Agree. The purpose of a business is not actually to create jobs and creating them is, like your analogy, like breathing.
They should actually be praised for efficiently creating valuable products and services. That they also create jobs is a sort of happy side-effect.
The purpose of a corporation is to act as a legal body (literally) to accomplish some purpose. Many exist to make money, and public corporations are typically seen as primarily seeking to enrich their shareholders.
However, a variety of companies are created with the intent of changing the world in other ways. Making money is simply the way to amass the resources needed to be able to affect change.
In retrospect, Bill Gates used illegal business practices to create a huge pool of money he's now using to do noteworthy things (as well as entrench Microsoft's products in some markets), but there's no active criminal investigation seeking the return of his billions (most of the state, federal and private cases against Microsoft are now satisfied or legally terminated).
Jobs sought to build a culture that is evident at Apple, but also at other companies that are seeking to do things in a similar way. Jobs clearly made a deep impression upon Zuckerberg at Facebook.
Most people are only aware of the largely inaccurate retellings of history (Jobs hated charity!!! Only Bill Gates cares about AIDS!!) but all those people and their delusional opinions don't matter much because they don't have any money or voice to change the world anyway.
Greed, fear, egotism, charity, desire to live etc. How to create jobs is not a one answer question, similarly, how do we end pollution, destruction of ecology, illness, hunger, illiteracy, crime, war are not single answer questions either. People who say they have the answer don't.
Are we? All the examples for the first half of the article were Apple funded, so it was the shareholders money being used, not SJ's money.
And interestingly, the fact that a reasonably good journalist like Nilay Patel could write such a report without it even occurring to him that Project RED and contributions to Stanford were not actually made post-Jobs at all (really, WTF??) indicates that such "open secrets" are hidden from public perception either by legend or by a basic desire to believe that Jobs didn't deserve any respect.
If such obvious facts don't occur to people who should know better as they write about subjects they are supposed to be reasonably up to speed on, imagine how little is reported of Jobs secret personal philanthropy, the detail of which are unlikely to ever be revealed.
And just to obliterate the notion that Jobs refused to give any money away, keep in mind that it's actually impossible for someone who's making billions of dollars to not engage in giving, because the US tax code has such favorable provisions for charity that it makes it more attractive than not giving.
The only real way the super rich could "not give" is by donating their money to sham organizations or groups like such as churches that promote hatred and bigotry and push limitations on liberty. It does not appear that Jobs funneled any of his money in that direction.
Anyone who suggests multimillionaires are not giving to charity is too poor to realize that its simply financially irresponsible not to. It's not righteous to give, it's financially mandated by IRS policy.
Of course, if you're a poor slob you don't know that, which is why so many people hate on Jobs for not grandstanding about how he's made plans to help others with his name plastered all over it.
One of those things that sounds so smart until you give it some basic thought.
Jobs was never one to boast about money. He helped people for the sake of helping, not help to make him look good like Gates does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
As Gates was brought up by 'realwarder' above then I guess it's a fair topic. The term buying redemption comes to mind ...
It happens. Check out the later-in-life philanthropic activities of "robber barons" like J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation and others who began to have "Out, out damn spot" pangs of guilt. Here's a sample of what the railroad and banking magnate turned his attention to:
Quote:
Critics
While conservatives in the Progressive Era hailed Morgan for his civic responsibility, his strengthening of the national economy, and his devotion to the arts and religion, the left wing felt threatened by his enormous economic power.
Enemies of banking attacked Morgan for the terms of his loan of gold to the federal government in the 1895 crisis, for his financial resolution of the Panic of 1907, and for bringing on the financial ills of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.
In December 1912, Morgan testified before the Pujo Committee, a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency committee. The committee ultimately found that a cabal of financial leaders were abusing their public trust to consolidate control over many industries: the partners of J.P. Morgan & Co. along with the directors of First National and National City Bank controlled aggregate resources of $22.245 billion. Louis Brandeis, later a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, compared this sum to the value of all the property in the twenty-two states west of the Mississippi River.
-----
At the time of his death, he only held 19% of his own net worth, an estate worth $68.3 million ($1.39 billion in today's dollars based on CPI, or $25.2 billion based on 'relative share of GDP'), of which about $30 million represented his share in the New York and Philadelphia banks. The value of his art collection was estimated at $50 million.[33]
-----
Morgan was a notable collector of books, pictures, paintings, clocks and other art objects, many loaned or given to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (of which he was president and was a major force in its establishment)...
