The Money-Empathy Gap

[joec]

I gotta say I hate this Kim lady…But she would be considered one of the “I’m holier than thou” *ssholes in this world as mentioned in this article. I would not be upset if people used the c**t word on her too.

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/133698/Greedy-Kim-Kardashian-Slammed-By-Fans-For-Keeping-90-Percent-Of-Proceeds-From-Philippines-Auction

[njtosd]

Ok joec, I’ll add you to the list.

[paramount]

Who among us didn’t know some rich kid in high school who was a total a-hole? Come on…you know that rich kid a-hole attitude that gets worse with each passing year.

maybe he was also a star football player
or a cheerleader
class president

any way you cut it -> an a-hole.

Or am I jealous?
Or maybe the rich really are superior.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=EconProf]In the never-ending debate about whether the more wealthy are generous, I am encouraged by the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett behavior. They and dozens of other uber-rich have pledged to give at least half of their wealth to charities or philanthropies at death or before.[/quote]

I think it was both. These gentlemen in thier early days were probably not so philanthropic…

They obtianed thier wealth and reflected upon it and relized there were better things to do with it.

Essentially the glimmer of gold lost its luster when thier eyes dulled with age.

That being said I really admire what they are doing with thier wealth…

CE

[joec]

[quote=njtosd]Ok joec, I’ll add you to the list.[/quote]

Feel free. I’ve added you to my ignore list as well. The great thing about the Internet is you can hate me and I won’t care and we can all still share our opinions and valid points.

Some words offend others more than others based on customs, history, upbringing, you name it…

[joec]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=EconProf]In the never-ending debate about whether the more wealthy are generous, I am encouraged by the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett behavior. They and dozens of other uber-rich have pledged to give at least half of their wealth to charities or philanthropies at death or before.[/quote]

I think it was both. These gentlemen in thier early days were probably not so philanthropic…

They obtianed thier wealth and reflected upon it and relized there were better things to do with it.

Essentially the glimmer of gold lost its luster when thier eyes dulled with age.

That being said I really admire what they are doing with thier wealth…

CE[/quote]

What’s interesting with some of these folks is that Steve Jobs is viewed as someone who was not philanthropic at all and had that holier than thou attitude. Having known people who worked with him and interacted with him in the valley, it sounds like either you liked or hated him since he has such strong opinions and vocal management style…

I think Bill Gates actually saved Apple when it was near collapse by giving financing as well as allowing Office to continue to run on Macs…

Doubt Steve would’ve done the same…(I’m not a fan I suppose). Maybe this was caused by nearly going belly up though with Apple and being kicked out as well…

[CA renter]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=EconProf]In the never-ending debate about whether the more wealthy are generous, I am encouraged by the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett behavior. They and dozens of other uber-rich have pledged to give at least half of their wealth to charities or philanthropies at death or before.[/quote]

I think it was both. These gentlemen in thier early days were probably not so philanthropic…

They obtianed thier wealth and reflected upon it and relized there were better things to do with it.

Essentially the glimmer of gold lost its luster when thier eyes dulled with age.

That being said I really admire what they are doing with thier wealth…

CE[/quote]

I seem to remember that back in the earlier days, Bill Gates was NOT philanthropic and had to be goaded into charitable giving. There were rumors that he was incredibly tight-fisted when it came to charitable giving, IIRC. Does anyone else remember this? Going 100% from anecdotal memory here so would appreciate if any of the other Piggs who’ve been around the block a few times could offer up their own accounts from the 80s and early 90s. I could be totally wrong about the reality of his giving, but do remember the rumors.

In the meantime, found this:

……

Philanthropy wonk Lucy Bernholz defines the buzzword leverage
as “the idea that you can use a little money to access a lot of money.”

It’s hard to think of the Gates Foundation’s $26 billion leverage effort
as “a little money”, especially since it’s been spread over the globe to gain access to vastly more resources than it contributes, including U.S. tax dollars, the foreign exchange of emerging African nations, and United Nations funds for international development and world health.

Gates’ leveraged philanthropy model is a public-private partnership
to improve the world, partly through targeted research support but principally through public advocacy and tax-free lobbying to influence government policy. The goal of these policies is often to explicitly support profitability for corporate investors, whose enterprises are seen by the Gates Foundation as advancing human good. However, maximum corporate profit and public good often clash when its projects are implemented.

