Hacker News Reader

Comment by soperj | Hacker News Reader

Jeff has given very little ever. For instance he donated $690k to wildfire relief in Australia earlier this year. Every little bit counts clearly, but it's the equivalent of me giving 69 cents. I'm not bagging the guy for it, I'm just saying that there's clearly a difference, and that's why it's treated differently.

View on HN

Does it matter how much that money is worth to him? Charity doesn't have to hurt to be effective.

With that single donation he's done more good for Australia than I (also, I assume, you) will be able to with years of effort, surely that's worth celebrating.

I or you don't get to have $100 million mansions in every big city in the US either. His team probably spent more on the PR than the actual donation, just to make sure that the protestors placing mini guillotines in front of his house don't escalate further forcing him to increase his security budget.

No, I think I was quite clear on that. I'm not going to give you platitudes for donating 69 cents, and I wouldn't expect you to give them to me either is the point. The reason that Mackenzie Scott is receiving them here is that she didn't donate 69 cents, she donated a substantial amount.

If you want negative opinion, then I am your man. The net value cost of these donations by these philanthropist billionaires should be considered. That is harder to calculate but basically what detrimental impact did generating this wealth cause? Does the donation really offset the damage done? For example, the very pro-business Australian government has been blamed for "shrinking government" by severely cutting back on bush management and firefighters leading to the fires getting out of control. These are the people welcoming the Bezos of the world with open arms. It's money from an ethically questionable source helping solve a problem caused by another group of people making ethically questionable decisions.

Also billionaires combined donate a pittance compared to public institutions likes NIH or NSF, National Endowments and other grant giving orgs funded by the public. Really we should just tax them more and funnel the money to public grants, and also properly enforce antitrust, labor laws and environmental regulations to limit societal damage wealth extraction causes, instead of hoping and praying billionaires will sprinkle a little moolah where it matters every blue moon.

As you suggest, the exact calculus is difficult, but you also can't ignore the positive effect that many (not all) billionaires have in the process of generating their wealth. Amazon, for example, saves consumers' time, and makes it easier to compare goods and prices, saving consumers' money. Bezos became a billionaire because he provided billions of dollars in value to regular people.

That does not absolve Bezos or other billionaires of their sins. But likewise, you cannot exclude it from your calculus.

Positive and negative would be considered in the calculation. Saving time may not be as big an issue if some didn't need to work two jobs or long hours. Saving money may not be as big of an issue if wealth inequality wasn't at record highs and health insurance was universal. The pandemic has highlighted that humans are a commodity and expendable workers are not valued very much, but at least we get those cost savings on ethically-questionable products from overseas, that supports ethically-questionable regimes and increases the net worth of an ethically-questionable billionaire. It's ethically questionable all the way down.

> For instance he donated $690k to wildfire relief in Australia earlier this year. Every little bit counts clearly, but it's the equivalent of me giving 69 cents.

Nope: It's the equivalent of you giving $690K. The value of money doesn't go down based on the wealth of the one holding it.

It does. You think $100 isn't worth more to someone who's homeless than to Jeff Bezos? You're living in dream land.

It doesn't. When a charity receives $100, it has the same value to the charity than whether it came from someone who has $100 or $100 billion

that's not what you said at all, but okay.

It's funny seeing the perspective of charity being shown in various comments in this thread. Apparently it's a competition to see how much 'sacrifice' you're making. Apparently it doesn't count if the giver also gets some benefit (PR?) from it. Never mind the the supposed goal, which is to help others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com