His son, J. P. Morgan, Jr., made the Pierpont Morgan Library a public institution in 1924 as a memorial to his father....
...Morgan was a benefactor of the American Museum of Natural History, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Groton School, Harvard University (especially its medical school), Trinity College, the Lying-in Hospital of the City of New York, and the New York trade schools.
The J.P. Morgan Library and Art Museum
By the turn of the century JP Morgan had become one of America's most important collectors of gems and had assembled the most important gem collection in the U.S. as well as of American gemstones (over 1000 pieces). Tiffany & Co. assembled his first collection. ... The collection was exhibited at the World's Fair in Paris in 1889. The exhibit won two golden awards and drew the attention of important scholars, lapidaries and the general public.
...Collections have been donated to the American Museum of Natural History in New York where they were known as the Morgan-Tiffany and the Morgan-Bement collections. In 1911 Kunz named a newly found gem after his biggest customer: morganite.
Check out the later-in-life philanthropic activities of "robber barons" like J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation and others who began to have "Out, out damn spot" pangs of guilt.
How do we know they had "pangs of guilt" that motivated their philanthropy?
Is it possible these men were not as evil as they're often made out to be?
The whole point of philanthropy is anonymity, or at least a humble stance of some kind.
The way you do it is that you simply don't allow the people you give the money to, to name their building after you. You don't have your own foundation with your own name on the door to promote your own philanthropy. You don't blab away about it every day to every reporter who asks you about it. It's actually quite easy, and most folks who donate (the regular poor folks), don't get any kudos beyond a simple tax break.
The minute you see "The <person or company name> Philanthropic Society" (or similar) you already know it's more about the promotion of the person or company than it is the philanthropy. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.
Perhaps it was in their own mind that they had guilt.
Definitely quite possible. But we don't know what was in their minds.
I guess what I'm saying is that there might be a bit of projection going on when someone sees a person who has accumulated great wealth later giving much (or all) of it away, assuming they must be doing so out of guilt.
I disagree. The benefit of making your philanthropy public, as Gates has done, is to encourage others to do the same. Some years ago, it was reported that Gates tried to get agreement from all the other "richest people on the planet" to each donate the same amount of money, so each would maintain their same position on the Fortune list, but most refused. ....
I strongly disagree with this.
Philanthropy through guilt (what you are talking about here) isn't philanthropy, even if it ends up having the desired goal of getting a bit of money for whatever cause. And Bill Gates is the last person you should be admiring if you admire philanthropy or the idea of same.
The lesson from Bill Gates' life is that you can be a rapacious asshole and lie and steal and destroy the livelihood of thousands of companies and people, treating them like dirt for the majority of your life, as long as you then turn around and donate a bunch of your useless money when you get old enough, and comfortable enough, and have run out of stuff to do with yourself.
The lesson from a philanthropic "challenge" as he proposed is that you can't even get filthy rich people to behave with some kind of a conscience, even if you publicly shame them into it. It's a negative lesson, not a positive one.
Apple for years never mentioned their environmental policies and then it was found they were market leaders.
Why does Steve Jobs have to tell people what he's doing with his own money? It has NOTHING to do with anyone but Steve Jobs.
This is just typical blow holing. I must be awesome because I go on TV and tell people what cause I'm supporting? I pay $2 billion dollars to get naming rights to a building.
Steve Jobs was a private man who did things. Not a blow hard who thought he was God's gift to mankind and to prove it he would name a hospital or something else?
What Steve did with Steve's money should be up to Steve not the public who have no right to tell him what to do.
It happens. Check out the later-in-life philanthropic activities of "robber barons" like J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation and others who began to have "Out, out damn spot" pangs of guilt. Here's a sample of what the railroad and banking magnate turned his attention to:
I remember seeing an interview with Bill Gates when he was first starting his foundation and he stated that it is difficult to give away the type of money he has. I'm sure it would be easy to donate to some institution so they could build a new building with your name on it, but he was talking about more than that.
