and now that I have, I have several volunteer "jobs" that I think make a small difference and budget over 15% of my annual expenses for donations.  It's not a magic number or an answer that I'm recommending as the "right" thing to do.  Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything we can do to ever feel ok with the shocking depths of poverty and violence some of our fellow humans (and hey, non-human animals, while I'm at it) live in.  So, you'll always have to face having that discomfort, no matter how much you choose to do.  I hope, knowing that that discomfort is always going to be there to one degree or another, doesn't dissuade people from doing what they can and feeling good about that.  I think this is a lot of what The Life You Can Save addresses.  So check out that free download and there are vetted charities on their site you can give to at the same time if you want to make a gift as a thank you for getting what I understand to be a very well-regarded book for free!

[John Galt incarnate!]

I am currently in South America with my partner who is from there for a year. We are not FI but on our way. I feel so guilty looking at all the poverty around me. I feel a sense of responsibility but also powerlessness. How do you balance saving and looking after your future with philanthropy and knowing you can help everyone? I had a sponsor child for the last 17 years and am naturally on the generous side but I feel like I don’t deserve to have any savings when so many people don’t have enough to live on. How do you handle this responsibility and the guilt that comes with massive privilege? Thanks for your thoughts. I know moustachians are smart thoughtful people so I’m sure I’m not the first to struggle with this.

If you pay taxes/fees/etc., and some of them are used to alleviate poverty, let that alleviation assuage your "wealth guilt."

[John Galt incarnate!]

I remember when I did a stint of volunteering in rural Africa through Peace Corps. People would regularly ask me, "how do I move to America so that I can make money?" I had no better answer than "be born there". That's honestly the truth. And it eats at the heart of our current economic status. Our economic privileges were afforded to us simply because of our location. We chose America just as much as anyone else chose their own country. No one did.

We equally have no way to move mountains and suddenly flip an economy where the average wage is $2/hr to $6/hr. I don't think even the POTUS could do that if he wanted. The way that our economy and the economy of other wealthy countries has succeeded is by maintaining a relative political stability for >150 years and growing at a steady pace of about 2-3% every year on average. So that means that fledgling countries who have been around <50 years have a lot to do to catch up. It's possible, but it's a very difficult process.

As an individual, I think the best that you could hope to do is find a way to spur economic activity. Not where you're paying employees a charity wage. But where you are providing capital so that people can start businesses, learning new skills, and slowly building their own ability to build value for themselves and their economy. I knew several people in Africa that tried to run a farm. It takes a lot to get people who are used to stealing or cheating to work in a way that respects both the owner and people who depend on what the farm produces. That mindset can't change overnight, and you can't do it alone.

An economist told me that a few shovels are considered a capital investment  in some of the world's most impoverished countries.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Here are the options I came up with off the top of my head:

1) Pretend the poverty doesn't exist. You go back to America, live in a nice area where you don't actually see poverty on that level, and it becomes less important to you.
2) Do everything you can to help right now. You stunt your future growth, but you lift a lot of people out of poverty (or at least make their immediate and/or future lives a little better).
3) Put on your own oxygen mask first. You work, save, reach FI. Once you have that much money working for you, you can help a whole lot more people. Unfortunately, the people suffering today do not benefit. You can even do small things along the way to help that don't derail your path to FI.
4) You complain about systemic injustice but don't actually do anything. It's the job of various governments to solve people's problems. Nothing changes, but at least you feel like you did something.
5) Despair at your inability to make even the smallest dent in worldwide poverty and inequality. After all, if Bill Gates and all his wealth can't fix sanitation problems in Africa, how can you hope to do anything?

I'm sorry, that went way off the rails. However, I'd argue that #3 is the best choice.

I agree that choosing option #3 would be best for the OP.

[FIPurpose]

I just listened to a great podcast interviewing Peter Singer (philosopher and author of "The Life You Can Save") that is a thought-provoking discussion of exactly this.  And more, like whether it's best to get a super high paying job in tech and just donate 75% of it, or actually work in the field doing direct action, and how far you should go and how to feel about it if you aren't willing to go as far as logical reasoning tells you you should. Check it out: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/65717914

The Life You Can Save is available for download for free right now at his website: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/share-the-book/.  I just dowloaded it and look forward to reading it soon.

Personally, I will probably never make total peace with the fact that I could give more and don't.  But I did donate more than the average American before I FIREd, and now that I have, I have several volunteer "jobs" that I think make a small difference and budget over 15% of my annual expenses for donations.  It's not a magic number or an answer that I'm recommending as the "right" thing to do.  Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything we can do to ever feel ok with the shocking depths of poverty and violence some of our fellow humans (and hey, non-human animals, while I'm at it) live in.  So, you'll always have to face having that discomfort, no matter how much you choose to do.  I hope, knowing that that discomfort is always going to be there to one degree or another, doesn't dissuade people from doing what they can and feeling good about that.  I think this is a lot of what The Life You Can Save addresses.  So check out that free download and there are vetted charities on their site you can give to at the same time if you want to make a gift as a thank you for getting what I understand to be a very well-regarded book for free!

Half hour in, this is a fantastic and this podcast is fantastic. I'm going to listen to the book soon as well. I've thought a lot about how to go about donating my money in a meaningful way. I'm thinking of continuing to work 10-20 years after I hit a FIRE point at which point maybe I will start donating 50-60% of my salary instead of saving 50-60%.

Navigating how to give away your money in a meaningful way is a very difficult task. Happiness does not increase after 75k, which means that a nest egg past $2MM doesn't provide anything personally. Thankfully, I'm still a number of years away from this point and I still have time to contemplate it. Thank you for the recommendation.

