Hacker News Reader

Comment by ruswick | Hacker News Reader

I've never understood the pure desire to give away one's money. In my book, parting with money is a significant thing that only comes after careful consideration and knowledge of clear benefits. Even then, I'm never happy to get rid of my money. The unpleasantness of giving up my money is simply outweighed by the utility of the thing I'm buying.

What is the reasoning as to why one would voluntarily give money when not absolutely necessary? It just seems odd that one would be happy simply because of that. (In commerce, that is. Charity is a different animal.)

Then again, I might be the weird one.

View on HN

Take a look at Google Reader. If they had let me pay for it I would have. They did not want my money and now it is gone.

I am rational consumer. I only pay to get something in return. Often I pay because I want to know someone is employed to keep updating the service or product. I don't really care if other people are freeloading.

Paid products gets cancelled as well.

>The unpleasantness of giving up my money is simply outweighed by the utility of the thing I'm buying.

Giving away money is also quite pleasurable to some. You could be supporting a product you like, hence increasing their chances of survival. You could be just buying something you don't necessarily need to help the person selling it, putting someone else's needs before yours, which generally feels good if done voluntarily. Finally, you're reducing attachment to your wealth, which reduces the importance of your bank balance in your happiness. That kind of attachment reduction leads to more personal freedom.

(a) I currently have more money than I need to cover my basic needs. (When I didn't have this, I didn't contribute to stuff.)

(b) I recognize that many of the free things I love couldn't exist or would be significantly worse without voluntary contributions.

(d) It makes me happy to help people who have freely shared their value with me.

FYI, your apparent lack of (d) is the reason you're getting downvotes. Nobody likes an ingrate. Lacking (a) is more socially acceptable, I think.

>What is the reasoning as to why one would voluntarily give money when not absolutely necessary?

Simple: something you value may go away if not funded.

If I helped you out in some way every month, month after month, week after week, day after day, you would presumably eventually feel like you were indebted to me in some way, correct? If I then gave you the opportunity to do something for me, you would gladly do so, especially if I were still doing something for you that was worth more to you than what you were doing for me, correct? Same principle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com