During the first few classes, we discussed what it meant to
be a philanthropist. Almost immediately, our small group conversation turned
into questioning those who “earn to give.” Are those who choose to earn to give
in the wrong mindset? Do their careers disqualify them as philanthropists? I
would say no, they are not disqualified solely for holding a job in the private
sector. After all, I do not require that individuals hold a nonprofit or
government to be classified a philanthropist.
I definitely see why some people are cautious about the
earning to give lifestyle. It can very well be the wrong choice for someone who
has no interest in that type of career. But I believe that working for a
nonprofit without any interest can create a similar issue.
As of now, I am not convinced that people who hold private
sector jobs are consequently selfish or making a poor decision. I recognize
that my goal to work in the private sector may label me as one of these selfish
people but I also know that I can give more that way. Furthermore, I believe happiness
is a key element in being able to effectively give. So far, I have yet to find
a job that I can see myself being as happy with outside of the private sector.
While working at a nonprofit for a short period would probably be fulfilling
for me, I simply have not found a long-term position that would give me the
same satisfaction. By keeping myself
happy though a career that I am excited about, I think my mind will be clear
and focused on the weekends when I can give my time to organizations. That
means that I would be a better giver both in terms of money and time through my
private sector career trajectory.
In the article “The Way to Produce a Person” by David Brooks
we heard the alternative perspective. His most convincing argument was the
claim that your career choice is your biggest and possibly your only priority. I
disagree. We constantly balance many things that are important to us. The time
spent at each does not directly reflect the importance of each. Some activities
and commitments by nature just require more time than others. Through his logic,
choosing to go to school during the day means that we are moving away from our
commitment to our families. I think we can all agree that is not the case. Similarly, choosing to work in the private
sector does not make my commitment to philanthropy any less of a priority. In
fact, I think it will make help to make philanthropy an even bigger priority in
my life.
Hi Jess -
ReplyDeleteGreat ideas. I definitely agree with your thinking that it does not make someone selfish if they choose to follow a career in the private sector instead of at a non-profit. As someone who also doesn't see working for a non-profit in my future, I can relate to your concern that some may find us selfish. I think that we struggle with finding the balance between focusing on and nurturing ourselves and our careers, while simultaneously fulfilling our desire to help others.
Your post actually reminded me of one of the articles we were asked to read this week: Join Wall Street. Save the World. The article focused on Jason Trigg, a finance worker who has found success writing software for a trading company. Instead of enjoying all of his hard earned money, he donates half (!!) of his salary to philanthropic projects.
While Jason Trigg may set an example that's hard to emulate for most people, I think it's important to read his story in addition to the stories of those who devote their life to working for non-profit organizations. I think that by looking at both extremes, we can determine a comfortable balance between our career goals and our wish to give.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Jess,
ReplyDeleteI really thought that your reflection on your own (future) career path and the value of philanthropy in your future is something that a lot of people need to do. Not everyone has the skill set or the passion to take on certain tasks that are entailed in different sectors like the public sector. We all have our own needs to feel fulfilled in our life time. We are still human beings that thrive off of experience. However, many of us will want to experience many different things. If we are not fulfilling what we need to thrive, then what point is there in living? Some people have the need to be put in situations where giving back to the community is necessary in order to feel fulfilled. These people are the people who dedicate their lives to managing the non-profits and organizations doing good. However not many of us are that deeply invested in the actual doing because there are other things that hold value to us as people. There is nothing wrong with being the donor. A lot of times, organizations don't necessarily need staff members but they do always need resources. Without people who are able to help our economy grow and spread the wealth around, where would organizations that heavily rely on donations be? I think that as long as the people who are giving away money are also constantly working for their goal, they are just fine.
Jess, I really appreciate how you address both perspectives on the subject of earning to give in your post. I also spent a lot of time thinking about Brooks’ “How to Produce a Person” and deciding how I felt about his message. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with working in the private sector, and I think it’s great that you have the personal perspective and awareness to know that that is best for you. You are very right in saying that we constantly balance many things, so that Brooks’ vision as a career as what defines a person isn’t very accurate.
ReplyDeleteWe discussed this a little bit in class, but I would like to elaborate on my thoughts on core values. One of the essays I read on the This I Believe website was called “The Debt of the Artist”. Written by Dimitri Mitropoulos, a Greek conductor and composer, the essay essentially states that all skills and talents should be geared towards a moral purpose. Mitropoulos writes that artists and celebrities can change the world by “setting an example of sound moral thinking and integrity”. Mitropoulos describes the time he spent volunteering for Blood Bank of Red Cross and how people were so impressed with his work, when really he would have gladly done more. He then writes about a movie star who spoke out at schools against violence and drastically decreased fighting between students.
