or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple donates $500K to San Francisco anti-poverty initiative
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple donates $500K to San Francisco anti-poverty initiative

post #1 of 91
Thread Starter 
Apple's charitable contributions continue to grow, with another half-million dollars given to SF Gives, a charity that fights poverty in San Francisco, Calif.




The donation from Apple, which was revealed by sources to Fortune, brings SF Gives $500,000 closer to reaching its goal of $10 million to fund local charitable programs. SF Gives hopes to have a total of 20 businesses contribute to reach that mark.

Other companies that have reportedly pitched in to SF Gives are Google, LinkedIn and Zynga. There have been 15 corporate contributors thus far, Monday's report said.

Still, 10 or so companies are said to have declined chipping in, citing their own, separate charitable contributions. SF Gives hopes to reach the $10 million mark by a self-imposed deadline of Wednesday.

Donations to SF Gives through the Tipping Point Community are not limited to corporations. Individuals can also contribute at the program's official website.




Under Chief Executive Tim Cook, Apple has been much more open about its philanthropic endeavors than it was under the leadership of secretive company co-founder Steve Jobs. But perhaps Apple's greatest charitable contribution has come from a program started under Jobs: Product (RED) devices, which to date have raised more than $70 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS.

Cook is also currently offering up a lunch date through CharityBuzz to raise money for the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights. With 8 days left in the bidding, the price of that sit-down has reached $175,000. Cook set a record a year ago when the same offer went for $560,000.
post #2 of 91

“Steve is dead, all is lost” comments aside, I think Apple under Tim Cook is morphing into a better company all around. WWDC will be Cook’s to win or lose on the product and innovation front but Apple does seem to be becoming more ‘human’ in it’s public persona. For all his genius Steve Jobs had some serious personality and personal issues that were never dealt with. Those issues were reflected in the way he ran Apple and the public face of the company.

 

Just my personal opinion.

post #3 of 91
Hmm.

I might be in the minority on this one, but I believe companies do their best work by being successful and as a side-effect employing people (which is not to suggest that people are somehow owed jobs by businesses).

I'd rather Apple kept the focus on product in the eyes of the public and the other stuff be kept private. I agree with Jobs on this.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 91
Had a look around their website. Seems like a worthwhile organization. From their annual report it looks like Jony Ive donated ~$100K to this organization last year. Kudos to Apple for participating.
post #5 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Had a look around their website. Seems like a worthwhile organization. From their annual report it looks like Jony Ive donated ~$100K to this organization last year. Kudos to Apple for participating.

After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.

 

WTF?!  Are you stoned or something?  Do you mind explaining this statement?

post #7 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.

 

Its Apple's money, not your money...they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, not what some pissant analyst/investor thinks is best for Apple. They can take their shares elsewhere if they don't like it. I know this will never happen, but Apple can't go public fast enough. 

 

Apple has tens of billions of dollars, $500,000 is a drop in the bucket, and for a good cause. Its the customers that provided Apple with this money and its nice to see Apple is using some of it to give back to people in real need. Investors have already gotten more than their share. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #8 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

After reading the Forbes article, I agree the most with the statement that individuals should feel free to make donations, but it is a misuse of investor money to make charitable donations.
Honestly I'd rather have Apple donating to an organization like this than the billions they spend combating fraudulent science like global warming. If investors have an issue with how Apple is spending its money they can chose to no longer invest in the company. Nobody is forced to invest in Apple.
post #9 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Its Apple's money, not your money...they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, not what some pissant analyst/investor thinks is best for Apple. They can take their shares elsewhere if they don't like it. I know this will never happen, but Apple can't go public fast enough. 

Apple has tens of billions of dollars, $500,000 is a drop in the bucket, and for a good cause. Its the customers that provided Apple with this money and its nice to see Apple is using some of it to give back to people in real need. Investors have already gotten more than their share. 
Why do you think going private is a good idea (if it was ever even remotely possible)? How many successful public companies go private? Dell recently went private but I would never equate Apple to Dell.
post #10 of 91

Rising tide floats all boats. SF is Apple's home town. If the donation helps improve the quality of life in SF then that helps improve Apple's public image which is good for business.

 

Nobody would complain if Apple donated to a liberal arts organization or some academic cause. Some people just don't want to see them spend any money on poor people. If you have been to SF you know there are a lot of homeless on the streets. If there were fewer, the city would be better in my opinion.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #11 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Why do you think going private is a good idea (if it was ever even remotely possible)? How many successful public companies go private? Dell recently went private but I would never equate Apple to Dell.

