[vishnugupta]

> you are likely already so rich that the money is only going for luxury things while for someone making $7.25 it's quite literally the difference between living in a car or not

This is a great insight which unfortunately doesn't get much attention in the inequality debate. I'm now rich enough to be in the top 0.5% of the world. The marginal utility/value of money is so low for me that I've begun valuing my time and optimizing for it.

I, however, do think about it once in a while. I could give away a non-trivial amount of money without getting materially impacted. The same money though will make a massive difference to someone below or around the poverty line. E.g., sponsoring a student, helping a business loan, etc., The capital that's getting accumulated in the richest top 1% people is such a massive waste that could help a huge portion of humanity.

Purely from a utilization (of money), perspective inequality is a suboptimal state, a massive one at that.

[yboris]

Have you heard of Giving What We Can - an international community of people who pledged to give at least 10% of their income to charities they think are most effective at helping others?

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org

I really recommend focusing on cost-effectiveness when you give, however much or however little you give. See GiveWell for amazing research!

[thrav]

Ah yes, non-religious tithing.

[gjm11]

That sounds ... dismissive, but I'm not sure what's actually supposed to be wrong about "non-religious tithing".

Should we give up not working at weekends because it's a "non-religious sabbath"?

10% is a nice round figure. It's small enough that many people can afford to give up that fraction of their income without getting into money trouble. It's large enough that many people will be doing a really substantial amount of good to the world if they give that much of their income to well-chosen charities. And, yes, it happens that some religions have used the same figure, which probably helps "give 10% of your income" seem like a reasonable thing to suggest.

Is there anything bad about any of that? If there is, I don't see it.

I don't claim that there's anything optimal about giving 10% of your income. But I don't see any reason to sneer at people for doing it, either.

[ok_coo]

I understand the sentiment but there are many good organizations that do positive things with people's money, like the ACLU, etc.

[boomlinde]

> This is a great insight which unfortunately doesn't get much attention in the inequality debate.

Doesn't it? What else motivates things like progressive taxation?

[pdimitar]

I may eat some downvotes for this but I really need to say it. It's a bit off-topic, too.

Please, do not start believing you will be making a difference through charity.

I observed rich people in the past that out of some half-conscious guilt started thinking they need to give back in some way. But they don't want to be inconvenienced by doing it personally or by evaluating which people deserve a donation or have an important material problem solved, by themselves. They prefer to unload their guilt -- or the need to feel good about themselves -- through a 3rd party. Basically, buying goodwill and good conscience with money.

That's not giving back.

I have known several rich people and they go through a very similar process. It's very saddening to observe.

If you want to make a difference with money -- go out there. Physically! Meet people with less. Talk to them. Ask them what is the hardest thing in their lives at the moment. Ask them what's a regular concern for them. Do that 100 times, or 500 times. Understand their struggle. Many would just squander the money in a week, even if you gave them a bag of it. Try and aim your efforts and money where it will truly count.

It's not an easy thing to do. But it's a worthy cause to pursue, much more worthy that a random charity.

Apologies for off-topic.

[flush]

I strongly disagree. Financially supporting a charity is an extremely good way for someone with a lot of money to give back. The charitable person may not have expertise to distribute the money effectively, whereas a group who are familiar with the needs and thus where the money should go and how it should be used will use it well.

IMO, what you're saying is akin to saying: Criminals on the streets? Why pay to hire more cops when you can physically go out on the streets and BE the cop?

[thelock85]

That’s a fascinating take. I interpreted the comment more as charities (in some cases) can be a poor startup vehicle for those getting into serious philanthropy. So why not spend some time getting to know an issue or a specific community affected by an issue, before donating. More like: Criminals on the streets, despite more cops? Why? Maybe this money can make communities safer or deter would-be criminals?

[pdimitar]

Very wrong analogy, sorry. You are misrepresenting what I said.

You are also very generously assuming that charities actually do what they are supposed to. Here in Eastern Europe where I live this has been proven to be false, many times. Are you convinced it's better where you live?

[brianpgordon]

In the United States larger nonprofits have a great deal of public accountability. They have to file public financial statements and there are numerous watchdog groups which publish ratings on their effectiveness. Check out Charity Navigator for example. You can also give to organizations like GiveWell which are paid specifically to research nonprofits and direct funds effectively.