[mozar]

Understand that it's an issue of poor government management. Why do some countries have problems managing themselves? Look at their history of exploitation. Who and how they were exploited. For example the difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is stark. You can even see it in aerial photos. The land in Haiti is brown and barren, DR is lush. Haiti had their resources exploited beyond what DR had to deal with.
I can't think of any resources off the top of my head but if you start googling around you will start to find books and orgs that are actually helping. Also there is 3rd world poverty in the USA. You don't have to travel far if you want to help people. There's even been UN investigations in the USA because of the poverty here.

[Glenstache]

It is natural and appropriate to see large numbers of people in distress and want to help. It would be a concern if you didn't have that response. If you dig into the journals sections or many other threads, there are a lot of examples for how people balance volunteer work for others and other allocations of resources into their FIRE plans. The spectrum ranges from do nothing to as-long-as-I-have-more-I-have-a-responsibility-to-give-what-I-have.  Where you land on that spectrum is your decision. The point of mustachianism is not the accumulation of wealth as a means on its own. The purpose is to be intentional in your financial decisions to be secure and fulfilled. FI is a means to have long term security. Frankly, virtually all who get there do so from a position of privilege. The 'wealth guilt" part is really the fulfillment part of the story. The mustachian approach is to be critical /logical/selective about how you can contribute. You can work globally or locally (ie, circle of control). Set expectations for what you want to be able to do. I think the approach of building self-sufficiency tools is the best. I personally bias towards work that encourages education, especially of women as the research I have seen indicates that it has a generational leveraging effect, and also because it aligns with things that I value. That said, I remember a story from someone doing work in Nepal who received the feedback that the schools are great, but to really be able to use them, people needed more time; a bridge had been washed out and they no longer had easy access to other villages as they had to walk the long way for trade, etc. He then reoriented to getting funding to rebuild the bridge ( a few thousand dollars for a simple cable bridge). The point is that organizations that have good communication with locals about what will go furthest is useful.

[sjlp]

1) Pretend the poverty doesn't exist. You go back to America, live in a nice area where you don't actually see poverty on that level, and it becomes less important to you.
2) Do everything you can to help right now. You stunt your future growth, but you lift a lot of people out of poverty (or at least make their immediate and/or future lives a little better).
3) Put on your own oxygen mask first. You work, save, reach FI. Once you have that much money working for you, you can help a whole lot more people. Unfortunately, the people suffering today do not benefit. You can even do small things along the way to help that don't derail your path to FI.

I struggle with this issue a lot, as I am only donating ~2.5% of my income. I recently looked it up and a net worth of $93,170 puts someone in the 90th percentile in terms of worldwide wealth, and $871,320 in the 99th percentile.

I am considering a combination strategy, where I reach barebones FI and then spend one year saving in a donor-advised fund. While I am reaching full FI, those funds have a chance to grow, and then can be donated out at 4% in perpetuity or in larger chunks if desired. I would be interested to hear if anyone else is doing something similar.

By the way, we have plenty of poverty at home in America. Some 40 million Americans don't know where their next meal will come from, 11 million of whom are children. An additional 4 million Americans are going to lose their access to food assistance with recent policy changes. So even though this problem is solvable by government and society, I am still donating some to causes that immediately benefit people, such as food banks. Health care is a similar story.

I am voting my conscious, but I no longer donate to specific candidates. The problem is the rules of game, and replacing one candidate with another will not solve the underlying systemic issues of democracy. Instead, I donate to groups such as the Campaign Legal Center who are fighting gerrymandering and destructive campaign finance laws. With more time when I am FI, I would like to register and mobilize voters and be more politically active. 

Someone mentioned Charity Navigator as a way to research U.S. charities. For international charities, I recommend Global Giving. They do take a small cut of the donation but they provide support and services to the NGOs. And if you want to use your dollars effectively, I encourage folks to donate cash that is unrestricted--i.e., not tied to a specific initiative or project. It reduces the administrative burden for organizations, and it actually can be valuable for a charity to spend money on "overhead" if it allows them to, for example, raise more funds or be more effective in executing their goals. 

[ctuser1]

For those choosing to donate to charity, my humble request is to read up on the work of this years Nobel prize recipients, since that directly concerns how to work on global poverty.

I’ve found that some of the largest charitable organizations actively follow their work (eg UNICEF, Gates Foundation etc) and try to be more effective in poverty reduction. I’ve also found (anecdotally, NOT backed by peer reviewed research) that religious charities are some of the least receptive or flexible in terms of adapting their work based on scientific research.

Of course there are always exceptions. A stint at the “missionaries of Charity” would do anyone loads of good, and the secular ones do loads of silly things that waste money. However, I like my money to, in general, support evidence based targeted charity.

[MMM365]

There seem to be two questions here:
1) How do avoid being guilty about the wealth that I have access to (some of it based on my hard work, but much of it based on the social capital afforded to me by the place I was born)?
2) How much should I give to help others (especially those in extreme poverty)? 