 

Because there wouldn't be people bitching up a storm trying to run Apple better than Apple because they have a few shares. There wouldn't be all this crap about how Apple isn't doing very well and how the CEO should be replaced. Apple could just be Apple and not have investors. Basically, it eliminate distractions from analysts, investors, etc. 

 

Apple is not Dell...you cannot compare the two. Dell makes shitty PC's and fell behind the times as it only relied on cheap PC sales to keep its company going and this isn't where the future is. Going private wasn't going to save them, but it did take the heat off them. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #12 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 
Because there wouldn't be people bitching up a storm trying to run Apple better than Apple because they have a few shares. There wouldn't be all this crap about how Apple isn't doing very well and how the CEO should be replaced. Apple could just be Apple and not have investors. Basically, it eliminate distractions from analysts, investors, etc. 

Who could afford to take them private? Someone has to buy them. Do you think Apple management would be better off taking orders from a Saudi Prince?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Who could afford to take them private? Someone has to buy them. Do you think Apple management would be better off taking orders from a Saudi Prince?

 

This is why it would never happen. It would be nice if Apple could just buy themselves out with the cash they have. Again, I know this can't happen. Shareholders are just a pain in the ass thats all.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #14 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Rising tide floats all boats. SF is Apple's home town. If the donation helps improve the quality of life in SF then that helps improve Apple's public image which is good for business.

Nobody would complain if Apple donated to a liberal arts organization or some academic cause. Some people just don't want to see them spend any money on poor people. If you have been to SF you know there are a lot of homeless on the streets. If there were fewer, the city would be better in my opinion.

There will always be "poor people.". If a person is capable of thinking and acting on their own behalf, they have a chance at changing their circumstances.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Its Apple's money, not your money...they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, not what some pissant analyst/investor thinks is best for Apple.

More accurately, it's Apple's AND the investors money. I don't agree with Apple giving a dividend, yet they were pressured by investors to do so. I don't agree with splitting the stock, but again investor pressure brought this about. Apple does not owe "society" a thing beyond making money and adhering to the laws. I don't believe in corporate giveaways. Individuals are free to donate ("throw away"?) their money on charitable contributions. If it was Apple's business to manage and administer charitable donations, I have no doubt they'd be the best in the world at doing so. It's not their business.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 5/5/14 at 8:18am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Because there wouldn't be people bitching up a storm trying to run Apple better than Apple because they have a few shares. There wouldn't be all this crap about how Apple isn't doing very well and how the CEO should be replaced. Apple could just be Apple and not have investors. Basically, it eliminate distractions from analysts, investors, etc. 

Apple is not Dell...you cannot compare the two. Dell makes shitty PC's and fell behind the times as it only relied on cheap PC sales to keep its company going and this isn't where the future is. Going private wasn't going to save them, but it did take the heat off them. 
Can you give me the name of a big company that successfully went private? There's obviously a reason most successful companies are public.
post #17 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

“Steve is dead, all is lost” comments aside, I think Apple under Tim Cook is morphing into a better company all around. WWDC will be Cook’s to win or lose on the product and innovation front but Apple does seem to be becoming more ‘human’ in it’s public persona. For all his genius Steve Jobs had some serious personality and personal issues that were never dealt with. Those issues were reflected in the way he ran Apple and the public face of the company.

Just my personal opinion.

Can't disagree totally, but the best scenario was Steve in the innovation / presentation chair and Tim running the day to day operation, which was pretty much how it was in the last few years. So I'd vote to get the time machine out and go back and get Steve.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #18 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 
This is why it would never happen. It would be nice if Apple could just buy themselves out with the cash they have. Again, I know this can't happen. Shareholders are just a pain in the ass thats all.

As you know they can't own themselves, but I was just being sarcastic about the Saudi Prince. He doesn't have enough money to even show up on the radar. It would take every penny of the 10 wealthiest people on the planet to afford to take Apple private. Shareholders are much easier to deal with than billionaires.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #19 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
There will always be "poor people.". If a person is capable of thinking and acting on their own behalf, they have a chance at changing their circumstances.

Many homeless street people are mentally ill. Just because there will always be poor people according to some bible script doesn't mean it is true, but if you read that passage further it says we should help those in need.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #20 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
More accurately, it's Apple's AND the investors money.