[Infinitesimus]

Have you ever known poor people for whom money and charity donations actually changes their lives? There are quite a lot of those all over this big world.

[pdimitar]

Serious answer: no. Never. And those who just received money like that squandered them in no time.

Granted this is anecdotal evidence but my overlook on a number of average people flaws -- and I am including myself in this group, I am not pretending like I am on some sort of a moral high ground, mind you -- indicates that most people are not... ready to receive money, if that's even the right word.

It's more or less "OMG money money money!!!!" out of them and they just mess up.

But truthfully, and this is not sarcasm, I'd love to be proven wrong.

[turk73]

I'm not quite where you are wealth-wise but definitely I have had that moment several times recently where I am re-evaluating hiring out work I would have just done myself in the past. I didn't have some big windfall, but pretty much earned and saved my way to wealth. Now it is hard to not do things like fix my own cars as well as bring my own lunch. I do them out of habit now. That's the discipline. Anyways, you don't want idiots working on your cars and you don't want to eat at restaurants all the time.

It makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there. They are already set for life many times over. I can only speculate that they share a character flaw that they all see as virtuous. However it isn't--they are impeding someone's chance to "make it" in life, especially the older executives who could have stepped aside a decade ago or more. Even if you just look at the absurd salaries, it doesn't paint a pleasant portrait of greed in America.

There is a great absurdity to life in America. We basically work for the appearance of something that ends up being eaten away to a large degree. Taxes and inflation keep the goalposts moving away but we don't rebel because it's a magic trick and who doesn't like magic?

I don't work because I enjoy it but because it is a means to an end that is a better formula than some other arrangement. I would happily volunteer my time, travel, read, or simply do nothing if I could.

[maxxxxx]

“t makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there. ”

My theory is that they simply like their work and get satisfaction from it. They get paid a lot but they also work a lot and I can’t imagine anybody doing this to themselves if they didn’t genuinely like it.

[asdff]

If that were the case, most executives would stay put for decades and take pride in their company. Executives are mercenaries, staying for a few years and moving once someone offers a bigger slice of pie. Lots of people are addicted to exponential growth and wealth and blinded by the damage this behavior wreaks on everyone else.

The work argument is bullshit too. I'm convinced with a few months of hands on training, any passionate and competant person can do the job of a CEO. It is really a job that lacks any qualifications beyond managing a small network of people. CEOs don't work 100x as hard as someone working full time and a second job to make 1% a CEOs pay.

[bryan_w]

If it's so easy, why aren't you one?

[bluGill]

We know the medically "sitting back, and enjoying your retirement" results in a quick death. Doctors now tell people entering retirement to "stay busy". It doesn't matter if you build birdhouses, play chess, or any of the other million things you can do, but don't sit back and relax.

I think most CEOs - used to working extra hours/hard have the least idea what they would do after they retire.

[hedvig]

Because work is identity. At least in certain cultures, for better or worse.

[SketchySeaBeast]

My sibling and their significant other are those sorts of people - both made it very high up their respective professions by their early 30's, but when it's time for the Christmas get together, it's a pissing contest about "Oh, I'm only working 70 hour weeks, so I've had some relaxation the last little while." There's little identity outside of work, amassing the cash, then taking vacations with the money, and turning around and doing it all again.

[c0vfefe]

There is such thing as ambition, and a desire for more power/money than you need. The human condition!

[mlthoughts2018]

There is a much higher rate of sociopathy among corporate executives [0]. It’s still a small rate probably, but it also likely means that some fraction of the people seeking these positions are doing so to derive sadistic pleasure from authority and power. Yes, they also want wealth, but they may persist even after money is no longer important because the position gives them power to soothe narcissistic & sociopathic tendencies.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

[maxxxxx]

I think doing something and then learning that you are good at it is pretty intoxicating in general. People who make it to the upper levels of a company are extremely good at playing the games you have to play and there is a lot of external validation in it too. I am just a little tech lead but I also get a kick out of my team of a few performing well. I can't even imagine how exhilarating it is to have an influence on hundreds or thousands of people and to play with millions and billions of dollars.

[jl6]

> It makes no sense to me why the CEO and higher ups of the company I work at still work there.

I expect a large number of middle/upper-middle class people would already be made for life if they just moved to a low cost area/country and simplified their lifestyle.

But we carry on because we want more.