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.
Wow you usually have the 'sane' comments ... did a dog pee in your coffee or something?
It could be as simple as - Hey Bill is donating to organization x, so likely its a capable organization- Hey Martha, why don't we give to organization x also.
Instead its a hate filled rant of rubbish... dis-appointing.
We live in an upside-down world. Capitalists should be praised for creating jobs, products and services people need. Instead everyone wants everything for free and the bigger the company, the more people and politicians threaten them with boycotts and such unless THEY are given MORE, MORE, MORE. Insanity.
Ummm no... Just quit standing on your head... its only upside down to you!
I never had a single doubt. I admire the fact, unlike some I could mention, Steve kept his philanthropy private.
It really doesn't matter if 1 dollar or one billion was donated, it isn't something for public discussion. I feel real sorry for the people that need to become so involved in somebodies else personal activities. I'm surprised these idiots haven't ask for video proof that Steve fathered his children.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Perhaps it was in their own mind that they had guilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
You missed Andrew Carnegie who was the richest man in the world until he gave his wealth away.
Good points all.....
Some might have done it anyway (whether they became rich or not - viz. stories of "regular" people who leave their life savings - sometimes a surprisingly large amount never spent on anything personal - to a cause or institution) for the best of reasons. But yes, I see no inherent contradiction between being generous and being wealthy, and should have made that clearer.
Some for the "pangs of guilt" reason I cited - or if religious, being cognizant of Jesus' saying "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and so trying to "square the books" while still alive.
Some for good PR and/or ego boosts while alive. And some even for tax reasons (giving away money can be quite profitable in terms of generating huge and timely tax deductions).
And some for combinations of the above and other reasons, I'm sure.
None of us can see into the soul of another person - and sometimes it's hard enough to even understand all of our own motives for both the selfish and unselfish reasons (among others) we do much of what we do. And if any of us have more "complicated souls" than others, Steve Jobs certainly might be among 'em.
I remember reading an article years ago about how charitable giving by very wealthy people is often kept quiet or low-key out of a desire not to be flooded with requests from others.
Might not sound likely but consider that just about every charitable organization (and some non-charitable ones like universities) maintain professional staff to pursue gifts from major donors. Given that, it seems likely that someone like Jobs, who already seemed indifferent to dealing with money, might be unusually quiet about his charitable activities.
Based on the privacy that the Jobs family coveted, they would indeed seem to be the most likely American billionaire family to be anonymous donors.
By donating anonymously, especially at a top tier, you aren't constantly barraged by requests from development officers from whatever random organization. It's a more efficient use of the donor's time.
If the Jobs Trust donated publicly to SFMOMA, they would be fielding calls from every single art museum within the state of California, and probably most of the big ones all over the United States.
Remember that Laurene Powell is heavily involved in numerous charitable organizations, yet remains almost completely silent. Generally speaking, someone who is at the board level of a charitable organization is also financially involved to a degree.
If you look at those program guides from the symphony/opera/ballet/whatever and compare the board/governors/etc. with the donor list, you will find almost all of them as donors. Yet there will be a few mystery anonymous donors, even at the highest levels.
If Laurene Powell Jobs is sitting on the board of some charity, it is likely that there is at least one anonymous contributor on the top tier donor roster and it is also very likely that at the Jobs Trust would be one of those anonymous donors. If she is spending time with an organization, it is likely she is spending money with the organization as well. If she really wanted to, she could just cut a check and forget about it. By giving her time, she is taking away from others (family, friends, herself).
This is different than putting a twenty dollar bill into a Salvation Army kettle during the Christmas holidays.
Let's say the Jobs Trust donated anonymously to SFMOMA, but somehow it got leaked amongst the VC, museum directors, country clobbers, and old blue bloods. Let's say this information made it to the development department at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Do you think the development director would approach the Jobs Trust for a donation? And what does the SFMOMA development director do? Ask for more?
There are a lot of power politics in play when a top tier anonymous donor silently appears on your doorstep. By staying anonymous in their charitable activities, a couple like Steve and Laurene would exert maximum control over their gifting. They wouldn't have to field ten calls and reply, "Sorry..." and gently explain why they're not donating to Organization X, Y or Z.