Wrong. The shareholders only own shares. The only time the shareholder has any ownership in the company is if the company goes bankrupt and liquidates all assets. At that time any funds remaining, after all debts are satisfied, would be distributed to the shareholders, which in most cases will be zero.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #21 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

WTF?!  Are you stoned or something?  Do you mind explaining this statement?

It. Is pretty simple really, that money belongs to the investor community.

Beyond that you have to be extremely careful with charitable giving as many of those organizations clause more problems than they solve. Giving the poor handouts does not help them in the long run if there is no expectation of improvement in their attitude towards work and community.
post #22 of 91
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

You, sir (and I use that term with not a small touch of irony), are a complete idiot.

 

I fail to see where he’s wrong. There will always be a moderately large group of people with less money than other groups. They are, then, by definition, poor people, which is why he put it in quotation marks.

 

They might have Internet access, a home, A/C, a computer, and a cell phone, but if they have fewer possessions and/or less money than anyone else… they’re “poor people”.

 

I don’t know why that was confusing. The quotes were the clue.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #23 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

I fail to see where he’s wrong. There will always be a moderately large group of people with less money than other groups. They are, then, by definition, poor people, which is why he put it in quotation marks.

 

They might have Internet access, a home, A/C, a computer, and a cell phone, but if they have fewer possessions and/or less money than anyone else… they’re “poor people”.

 

I don’t know why that was confusing. The quotes were the clue.

Oh please! Go look up the definition of poverty. "little or no money, goods, or means of support"

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #24 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Its Apple's money, not your money...they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, not what some pissant analyst/investor thinks is best for Apple.
Dead wrong! Apple is a publicly owned company, as such the money it earns belongs to investors. As such the investors should have input with respect to Apples charitable giving.
Quote:
They can take their shares elsewhere if they don't like it. I know this will never happen, but Apple can't go public fast enough. 
?? Apple is a public company which is the whole point. Apple earns money to pay the owners, that is the investors. The concept is pretty damn simple really.
Quote:
Apple has tens of billions of dollars, $500,000 is a drop in the bucket, and for a good cause.
It is highly debatable if it is a good cause. Even if it is a good cause we really don't know much about this specific charity and how responsible it is with money.
Quote:
Its the customers that provided Apple with this money and its nice to see Apple is using some of it to give back to people in real need. Investors have already gotten more than their share. 
Bull crap. The general reality here is that the money ends up wasted.
post #25 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

There will always be "poor people.". If a person is capable of thinking and acting on their own behalf, they have a chance at changing their circumstances.

Just keep in mind that an IQ of 100 is the median for any sampled group. It is a bell curve so most are around that level, that said for every smart person say between 120 and 140 there are an equal number with an IQ somewhere between 80 and 60. My point being, your last sentence is true in part but not for a large number of less fortunate people out there. Plus a recent study of homeless people in the States showed a staggeringly high number had had a mental breakdown or mental illness prior to losing their homes. In other words this could happen to anyone even a genius absent a family support situation.
Edited by digitalclips - 5/5/14 at 9:02am
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #26 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


It. Is pretty simple really, that money belongs to the investor community.

Beyond that you have to be extremely careful with charitable giving as many of those organizations clause more problems than they solve. Giving the poor handouts does not help them in the long run if there is no expectation of improvement in their attitude towards work and community.

 

Did you even look at what this group does?  Or did you just not even bother and tell yourself what you always tell yourself, "Giving 'handouts' to the poor is bad -- they'll spend it on drugs and they won't work and the'll be lazy," as usual?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I fail to see where he’s wrong. There will always be a moderately large group of people with less money than other groups. They are, then, by definition, poor people, which is why he put it in quotation marks.

 

They might have Internet access, a home, A/C, a computer, and a cell phone, but if they have fewer possessions and/or less money than anyone else… they’re “poor people”.

 

I don’t know why that was confusing. The quotes were the clue.

 

I don't give a damn about his "quotes."  

 

And your argument makes absolutely no sense.  Taylor Swift* has a LOT (like orders of magnitude LOT) more money than I do (or than the economic group into which I would fit do).  That doesn't make me poor -- nor does it make me "poor."

 

If we start counting people as poor -- or as "poor" -- whenever they are part of an economic strata which is below some other group(s) in net worth, then we're going to have to start to counting a lot of multimillionaires as poor -- or as "poor."

 

 

* -- Swift's net worth is about $200M, to put what I was saying into perspective.

post #27 of 91
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
Go look up the definition of poverty. "little or no money, goods, or means of support"

 

I fail to see how that rebuts what I said.