For example, chemical giant Monsanto has partnered with the Gates Foundation, which reportedly works to suppress local seed exchanges and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices through its global agricultural charity work. Fraud-prone drug giant GlaxoSmithKline
is a partner in the Foundation’s work to leverage its own relatively fractional contribution to vaccination efforts, so that it centrally controls enormous world funds for purchase, pricing, and delivery of vaccines for world public health. And in its U.S. education reform charity work, the Gates Foundation has increasingly shifted its funding to promote market domination by its British corporate education services partner, Pearson Education.

The Gates Foundation, and Gates personally, also own stock and reap profits from many of these same partner corporations. In addition, the Foundation owns a profit-generating portfolio of stocks which would seem to work against the Foundation’s declared missions, such as the Latin American Coca-Cola FEMSA distributorship and five multinational oil giants operating in Nigeria. These corporate investments, now moved to a blind trust whose trustees are Bill and Melinda Gates, are collaterally supported by the Foundation’s tax-free lobbying and advocacy activities.

Criticism of the profit-driven philanthropy agenda is muted by the fact that many of the Foundation’s “advocacy” gifts are positioned to leverage control of policy analysis and news outlets. The Gates Foundation recently undertook sponsorship of the Guardian’s Global Development coverage, for instance, which now maintains a weary-but-compliant stance toward corporate domination of development aid. The Gates Foundation also literally dominates news coverage of Global Health issues.

On the U.S. Education Reform front, the Gates Foundation maintains long-time charitable support of Media Bullpen, as well as Education Week itself (see disclaimer).

Tom Paulson of Humanosphere reviewed some critical stories that reporters did get published in major news outlets last November.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
I seem to remember that back in the earlier days, Bill Gates was NOT philanthropic and had to be goaded into charitable giving. There were rumors that he was incredibly tight-fisted when it came to charitable giving, IIRC. Does anyone else remember this? Going 100% from anecdotal memory here so would appreciate if any of the other Piggs who’ve been around the block a few times could offer up their own accounts from the 80s and early 90s. I could be totally wrong about the reality of his giving, but do remember the rumors[/quote]
I actually did a report on him in HS many many years ago. I remember reading him saying that he will only leave his daughter tens of millions (or maybe a couple of hundreds). He always planned to give most of his wealth away. So, his philanthropic actions today isn’t surprising. Melinda Gates has been doing a lot of philanthropic work since the 90s if not earlier.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]
I actually did a report on him in HS many many years ago. I remember reading him saying that he will only leave his daughter tens of millions (or maybe a couple of hundreds). He always planned to give most of his wealth away. So, his philanthropic actions today isn’t surprising. Melinda Gates has been doing a lot of philanthropic work since the 90s if not earlier.[/quote]

Thanks for your input, AN. Yes, I’m sure that Melinda was altruistic, pretty much from the beginning, but not so sure about Bill Gates.

Just found this:

Around that time Bill and Melinda started talking about giving his money away. They both figured they would wait until Bill was in his 60s, despite flak he was getting about his miserliness. “He had been advised by lawyers and accountants that he should have a foundation,” recalls his father, “but he refused. He said he didn’t need another entity.” Melinda’s wedding shower in December 1993 shifted the thinking. Bill’s mother, Mary Gates, who was fighting breast cancer at the time, read a letter she had written to Melinda. “From those to whom much is given, much is expected” was its essence. Mary Gates passed away the following June. Her message spurred the creation of the first Gates charity, the William H. Gates III Foundation. Bill’s dad ran it out of cardboard boxes in his basement.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/04/news/newsmakers/gates.fortune/index2.htm

…………..

Back in the late-80s through mid-90s, I used to work for a computer company and we would hear stories about Microsoft and the way they managed things (the “perma-temp” thing was a big issue at the time, and something that our company copied from them). We would attend the same trade shows, etc., so people would talk and rumors would fly, of course. That’s why I don’t want to state anything as factual since it’s all based on these more personal, anecdotal experiences.

Just figured that a number of techie types post here, so someone who was around at the time could elaborate of have better information about it.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Thanks for your input, AN. Yes, I’m sure that Melinda was altruistic, pretty much from the beginning, but not so sure about Bill Gates.[/quote]
Does it really matter when he started his philanthropic work? Looking back and with 20/20 vision, I’d say many more people benefited because he wasn’t as philanthropic earlier and concentrated in growing MSFT. If he gave all of his $ away early and not concentrated on growing MSFT, there wouldn’t be Billions to give away today. Same can be said w/ Warren Buffett. I’m pretty sure these guys can grow their $ much better than most if not all charity. So, sure, they weren’t helping people earlier on, but the sure help a lot more people during their life time due to them not giving their wealth away too early.

