That's the main idea -- is the hypocritical perception warranted, and would we create more revolutionary charities and easier donation systems and things of that sort if it were eliminated, or given less attention? Would the tradeoff be worth it to attract more SV-level talent?
It is difficult to see the bad things happening in the world and think that someone could get rich BEFORE fix it. And get rich after would be communism, but wannabe rich people just hate it.
I would flip this around and say that you should be allowed to pursue the social good when you have fiduciary responsibility to profit seeking shareholders.
Not sure what the article is addressing specifically, but I assume any limits on "non-profits" or charities are for the sake of short-term consumer protection. Suppose I want to be charitable and help some people by donating my money. By myself, I don't have enough resources to really make an impact due to economies of scale or lack of influence or whatever. So I decide that the smarter thing to do is to pool my money with others that have a similar idea so that we can have a greater impact together than the sum of each of us individually.
Now, how exactly can I determine who is trustworthy enough to donate to? Sure, I might demand records and accountability but honestly as an average joe, who has the time and knowledge to go through the numbers and cross reference them to see how accurate they are? The simple solution, in my opinion, is to have some government-enforced class of business that have certain limits in place (e.g. maximum % of revenue that can go towards non-charitable activities, limits on compensation, etc..) that I can donate to knowing that at least those limits are in place.
Of course, some might argue that the restrictions and limits are detrimental and in fact without them we might achieve a greater impact but then can't you simply test that theory by starting a company that does charitable work, registering a normal business (not non-profit or whatever) and seeing how well that works out?
That's true, regarding the limits being for short-term consumer protection. Could we accomplish this regulatory oversight through other means than government blanket rules, however? Unbiased charity rating systems could come into play here.
I actually found this article while browsing around as myself and some colleagues would like to create a company which will hopefully inspire more charitable donations, larger donations, etc., which would have a positive impact.. however the idea of exerting startup-level effort, hours and dedication for a very limited economic benefit seems really unappealing compared to other options. Is it morally acceptable to be paid more in a charity-focused company, as long as you and the company hold that value? Charities haven't seen any revolutionary changes, and the financial limitations leave only a very small altruistic proportion of people who are willing to work and make changes in the sector.
6 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 34.7 ms ] threadNow, how exactly can I determine who is trustworthy enough to donate to? Sure, I might demand records and accountability but honestly as an average joe, who has the time and knowledge to go through the numbers and cross reference them to see how accurate they are? The simple solution, in my opinion, is to have some government-enforced class of business that have certain limits in place (e.g. maximum % of revenue that can go towards non-charitable activities, limits on compensation, etc..) that I can donate to knowing that at least those limits are in place.
Of course, some might argue that the restrictions and limits are detrimental and in fact without them we might achieve a greater impact but then can't you simply test that theory by starting a company that does charitable work, registering a normal business (not non-profit or whatever) and seeing how well that works out?
I actually found this article while browsing around as myself and some colleagues would like to create a company which will hopefully inspire more charitable donations, larger donations, etc., which would have a positive impact.. however the idea of exerting startup-level effort, hours and dedication for a very limited economic benefit seems really unappealing compared to other options. Is it morally acceptable to be paid more in a charity-focused company, as long as you and the company hold that value? Charities haven't seen any revolutionary changes, and the financial limitations leave only a very small altruistic proportion of people who are willing to work and make changes in the sector.