 

Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I don't give a damn about his "quotes."  

 

Then I don’t see how you can reply to his comment.

 
That doesnt make me poor

 

Never said it did. Please read the reply.

 
…nor does it make me “poor.”

 

It does, though.

 
as poor  or as "poor."

 

You don’t get it at all.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #28 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

There will always be "poor people.". If a person is capable of thinking and acting on their own behalf, they have a chance at changing their circumstances.

It takes both motive and opportunity for this to happen. You already ruled out opportunity with your statement 'nobody is owed a job'. You'd like to rule out entitlements, which include state-funded education allowing people to think and act in their own best interests and things like minimum wage. Poor people are the result of your way of thinking and yet you condemn them. I don't understand the desire that some people have to harm instead of help other people as though it would in some way ultimately be good for them e.g I'm going to starve you for a year so that you appreciate it when I do give you food or you work harder to earn it. I see that attitude all the time where people thrive on the failure of other people, sometimes to make them feel better about their own level of success or to put them through the same circumstances they had to deal with and thereby justify the notion they earned it but also under the delusion that misery always ultimately breeds success and it keeps people who they assume don't deserve success miserable.

Do you think that Steve Jobs would have become the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company if he hadn't been given a job at Atari? He didn't create that job out of thin air, he was given the opportunity and could easily have been thrown out the door. He similarly wouldn't have gone on to do the things he did had it not been for the opportunity of meeting up with Woz. The world operates by chance, you could just as well be the person walking down the street that gets flattened by a window at 20 years old:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/young-woman-killed-as-window-frame-falls-down-on-to-pavement-in-mayfair-square-8096163.html

as the multi-millionaire gambler born to a wealthy stock investor who spends his life hanging out with attractive women and buying expensive toys:

http://instagram.com/danbilzerian

There are people who put in lots of effort and get nowhere and there are people who put in very little effort and opportunity just falls right on their lap. People who are successful often assume it's their own motivation alone that resulted in the success, just as some people who are attractive think it was purposeful that things turned out that way, it's not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lybu_ZEFn6w

The kind of programs like the one Apple invested in offer a balance in opportunity.

How publicly traded companies should donate money is a valid point to make. When Apple went public, they sold the company to investors with the promise of doing what's best for that investment. But shareholders can't decide every expenditure so the complaint comes afterwards. If enough shareholders were to agree that donating to the poor was somehow wrong then I'm sure they could vote to get back the donation or write up a rule dictating future donations. Given the relatively small amounts and diversity among Apple's shareholders, I suspect that won't happen.
post #29 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
Go look up the definition of poverty. "little or no money, goods, or means of support"

 

I fail to see how that rebuts what I said.

Probably for the same reason you fail to see how completely nonsensical your post was. The title of the thread is about anti-poverty. It should be within the general understanding that "poor people" is synonymous with people in poverty in this discussion. Trying to spin it into some philosophical circular logic that anyone who has less money than I do is poorer than me, and therefore a "poor person" is honestly just nonsense.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #30 of 91
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
Probably for the same reason you fail to see how completely nonsensical your post was.

 

Your inability to comprehend it does not make it nonsensical.

 
Trying to spin it into some philosophical circular logic that anyone who has less money than I do is poorer than me, and therefore a "poor person" is honestly just nonsense.

 

No one was doing that, however. Try to pay attention.

 

The richest person in the year 140 BC would be poor by today’s standards. Potentially, the lowest QoL in the future might be what we call middle class today. That doesn’t mean they’re not the poor.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #31 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I fail to see how that rebuts what I said.

 

 

Then I don’t see how you can reply to his comment.

 

Never said it did. Please read the reply.

 

It does, though.

 

You don’t get it at all.

 

Then you aren't paying attention to the way in which the English language works.

 

You are arguing that people with $1B can argue that they are "poor" because they don't have anywhere near as much as Bill Gates.  That's not the way language works.  Words have meanings.

 

Now, if you want to throw quotes around a word to make an ironic point, that's something different.  But if he meant it ironically, then what he was saying is that, "there will always be rich people."  I really don't think that's what he meant.

post #32 of 91

I haven't been to San Fran in a while, but from what I understand, it's apparent that the city is becoming too expensive for poor people to live there. 

 

Instead of donating money to groups that supposedly help the poor, I believe that the money would be better spent by getting rid of the poor people. Bus them out to a different part of the country, someplace where living costs are far lower, and everybody will be happy.

post #33 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
 Try to pay attention.