The way I live with these questions:
1) I was born on third base and remind myself of that every day.  Based on this, while I do enjoy some (quite a few first world) luxuries (such as air conditioning, enjoy travel, the ability to pursue FI), I also realize the opportunity (and can I say responsibility?) of using these resources to help others.  I have always had a commitment to giving and have considered that commitment in my budget, in my numbers for FI, and in my obstacles to FI.  I’m not feeling guilty because I enjoy thee opportunity to use the opportunities that I have to help others. 
2) How much to give (and even more difficult, where to give) is a very challenging and personal answer.  I have always committed to a percentage giving and have increased that percentage through the years.  At the end of each year, I commit to an additional 1-2% of net income (on great years, I have increased by 5%) for the following year.  I continue to be surprised that I don’t miss the increased charitable giving.  I continue to feel justified in that commitment as I see yearly charitable donations grow.  For where to give, I commit time and some money to local charitable organizations (most of whom I have some type of knowledge and relationship with) and most of the dollars to international aid organizations centered on basic needs of nutrition, clean water, and education.  I use givingwell and charity navigator as my directions. 

This philosophy and way of giving has evolved through the years and continues to evolve. 
I don’t have lifelong answers for you, just answers for where I am today and where I have come from. 

[Cpa Cat]

That's an interesting thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

The per capita PPP GWP in 2017 was approximately Int$17,500 according to the World Factbook.

Which is technically even above the US' poverty line.

Only if we assume that we have no need for health care, education, and other infrastructure. If we have to fund those things, it’s unlikely we’d be above poverty level.

[Wrenchturner]

Cutting a cheque is easy charity, maybe you should use your back instead.  If you're feeling guilty, it's probably because you aren't contributing as much as you could.  The sympathy is normal, though.

[thesis]

Most of us have heard how winning the lottery will often ruin people with no financial discipline, but only recently did I hear of some cases where this didn't apply to spending money on oneself. One story involved a person who won the lottery who received tons of mail with sob stories, and due to being so compassionate, was simply incapable of NOT giving money away. They went broke. It's sad, but just as stupid as those who blow it all on cars, houses, and bling.

We can't fix systemic problems with money. Money solves money problems. Money does not solve discipline problems, mindset problems, or even "poverty" problems, though it may sometimes overlap on some details.

I'm not afraid to speak up on the job. My integrity is in check because I could survive quite a while without a paycheck. I don't hassle people when I don't get some tiny, ridiculous discount I'm "entitled" to. I drive older cars and am highly unlikely to go into rage mode if involved in a fender bender. I tip well. FI, even just the journey toward it, can give you the power to positively impact the world around you.

One of these days, I plan to give a huge tip to a bad waiter, because some people just get stuck in jobs they hate, and we all have bad days, but I think we all deserve some grace from time to time.

[Xlar]

Cutting a cheque is easy charity, maybe you should use your back instead.  If you're feeling guilty, it's probably because you aren't contributing as much as you could.  The sympathy is normal, though.

While cutting a cheque may be "easy" it is also what charities need. Lots of charities have more volunteers than they need. Plus if we're talking about helping in 3rd world countries the cost of plane tickets to fly there and do manual labor (like building an orphanage) would be much better spent hiring local people to do that same labor.

[Wrenchturner]

Cutting a cheque is easy charity, maybe you should use your back instead.  If you're feeling guilty, it's probably because you aren't contributing as much as you could.  The sympathy is normal, though.

While cutting a cheque may be "easy" it is also what charities need. Lots of charities have more volunteers than they need. Plus if we're talking about helping in 3rd world countries the cost of plane tickets to fly there and do manual labor (like building an orphanage) would be much better spent hiring local people to do that same labor.

Huh? Op is already in south america.  And there is psychological value in physical labor fundamentally, which was my point. 

[ChpBstrd]

Poverty is a result of systems:

1) Corruption and poor / unstable governance
2) Counterproductive cultural values such as strictly limited roles for women and minorities, devaluation of education, suspicions of free markets and democracy, authoritarian parenting styles, ethnic conflicts, religiosity, attitudes toward contraception and birth control, etc.
3) Regulations and cartels that force prices up, e.g. housing prices in California pumped up by restrictive zoning, causing ruin for low wage renters
4) Pollutants such as lead, mercury, and dioxin reducing people’s economic potential by harming health and IQ

Addressing these systematic causes should be the priority, because they have an outsized impact and persist across generations. However it is hard to connect one’s sympathy for individuals with the sort of cultural and political activism required to mitigate these factors.

[Daisyedwards800]

I am currently in South America with my partner who is from there for a year. We are not FI but on our way. I feel so guilty looking at all the poverty around me. I feel a sense of responsibility but also powerlessness. How do you balance saving and looking after your future with philanthropy and knowing you can help everyone? I had a sponsor child for the last 17 years and am naturally on the generous side but I feel like I don’t deserve to have any savings when so many people don’t have enough to live on. How do you handle this responsibility and the guilt that comes with massive privilege? Thanks for your thoughts. I know moustachians are smart thoughtful people so I’m sure I’m not the first to struggle with this.

If you pay taxes/fees/etc., and some of them are used to alleviate poverty, let that alleviation assuage your "wealth guilt."

Unfortunately only a very small percentage of our taxes are used for that purpose :/

[J.R. Ewing]

Tithe off the top now, tithe off the top in retirement.  Yes, it will take longer to get to retirement, but it's the right thing to do.  It comes with the bonus of your happiness.  Nothing boosts happiness more than helping others. 

[Wrenchturner]

Poverty is a result of systems:

1) Corruption and poor / unstable governance
2) Counterproductive cultural values such as strictly limited roles for women and minorities, devaluation of education, suspicions of free markets and democracy, authoritarian parenting styles, ethnic conflicts, religiosity, attitudes toward contraception and birth control, etc.
3) Regulations and cartels that force prices up, e.g. housing prices in California pumped up by restrictive zoning, causing ruin for low wage renters
4) Pollutants such as lead, mercury, and dioxin reducing people’s economic potential by harming health and IQ

Addressing these systematic causes should be the priority, because they have an outsized impact and persist across generations. However it is hard to connect one’s sympathy for individuals with the sort of cultural and political activism required to mitigate these factors.

