You can build a small school in a third world country, such as Nepal, for £10k. So you could build somewhere around 1000 small schools (or a lesser number of bigger ones).
Economies don't work like this. They never have. If money was all it took to eradicate poverty then poverty wouldn't exist. Inequality in opportunity is an endemic problem with entire societies.
Including our own! Because that's exactly what you're complaining about: our society is set up to allow for billionaries and you think it should be fairer and that all that money should be easy to spread around more equitably. But it's not, and it can't be in any feasible way. You don't get that it's 100% cognitive dissonance to believe that Nepal is any different? The only difference is the scale of the numbers.
Yes. Sponsored the build anyway. I didn't lug the bricks miles from the nearest road!
>Do you have a link where I could?
>You want 1000 schools you need 1000 schools worth of raw materials and 1000 crews to build them and roads to get all that stuff there and utilities to be extended to cover it.
If you had $10M to spend, then building 1000 small schools probably wouldn't be the best approach. For the reasons you say. But I don't have $10M to give.
>our society is set up to allow for billionaries and you think it should be fairer and that all that money should be easy to spread around more equitably
Yes. Rich people should be taxed more. Not a popular viewpoint on HN, I'm sure.
>But it's not, and it can't be in any feasible way.
We could fix it, if we wanted to. But the billionaires have the power, and they don't want it fixed.
>You don't get that it's 100% cognitive dissonance to believe that Nepal is any different? The only difference is the scale of the numbers.
Nepal is a poor country with chronic inequality. But, because it is a poor country, your dollar can do a lot more good there.
https://thejunipertrust.org/jt_projects/bampti-kindergaten-s...
(the total cost was around ~£12k, of which we donated £10k).
Or is that a thing you like seeing pictures of westerners building/staffing?
Most development programs like this are donations to westerners to have exotic experiences that end up providing very little value to the communities they purport to help.
Your fellow respondent who mentioned GiveDirectly was at least advocating for a use of resources that has a strong chance of being net positive for the ostensible recipients.
Quite likely. Certainly if you include other developing countries, as well as Nepal.
There are small communities in Nepal that get very little help from the central government. Also much work still to be done to repair damage from the last earthquake, especially outside the tourist areas.
>Most development programs like this are donations to westerners to have exotic experiences that end up providing very little value to the communities they purport to help.
Many of them are. However there are organizations like https://thejunipertrust.org that spend 98% of donations helping the intended recipients. Also they employ local to do the work. Which means money goes into the community which also makes the local community more invested in the project.
I understand GiveDirectly is also an excellent charity. But (egotistically) it is nice to be able to point at a picture of a school and think 'I did that' (or, at least, financed it).
Why would it cost anything to get 'the local authorities on board' to build a school - unless the country is totally corrupt?