Also the article stated that Apple has given over $50 million to the product (Red) organization. I assume there are lots of other donors contributing hundreds of millions. Why do we never hear about what they're doing. Aids is as rampant as ever in Africa. Wasn't this supposed to help fight it.
Too many charitable foundations become big businesses themselves.
Go to the symphony, ballet, opera, theater, etc. in a large city. Open up the event program and look at the donor list; there are anonymous donors at every single donation tier, including the largest.
Same thing with museums. Find a copy of the annual report online and look at the list of donors; there will be anonymous contributions, even at the highest level.
If Steve and Laurene went to KQED public television and said, "we want to donate $10 million but only if you keep it quiet" what do you think the KQED board will say? No?
Oh, there are people who know. Apart from the Jobses tax person, no one knows the extent of the family's charitable activities, but there are individuals who certainly know of specific charitable acts. The fact that this make it into the consciousness of the general public is unsurprising.
Of all of the billionaires in America, Steve and Laurene Jobs were perhaps the most likely one to remain anonymous donors. Plus they could reveal their involvement after the fact, if they chose to do so.
Apple may have contributed to the Hospital and to Red, but the article mentions nothing whatsoever that Steve did.
Except to "think about it".
Anyhow, here's the February 2011 press release about the Stanford Hospital & Clinics Corporate Partner Program.
The six founding members of the program (Apple, eBay, HP, Intel, Intuit and Oracle) aim to raise $150 million over ten years. Now, we don't know how much each company will contribute, but it's safe to say that Apple will thrown in more than a million.
What a surprise, one of Steve's BFFs -- Larry Ellison -- is involved. Oh, and look Intuit is involved. Funny how Bill Campbell, the Intuit chairman also sits on Apple's board.
Comments
Jobs also noted that it was easier to make money than to spend it...
While I am sure that Jobs as a person, and Apple as a corporation, were more than generous to their causes with their charitable donations.
That said, "I wish I could figure out that "easy" way to make money that Steve talked about. Though I have no problem in spending it!
/
/
/
Agree. The purpose of a business is not actually to create jobs and creating them is, like your analogy, like breathing.
They should actually be praised for efficiently creating valuable products and services. That they also create jobs is a sort of happy side-effect.
The purpose of a corporation is to act as a legal body (literally) to accomplish some purpose. Many exist to make money, and public corporations are typically seen as primarily seeking to enrich their shareholders.
However, a variety of companies are created with the intent of changing the world in other ways. Making money is simply the way to amass the resources needed to be able to affect change.
In retrospect, Bill Gates used illegal business practices to create a huge pool of money he's now using to do noteworthy things (as well as entrench Microsoft's products in some markets), but there's no active criminal investigation seeking the return of his billions (most of the state, federal and private cases against Microsoft are now satisfied or legally terminated).
Jobs sought to build a culture that is evident at Apple, but also at other companies that are seeking to do things in a similar way. Jobs clearly made a deep impression upon Zuckerberg at Facebook.
Most people are only aware of the largely inaccurate retellings of history (Jobs hated charity!!! Only Bill Gates cares about AIDS!!) but all those people and their delusional opinions don't matter much because they don't have any money or voice to change the world anyway.
Wrong actually.
Jobs are created through production.
Jobs are created for various reasons.
Greed, fear, egotism, charity, desire to live etc. How to create jobs is not a one answer question, similarly, how do we end pollution, destruction of ecology, illness, hunger, illiteracy, crime, war are not single answer questions either. People who say they have the answer don't.
I never had a single doubt. I admire the fact, unlike some I could mention, Steve kept his philanthropy private.
It's a core teaching in Buddhism
Are we? All the examples for the first half of the article were Apple funded, so it was the shareholders money being used, not SJ's money.
And interestingly, the fact that a reasonably good journalist like Nilay Patel could write such a report without it even occurring to him that Project RED and contributions to Stanford were not actually made post-Jobs at all (really, WTF??) indicates that such "open secrets" are hidden from public perception either by legend or by a basic desire to believe that Jobs didn't deserve any respect.
If such obvious facts don't occur to people who should know better as they write about subjects they are supposed to be reasonably up to speed on, imagine how little is reported of Jobs secret personal philanthropy, the detail of which are unlikely to ever be revealed.
