Hacker News Reader

Comment by patio11 | Hacker News Reader

(Disclaimer: not trolling.)

Consider specializing in making money and donating the money to people who specialize in $PICK_A_CAUSE_DEAR_TO_YOU, if your primary concern is about impact and not about personal fulfillment. NGOs are often not well set up to metabolize the labor of developers, and at some things which you think are helpful will be perceived by the organization as a threat (e.g. at many organizations, anything which decreases the required headcount to operate attacks a primary reason for the organization to exist).

You're also unlikely to be an expert at $PICK_A_CAUSE_WHICH_IS_DEAR_TO_YOU for the same reason you're unlikely to be an expert at heart surgery or filing business taxes. Those strike me as important enough to be done by someone who knows what they're doing; your mileage may vary with respect to causes dear to you.

View on HN

Relevant LessWrong article – Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately: http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...

> There is this very, very old puzzle/observation in economics about the lawyer who spends an hour volunteering at the soup kitchen, instead of working an extra hour and donating the money to hire someone...

> If the lawyer needs to work an hour at the soup kitchen to keep himself motivated and remind himself why he's doing what he's doing, that's fine. But he should also be donating some of the hours he worked at the office, because that is the power of professional specialization and it is how grownups really get things done. One might consider the check as buying the right to volunteer at the soup kitchen, or validating the time spent at the soup kitchen.

I think about this a lot.

The donations of the highly successful are the reason many NPOs and relief foundations exist. With capitalism it seems to be "winner takes all" where there's a first (and maybe second) place price, but not much after that. This makes the benevolence of the wealthy just as important as government aid, and in my opinion, a responsibility or duty of the "winners".

Disagree with all of it.

Money and time are not interchangeable at all.

One can take 1-2 hours of his time, when he has time free.

One cannot give 1-2 hours of money, when he has to pay for his rent, bills and family.

There is noone who can decide to work one hour more at his workplace and get paid for it, then donate the money to charity.

> There is noone who can decide to work one hour more at his workplace and get paid for it, then donate the money to charity.

There are plenty of people that can make this exact choice. I'll work extra hours on occasion when my job is willing to allow us overtime, but not requiring it. Admittedly it's generally my stove broke and I need X dollars to replace it, not me donating the money.

> One cannot give 1-2 hours of money, when he has to pay for his rent, bills and family.

Hopefully you're also saving for retirement, rainy day funds, etc. - some of these bills are flexible.

> There is noone who can decide to work one hour more at his workplace and get paid for it, then donate the money to charity.

Anyone freelancing can take on more client work. Save less and retire later. Kick more ass at work to get more promotions or other job opportunities. I could take shorter breaks between jobs.

It's not perfectly interchangeable, but the whole point of work is to trade time for money - "not interchangeable at all" is a strong enough phrase I'd argue work-for-pay alone contradicts it.

I get paid per hour. This isn't a freelance thing either, it's just how my company does things.

So yes, I could absolutely work one more hour and get paid for it at the end of the pay period.

I volunteer over the weekends to build Habitat for Humanity homes. Yeah, I could probably make money if I freelanced on the weekends, writing code, but honestly I need time away from the computer, and working with my hands to build something tangible feels good.

In reality, I think that we do good things as much to make ourselves feel better as to make the world a better place. So with that in mind, do what makes you feel best about yourself.

That is exactly the message of the post, hence "purchase fuzzies and utilons separately", and not "forgo all fuzzies for utilons"

I think too much specialization in the name of economic efficiency is harmful as it causes alienation and apathy.

If say this lawyer is required by a law firm to work on cases that end up harming the poor and then donates some of their salary to help the poor, is it really net useful?

If this lawyer spends an hour volunteering at a soup kitchen, he learns about the process, the people, their circumstances and needs. It may be something that he can then apply to guide his professional work. Or he may spot and improve some legal inefficiencies in the operation of the soup kitchen. Or he may be reminded that he can actually donate his own excess food instead of throwing it out.

Generally, I think we need more communication and cooperation across professions and "social classes", not less. The experience, perspective or education one brings to the table may be just the simple thing the others need to improve.