Concerning Stanford Hospital & Clinics, it's quite possible and even probable that a major individual (non-corporate) donor will step up. After all the Corporate Partner Program will only cover a fraction of the projected costs. Who would be the most likely person to donate anonymously as an individual to Stanford Hospital & Clinics?
I agree completely! THe super wealthy like Gates and Buffet, need to encourage other rich people, and making their contributions public is the obvious way.
But then is it about the charity or the applause you get for it.
That applause is why Buddhists believe that charity should be without your name attached. So that it is charity to be charitable, not to reward your ego. As an admitted student of Buddhism, Jobs would have learned that lesson and clearly agreed with it.
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.
Which raises another point. Jobs apparently didn't like Apple donating to causes because he felt that the company's money belonged to the shareholders and who was he or even the Board to decide how to give that money away. After all, many donations carry political implications with them and shareholders might have very diverse views. Some might even have the view that none of 'their' money should be given away. So Apple focuses on making the shareholders more money so they can donate or not as they see fit. Customers made the choice to donate to (RED) via Apple as the money came from the profit on the sale. And so on.
The recently announced matching program falls a little out of this realm because it is viewed as an employee benefit. The employees are doing the choosing based on their own acts and it is very limited in amount (and somewhat restricted on what charities etc). Based on what information has gone out about the program it doesn't really seem like that many folks jumped on board with it
So basically apple gave stanford university about 2% of the 97 Billion its sits on. Woohoo, hip hip hooray, how generous and millions of kids can't get a decent lunch or school books, but steve jobs can afford a liver. praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
So basically apple gave stanford university about 2% of the 97 Billion its sits on. Woohoo, hip hip hooray, how generous and millions of kids can't get a decent lunch or school books, but steve jobs can afford a liver. praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
Where to begin to deconstruct you?
Well, first, I guess you went to one of those "deprived schools" and never learned to spell "philanthropy" (in the title of your post), so that's Steve Jobs' fault.
And second, Apple's pool of capital isn't just being sat on - but is being used for (among other things) to guarantee the strategic parts supplies that allow Apple to grow as fast as it has and leave plenty of R&D resources available to keep bringing better and more useful products to improve what people can do with digital electronics. Including, notably, students - iAuthor and iTunes U are important new tools to improve education while cutting the cost of those school books you were saying students can't get. And the rest is invested, earning for Apple and providing more investment capital for all kinds of businesses.
Apple's technological innovation and user interfaces help the economy grow, makes businesses more efficient and creates more wealth for all of society (not to mention almost single-handedly holding up the value of stock markets, which makes more money for more investments and benefits shareholders - which include, btw, school teacher retirement funds and much more). Apple benefits society by benefiting the world as a business, not by being a charitable foundation.
If there weren't any successful businesses there would be no charities! (Or jobs or.....)
Third, who are you to tell Apple how to manage its resources?
Fourth, that one activity is not the total amount of Apple's programs.
Fifth, oh what's the use. So much of society no longer understands the underpinnings of economic society and can only think about how to spend while grasping nothing of what it takes to turn an idea into the new wealth on which spending depends entirely.
The whole point of philanthropy is anonymity, or at least a humble stance of some kind.
Nope, philanthropy is giving. Anonymous or otherwise. The recipients generally are pretty happy regardless.
Quote:
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.
When my dad passes I intend to start a scholarship in his memory (he's 90 this year). That I would want to honor his memory in that way doesn't make it any less philantrophic. It's not like any recipients are going to care if his name is on the check somewhere.
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.
The reality bubble has popped..When I found out that Apple's total charitable donations were worse than Exon-Mobile. It was awful..that the second richest company in the world
gave essentially chump-change back.. (The Red Ribbon campaign is chump change..do the math!)
Exon was doing it for the tax breaks? What was apples excuse? (Top secret?)
- Steve Jobs may have been too busy himself..but could he not have let someone else pull the strings? In the end, this will be a black spot on Jobs tenure at Apple. I applaud the new CEO in his direction for corporate responsiblility, I wish him the best of luck.
