[vacri]

> Also, using the Bill Gates, who's probably 2+ orders of magnitude wealthier than Singhal, as a comparison point isn't fair either.

You don't have to be Gates-wealthy to be a philanthropist. Hell, I did some philanthropy when I was earning only $35k a year - I saved up $2k and sent out an invite to a dozen friends for them to do any short course of their choosing up to $150 and I'd pay for it. And that's small potatoes - there are thousands upon thousands of people out there working long-term as volunteers for good causes despite also being on or near minimum wage.

The idea that philanthropy is only the domain of the ridiculously wealthy is just bizarre.

[koolba]

I'm not saying you have to be Gates-wealthy to do philanthropy, I'm saying dropping your career to do nothing but philanthropy doesn't scale or sustain if you're significantly less wealthy.

[vacri]

Taking a high-paying job, hiring your already well-paid ex-colleagues, and working on toys for the upper-middle class wouldn't strike most people as 'giving back to the less fortunate'.