[CA renter]

Since the point of this thread is to discuss the possible empathy gap WRT wealth/income levels, it’s appropriate to bring this up. He was wealthy before he started giving. He was criticized for being stingy about charitable giving (among other things).

There is absolutely no doubt that Bill Gates can be ruthless and greedy. There are plenty of lawsuits that back this up WRT the treatment of employees, IP issues, monopolization, etc.

It seems as though his mind was changed when he met Melinda. Some say there were other influences, as well.

Just pointing out that his “giving” nature might not have been his personal nature after all — that he was probably influenced by others to give.

Not trying to take anything away from his incredible generosity once he decided to commit to philanthropy. No matter what the critics say (and they do have very valid criticisms), he’s certainly done a lot of good in that respect.

[EconProf]

Perhaps a lot of Gate’s and Buffett’s increased generosity later in life is due to a natural inclination to be more reflective and giving as we age. Their consumption appetites are satisfied by a tiny fraction of their wealth, so they look around and discover how much good that wealth could be doing.
Come to think of it, the world might be worse off if they had decided at a younger age to discover philanthropy. All the money Gates and Buffett piled up in their 40’s and 50’s would not have materialized and be doing good things now.

[livinincali]

[quote=EconProf]Perhaps a lot of Gate’s and Buffett’s increased generosity later in life is due to a natural inclination to be more reflective and giving as we age. Their consumption appetites are satisfied by a tiny fraction of their wealth, so they look around and discover how much good that wealth could be doing.
Come to think of it, the world might be worse off if they had decided at a younger age to discover philanthropy. All the money Gates and Buffett piled up in their 40’s and 50’s would not have materialized and be doing good things now.[/quote]

The generosity could also be for more selfish reasons like leaving a legacy. We talk about Ford, Carnegie, and Rockafeller today, but will we be talking about Buffet, Gates, and Jobs 20, 30 40 years into the future. Without someway to establish a lasting legacy you can certainly be forgotten. Did Jobs establish a legacy or is he just a going to end up as a cult hero that those geezers in their 70’s are talking about 50 years from.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Perhaps a lot of Gate’s and Buffett’s increased generosity later in life is due to a natural inclination to be more reflective and giving as we age. Their consumption appetites are satisfied by a tiny fraction of their wealth, so they look around and discover how much good that wealth could be doing.
Come to think of it, the world might be worse off if they had decided at a younger age to discover philanthropy. All the money Gates and Buffett piled up in their 40’s and 50’s would not have materialized and be doing good things now.[/quote]

Would Bill Gate’s money “not be there” if he had given his money away instead of growing his company more? Not sure about that. Maybe his competitors would have made it instead, and perhaps they would have given even more to charity. And/or, maybe his customers would have been able to buy another, equally good product for less money if he didn’t create a monopoly (which is one of the main reasons he could “build his company” to the extent that he did), leaving more money in their pockets for charity. What if he had paid his employees better, instead of keeping perma-temps, so that they could have given more to charity?

We know of Bill Gates’ charity because his wealth is so concentrated…leaving a legacy, as livin’ pointed out. Do we know for sure that this money wouldn’t have been put to better use if it had gone to other competitors, or employees, or customers?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Would Bill Gate’s money “not be there” if he had given his money away instead of growing his company more? Not sure about that. Maybe his competitors would have made it instead, and perhaps they would have given even more to charity. And/or, maybe his customers would have been able to buy another, equally good product for less money if he didn’t create a monopoly (which is one of the main reasons he could “build his company” to the extent that he did), leaving more money in their pockets for charity. What if he had paid his employees better, instead of keeping perma-temps, so that they could have given more to charity?

We know of Bill Gates’ charity because his wealth is so concentrated…leaving a legacy, as livin’ pointed out. Do we know for sure that this money wouldn’t have been put to better use if it had gone to other competitors, or employees, or customers?[/quote]There are way too many what ifs in your post to know for sure. But what we know is, he does give more $ to charity as a % of his total life time income/wealth than an average American.

FYI, Microsoft didn’t put a gun to their customers’ head and force them to buy Windows. Windows became a monopoly because it was the cheapest and easiest OS to use at the time. They were held back for many years because they were afraid of being broken up due to the monopoly lawsuit. Now that they no longer are as dominant, they can finally bundle more of their services together. Even if Windows gotten 100% of the market share, Android will still happen and the move to portable devices would still happen. But if they were allowed to bundle more of their services together, end user would have given a more cohesive user experience earlier, instead of having to wait till the last few years to have that.

[Author]

Posts