[eli_gottlieb]

Why not do both?

[icebraining]

If any penny spent on cans is better spent on a check, it's dumb to buy a can regardless of whether you also wrote a check or not.

[eli_gottlieb]

No, it's not dumb. It's merely suboptimal along the one metric you've chosen to measure. I'm including "show of good will" as a secondary metric, hence why it's perfectly sensible to donate in both forms.

[icebraining]

Sure, but I think it was clear from the post that throwaway092834 prefers to actually help people over being seen helping people.

[JonnieCache]

Being seen helping people establishes helping others as a societal norm, and thus promotes the practice generally.

[ahomescu1]

It also creates expectations of help, which can also be very harmful in the long term. Helping others should be voluntary, not done because of expectations.

[waterlesscloud]

Well, it's clear he says one route is more optimal than another.

It's not clear techies actually donate checks, however.

[stevewilhelm]

Those making more than $100,000 give less (proportionally) of their discretionary income than the middle class. [1][2]

"as wealth increases, people become more insulated, less likely to engage with others, and less sensitive to the suffering of others."

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/48725147 [2] http://philanthropy.com/article/Rich-Enclaves-Are-Not-as/133...

[throwaway092834]

Pardon, but it's very clear. Take a look at the charitable donation foundations at various tech companies, many of whom publish their donation levels. Or get out and talk to some charities in the area and ask them where their money comes from.