When I read the stories about the human cost and misery in producing iPads & iPhones in China..I got angry. So I made this (Read the article.. I was pissed)
So everybody else does it you say...Yes thats correct...What makes it worse is that Steve actually believed Apples products are a force for good? Sorry that doesn't fly...Whether you like Bill Gates or not....he's actually making a difference out there and paying it forward.
Gates may be an ego maniac and control freak as well, but the net effect is to the benefit of Malaria & other common deseases which should have been dealt with a long time ago.
I would like to hear about change at Apple..but changes for good overseas. Until then Apple remains another marketing/spin company...who's values are clearly demonstrated by its actions.
Before you get your Hate on against me, I am a former Mac User who bought in 1994 8100-PowerMac /setup for 14K - (I could have bought a car!). I am left with such a bad taste in my mouth... of what my money actually bought. It's too bad there is no such thing as an ethically made computer, maybe its time Apple steps up and develops one.
It's amazing how many people have such strong opinions about what other people should be doing with their own money.
Apple is responsible to its shareholders for what it does with its money. Don't like it? Don't patronize them. Don't own their stock? Or...buy the stock and vote as a shareholder.
Steve Jobs and his family are (or should be) free to do whatever they want to with the money he's earned.
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.
This example of an emotional rant about someone you do not like and never met in high probability. Of course your opinion is so right that it seems you are screaming through the computer display to make us agreed with you.
Thanks for continuing to bring the China crap places it doesn't belong.
And if you can't tell that's sarcasm, well?
Sorry if I fail to understand your sarcasm..
Is it Crap - because I'm tired of hearing about china?
Is it Crap - because this post should be put elsewhere.
Is it Crap - I really don't give a *** and get on with your life, because I really care about cool products, because thats my bottomline..and if we have to step on backs of other countries, no problem, as long as my Apps work and my newest toy is the envy of my friends??
My biggest worry is when China starts putting up its banners in the USA "Work Hard, or Work Hard finding a new job tommorow", in USA cities.
Wait a minute I forgot..that's happening already!
What I'm scared of is when "American's who don't give a crap about Americans" and its China playing with American made Apps.
Comments
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.
Wow you usually have the 'sane' comments ... did a dog pee in your coffee or something?
It could be as simple as - Hey Bill is donating to organization x, so likely its a capable organization- Hey Martha, why don't we give to organization x also.
Instead its a hate filled rant of rubbish... dis-appointing.
We live in an upside-down world. Capitalists should be praised for creating jobs, products and services people need. Instead everyone wants everything for free and the bigger the company, the more people and politicians threaten them with boycotts and such unless THEY are given MORE, MORE, MORE. Insanity.
Ummm no... Just quit standing on your head... its only upside down to you!
ummm no... Just quit standing on your head... Its only upside down to you!
...
I never had a single doubt. I admire the fact, unlike some I could mention, Steve kept his philanthropy private.
It really doesn't matter if 1 dollar or one billion was donated, it isn't something for public discussion. I feel real sorry for the people that need to become so involved in somebodies else personal activities. I'm surprised these idiots haven't ask for video proof that Steve fathered his children.
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.
You missed Andrew Carnegie who was the richest man in the world until he gave his wealth away.
Good points all.....
Some might have done it anyway (whether they became rich or not - viz. stories of "regular" people who leave their life savings - sometimes a surprisingly large amount never spent on anything personal - to a cause or institution) for the best of reasons. But yes, I see no inherent contradiction between being generous and being wealthy, and should have made that clearer.
Some for the "pangs of guilt" reason I cited - or if religious, being cognizant of Jesus' saying "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and so trying to "square the books" while still alive.
Some for good PR and/or ego boosts while alive. And some even for tax reasons (giving away money can be quite profitable in terms of generating huge and timely tax deductions).
And some for combinations of the above and other reasons, I'm sure.
None of us can see into the soul of another person - and sometimes it's hard enough to even understand all of our own motives for both the selfish and unselfish reasons (among others) we do much of what we do. And if any of us have more "complicated souls" than others, Steve Jobs certainly might be among 'em.
