In reflecting on past weeks, as well as today’s class session, the issue of time versus money has really kept me thinking. Looking back at the article The Way to Produce a Person, by David Brooks I can’t help but question Brooks’s idea that one must be wholeheartedly invested in the cause they are giving to. He implies this through his notion that an individual who is more investing in something other than the cause they are giving to, will ultimately lose sight of the goal of giving. I have difficulty with this idea because the majority of people are not devoted enough to a cause that they will dedicate their life and work to helping. Wouldn’t any contribution—even one coming from someone who may be detached from the cause—be better than none?
Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn do a great job of showing this is true in their book, A path Appears. They use an example of a police officer saving someone’s life compared to a life being saved in Africa by a monetary donation. For the police officer, his action has a visible reward; he knows who he has saved and can feel connected to that. On the other hand, an individual whose donation has saved a life of someone far away, may not feel as connected to the cause, yet they are still making just as great of a contribution. Another similar situation may be the case of someone checking off the box on their license to become an organ donor. That person may not feel they are truly making a difference but this act is just as significant as the police officer’s. In fact, according to the National Foundation for Transplants, one donor can actually save the lives of eight individuals.
While Brooks certainly was not trying to deter anyone from contributing what they are able to, I believe he should not be critiquing any way that an individual may choose to help; it may be all they are capable of and may be enough to make a significant difference. With that being said, it is certainly better if people do feel invested in a cause they are donating to because they may understand the significance of what they are doing, be more inclined to expand the cause by spreading the word, and many other reasons. Do you agree with Brooks that it is “best to go to Africa or Bangladesh” if that is what you are passionate about? Or would you agree with Kristof and WuDunn who would say that it is okay to work on Wall Street (or wherever else) while also donating money to Africa, Bangladesh, or a different place of choosing? Are there other ways you can think of that people might be able to contribute in a realistic way while making a difference, either at home or far away?
While Brooks certainly was not trying to deter anyone from contributing what they are able to, I believe he should not be critiquing any way that an individual may choose to help; it may be all they are capable of and may be enough to make a significant difference. With that being said, it is certainly better if people do feel invested in a cause they are donating to because they may understand the significance of what they are doing, be more inclined to expand the cause by spreading the word, and many other reasons. Do you agree with Brooks that it is “best to go to Africa or Bangladesh” if that is what you are passionate about? Or would you agree with Kristof and WuDunn who would say that it is okay to work on Wall Street (or wherever else) while also donating money to Africa, Bangladesh, or a different place of choosing? Are there other ways you can think of that people might be able to contribute in a realistic way while making a difference, either at home or far away?
Idealistically, I believe that philanthropists should be 100% committed and wholeheartedly invested in the cause they are giving their money and time to. However, this is idealistic and not close to reality. Realistically, we cannot commit all of our time to any cause. For example, students cannot commit 100% of their time to studies, our efforts must be split amongst family, friends, relationships, clubs, and service. However, this does not mean we are not committed to working hard in class and earning a good grade. Just because our responsibilities in life are split does not mean we have lost sight of our end goal of graduating. Therefore, I believe that it is okay to work on Wall Street while also donating money to Africa. If fact, more philanthropists with this mindset should be entering Wall Street to combat the reputation of swayed ethics associated with it. Philanthropists in Wall Street could be pioneers in advancing corporate responsibility and set an example of how to delegate the ample salaries they make. By promoting a philanthropic lifestyle to coworkers, a whole new demographic of donors is targeted. The good news is that this is already being done. Analysts like Andrew Klaber use their research skills to search for unmet needs in the community and are prepared to do so because this is what their careers are centered upon, finding a need and investing in its growth. I think it’s disempowering to philanthropy to have the mindset that only personal contact can make a difference. There are multiple ways to reach people and various skills that can be utilized to promote the same values.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to Andrew Klaber’s “Resolution Project” that uses current Wall Street bankers to help societal needs: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-06/some-wall-street-bankers-are-founding-charities-while-theyre-young
I completely agree with you in that it doesn’t matter how invested you are in a cause to donate time or money to help it. As I mentioned in a previous blog comment, all organizations need money to increase their impact around the world. With this in mind, I don’t think anyone has the right to try to decipher why that person is donating and if their donations will fade over time. Even a one-time donation can help a cause tremendously.