Mitropoulos’ anecdotes tell us about people who have followed their own passions and found ways to be philanthropists as well. Neither Mitropoulos nor the movie star aim to make the most money to donate to charity. Neither Mitropoulos nor the movie star chose jobs in not-for-profit areas. They both pursued their dreams and have woven philanthropy into their lives by giving time and energy to worthy causes and by serving as examples and inspirations for others to do the same.
While Mitropoulos’ philanthropy is different from Jason Trigg’s in Join Wall Street, Save the World, it is equally valuable. Mitropoulos operated under Brooks’ principle that it is more important to be good than to do good. He did not, however, allow his profession to define him, as he always searched to help outside of his work. Mitropoulos’ core value was to give music, knowledge, and love to those around him while Trigg’s core value is to work hard and donate as much as possible in the most effective way possible. Trigg’s lifestyle may change over time- maybe he will have a family and kids, maybe he will be demoted- and he may suddenly find himself making less money, giving less, and worst of all, not enjoying what he does. Dimitri Mitropoulos, however, created a life in which he could find joy in his profession while still giving back, despite the circumstances which may arise.
Working and philanthropy can be two separate entities, and perhaps keeping them separate allows people to see philanthropy as an extracurricular activity, a thing of joy rather than of obligation. Of course, not everyone can be a famous composer/ conductor or a movie star, but everyone can pursue careers that are meaningful to them and find ways to simultaneously be philanthropists without working solely for the purpose of giving.
I see no reason why you should feel bad for wanting to make money for yourself in the private sector. To me, there's no reason why everything we do has to be seen through this perfect, selfless lens. This class is about philanthropy, so we idealize good doing and have come to feel as though we all need to be perfect philanthropists. Is there some truth in the idea that maximizing your philanthropic efforts is a good thing? Sure, but why should we all be expected to be perfect philanthropists? Lets live our lives the way we want to live them, and within that framework find a place for philanthropy. I don't think that anybody should have to revolve their life around philanthropy unless they really want to
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there's anything wrong with "earning to give," if you feel otherwise fulfilled by your job. I think it's great that you want to work in the private sector and donate more because of it. I know that as we briefly discussed in class the other day, some people find competitive, higher-paying jobs in a fast-paced environment to be exciting and fulfilling.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't feel that I'm suited for that kind of work, but talking about "earning to give" and looking over the most effective jobs on the 80,000 Hours site made me wonder if I should reconsider my goals. I feel that I'm fortunate enough to have access to a college education, and I wonder if I'm not taking full advantage of that opportunity. If I really pushed myself and went outside of my comfort zone by majoring in business, for example, rather than human development, I'd probably end up in a much higher paying job in a few years, and I'd be able to donate more money that way. There is the argument that you can combine these two things by founding a nonprofit, for example, but that has a low chance of success. I'm hoping that I can someday find a job in an administrative position with an organization whose mission I really care about.
I think you bring up a good point by saying that being happy in your job will allow you to enjoy volunteering on weekends, and I like what Brittany said about preserving philanthropy as "a thing of joy," because I think that people whose jobs directly involve working with difficult causes find it easy to become burnt out. Over winter break, I had the opportunity to talk to the director of my local Early HeadStart, and she told me that although she feels fulfilled in her work, the family workers have a really high turnover rate, typically around 5 years. Although they're passionate about the cause, their work is simply too depressing for them to continue. I think that "earning to give" gives people a beneficial distance from their philanthropy. They can feel happy knowing that their money is going to a good cause, without having to deal with disappointments and failures. I don't think it's selfish, I think it's rational.
Jess, I thought you brought up some interesting points, especially in your last paragraph. During our class discussion, I found myself agreeing more with David Brooks rather than Jason Trigg, but your comparison of his logic on philanthropy and work to family and work got me thinking more about what Brooks was actually trying to express in his article. What I gathered from the article was the general, over-arching idea that your core commitments can be expressed in any outlet you choose, but some outlets are more successful than others. Similar to the way in which we view choosing which charity to donate money to, philanthropy, no matter how big or how small a role it plays in your life, still has an affect. I don't necessarily believe that Brooks would disagree with this statement, but I do think that he wants to create a sort of awareness of how certain ways in which we express our philanthropy can be not very effective. With that being said, I think he mainly wanted to showcase that you shouldn't feel burdened to take a job just for the money (in order to donate more money to charities) and that you should lead a life that is fulfilling to yourself first and then fulfilling to others second. With his line "turning yourself into a means rather than an end", I see that as more of a suggestion or hypothesis that if you focus on making money, your decided goal of donation will never fully come to fruition because there is always more money to make and other places to donate to. I believe that he suggests here that it is like a vicious cycle that detaches you from what you originally set out to do, which is to effectively make a difference. His final point is what really struck me from the article and what brought all of his points together and that was that you should ultimately try to put yourself in the middle of what you really want to do: "If your profoundest interest is dying children in Africa or Bangladesh, it's probably best to go to Africa or Bangladesh, not Wall Street". Though this statement can seem a bit harsh, I see it as him saying that it doesn't make much sense to make a difference in a roundabout way, like donating to random charities that may or may not be actually alleviating the problem at hand, but you should instead physically attempt to alleviate the problem yourself. With this sort of assertion though, the question then becomes is donating more or less effective than volunteering and directly working with the issue; but that's a whole other argument.