Might not sound likely but consider that just about every charitable organization (and some non-charitable ones like universities) maintain professional staff to pursue gifts from major donors. Given that, it seems likely that someone like Jobs, who already seemed indifferent to dealing with money, might be unusually quiet about his charitable activities.
Based on the privacy that the Jobs family coveted, they would indeed seem to be the most likely American billionaire family to be anonymous donors.
By donating anonymously, especially at a top tier, you aren't constantly barraged by requests from development officers from whatever random organization. It's a more efficient use of the donor's time.
If the Jobs Trust donated publicly to SFMOMA, they would be fielding calls from every single art museum within the state of California, and probably most of the big ones all over the United States.
Remember that Laurene Powell is heavily involved in numerous charitable organizations, yet remains almost completely silent. Generally speaking, someone who is at the board level of a charitable organization is also financially involved to a degree.
If you look at those program guides from the symphony/opera/ballet/whatever and compare the board/governors/etc. with the donor list, you will find almost all of them as donors. Yet there will be a few mystery anonymous donors, even at the highest levels.
If Laurene Powell Jobs is sitting on the board of some charity, it is likely that there is at least one anonymous contributor on the top tier donor roster and it is also very likely that at the Jobs Trust would be one of those anonymous donors. If she is spending time with an organization, it is likely she is spending money with the organization as well. If she really wanted to, she could just cut a check and forget about it. By giving her time, she is taking away from others (family, friends, herself).
This is different than putting a twenty dollar bill into a Salvation Army kettle during the Christmas holidays.
Let's say the Jobs Trust donated anonymously to SFMOMA, but somehow it got leaked amongst the VC, museum directors, country clobbers, and old blue bloods. Let's say this information made it to the development department at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Do you think the development director would approach the Jobs Trust for a donation? And what does the SFMOMA development director do? Ask for more?
There are a lot of power politics in play when a top tier anonymous donor silently appears on your doorstep. By staying anonymous in their charitable activities, a couple like Steve and Laurene would exert maximum control over their gifting. They wouldn't have to field ten calls and reply, "Sorry..." and gently explain why they're not donating to Organization X, Y or Z.
Concerning Stanford Hospital & Clinics, it's quite possible and even probable that a major individual (non-corporate) donor will step up. After all the Corporate Partner Program will only cover a fraction of the projected costs. Who would be the most likely person to donate anonymously as an individual to Stanford Hospital & Clinics?
I agree completely! THe super wealthy like Gates and Buffet, need to encourage other rich people, and making their contributions public is the obvious way.
But then is it about the charity or the applause you get for it.
That applause is why Buddhists believe that charity should be without your name attached. So that it is charity to be charitable, not to reward your ego. As an admitted student of Buddhism, Jobs would have learned that lesson and clearly agreed with it.
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.
Which raises another point. Jobs apparently didn't like Apple donating to causes because he felt that the company's money belonged to the shareholders and who was he or even the Board to decide how to give that money away. After all, many donations carry political implications with them and shareholders might have very diverse views. Some might even have the view that none of 'their' money should be given away. So Apple focuses on making the shareholders more money so they can donate or not as they see fit. Customers made the choice to donate to (RED) via Apple as the money came from the profit on the sale. And so on.
The recently announced matching program falls a little out of this realm because it is viewed as an employee benefit. The employees are doing the choosing based on their own acts and it is very limited in amount (and somewhat restricted on what charities etc). Based on what information has gone out about the program it doesn't really seem like that many folks jumped on board with it
So basically apple gave stanford university about 2% of the 97 Billion its sits on. Woohoo, hip hip hooray, how generous and millions of kids can't get a decent lunch or school books, but steve jobs can afford a liver. praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
Where to begin to deconstruct you?
Well, first, I guess you went to one of those "deprived schools" and never learned to spell "philanthropy" (in the title of your post), so that's Steve Jobs' fault.
And second, Apple's pool of capital isn't just being sat on - but is being used for (among other things) to guarantee the strategic parts supplies that allow Apple to grow as fast as it has and leave plenty of R&D resources available to keep bringing better and more useful products to improve what people can do with digital electronics. Including, notably, students - iAuthor and iTunes U are important new tools to improve education while cutting the cost of those school books you were saying students can't get. And the rest is invested, earning for Apple and providing more investment capital for all kinds of businesses.