I'm not disagreeing, but it's also true that tropical countries get hit with nasty storms pretty frequently which tear up their infrastructure.  So it's not all human failing.  Not sure precisely where op is located.

[fredbear]

A friend - scholar of latin, greek, and hebrew - who somewhat improbably ran an outboard-motor dealership, maintained a counter-cyclic fund.  Saved in the seven fat years, against the seven lean years.  When his city or state was solidly in a recession, he instituted the projects he had been saving for, in order to keep people employed.  Was thinking of him when I agreed with the contractor that he should not finish the house now, but keep it going for another three months or so, in order to keep his regular crew employed during the Christmas holidays. 

I don't give much to charity, but I believe strongly in giving people a chance to earn their living. 

[honeybbq]

Traveling to and be aware of worldly situations is important.

I try to use my US dollars and buy items from smaller shops and sales folks rather than tourist row. Get off the beaten path and eat from the smaller restaurants or the guy with a cart in the square. Being a "consumer" in one of these countries can help.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I respectfully disagree with the underlying idea of “wealth guilt.” If I understand the “privilege” philosophy I keep hearing about, it goes something like this: the reason why I am relatively wealthy is because of some sort of privilege that I received as a result of being born in the first world, into a middle class family and being male. And for reasons that elude me, I’m supposed to atone for that.  So why would I feel guilt for something that is entirely outside my control? 

What I think we’re getting at instead is something more like the religious view that we are our Brother’s keeper. But since religion is out of fashion these days, we try to express religious values in secular terms.

Some thoughts:

- part of the problem with poverty is a lack of information and the ability to use it. Teaching matters hugely. And we’re not talking esoteric stuff. Education on how to use fertilizer effectively for example. 

- environmental issues and poverty go hand in hand. Wealthy communities have nice, clean environments. Poor ones get to drink the polluted water, eat the tainted food, and breathe the noxious fumes. Western environmentalism is focused on big, dramatic issues. So we’ll get all excited about the spending trillions to combat AGW. Getting clean water to Subsistence farmers? Meh.

- poverty and corruption go hand-in-hand. People like to point out the history of colonial exploitation. But what about the time since colonialism? Compare the outcomes of resource rich Zimbabwe versus resource poor Singapore. Or Namibia if you prefer.

-if politics and voting were all that effective at addressing poverty, we would be reading about the elimination of poverty in the history books by now. Sadly, poverty is politically profitable.

- poverty has some relation to investment. Western capital markets can figure out dozens if not hundreds of ways to finance all sorts of business endeavors at low cost.  Financing micro scale businesses that might lift people out of poverty? Not much enthusiasm for that it seems.

[ChpBstrd]

I respectfully disagree with the underlying idea of “wealth guilt.” If I understand the “privilege” philosophy I keep hearing about, it goes something like this: the reason why I am relatively wealthy is because of some sort of privilege that I received as a result of being born in the first world, into a middle class family and being male. And for reasons that elude me, I’m supposed to atone for that.  So why would I feel guilt for something that is entirely outside my control? 

What I think we’re getting at instead is something more like the religious view that we are our Brother’s keeper. But since religion is out of fashion these days, we try to express religious values in secular terms.

Some thoughts:

- part of the problem with poverty is a lack of information and the ability to use it. Teaching matters hugely. And we’re not talking esoteric stuff. Education on how to use fertilizer effectively for example. 

- environmental issues and poverty go hand in hand. Wealthy communities have nice, clean environments. Poor ones get to drink the polluted water, eat the tainted food, and breathe the noxious fumes. Western environmentalism is focused on big, dramatic issues. So we’ll get all excited about the spending trillions to combat AGW. Getting clean water to Subsistence farmers? Meh.

- poverty and corruption go hand-in-hand. People like to point out the history of colonial exploitation. But what about the time since colonialism? Compare the outcomes of resource rich Zimbabwe versus resource poor Singapore. Or Namibia if you prefer.

-if politics and voting were all that effective at addressing poverty, we would be reading about the elimination of poverty in the history books by now. Sadly, poverty is politically profitable.

- poverty has some relation to investment. Western capital markets can figure out dozens if not hundreds of ways to finance all sorts of business endeavors at low cost.  Financing micro scale businesses that might lift people out of poverty? Not much enthusiasm for that it seems.

Lots of intriguing ideas here!

-I’d say our lacking sense of responsibility for other people - the brother’s keeper attitude - is more a consequence of our hyper-individualism than a lack of religiosity. Recall that is was, and still is, the most religious people who argue against the social safety net.

-It would be odd for companies in the developed world to NOT invest in the undeveloped world, with its cheap labor and abundant resources, if there wasn’t some other reason causing such investments to lose money. Corruption and a lack of common infrastructure come to mind, but cultural factors and a lack of education probably factor in too.

-How can poverty exist in democracies? Good question. People must be voting for policies not aligned with success. Why do they do so? I want to say lack of education, but then what about the US and U.K.? More likely, the corrupt can buy enough media to perpetuate their rule.

[kite]

For those choosing to donate to charity, my humble request is to read up on the work of this years Nobel prize recipients, since that directly concerns how to work on global poverty.

I’ve found that some of the largest charitable organizations actively follow their work (eg UNICEF, Gates Foundation etc) and try to be more effective in poverty reduction. I’ve also found (anecdotally, NOT backed by peer reviewed research) that religious charities are some of the least receptive or flexible in terms of adapting their work based on scientific research.