ReplyDeleteJess, I really enjoyed hearing your opinions on different career choices. In my opinion, there is no way that anyone should be disqualified from being a philanthropist based simply upon their job. As we have learned and discussed so far in class, being a philanthropist is more of a desire to help others. It is a state of mind, independent of financials. Donating time can be just as important philanthropically as donating money, and in fact, both are equally as important. Charitable organizations could not survive without both monetary donations and the countless hours of work put in by volunteers and employees.
ReplyDeleteWhile you disagreed with David Brooks, I am more inclined to agree with him. A person's career is one of the biggest choices they can make and can have an enormous influence over the entirety of a life. I believe that the best way to pick a career is to find something that you are passionate about as well as highly skilled at, so that you can maximize your potential at advancing the welfare of the human race. If a person is drawn by the field of finance and is very skilled at negotiating, then I don't see anything wrong with them choosing banking or finance as their career. I would hope that they would choose to donate some of their money to philanthropic causes, but it really isn't my place to tell people what to do with their money. On the other hand, a person may be more personable and enjoy social interactions that make a difference. This person may choose a career as a social worker or for a charitable organization. In my opinion, both the banker and the charity worker have chosen good careers because they align with both their passions and skills. It is up to the individual however to use those passions and skills for the benefit of humanity.
Jess, I really enjoyed hearing your opinions on different career choices. In my opinion, there is no way that anyone should be disqualified from being a philanthropist based simply upon their job. As we have learned and discussed so far in class, being a philanthropist is more of a desire to help others. It is a state of mind, independent of financials. Donating time can be just as important philanthropically as donating money, and in fact, both are equally as important. Charitable organizations could not survive without both monetary donations and the countless hours of work put in by volunteers and employees.
ReplyDeleteWhile you disagreed with David Brooks, I am more inclined to agree with him. A person's career is one of the biggest choices they can make and can have an enormous influence over the entirety of a life. I believe that the best way to pick a career is to find something that you are passionate about as well as highly skilled at, so that you can maximize your potential at advancing the welfare of the human race. If a person is drawn by the field of finance and is very skilled at negotiating, then I don't see anything wrong with them choosing banking or finance as their career. I would hope that they would choose to donate some of their money to philanthropic causes, but it really isn't my place to tell people what to do with their money. On the other hand, a person may be more personable and enjoy social interactions that make a difference. This person may choose a career as a social worker or for a charitable organization. In my opinion, both the banker and the charity worker have chosen good careers because they align with both their passions and skills. It is up to the individual however to use those passions and skills for the benefit of humanity.
Jess,
ReplyDeleteI believe there are two ways to give. One can give money to an organization and hope that their monetary contribution can make a difference. Or, a person can spend a life time working in non-profits attempting to make the most difference possible. One of these forms of giving is immediate, if a donation is buying mosquito nets, there is a clear number of nets that your money can buy, and therefore a clear number of people you can save. However, if you work at an organization that helps to combat AIDs in Africa, the results may not be as immediate.
If a person believes that a career in finance will allow them to give the most and do the most good, than all the power to them. But what all of these articles failed to mention was that there is another option. You can be the person who takes that money and does something great with it.
Hi Jess,
ReplyDeleteYour decision to pursue your dreams and get a job in the private sector is by no means selfish. In fact, I’d argue the opposite; I think your decision to follow a career path that fulfills your long-term goals is smart. And, yes, you’re right being happy is a key factor in how much time and money you are willing to dedicate to any cause. I also think, and feel free to say otherwise, but our age allows us to be naïve on how the world really works. The class continues to talk about “how we should give” and “the right way of giving” but we fail to realize that giving is often times a privilege. Not everyone has the capacity to give, whether it is in terms of money or time. We cannot begin to imagine the struggle of others. It’s easy to argue hypothetical situations in which the opportunity to do the right thing is present, but it is much more difficult to apply these situations into practice because truth be told, there is no perfect case for philanthropy. Each of us in this class will walk away with new ideas and perspectives for a better future, but none of us ought to dictate as to how others should be philanthropic. I believe that in as long as ones intentions are good, then it should not matter in which way one decides to serve the world.