ReplyDeleteAround Christmas time, people dressed as Santa stand outside department stores and ring a bell for donations. People give money to them every year and some aren’t aware of exactly what the Salvation Army does. I do feel as if Trigg has devoted his life to a cause. He is making 3 figures and living like a graduate student to help people in another country. I personally don’t know anyone that would be willing to give up luxuries as simple as living alone to donate money to cause that they are not directly affected by. This shows that he has a kind heart because although he does not seem his impact first hand, he is still willing to help whoever he can.
I also think that the idea of organ donation is similar to that of not donating all your money at once because after you’re gone it could go further than you imagined. As you mentioned, you could save 8 lives with just one person’s donation after death. This is really impactful even if one does not see their affect.
Overall, I don’t think it matters where the donation is coming from and I don’t think it matters how invested you are in the cause. The truth is, you can’t be upset if someone helps a child in Africa with their money rather than their time. A person in need is still receiving assistance and I think that’s what matters most.
Alexa, your blog post was very interesting as it encompassed many things both in and out of the classroom. The debate about whether or not the MIT graduate hedge fund manager is doing the right thing by working at the hedge fund and donating most of his salary to help cure malaria is controversial. On one side, he might forget why he is donating all this money to a cause that he cannot even see because as a hedge fund manager, he will not be connected with those people in need and may stop giving over time. On the other hand, the enormous amount of money that he is able to give now by working at the hedge fund is saving countless lives. Idealistically, he would be able to go to Africa, follow his passion, and still make the same impact and save just as many lives; however, this is impossible. In some ways I agree with Brooks because he makes a valid argument that the more separate you are from a cause, the less likely you are to support it, so even though the MIT graduate may have started caring solely about curing malaria, overtime, he may start to care more about himself and the money. However, for the most part, I disagree with Brooks because the larger difference is being made by being the hedge fund manager and donating the money he makes. Therefore, I agree with Kristof and WuDunn because as long as you are donating something, whether it be time or money, you are still making a difference. Also, I agree with Kristof and WuDunn because working on Wall Street and making a lot of money and then donating that money could be a more effective method of philanthropy than going to Africa and spending your time there. Another way that people might be able to contribute to a cause at home would be by spreading awareness and fundraising. In this day and age it is very easy to spread awareness for something through social media. By simply sharing something on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, hundreds if not thousands of more people will be aware of the cause that you are supporting. Also, fundraising no matter how much or how little money you are able to get can help you make a difference at home because every penny counts. So, in all I believe that it could be good to go to Africa in order to form that connection with your passion, but it may be better to stay and work on Wall Street in order to better affect change.
ReplyDeleteAlexa, your blog post was very interesting as it encompassed many things both in and out of the classroom. The debate about whether or not the MIT graduate hedge fund manager is doing the right thing by working at the hedge fund and donating most of his salary to help cure malaria is controversial. On one side, he might forget why he is donating all this money to a cause that he cannot even see because as a hedge fund manager, he will not be connected with those people in need and may stop giving over time. On the other hand, the enormous amount of money that he is able to give now by working at the hedge fund is saving countless lives. Idealistically, he would be able to go to Africa, follow his passion, and still make the same impact and save just as many lives; however, this is impossible. In some ways I agree with Brooks because he makes a valid argument that the more separate you are from a cause, the less likely you are to support it, so even though the MIT graduate may have started caring solely about curing malaria, overtime, he may start to care more about himself and the money. However, for the most part, I disagree with Brooks because the larger difference is being made by being the hedge fund manager and donating the money he makes. Therefore, I agree with Kristof and WuDunn because as long as you are donating something, whether it be time or money, you are still making a difference. Also, I agree with Kristof and WuDunn because working on Wall Street and making a lot of money and then donating that money could be a more effective method of philanthropy than going to Africa and spending your time there. Another way that people might be able to contribute to a cause at home would be by spreading awareness and fundraising. In this day and age it is very easy to spread awareness for something through social media. By simply sharing something on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, hundreds if not thousands of more people will be aware of the cause that you are supporting. Also, fundraising no matter how much or how little money you are able to get can help you make a difference at home because every penny counts. So, in all I believe that it could be good to go to Africa in order to form that connection with your passion, but it may be better to stay and work on Wall Street in order to better affect change.
