[karangoeluw]

I have always wondered which one is better:

1. Contribute early on little by little 2. Contribute nothing to very little for a while amassing huge fortunes (and compound interest magic), then donate big.

Pretty much the same question as lump sum vs dollar cost averaging in investing.

Have there been studies on this?

[have_faith]

Seeing how few people make it to the huge fortune stage it seems like a very bad strategy if broadly adopted. How we do it now makes sense, contribute as much as you are comfortable with regardless at which step of the ladder you are on.

[savanaly]

This isn't a study, but as far as the science of philanthropy goes I know of no one better to look to than GiveWell and they did write a blog post about it: https://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/20/give-now-or-give-later/

[sabalaba]

1. Usually will end when you pass away.

2. (Especially if establishing a foundation.) Will outlive you and continue on for potentially hundreds of years into the future. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_Interna...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation

[istjohn]

Money given today pays dividends in the lives of those who benefit and the lives of people who are around them, it just doesn't show up on any balance sheet. The after school program that provides the missing support network for a child, keeping them out of a street gang and later prison, and helping them develop the skills to find gainful employment pays hidden dividends of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for society. Also there are second and third order effects that amplify those gains further. If that money was instead earning 5% in an endowment fund, it may keep the name of a robber baron alive for perpetuity, but it does far less for society today. And if you could trace the knock-on effects of the money given today, you would likely find that the benefits distributed throughout society accumulate quicker than the 5% rate of growth achieved by that endowment fund.

[marnett]

The growth of these foundations require global Capitalism to continue to spread.

[pessimizer]

If you amass a huge fortune through paying your workers low wages, it would probably be best to avoid amassing that huge fortune, give your workers a larger share of your profits, and allow them to donate themselves. It helps you to avoid the temptation to cynically set up a tax-offsetting fund to avoid potential legislation that forces you to contribute to the communities where you are located.

Either way, it's good to figure out how to contribute back to a country who created your wealth, by allowing you to operate a business for two decades without being subject to the sales taxes that the long-shuttered businesses who previously employed your desperate applicants were required to pay.

So donate to politicians early so you don't have to pay taxes, donate to charity to avoid taxes later, buy a newspaper somewhere in between.

[agumonkey]

I think history gives a bit of the answer. There's always been work done to help homeless people, and it never really got better.

Worst part IMO is that it's not to be a money sink. I deeply believe that homelessness is mostly emotional, these guys need deep moral support and a bit of material support. But you can't buy moral support. Having someone drop 2B might help motivate society and finally realize how to fix the problem, even if not all the money is spent.

[blacksmith_tb]

I think that may be overstating things[1], though I agree it's a tough problem. Lots of folks need some extra help, they're disabled, they have mental illnesses, or substance addictions (or all of the above). Just giving them a tiny house or apartment is not enough to keep them housed. But typically we fund programs to address all of those problems separately, with varying degrees of cooperation between them.

1: https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...

[degrews]

The Effective Altruism community has produced a lot of discussion about donating early vs saving and giving later.

This post does a good job of listing some of the trade-offs and includes several links to more discussion: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/4e/giving_now_vs_later_a_su...

[ppeetteerr]

I would recommend you do both. Give a little (but only less than 1%) of what you make today, but aim to make a ton of money. Once you've made the money, give all you can. Your children don't need that much to live a life without work (10-20M).

It's more important to know how you give and whom you give it too. I'm of the opinion that given $5 to a homeless person is much more effective than giving $5 to a charity.

[asdfman123]

That ignores the psychology of your Bezoses and Gateses, though.

They are maniacally obsessed with growing their companies as much as possible, and everything they do works towards that goal. They don't have time for philanthropy, or worrying about social issues, while they're doing that.

Gates was able to give so much away because he shifted focus after leaving Microsoft. Hopefully others like him will follow.

[jamestimmins]

He's also doing this at when the stock market is very high, which means that this is the cheapest $2 billion he's ever owned. I say that not to undercut the significance, mostly to point out that the stock market is also important to this consideration.

[drworm]

It's not really the same thing, because (assuming a positive ROI) dollar cost averaging will always end up better off than lump sum investing (assuming the same amount is invested).