And just to obliterate the notion that Jobs refused to give any money away, keep in mind that it's actually impossible for someone who's making billions of dollars to not engage in giving, because the US tax code has such favorable provisions for charity that it makes it more attractive than not giving.
The only real way the super rich could "not give" is by donating their money to sham organizations or groups like such as churches that promote hatred and bigotry and push limitations on liberty. It does not appear that Jobs funneled any of his money in that direction.
Anyone who suggests multimillionaires are not giving to charity is too poor to realize that its simply financially irresponsible not to. It's not righteous to give, it's financially mandated by IRS policy.
Of course, if you're a poor slob you don't know that, which is why so many people hate on Jobs for not grandstanding about how he's made plans to help others with his name plastered all over it.
One of those things that sounds so smart until you give it some basic thought.
Jobs are created for various reasons.
I realize that. I wasn't talking about why but what they're created out of.
Jobs was never one to boast about money. He helped people for the sake of helping, not help to make him look good like Gates does.
As Gates was brought up by 'realwarder' above then I guess it's a fair topic. The term buying redemption comes to mind ...
It happens. Check out the later-in-life philanthropic activities of "robber barons" like J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation and others who began to have "Out, out damn spot" pangs of guilt. Here's a sample of what the railroad and banking magnate turned his attention to:
Critics
While conservatives in the Progressive Era hailed Morgan for his civic responsibility, his strengthening of the national economy, and his devotion to the arts and religion, the left wing felt threatened by his enormous economic power.
Enemies of banking attacked Morgan for the terms of his loan of gold to the federal government in the 1895 crisis, for his financial resolution of the Panic of 1907, and for bringing on the financial ills of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.
In December 1912, Morgan testified before the Pujo Committee, a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency committee. The committee ultimately found that a cabal of financial leaders were abusing their public trust to consolidate control over many industries: the partners of J.P. Morgan & Co. along with the directors of First National and National City Bank controlled aggregate resources of $22.245 billion. Louis Brandeis, later a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, compared this sum to the value of all the property in the twenty-two states west of the Mississippi River.
-----
At the time of his death, he only held 19% of his own net worth, an estate worth $68.3 million ($1.39 billion in today's dollars based on CPI, or $25.2 billion based on 'relative share of GDP'), of which about $30 million represented his share in the New York and Philadelphia banks. The value of his art collection was estimated at $50 million.[33]
-----
Morgan was a notable collector of books, pictures, paintings, clocks and other art objects, many loaned or given to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (of which he was president and was a major force in its establishment)...
His son, J. P. Morgan, Jr., made the Pierpont Morgan Library a public institution in 1924 as a memorial to his father....
...Morgan was a benefactor of the American Museum of Natural History, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Groton School, Harvard University (especially its medical school), Trinity College, the Lying-in Hospital of the City of New York, and the New York trade schools.
The J.P. Morgan Library and Art Museum
By the turn of the century JP Morgan had become one of America's most important collectors of gems and had assembled the most important gem collection in the U.S. as well as of American gemstones (over 1000 pieces). Tiffany & Co. assembled his first collection. ... The collection was exhibited at the World's Fair in Paris in 1889. The exhibit won two golden awards and drew the attention of important scholars, lapidaries and the general public.
...Collections have been donated to the American Museum of Natural History in New York where they were known as the Morgan-Tiffany and the Morgan-Bement collections. In 1911 Kunz named a newly found gem after his biggest customer: morganite.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan
Check out the later-in-life philanthropic activities of "robber barons" like J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation and others who began to have "Out, out damn spot" pangs of guilt.
How do we know they had "pangs of guilt" that motivated their philanthropy?
Is it possible these men were not as evil as they're often made out to be?
How do we know they had "pangs of guilt" that motivated their philanthropy?
Is it possible these men were not as evil as they're often made out to be?
Perhaps it was in their own mind that they had guilt.
This is ridiculous. It's not hard at all.
The whole point of philanthropy is anonymity, or at least a humble stance of some kind.
The way you do it is that you simply don't allow the people you give the money to, to name their building after you. You don't have your own foundation with your own name on the door to promote your own philanthropy. You don't blab away about it every day to every reporter who asks you about it. It's actually quite easy, and most folks who donate (the regular poor folks), don't get any kudos beyond a simple tax break.