ReplyDeleteI think that David Brooks has an incredibly negative view of humanity. It's incredibly dark for him to suggest that one could only stay attached to a cause if he or she is down in the trenches and getting the experience to see the effects of his or her work. That characterizes humans as almost exclusively selfish--as if we don't want to do anything good unless we can see the result. To me this just sounds like Brook's jazzed up way of suggesting that unless we get something out of doing a good deed--in this case, seeing the results and feeling good about them--then we are less inclined to do them. Not to say this isn't true of many people, but I think it's an unfair generalization for Brook's to make.
ReplyDeleteIn sports, there are certain players who only like to do the glamorous aspects of the sport--aspects they'll receive unanimous recognition for. However, there are great players who truly love the sport and are characterized as players who would try just as hard even if the game weren't broadcast and no one were in attendance. These players do it for the love of the game. Bringing this back, I believe there are many people who do good simply to do good and don't need to see the results.
David Brook's article made me very angry. All the time in the world wouldn't mean anything without any money. The same can be said for all the money in the world not meaning a thing without those dedicated to putting the time in to make a difference with the money. There is a balance between the two. If every inspired giver listened to Brook's advice, there would be millions of volunteers and no one donating money. We need generous, caring people working at hedge funds donating increments of $2500 or else all the time volunteers put in doesn't matter.
David Brooks fails to understand that giving and charity isn't about feeling connected and getting something out of it. It is simply about making a difference. Brooks feels that over time, the hedge fund manager will grow detached and stop donating. Well, there will be others to take his place. But, the money counts while it is still coming in.
The ends must justify the means. People need to focus on what they are good at. Hedge fund managers are really good at making money--so go make the money and then donate it. As a business major, I would be saddened to see a promising hedge fund manager go to waste. Money matters. A lot. It is just as valuable as time.
I think Brooks is correct in his argument that people cannot simply be machines for redistributing wealth, they must have a reasonable personal stake in philanthropy. Philanthropy, which means literally “love of man,” is fundamentally driven by a desire to help fellow human beings (or in some cases non-human species). It is reasonable to assume that people do this so they can make the world a better place to live in. What, then is the point of philanthropy if it does not at least in some small way affect you personally for the better? This effect doesn’t need to be anything tangible, it can be the positive feeling you get when you know you’ve saved a life. When people do something pleasurable, their brains reward them by releasing dopamine and other chemicals that make them feel good. They are then motivated to repeat the behavior and have the same feeling. After a while, they build tolerance and need more dopamine to achieve the same result. Think cigarettes and alcohol.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, I assume that people can develop tolerance to doing good. After a while, Trigg will develop more and more of a tolerance to seeing the numbers in his bank account be funneled off to faraway lands, even if he logically knows the impact those numbers have. It’s like hearing that same awesome song over and over again. You may know all the lyrics and have your dance routine down pat, but the 50th listen is just not the same as the 100th. In Trigg’s current situation, he is not developing any concrete change or progress. Instead, he’s listening to the same song on repeat. It may be good for the song artist (if they get paid each time he streams it - sorry I’m getting a little carried away with this metaphor), but he is not developing as a person by exposing himself to new music. As he builds up tolerance to his monotonous philanthropy, his job may become more and more difficult to get through and he won’t be fulfilled by his life.
I don’t think that Brooks is suggesting that Trigg or anyone else must be completely committed to their causes and be constantly in the trenches. I think he’s suggesting that philanthropists go to a concert or two, find new music, shuffle their playlists, and maybe even make some music. (sorry again for getting carried away with the metaphor, I get carried away after 12 Am) Going to a concert might mean going to Africa and meeting the people you are affecting. Finding new music might look like researching different organizations to support within your cause, staying up to date in the philanthropy world, or even exploring other causes. Shuffling their playlists may be taking a break from one organization and donating to another. Making music may take the shape of writing social media posts and blog articles about global issues in order to persuade others to act, or helping to lobby the US government to send more foreign aid to Africa. Any of these actions could be done on top of Trigg’s current routine. This way, philanthropists themselves are fulfilled, and actively involved with their cause. Fulfillment can lead to happier lives and perhaps even greater impact.