Of course there are always exceptions. A stint at the “missionaries of Charity” would do anyone loads of good, and the secular ones do loads of silly things that waste money. However, I like my money to, in general, support evidence based targeted charity.

I think the challenge in comparing religious and secular charities for their reliance on scientific research for the reduction of poverty is that poverty reduction is very likely not the aim of any religious non-profit.  The basement of the Cathedral in the capital city of my state serves meals on the weekend when the government run soup kitchen is closed.   Different church groups rotate hosting duties on weekends throughout the year, and hosting involves purchase, prep, serve & clean-up of 2 meals + a to-go bag of a meal for later for several hundred.  The aim is never going to be curing poverty, but it will be the alleviation of hunger.  I don't think a better use of my charity dollars is going to be a donation to a charity that is trying to follow the evidence.  I don't have it in me to say to the hungry in my own town, "I know you haven't eaten, but The Gates Foundation will surely come up with something, soon. Just sit tight."   Judeo-Christian religions have a far longer history than any secular group.   And what they also have, going back thousands of years is scripture that explicitly tell them there will always be poverty.  Despite that, plenty of religious charity has helped to lift people out of poverty through education.  Again, reducing poverty wasn't the aim, but it was some of the result.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Lots of intriguing ideas here!

-I’d say our lacking sense of responsibility for other people - the brother’s keeper attitude - is more a consequence of our hyper-individualism than a lack of religiosity. Recall that is was, and still is, the most religious people who argue against the social safety net.

Depends on who the religious are. Unfortunately religion in general and Christianity in particular has been conflated with right wing politics and policies. It’s been an unmitigated disaster. Truth is many religious are supportive of “safety nets.”

-It would be odd for companies in the developed world to NOT invest in the undeveloped world, with its cheap labor and abundant resources, if there wasn’t some other reason causing such investments to lose money. Corruption and a lack of common infrastructure come to mind, but cultural factors and a lack of education probably factor in too.

No doubt. But a lack of ingenuity also factors in. IIRC, there is a Chinese financial company out there that is using cellphones to deliver financing. Also, it’s tough to scale financing to people at the bottom of the ladder due to the administrative cost.

-How can poverty exist in democracies? Good question. People must be voting for policies not aligned with success. Why do they do so? I want to say lack of education, but then what about the US and U.K.? More likely, the corrupt can buy enough media to perpetuate their rule.

I don’t give much credence to the idea that people can somehow vote correctly. The reason why politicians act they way they do is because the incentives provided (E.g. power, wealth) are not at all related to solving problems. There is a disincentive for politicians to solve social problems, as that gives them one less issue to use for campaigns and to distinguish themselves from their opponents. To draw a parallel, it’s like actively managed funds. It’s no wonder actively managed funds underperform; the fund managers are typically paid not based on results, but on total assets under management. So the objective for the fund manager is not to necessarily maximize returns, but to not anger clients and maximize assets under management. In much the same way, politicians succeed by being elected, not by actually doing anything to improve society.

[sui generis]

And for reasons that elude me, I’m supposed to atone for that.

I just want to strenuously protest this interpretation of the lately-popular discussions on privilege.  I can understand that it is often talked about haphazardly and without good marketing phrasing and also that the word privilege is so offensive to some that they find it hard to see what is really being said.  But I don't think anyone in good faith could think that someone that is privileged in certain ways (or shall we use a less freighted word?  "Lucky" perhaps?) must do acts of penance as if they did something wrong. 

I don't think it's exactly about being our Brothers' Keepers either, though I wouldn't strongly disagree with that.  I think the most basic point with acknowledging the many ways we have been lucky is about humility.  That we did not earn everything we have. And that's not to insult us as if we are undeserving per se.  When you meet someone who's lucky, unless you are very churlish you don't (I hope!) resent them for their undeserved luckiness.  You are happy for them that they experienced this luck.  The same goes from finding a penny on the ground to being born in the first world.  Good for you for that luck!  But let's at least help each other recognize the humility we should have, the refusal to try to take personal credit for the heights we have achieved, but more realistically acknowledge those heights comprise both varying degrees of luck and of hard work, depending on the person.  With that humility, it is easier to recognize the lack of fault in others that haven't experienced the success we have, and not find them so undeserving of charity.  The humility we gain through acknowledging our luck has a lot more benefits than just enabling us to be less judgmental of others for a reductive "lack of effort on their part".  But in no case should anyone take away from a discussion of luck/privilege that they are obligated to perform atonement for their luck, which is strictly something one does for having performed a bad act.  Being lucky or privileged is not in any way equivalent to having performed a "bad act". 

[FireLane]

I don't think it's exactly about being our Brothers' Keepers either, though I wouldn't strongly disagree with that.  I think the most basic point with acknowledging the many ways we have been lucky is about humility.  That we did not earn everything we have. And that's not to insult us as if we are undeserving per se.  When you meet someone who's lucky, unless you are very churlish you don't (I hope!) resent them for their undeserved luckiness.  You are happy for them that they experienced this luck.  The same goes from finding a penny on the ground to being born in the first world.  Good for you for that luck!  But let's at least help each other recognize the humility we should have, the refusal to try to take personal credit for the heights we have achieved, but more realistically acknowledge those heights comprise both varying degrees of luck and of hard work, depending on the person.  With that humility, it is easier to recognize the lack of fault in others that haven't experienced the success we have, and not find them so undeserving of charity.

Well said, and I'd add that, to me, this is a question of justice.