Apple's technological innovation and user interfaces help the economy grow, makes businesses more efficient and creates more wealth for all of society (not to mention almost single-handedly holding up the value of stock markets, which makes more money for more investments and benefits shareholders - which include, btw, school teacher retirement funds and much more). Apple benefits society by benefiting the world as a business, not by being a charitable foundation.
If there weren't any successful businesses there would be no charities! (Or jobs or.....)
Third, who are you to tell Apple how to manage its resources?
Fourth, that one activity is not the total amount of Apple's programs.
Fifth, oh what's the use. So much of society no longer understands the underpinnings of economic society and can only think about how to spend while grasping nothing of what it takes to turn an idea into the new wealth on which spending depends entirely.
The whole point of philanthropy is anonymity, or at least a humble stance of some kind.
Nope, philanthropy is giving. Anonymous or otherwise. The recipients generally are pretty happy regardless.
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.
When my dad passes I intend to start a scholarship in his memory (he's 90 this year). That I would want to honor his memory in that way doesn't make it any less philantrophic. It's not like any recipients are going to care if his name is on the check somewhere.
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.
The reality bubble has popped..When I found out that Apple's total charitable donations were worse than Exon-Mobile. It was awful..that the second richest company in the world
gave essentially chump-change back.. (The Red Ribbon campaign is chump change..do the math!)
Exon was doing it for the tax breaks? What was apples excuse? (Top secret?)
- Steve Jobs may have been too busy himself..but could he not have let someone else pull the strings? In the end, this will be a black spot on Jobs tenure at Apple. I applaud the new CEO in his direction for corporate responsiblility, I wish him the best of luck.
When I read the stories about the human cost and misery in producing iPads & iPhones in China..I got angry. So I made this (Read the article.. I was pissed)
In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad
So everybody else does it you say...Yes thats correct...What makes it worse is that Steve actually believed Apples products are a force for good? Sorry that doesn't fly...Whether you like Bill Gates or not....he's actually making a difference out there and paying it forward.
Gates may be an ego maniac and control freak as well, but the net effect is to the benefit of Malaria & other common deseases which should have been dealt with a long time ago.
I would like to hear about change at Apple..but changes for good overseas. Until then Apple remains another marketing/spin company...who's values are clearly demonstrated by its actions.
Before you get your Hate on against me, I am a former Mac User who bought in 1994 8100-PowerMac /setup for 14K - (I could have bought a car!). I am left with such a bad taste in my mouth... of what my money actually bought. It's too bad there is no such thing as an ethically made computer, maybe its time Apple steps up and develops one.
Searchengineman
post
Thanks for continuing to bring the China crap places it doesn't belong.
And if you can't tell that's sarcasm, well?
Apple is responsible to its shareholders for what it does with its money. Don't like it? Don't patronize them. Don't own their stock? Or...buy the stock and vote as a shareholder.
Steve Jobs and his family are (or should be) free to do whatever they want to with the money he's earned.
Let it be. It's really not any of our business.
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.
This example of an emotional rant about someone you do not like and never met in high probability. Of course your opinion is so right that it seems you are screaming through the computer display to make us agreed with you.
Thanks for continuing to bring the China crap places it doesn't belong.
And if you can't tell that's sarcasm, well?
Sorry if I fail to understand your sarcasm..
Is it Crap - because I'm tired of hearing about china?
Is it Crap - because this post should be put elsewhere.
Is it Crap - I really don't give a *** and get on with your life, because I really care about cool products, because thats my bottomline..and if we have to step on backs of other countries, no problem, as long as my Apps work and my newest toy is the envy of my friends??
My biggest worry is when China starts putting up its banners in the USA "Work Hard, or Work Hard finding a new job tommorow", in USA cities.
Wait a minute I forgot..that's happening already!
What I'm scared of is when "American's who don't give a crap about Americans" and its China playing with American made Apps.
Is it Crap - because this post should be put elsewhere.
This.
This.
Where?