No. You try to pay attention. I stated specifically with regard to homeless street people and he replied with there will always be poor people. If we were not discussing the same type of people why would he even quote me? Homeless street people have no home, on Internet, no cell phone, no computer as you try to infer that people with these goods and possessions still allow them to be considered "poor people". Sure there are varying degrees of poverty but in this case he and I were not discussing moderately disadvantaged people.  

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #34 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It takes both motive and opportunity for this to happen. You already ruled out opportunity with your statement 'nobody is owed a job'. You'd like to rule out entitlements, which include state-funded education allowing people to think and act in their own best interests and things like minimum wage. Poor people are the result of your way of thinking and yet you condemn them. I don't understand the desire that some people have to harm instead of help other people as though it would in some way ultimately be good for them e.g I'm going to starve you for a year so that you appreciate it when I do give you food or you work harder to earn it. I see that attitude all the time where people thrive on the failure of other people, sometimes to make them feel better about their own level of success or to put them through the same circumstances they had to deal with and thereby justify the notion they earned it but also under the delusion that misery always ultimately breeds success and it keeps people who they assume don't deserve success miserable.

Do you think that Steve Jobs would have become the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company if he hadn't been given a job at Atari? He didn't create that job out of thin air, he was given the opportunity and could easily have been thrown out the door. He similarly wouldn't have gone on to do the things he did had it not been for the opportunity of meeting up with Woz. The world operates by chance, you could just as well be the person walking down the street that gets flattened by a window at 20 years old:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/young-woman-killed-as-window-frame-falls-down-on-to-pavement-in-mayfair-square-8096163.html

as the multi-millionaire gambler born to a wealthy stock investor who spends his life hanging out with attractive women and buying expensive toys:

http://instagram.com/danbilzerian

There are people who put in lots of effort and get nowhere and there are people who put in very little effort and opportunity just falls right on their lap. People who are successful often assume it's their own motivation alone that resulted in the success, just as some people who are attractive think it was purposeful that things turned out that way, it's not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lybu_ZEFn6w

The kind of programs like the one Apple invested in offer a balance in opportunity.

How publicly traded companies should donate money is a valid point to make. When Apple went public, they sold the company to investors with the promise of doing what's best for that investment. But shareholders can't decide every expenditure so the complaint comes afterwards. If enough shareholders were to agree that donating to the poor was somehow wrong then I'm sure they could vote to get back the donation or write up a rule dictating future donations. Given the relatively small amounts and diversity among Apple's shareholders, I suspect that won't happen.

Excellent post sir.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #35 of 91

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #36 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I haven't been to San Fran in a while, but from what I understand, it's apparent that the city is becoming too expensive for poor people to live there. 

 

Instead of donating money to groups that supposedly help the poor, I believe that the money would be better spent by getting rid of the poor people. Bus them out to a different part of the country, someplace where living costs are far lower, and everybody will be happy.

It's cheaper just to shoot them. Why waste the gas? /s

 

Honestly, the reason the homeless are in the cities is because there are more charitable people there who will give them a dollar and there are steam pipes they can sleep near to stay warm. If they were in the midwest somewhere they would die of starvation or freeze to death, but that's what you really want isn't it?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #37 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It's cheaper just to shoot them. Why waste the gas? /s

Are hybrid vehicles the answer? 1smile.gif

But seriously, eliminating the minimum wage would go further toward eliminating poverty than well-meaning but misguided philanthropy programs. By arbitrarily capping the lower end of wages, those with the lowest marketable skills are restricted from participating in the job market.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 5/5/14 at 9:33am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #38 of 91
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

You are arguing

 

Nope. Sorry! Please read my post again.

 

Originally Posted by mstone View Post
I stated specifically with regard to homeless street people and he replied with there will always be poor people.

 

“Homeless street people”, however, are not the only poor.

 
…you try to infer that people with these goods and possessions still allow them to be considered “poor people”.

 

In the future. Why’s this so confusing?

 
…he and I were not discussing moderately disadvantaged people.  

 

Nor was I. I proposed yet another scenario discussion only the most disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #39 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
 I proposed yet another scenario discussion only the most disadvantaged.

When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Your first post was a load of crap. Adding more nonsense to it is not helping your case.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #40 of 91
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging. Your first post was a load of crap. Adding more nonsense to it is not helping your case.

 

Okay. Keep dreaming, I guess.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple donates $500K to San Francisco anti-poverty initiative