NPR article I want OI's opinion on

[Ele'ill]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128983170&sc=fb&cc=fp


I think it's pretty laughable how the issue of wealth divide isn't even addressed.

This is like the exact opposite of a sustainable system. The super rich giving money to help groups treat symptoms of the systemic failure that made the super rich rich to begin with and made the poor poorer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The irony of these kinds of newspaper stories (free PR) is...

America's poor are its most generous givers (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/19/68456/americas-poor-are-its-most-generous.html)



the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data and found that the poorest Ameicans — those who make an average of $10,531 — gave the largest percentage of their income (4.3 percent) to charity. Meanwhile, the wealthiest group — which make an average of $158,888 — give only 2.1 percent of what they make.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/05/19/16/264-20090514_CHARITY.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

[Dean]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128983170&sc=fb&cc=fp


I think it's pretty laughable how the issue of wealth divide isn't even addressed.

This is like the exact opposite of a sustainable system. The super rich giving money to help groups treat symptoms of the systemic failure that made the super rich rich to begin with and made the poor poorer.

The thing is, its not even this. As the radio version of this story mentioned, the wealthy tend to give to the arts and the sciences and tend to ignore poverty and homelessness - primary symptoms of the system they exploit. That is, primarily universities and the like. While these aren't bad pursuits, compared to the effective value of 30$ to provide a village with a clean water piping system, its not really a sensible priority.

[LeftSideDown]

Well, actually, in terms of money given the higher tiers give more. Its only if you rate "generosity" in terms of percentage of yearly income do you arrive at that conclusion, and how much of their income is earned in the cases of those making 10,000 dollars? A lot of the time they do not have less expenses than higher groups because of subsidies, cheap/free housing, food stamps, etc etc. And, in general, I believe, poorer groups are often more religious and have that added pressure.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The thing is, its not even this. As the radio version of this story mentioned, the wealthy tend to give to the arts and the sciences and tend to ignore poverty and homelessness - primary symptoms of the system they exploit. That is, primarily universities and the like. While these aren't bad pursuits, compared to the effective value of 30$ to provide a village with a clean water piping system, its not really a sensible priority.

And is it really "charity" when Bill and Melinda Gates give millions of dollars to push charter schools and "race to the top" and create foundations that have a political agenda?

That's a big difference between the "generousness" of your everyday person and a billionaire.

[RGacky3]

A lot of the time they do not have less expenses than higher groups because of subsidies, cheap/free housing, food stamps, etc etc. And, in general, I believe, poorer groups are often more religious and have that added pressure.

As for the first sentance, your dispicable.

As for the second, the causes of generousness does'nt matter.

what the wealth (or many of them) donate too does'nt count as generousness if its mainly for their own, or their class benefit.

[Kotze]

Its only if you rate "generosity" in terms of percentage of yearly income do you arrive at that conclusion [of poor people being more generous]Do you really believe that for a rich person to have at least a similar sacrifice of utility as a poor person the rich person has to sacrifice a part of his income that is less than proportional?
A lot of the time they do not have less expenses than higher groups because of subsidies, cheap/free housing Whatever the degree of social mobility really is, nobody denies that rich people have the freedom to choose to be poor. They can give away all their stuff any time and live like hobos. For some reason, this isn't a popular lifestyle choice among that set. What do you conclude from this new piece of information?

[Dermezel]

Well I certainly wouldn't disparage someone for giving to charity. This can be of great importance to those receiving aid. And likewise it can be used as a tool to raise class consciousness, since many barriers to class consciousness are material i.e. work-spend cycles and severe poverty which prevent intellectual development and awareness of the intricacies of Marxism.

However many private charities are scams. Many, while not technically scams, tend to skim a heavy amount of funds from the top. Some, like religious charities, practice a great deal of discrimination, and are more concerned with using economic leverage to coerce belief then to aid the poor. And last, private charities are inherently less stable, and reliable then government aid.

The USSR for example played a critical role in giving aid to Africa. In fact, the fall of the USSR may well have signaled the death of millions from increased poverty in various parts of the third world.