I also happen to agree that David Brook’s perspective is over simplified. While it is true that our adult lives will be mostly consumed by our work, it is also true that we balance and prioritize other activities that are important to us. Quantity of time is not reflective of the quality an individual can offer to a cause. Regardless of what route any of us decide to take, I think the very fact that we are in a class willing to discuss the merits of our time and money already proves that most of us, philanthropy will not be a hobby, but rather a way of life.
Hi Jess,
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the things that you wrote about in your blog post and find myself struggling with many of the same concepts. I as well want a job in the private sector more than I want a job in the public sector. I agreed with the article "Join Wall Street, Save the World" and thought it was an interesting perspective. Philanthropic organizations need money just as much as they need workers and volunteers, non profit organizations wouldn't be able to exist without money. If someone chooses to work at a high paying job and give a majority of their income away who are we to judge? They are doing what they think is best for their own purposes as well as what they think is best for philanthropic purposes.
I am slightly frustrated with the readings and our class discussions because I feel that we as a class and the authors that we read are very quick to judge others. I am guilty of doing it as well, I judged the Salwen's even though they did so much more than me in terms of charity work. I think we should just agree that there is no one right way to give, there are definitely wrong ways but not one singular "good" way. If you want to work in the private sector and give your money away than you shouldn't feel like you're being selfish. Yes philanthropy and giving back is important but I hold the belief that your number one concern should be making yourself happy. In the "This I Believe" essays the people who gave away their time, money, or services were happy with themselves with giving and thought their generosity was more of a benefit to them than the people they helped. If you are happy with your career and you give away your money not out of guilt but because you want to, no one should judge you.
I stand by you disagreeing with David Brooks, your career choice is not your number one priority it is just one aspect of your life. Your career shouldn't be your whole life and your decision to want to work in the private sector shouldn't determine whether you are a good person or not. Not all people who work in the public sector are good people and not all people who work in the private sector are selfish. If you have good intentions behind your philanthropic donations than you should not be critiqued.
Jess, I think you make a good moderate argument about the articles we read regarding what to do with your career as a philanthropic decision. I agree with you in your opinion that holding a private sector job is not necessarily selfish or a bad decision. I am strongly of the opinion that, like the article “The Way to Produce a Person” stated, a person’s life is not just a means to an end, but an end in itself. People should do whatever makes them happiest, and like you said, happiness is a key element in being able to effectively give. If a person felt happiest in a private sector job, whether or not they were doing so simply to be able to give away more, or conversely if it was just because that was what they enjoyed doing and they were not planning on giving the money away, that is what I feel they should do. On the other hand, if they decided to pursue a job in a non-profit that might be less effective in a monetary sense because it made them happier, they should also do so. Evaluating the effectiveness is not as simple as I believe all these articles, websites, and philosophers are trying to make it seem. If a passionate person chooses to work with individuals as part of their non-profit career, and their passion made a real difference to those they worked with, they might be more impactful than if they had put their talents towards earning to give and being able to hire many others to work in her same job at the non-profit.
ReplyDeleteI really like your argument, Jess. As a Financial Economics major, I am currently looking for a job in the private sector and I feel that this argument relates to me. Right now, the only philanthropic work that I do is through volunteering. However, I hope to be able to donate a percentage of my income in the future. To do this, I aspire to make a sizable income, like the man in the Wall Street article did, and donate a portion of it to charity.
ReplyDeleteI do not like the connotation that people who make a lot of money and donate it are "fiscal policies" as mentioned in the "Way to Produce a Person" article. I feel that if the person making the money has good intent with his or her donation, it is philanthropic. This goes back to what we as a class were speaking about in the first few weeks. We asked if intent was required for an act to be considered philanthropic. I believe that as long as someone has intent to make a difference with their time and money, it does not matter how they make a difference. Whether it be by donating time to a cause, working for a non profit organization or making a large income and donating a large portion of it, anyone can make a difference in their own personal way. The man in the Wall Street article decided that earning a sizable wage and donating half was the most effective way for him to spend his time and money, and I do not believe he should be criticized for his method.
I therefore hope that everyone can find a way to get involved in philanthropy, whether it be directly with non profits or earning money in the private sector to donate. Any involvement in philanthropy can make a difference.
I love your arguments in this post. I think that while we all stress the importance of giving time and energy towards philanthropic means, another important factor in all charities in having money to work with. While some find passions from private sectors or the competitive atmosphere associated with high-profit jobs, that does not mean they cannot be philanthropic or donate other assets towards good. I think your post really emphasizes that point, which seems to always fall to the back burner in class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point from "The Way To Produce A Person", saying our careers tend to be the most important choice we make. After all, it's what we're in school for. However, it would make me sad to think I could choose a fulfilling job in the private sector, and not be able to call myself a philanthropist. Donating money, time or energy towards charity means we are philanthropists. I don't believe there should be a line drawn at working in a high-rise.