We have the ability, if we chose, to provide good food, clean water, housing, education, medical care, and a peaceful and safe living environment to everyone. It's morally wrong that some people have access to those basic human needs while others don't, and it's morally wrong that this is largely determined by random chance factors like when and where you were born. Even Warren Buffett has said that he wouldn't be rich if he hadn't had the good luck of being born into a time and place that happened to offer an opportunity for him to make use of the talents he had.

Even if you didn't personally participate in constructing this unjust world, you should recognize that you've benefited from it while others, equally deserving, haven't done as well. If you value fairness, you should want to fix this injustice - to make the crooked places straight - so that more people can have the same good fortune that you've enjoyed.

[MonkeyJenga]

I donate to charity, both in the US and internationally. I volunteer at a food bank and for political causes that I believe will improve protections for vulnerable populations and the environment. I worked and will work again for the same political causes.

I could donate more, absolutely. I've wrestled with the FIRE vs increased charity dilemma. If I was still working, I could essentially donate my entire salary. That was my plan last year, actually, but the job itself was so stressful that I felt owed the cash.

I'm glad I've taken time off now, even if I go back to work later. My health has improved, and I'm building skills that should make my future contributions more sustainable.

There's likely a level at which you can contribute and feel like you're making a difference without delaying FIRE too much. Take another look at your spending. See what categories you can take a piece from and reallocate to charity. Volunteer locally and find out what the community's greatest needs are, and how you can help. Money is the most efficient help, and seeing on the ground impact makes the biggest impact on your emotions. So do both!

I just listened to a great podcast interviewing Peter Singer (philosopher and author of "The Life You Can Save") that is a thought-provoking discussion of exactly this.  And more, like whether it's best to get a super high paying job in tech and just donate 75% of it, or actually work in the field doing direct action, and how far you should go and how to feel about it if you aren't willing to go as far as logical reasoning tells you you should. Check it out: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/65717914

The Life You Can Save is available for download for free right now at his website: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/share-the-book/.  I just dowloaded it and look forward to reading it soon.

I've downloaded this podcast, thanks!

[Freedomin5]

You also realize that wealth is not the only indicator of a successful or happy or meaningful life. You look around you and realize that some of the poorest villagers are also the happiest and most at peace. You approach them and befriend them with humility and learn from them. You learn to serve each other. Money just makes your life different, it doesn’t make your life better than theirs. And it’s incredibly ethnocentric and prideful to feel sorry for them and to feel like you have so much to offer them because you have money and they have “nothing”. You can offer them money, but they can offer you life lessons on being content.

How do I know this? I moved to where they are, and I live amongst them. They are my friends and my neighbors.

[ChpBstrd]

Lots of intriguing ideas here!

-I’d say our lacking sense of responsibility for other people - the brother’s keeper attitude - is more a consequence of our hyper-individualism than a lack of religiosity. Recall that is was, and still is, the most religious people who argue against the social safety net.

Depends on who the religious are. Unfortunately religion in general and Christianity in particular has been conflated with right wing politics and policies. It’s been an unmitigated disaster. Truth is many religious are supportive of “safety nets.”

-It would be odd for companies in the developed world to NOT invest in the undeveloped world, with its cheap labor and abundant resources, if there wasn’t some other reason causing such investments to lose money. Corruption and a lack of common infrastructure come to mind, but cultural factors and a lack of education probably factor in too.

No doubt. But a lack of ingenuity also factors in. IIRC, there is a Chinese financial company out there that is using cellphones to deliver financing. Also, it’s tough to scale financing to people at the bottom of the ladder due to the administrative cost.

-How can poverty exist in democracies? Good question. People must be voting for policies not aligned with success. Why do they do so? I want to say lack of education, but then what about the US and U.K.? More likely, the corrupt can buy enough media to perpetuate their rule.

I don’t give much credence to the idea that people can somehow vote correctly. The reason why politicians act they way they do is because the incentives provided (E.g. power, wealth) are not at all related to solving problems. There is a disincentive for politicians to solve social problems, as that gives them one less issue to use for campaigns and to distinguish themselves from their opponents. To draw a parallel, it’s like actively managed funds. It’s no wonder actively managed funds underperform; the fund managers are typically paid not based on results, but on total assets under management. So the objective for the fund manager is not to necessarily maximize returns, but to not anger clients and maximize assets under management. In much the same way, politicians succeed by being elected, not by actually doing anything to improve society.

There has been a demographic shift in the US away from more charitably oriented Christian denominations and more towards denominations that emphasize the rewards individuals can get in exchange for doing what the organization requires of them. It is as if voting a certain way is easier than doing things for the less fortunate, and by economic incentive alone people gravitate toward the cheaper version of faith. Yes, "many" religious people do lots of good work, but I would argue "most" get their positive self-concept from being a member of their ingroup. This opens them up to the criticism that they are more like country clubs: https://galileounchained.com/2012/05/14/are-churches-more-like-charities-or-country-clubs/

Regarding politicians, I think there is also an incentive to be known for greatness. Marcus Aurelius died over 1800 years ago and people still think of him as one of Rome's greatest leaders. Nero on the other hand, is still infamous as a shithead today. Abraham Lincoln is considered the president who saved the nation and emancipated millions of people. Herbert Hoover OTOH is still acknowledged as a failure. There is a certain immortality involved with greatness. Being written into history books and spoken adoringly of decades or centuries after one's death might be what Earnest Becker would call a "causa sui" project. I suspect this is the reason so many people invest irrational amounts of energy into becoming leaders.

[Buffaloski Boris]

And for reasons that elude me, I’m supposed to atone for that.