Alexa, thanks for the interesting post. I found the discussion in class about David Brooks' article interesting and thought-provoking. I agree with you that any contribution made to help a cause is a great thing, and I think Brooks was too critical of the hedge fund manager's lifestyle and choices. This is a man who is devoting his life to raising money to help malaria patients. His actions should be commended as I don't think there are many people in the world who could consistently give away such a large percent of their income. However, I believe Brooks was highlighting this extreme case as a way to discuss a common problem with philanthropy today. Some people take the first step in philanthropy and start donating to a cause that they're passionate about. After some time of routinely giving, they lose sight of the issue. Maybe they get out of the routine of giving every month or year. They don't look for other meaningful programs or organizations that are relevant to their issue area. Brooks was trying to warn people against this behavior in his article. These people are certainly doing something great by giving in the first place, but real change happens when people are invested emotionally in the issue. So while it is possible to fall in a routine and continue to be passionate about an issue, it is very difficult to keep up that spark. It is better to eliminate temptation than resist it as they say. Making yourself look into the issue regularly or keeping up with an organization's progress may even be enough to ensure that you're still invested. Actually getting involved in person or going to Africa or Bangladesh is a more surefire way capture your attention. I think Brooks was trying to encourage prospective philanthropists to keep putting effort into their giving instead of becoming complacent which is a common part of the human condition.
ReplyDeleteIt can be really difficult to evaluate which way of giving is best. I'm now sure how to directly place a value judgement on each person's type of philanthropy, because both styles seem to be well-intentioned. Those that give want to improve the world for others, which is objectively positive.
ReplyDeleteThose who work on Wall Street could be seen as being less hands-on or involved, and possibly less invested in the causes they are giving to. I definitely agree that this method of giving is acceptable, it is an act of selflessness that goes towards benefitting others. Many may see it as less of a sacrifice than a form of engagement that is more hands-on, but funding the efforts of others to help or directly funding those in need is still altruistic.
On the other hand, devoting one's life to hands-on methods of promoting change is a much more encompassing form of giving. It takes far more sacrifice than just a donation, and also an extreme amount of passion for a cause. It definitely inspires attachment and shows diligence, and is extremely admirable.
I think it would be easy to say that obviously, hands-on philanthropic efforts are the "better" method. But I also think that there is something to be said for monetary giving. In her TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/joy_sun_should_you_donate_differently/transcript?language=en) Joy Sun, a founder of GiveDirectly, talked about a moment many aid workers face where they wish they could just give money directly to those in need, instead of using funding for their individual projects. GiveDirectly offers people that option, where it allows for direct cash transfers from donors to those in need. This form of donation, in my opinion at least, lies somewhere in the middle. Where donating money to a large charity may seem too hands-off to some, and others may not chose to go offer aid directly, the opportunity to donate directly to a person in need offers an opportunity to become connected without an aid-worker style commitment.
I realized instead of choosing an option I just sort of brought in a third. I'm really not sure if there is an easy way to determine what the best form of philanthropy is, it really is such a flexible action that can manifest itself in many ways.
You make a very interesting point, Alexa. I agree that volunteering time instead of money may, in fact, be more worthwhile to one's own mission. However, I believe while organizations definitely appreciate the one-on-one help a person may be able to offer, money certainly speaks.
ReplyDeleteIn my economics classes, we are taught that each person's own time may be equated to their pay. For example, if someone is paid $20 per hour, then their time is worth exactly $20 per hour. Therefore, one may equate time volunteering to money being donated. In such a case, one may find it more valuable for themselves and the organization to merely donate a sum of money equal or more than the time they would spend volunteering. In which case, the organization may use that donated money for other important allocations that volunteering would be impossible to touch.
Every charitable organization appreciates volunteers and monetary donations. And volunteering gives the individual a sense of purpose as well as a warm feeling of compassion. These payoffs do not have a monetary value. So one must determine what type of donation would be most valuable to the cause. Volunteering may be equated to their value of time plus the warm feeling of volunteering (priceless) or one may decide that a sum of money would be more valuable to the cause.