The minute you see "The <person or company name> Philanthropic Society" (or similar) you already know it's more about the promotion of the person or company than it is the philanthropy. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.
Agreed.
Perhaps it was in their own mind that they had guilt.
Definitely quite possible. But we don't know what was in their minds.
I guess what I'm saying is that there might be a bit of projection going on when someone sees a person who has accumulated great wealth later giving much (or all) of it away, assuming they must be doing so out of guilt.
I disagree. The benefit of making your philanthropy public, as Gates has done, is to encourage others to do the same. Some years ago, it was reported that Gates tried to get agreement from all the other "richest people on the planet" to each donate the same amount of money, so each would maintain their same position on the Fortune list, but most refused. ....
I strongly disagree with this.
Philanthropy through guilt (what you are talking about here) isn't philanthropy, even if it ends up having the desired goal of getting a bit of money for whatever cause. And Bill Gates is the last person you should be admiring if you admire philanthropy or the idea of same.
The lesson from Bill Gates' life is that you can be a rapacious asshole and lie and steal and destroy the livelihood of thousands of companies and people, treating them like dirt for the majority of your life, as long as you then turn around and donate a bunch of your useless money when you get old enough, and comfortable enough, and have run out of stuff to do with yourself.
The lesson from a philanthropic "challenge" as he proposed is that you can't even get filthy rich people to behave with some kind of a conscience, even if you publicly shame them into it. It's a negative lesson, not a positive one.
Why does Steve Jobs have to tell people what he's doing with his own money? It has NOTHING to do with anyone but Steve Jobs.
This is just typical blow holing. I must be awesome because I go on TV and tell people what cause I'm supporting? I pay $2 billion dollars to get naming rights to a building.
Steve Jobs was a private man who did things. Not a blow hard who thought he was God's gift to mankind and to prove it he would name a hospital or something else?
What Steve did with Steve's money should be up to Steve not the public who have no right to tell him what to do.
It happens. Check out the later-in-life philanthropic activities of "robber barons" like J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation and others who began to have "Out, out damn spot" pangs of guilt. Here's a sample of what the railroad and banking magnate turned his attention to:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan
You missed Andrew Carnegie who was the richest man in the world until he gave his wealth away.
Also the article stated that Apple has given over $50 million to the product (Red) organization. I assume there are lots of other donors contributing hundreds of millions. Why do we never hear about what they're doing. Aids is as rampant as ever in Africa. Wasn't this supposed to help fight it.
Too many charitable foundations become big businesses themselves.
It's hard to keep billions in philanthropy quiet.
It is easy to keep philanthropy quiet.
Go to the symphony, ballet, opera, theater, etc. in a large city. Open up the event program and look at the donor list; there are anonymous donors at every single donation tier, including the largest.
Same thing with museums. Find a copy of the annual report online and look at the list of donors; there will be anonymous contributions, even at the highest level.
If Steve and Laurene went to KQED public television and said, "we want to donate $10 million but only if you keep it quiet" what do you think the KQED board will say? No?
Oh, there are people who know. Apart from the Jobses tax person, no one knows the extent of the family's charitable activities, but there are individuals who certainly know of specific charitable acts. The fact that this make it into the consciousness of the general public is unsurprising.
Of all of the billionaires in America, Steve and Laurene Jobs were perhaps the most likely one to remain anonymous donors. Plus they could reveal their involvement after the fact, if they chose to do so.
"Just because he's been extremely busy, that doesn't mean that he and his wife, Laurene, have not been thinking about these things,"
Thinking is not doing.
Apple may have contributed to the Hospital and to Red, but the article mentions nothing whatsoever that Steve did.
Except to "think about it".
Thinking is not doing.
Apple may have contributed to the Hospital and to Red, but the article mentions nothing whatsoever that Steve did.
Except to "think about it".
Anyhow, here's the February 2011 press release about the Stanford Hospital & Clinics Corporate Partner Program.
The six founding members of the program (Apple, eBay, HP, Intel, Intuit and Oracle) aim to raise $150 million over ten years. Now, we don't know how much each company will contribute, but it's safe to say that Apple will thrown in more than a million.
What a surprise, one of Steve's BFFs -- Larry Ellison -- is involved. Oh, and look Intuit is involved. Funny how Bill Campbell, the Intuit chairman also sits on Apple's board.