I just want to strenuously protest this interpretation of the lately-popular discussions on privilege.  I can understand that it is often talked about haphazardly and without good marketing phrasing and also that the word privilege is so offensive to some that they find it hard to see what is really being said.

Objection noted and thanks for the detailed response and what are obviously sincere and heartfelt views.

I admit that I tend to take a fairly dismissive attitude toward pop culture phenomenon. And until recently I’ve viewed this whole “privilege” idea as just another here today, gone tomorrow idea that probably won’t survive the test of time.* But it seems to be sticking around so I did some research with google based on your post. What I found wasn’t particularly reassuring.

Apparently this whole idea of “privilege” got going with a feminist sociologist by the name of Peggy McIntosh who wrote a paper called “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies.” The paper went on to list some 46 grievances about whites. When the paper was written (1988), I was well into adulthood. I largely agree that the problems she highlighted were valid. Here’s the thing though: this isn’t 1988 and the world has changed for the better since then. The grievances she pointed out have greatly diminished in the last 30 years. We also need to remember that words have meaning. While using the the term “advantage” or “luck” would no doubt be more palatable than the term “privilege,” Ms. McIntosh chose to call it privilege and that’s the popular term still used today. I also noticed in researching this just how often the terms “white” and “male” were associated with the word “privilege.” I didn’t notice references to Asian privilege or Black privilege or even female privilege. The association of white and male with “privilege” is common enough that I think there is a credible argument that the term “privilege” as used in common speech is something of a code word loosely meaning white male oppression. I can very much see why it is and perhaps should be considered offensive.

Finally a few words on humility. I agree with you on this point. We could all use more humility and none of us are where we are strictly as a result of our own actions. I’m the first to agree that bootstrapping is largely, by not entirely,  a myth. The question for me is at what point do we acknowledge that taking personal responsibility for our fate enters into the equation as well?

*(I view FIRE as a pop culture phenomenon. But that’s a discussion for another day.)

[thesis]

There is a certain immortality involved with greatness. Being written into history books and spoken adoringly of decades or centuries after one's death might be what Earnest Becker would call a "causa sui" project. I suspect this is the reason so many people invest irrational amounts of energy into becoming leaders.

Good point. I think this must be why even dictators want to be thought of as benevolent and just...as long as they get their way, too ;-)

[John Galt incarnate!]

Good point. I think this must be why even dictators want to be thought of as benevolent and just...as long as they get their way, too ;-)

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”  Albert Camus

[sui generis]

And for reasons that elude me, I’m supposed to atone for that.

I just want to strenuously protest this interpretation of the lately-popular discussions on privilege.  I can understand that it is often talked about haphazardly and without good marketing phrasing and also that the word privilege is so offensive to some that they find it hard to see what is really being said.

Objection noted and thanks for the detailed response and what are obviously sincere and heartfelt views.

I admit that I tend to take a fairly dismissive attitude toward pop culture phenomenon. And until recently I’ve viewed this whole “privilege” idea as just another here today, gone tomorrow idea that probably won’t survive the test of time.* But it seems to be sticking around so I did some research with google based on your post. What I found wasn’t particularly reassuring.

Apparently this whole idea of “privilege” got going with a feminist sociologist by the name of Peggy McIntosh who wrote a paper called “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies.” The paper went on to list some 46 grievances about whites. When the paper was written (1988), I was well into adulthood. I largely agree that the problems she highlighted were valid. Here’s the thing though: this isn’t 1988 and the world has changed for the better since then. The grievances she pointed out have greatly diminished in the last 30 years. We also need to remember that words have meaning. While using the the term “advantage” or “luck” would no doubt be more palatable than the term “privilege,” Ms. McIntosh chose to call it privilege and that’s the popular term still used today. I also noticed in researching this just how often the terms “white” and “male” were associated with the word “privilege.” I didn’t notice references to Asian privilege or Black privilege or even female privilege. The association of white and male with “privilege” is common enough that I think there is a credible argument that the term “privilege” as used in common speech is something of a code word loosely meaning white male oppression. I can very much see why it is and perhaps should be considered offensive.

I fail to see the connection here as to why the correlation of the words "privilege" with "white" or "male" lead to the conclusion that "someone" is requiring someone else to do atonement.  You may not like that someone is suggesting that white males are generally "luckier" than non-white non-males, but that doesn't mean that statement has demanded atonement (again in the sense of doing penance for having performed a bad act) of white males.

Finally a few words on humility. I agree with you on this point. We could all use more humility and none of us are where we are strictly as a result of our own actions. I’m the first to agree that bootstrapping is largely, by not entirely,  a myth. The question for me is at what point do we acknowledge that taking personal responsibility for our fate enters into the equation as well?

Do you really think most people claim it doesn't "enter[] into the equation" at all?  I'm just shocked that we live in such different worlds that almost all I see is people judging other people for their personal failings to achieve what (e.g.) I can achieve, and almost no acknowledgement of the role luck plays.  It is just lately that people seem even willing to acknowledge the tiny role uncontrollable factors can play in results people can achieve.

My personal answer is that I'm much more aware that we know humans attribute others' failures to their character and their own failures to circumstances (and a lot of vice versa for successes), so when I am tempted to judge others for failing to take responsibility, and I have a chance to stop to be thoughtful, I'm usually able to see how "personal responsibility" may or may not play a significant role.  Pertinent to this thread, for instance, it's not possible for me to conclude that each individual in most of the populace of a South American country has simply failed to take enough personal responsibility for them to achieve the great heights I have, and if only they would, everything would be better for them.  The likelihood that their additional personal responsibility-taking could put them into a similar situation as me is, I think, de minimis.  I think there might be few things more valuable in this world right now, both policy and interpersonal-wise, than to acknowledge and act on the knowledge that we all live disparate lives significantly due to luck and circumstance and then to face with courage the difficult task of asking what morality and justice (as @FireLane rightly identified) demand of us.

