Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway72873 | Hacker News Reader

My mum raised 5 kids, no wealth, no child support, yet managed to put us through university. But growing up in poverty taught me opposite lesson. I hate beggars and charities.

You have more expensive shoes, iphone and golden necklace. But YOU are asking ME to give you money?

Why is not mum with a kid in a shelter? Bcos she can not take a booze into shelter. She would rather starve her kid and use it as a prop for begging. Adoption is also not an option, bcos she needs child support money for booze.

Or this charity that collected millions to repair Haiti, but only used 2% for that purpose, rest goes into "expenses".

View on HN

Only responding to your point about ineffective charities, it’s definitely a pervasive issue, but there are organizations like GiveWell who measure impact of charities worldwide (as best as possible, since randomized controlled trials are not often possible in the domains where charities operate). They make available all their research, and recommend top charities to give to, continuously re-evaluating and refreshing their recommendations.

I can’t recommend it enough

I think the biggest elephant in the room with charities is that somebody has to run them. Let's say a guy runs a charity which provides great help for some people. Eventually running charity becomes his full time job. A guy needs to attend some galas to raise more money, is he able to buy a suit? Guy's kids are really good at school, they want to attend some good university, maybe even abroad. Should charity "pay" for these schools? On the one hand a person doing such a great job should be able to pay for his kids education, live a comfortable life, maybe drive a good car. On the other hand where does it end? How much taking from charity is too much? This is why I think it should really be taxes/governmental social services all the way.

IME this sort of 'concern' is exclusively something that miserable people waffle about out of some sort of jealousy for anyone who has a semi-decent life.

Obviously it's not a problem for a charity worker to buy a suit or send their children to school. They're not "taking" from the charity any more than I'm "taking" from my employer by being paid some percentage of what I earn for them.

As long as they are effective for their cause and care then there's no reason why they shouldn't earn as much as a private sector employee.

It used to be fairly common for people to moan about parliamentary salaries in the UK. An MP earns on the order of 100K with expenses accounted for, which is like, enough to buy a small-ish flat in London. Good money, nothing stratospheric to someone who isn't stuck in a poverty mindset.

When I see charities that employ people in expensive locations I don't feel like my money is actually having any impact. Remember the 80000 hours advice? Make a boatload of money and spend it on charity? That doesn't work when working an additional 40 hours of overtime a week results in someone else getting a 20 hour per week position at a charity because they earn twice as much as you. Why not just do the 20 hours yourself at that point? Save money for a year. Be a volunteer for 6 months. Except people won't do that. So nothing gets done in the end and since the charity probably wastes the money anyway you don't even have to feel bad.

Not everyone subscribes to effective altruism; my reasons for donating to charity don't require maximal efficiency.

The government is full of people whose KPI doesn't budge even if they piss away all the tax dollars.

And if you leave it to the private sector you get Medicare-style problems.

It's a legit hard problem, deciding which group in a particular situation can use additional resources most efficiently.

1) Most governments, especially in third world countries where help is needed the most, are rife with corrupt officials and inept bureaucracy. Democracy doesn’t always give the proper incentives for government to care about (a) the long-term future, which matters more for young children who can’t vote, (b) minority interests, again because their vote might not necessarily sway elections. Hence, there is definitely a case to be made for charities and governments to operate side-by-side. 2) Govt officials should be paid well, they do an important job. 3) I think there is a lot more wasteful overhead at charities than employee payroll, which should be cut down upon. I know of some well-regarded charities which fly their junior employees in business-class. Things like that can probably be improved first before turning the gaze on payroll.

That just shifts the question - should public sector employees be able to live a comfortable life with a good car? Say, public school teachers?

No doubt they should. I would think they do in some places like e.g. Scandinavia. Then again taxes are huge there.

The taxes aren't that big, You get a effective police force, good health care, good education, safe societies and a good economy from the network effects of those things.

If you think those taxes are huge it suggests that you don't understand how you could be paying less overall for the above mentioned things if you had a consolidated population driving costs down. or that your comfortable with inequality as long as you get yours.

Why not? Why pick on teachers? how having a NASA software engineer make $50k/year then?

The sad thing is that they do: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

Because most people know that teachers at public schools are government employees who do not make a lot of money.

It’s better than no guidance at all, but it contributes to a very shallow way of thinking about overhead expenses that ends up saying that nonprofit employees should be poorly paid and have shitty working conditions, because that’s all overhead. It’s also fairly easily manipulated in reporting - https://afpglobal.org/news/fundraising-expense-myth-what-cor...

Have you looked at GiveWell?

"We search for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar."

https://www.givewell.org/

They don't care about overhead, they will recommend a charity that prevents a death per $5'000 and has a 50% overhead over a charity that prevents a death per $10'000 and has a 20% overhead.

I’m very familiar with them, yes. They definitely care about overhead

> We quantify impact using a variety of different measures, including "cost per life saved" (when applicable) and "financial benefits to recipients per dollar spent by donors" (when applicable).

https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process

I don't understand how that is a meaningful definition of overhead. Overhead is money that is not being spent on salaries and goods that directly impact outcomes. Therefore cheaper outcomes always imply lower overhead.

I've never seen a begging homeless person with expensive shoes or a brand new phone. And during the winter time, most shelters are at capacity and have to turn people away.

And please do some research on the foster care system in the United States, giving up your child puts them at very high risk of abuse and is VERY traumatizing for the child.

I dislike chuggers as much as the next guy, but it's not as if they know your situation.

It's not like there's an "I have significant disposable income" walk. I mean, there are markers, but then there are people like Mark Cuban that walk around in tracksuits or whatever.

An iPhone or fancy trainers are weird bars to use. At least where I'm from everyone from those on welfare to billionaires have that stuff.

That’s a pretty miserable way to feel. Is that how the rest of your family feels as well?

Thanks for pointing this aspect of things out. I know what you are talking about. My father spend aroun 80k of the disability money he received in my name on booze. And nobody of my relatives ever raised this issue. It looked like they didn't even notice. So, the social system was trying to make my situation better, by providing my parents with a considerable sum of money. And all they did, was spend in the way they saw fit. These days, my mother claims she didn't have any say in the matter. What a chicken move. Think twice before you only see the publishable side of a story.

the iPhone SE was new for $400. iPhones can be bought refurbished, be a hand-me-down, or on a long term contract (which really is a non-issue given the length of the contracts). Also they last much longer than competitors (still holding on to my SE).

So iPhones are very affordable, certainly comparable to Android (for a non-PoS phone) and are hardly a good metric to judge someone by.

Indeed, some of the poorer people I know with iPhones were given them for free - and the older models (but still usable) are available for very little in second hand shops.

What is the best way for people to help?

Peter Singer just-released 10th-anniversary edition from The Most Good You Can Do and it is free https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/the-book/ it is one way to look at what is the best way to help people.

I was about to point out the irony in selling a book about being charitable... Glad that it's free!

https://www.consumerreports.org/charities/best-charities-for...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com