
You Should Be Able to Get Rich in Charity - ALhult
https://hbr.org/2011/09/you-should-be-able-to-get-rich
======
rabbitz
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?

~~~
ALhult
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.

------
perfmode
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.

------
meira
No, you can't, at least not without been seem as hypocrite and demagogue,
which is OK to a lot of people, SV founders making a better world included.

~~~
ALhult
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?

~~~
meira
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.