[ericrugiero]

This is something that I have thought about because it does feel selfish to pursue wealth when others are struggling.  On the other hand, most would think nothing of spending every penny they make and not have anything left to give. 

I'm thinking for me the right path is to be somewhat generous now (give 10-15%) while still pursuing FI.  Also, I'm trying to keep the right mindset.  It's easy for me to be so focused on reaching FI that I don't take time to enjoy life now.  As mentioned above, some of the happiest people on earth own practically nothing.  I'm trying to find the balance of:
- Saving aggressively while still being generous
- Focusing on the goal of reaching FIRE while enjoying life today

One thing that helps me feel better is that if/when I do reach FIRE I plan to spend more of my time and money helping others.  So, my plan really is to help less than I could now so that I can help more later.   

[CogentCap]

OP--I second the advice of those here who have recommended The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer.  I think it will suit you perfectly and help you decide for yourself the best course of action for you to take. You absolutely, 100% can be part of the solution to world poverty. 

You also don't have to feel bad or guilty for your ability to help (meaning, your great and current Stash/earning power.)  The world needs people like you, who have the ability to give some money and also care enough to give it where it's needed the most.

[Mellabella]

Hi all. Thanks so much for your thoughtful replies. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. I will definitely check the book and podcast. Your thoughts have been really helpful and have prompted some good discussions with my partner. :)

[Monerexia]

When I have enough to fully cover the carrying costs of my life, including any eventualities after I'm no longer able to work then I might indulge in the luxury of guilt.

[jaysee]

Interesting topic. These are thoughts I've struggled with over the years. I've reached a few general conclusions though.

How do you balance saving and looking after your future with philanthropy

I provide thoughtful, targetted financial help where and when it can have the greatest impact, within the constraints of my own individual FIRE goals.

In concrete terms, I allocate a non-fixed portion of my yearly income to 'philanthropy' and then simply use it up during the course of the year as/when the need arises.

The giving includes people on the street, friends/family in an emergency, disaster relief like donating to the Australian bushfire recovery efforts and longer-term projects like blind societies, cancer, etc.

In the case of family/friends I set a hard limit on how much I give them and stick to it. I don't want them to depend on me but I also don't want to treat them unfairly if they are in an emergency and really need the money. That policy seems to have worked well.

By limiting all giving to a certain portion of my income and no more, I ensure that I always continue to save most of my income and meet my FIRE goals.

I feel so guilty looking at all the poverty around me.

Why feel guilty? It's not your fault they're poor – it's not their fault either.

Guilt isn't a constructive motivator, better motivators are ambition and gratitude.

Ambition - Maybe you can start a small project, like a teaching program or a small charity fund or an investment fund or something of that kind. That said, you have to also be realistic. Those small projects only work in certain situations and with certain types of people. You may or may not be suited to that job. You shouldn't feel guilty if you can't do much to help. But if you think it's worth a try, and might be fun for you and the people you do it with, by all means!

Gratitude - The only reason the wealthy countries are wealthy is because they harnessed natural resources and built institutions that enabled their people to cash in on those resources. It's not luck or 'privilege'. It took a hell of a lot of blood, sweat & tears to get to this point. We can be grateful for being beneficiaries of their hard work, planning and care.

and knowing you can help everyone?

Poverty is just one of many 'wicked' problems facing humanity which include climate change/adaptation, trade tensions/wars, racism, sexism, cyber-espionage, etc.

These problems are of a scale that can only really be solved at a societal and inter-governmental level. They are not the kinds of problems that can be solved by 'each individual doing his/her part for the greater good', as much as we might find that ideal emotionally appealing.

These wicked problems require experts, high-level goals, coordination and lots of complicated pieces fitting together in the public and private sector.

-----

If it makes you feel better and genuinely helps the people you give money to, then sure, give all you can. Just remember that if/when you run out of money, you're on your own and can't expect them to cover your ass in return!

[jaysee]

Further thoughts...

The biggest help I've ever given people I knew personally was on a higher level than just paying them money:

A) Helping them break into my industry for the first time, by recommending them to my bosses
B) Helping them to get a visa so they could live in my country and earn an income
C) Helping them learn English, again, so they could live in my country

In all these cases, it wasn't a one-way gift, but rather, they offered me something in return. Sometimes food, sometimes friendship/companionship, sometimes good advice that I had to hear.

Trading and give/give relationships are always better than donor/donee or give/take relationships, because then the power and risk is more equally spread between the parties, rather than the giver having all the power and the receiver being at their whim.

Win-win relationships produce wealth, win-lose relationships just reinforce the same problem.

[Mellabella]

I get it, as I've lived in a similar place for a while.  The poverty is depressing on a daily basis, and there's nothing you can actually do about it in the moment.

To help you feel better, I want to ask the following: do you feel guilty when you see someone less attractive?  Someone shorter?  Someone less intelligent?  Should you? 

We all have certain privileges/forms of wealth.  Rather than lament what we've been given, we can use those things to help others advance as well.  After all, we can only help those within our sphere. 

And wealth is especially challenging, because it's as easy to hurt people with gifts of material resources as it is to help them.  (See this.)  That's just how the world is.  But you can always use your abilities or your resources to help others intelligently.

Good point. That book looks interesting too!