Steve Jobs' 'Curious' Lack of Public Philanthropy

lilbabycat said:
Except when he pays to bump himself to the top of the Organ Donor list in multiple states and some 5 year old kid that could have had a whole life ahead of him dies.

just saying.

You'd think a guy dying of cancer would throw some bucks to cancer research.
Click to expand...

When you grow up you will realize that the more money you have, the more influence you wield. THis is not in and of itself a bad thing. If I was filthy rich and dying you are damn right id snatch an organ out from under someone else if I could. The dead only know one thing, it is better to be alive.
 
I think we should all step back from insulting each other and get back to the point of this thread: Insulting Steve Jobs.

:)
 
So much of a nihilistic mindset throughout this thread, I don't even...I always thought the dominant conservative mindset was that government shouldn't get involved in social programs, and that charity was the realm of the individual. Now it seems that it has morphed into; no one should have any need whatsover to help their fellow man. Power, fame, wealth carry no burden of responsibility with them.

Should he make a flashy show of making it rain at a cancer charity? No, but in a position of leadership he can set an example of charitable giving.
 
LoneWolf said:
No matter what I believe about Jobs, if that is what you believe, then that responsibility comes in equal measure to all of us. If you make less, give 10% of less. If you make more, give 10% of more.

Are you giving your 10%?

Personally, I wonder if when Jobs dies, a whole lot of people will find out he's been giving to charity but not calling attention to himself. As I've said before, I don't think Jobs is God. However, there are so many people on this forum that seem to think he's Satan incarnate that it just boggles my mind.

There's a lot of space in between there, folks, and I can't think of a person here (least of all, me) who is even remotely close to perfect. If you are though, feel free to cast the next stone.
Click to expand...

The 10% statement is not valid. Someone making billions giving 50% can still easily afford a comfortable lifestyle. Someone making minimum wage and giving 10% will now be impacted to a far greater extreme then that billionaire giving more.

And this is the point. People making that much money should be giving some of it back because they can afford to do so.
 
I bet he gives it privately. I also don't think he's lives for the public's attention. In fact, if not for [H], I'm not sure I'd hear about him, ever.
 
mope54 said:
I read the link. It's not even an article. Here's a letter from bono is response, however:
Click to expand...

One should note that in terms of actually helping anyone, (product)RED is kind of a failure, and mainly a way to write off advertising costs while appearing socially conscious.

Bono is an example of charity as an act of narcissism, and very often he simply gains attention for any given effort at the cost of adding inefficiencies that offset the benefit financially, and dig a hole in terms of time.

Jobs is a paranoid narcissist. I can't see him giving anything if he couldn't claim credit for it. I can't see the guy spending money on anything not self serving. It's his money though, and that's his right. He could give till it hurts, I don't think it'd make him seem like a better guy due to the rest of his behavior.
 
TwistedAegis said:
So much of a nihilistic mindset throughout this thread, I don't even...I always thought the dominant conservative mindset was that government shouldn't get involved in social programs, and that charity was the realm of the individual. Now it seems that it has morphed into; no one should have any need whatsover to help their fellow man. Power, fame, wealth carry no burden of responsibility with them.

Should he make a flashy show of making it rain at a cancer charity? No, but in a position of leadership he can set an example of charitable giving.
Click to expand...

Well now, nihilism and individualism have very different core ideals. Though most conservatives are not individualists until we start talking fiscal responsibility (not overly consistent, are they?), you are somewhat correct here. Nobody should have to give to charity, but it sure would be nice if the uber rich would.

Hopefully no Ayn Randers chime in, I'm actually glad that lady is dead. Altruism has a positive impact more often than not, and compassion is what separates us from being sociopaths.
 
Steve Jobs can blow a dog. The amount of love, care, and compassion that was given to him to survive numerous problems is off the charts - the very least he could do is return the favor.

inb4 someone gets butt-hurt and shouts "it's his mooooney, yada yada yada"... End result is he has taken advantage of people with what has kept him alive to this day but not giving anything back. Karma. That is all.
 
Cyraxx said:
Steve Jobs can blow a dog. The amount of love, care, and compassion that was given to him to survive numerous problems is off the charts - the very least he could do is return the favor.

inb4 someone gets butt-hurt and shouts "it's his mooooney, yada yada yada"... End result is he has taken advantage of people with what has kept him alive to this day but not giving anything back. Karma. That is all.
Click to expand...

Reading isn't your forte, isn't it?
 
Sineira said:
If he was really concerned about other peoples well being I suggest he should publicly support social support programs, job aid, health Care programs, Medicare etc. People giving to charity and saying they care about other people while voting republican just sickens me. Making sure somebody gets a meal on Christmas while not caring the other 364 days is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Are you on crack?
 
NickM said:
Sineira said:
If he was really concerned about other peoples well being I suggest he should publicly support social support programs, job aid, health Care programs, Medicare etc. People giving to charity and saying they care about other people while voting republican just sickens me. Making sure somebody gets a meal on Christmas while not caring the other 364 days is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Are you on crack?
Click to expand...

Hahahaa I read his quote too and was just like huh :confused:
 
And fuck all the dumbasses who say "Who are we to judge what someone does what their money?" Uhhhh who are we to judge? How about YOU.... YOU being the people who for years referred to Bill Gates as Micro$oft? God forbid you Apple fanboi's admit to your own god of worship being human with his greed.
 
TwistedAegis said:
So much of a nihilistic mindset throughout this thread, I don't even...I always thought the dominant conservative mindset was that government shouldn't get involved in social programs, and that charity was the realm of the individual. Now it seems that it has morphed into; no one should have any need whatsover to help their fellow man. Power, fame, wealth carry no burden of responsibility with them.

Should he make a flashy show of making it rain at a cancer charity? No, but in a position of leadership he can set an example of charitable giving.
Click to expand...

Some would counter that setting an example would be giving quietly, so that it wouldn't amount to a constant "I'm so great, look at me" mentality. It is also possible to give quietly enough that those receiving donations cannot disclose the giver.

I honestly don't know whether Jobs has done this, or whether he hasn't. Personally, I think no matter which road he takes, at least half of this forum would vilify him anyway, probably more. I do hope that anyone here who is laying into him for their perceptions of his lack of giving are doing some giving of their own though, be it money or (lacking that) volunteer time, or in another way. Otherwise, I'd find it incredibly hypocritical of them to be making said comments in the first place.
 
LoneWolf said:
Some would counter that setting an example would be giving quietly, so that it wouldn't amount to a constant "I'm so great, look at me" mentality. It is also possible to give quietly enough that those receiving donations cannot disclose the giver.

I honestly don't know whether Jobs has done this, or whether he hasn't. Personally, I think no matter which road he takes, at least half of this forum would vilify him anyway, probably more. I do hope that anyone here who is laying into him for their perceptions of his lack of giving are doing some giving of their own though, be it money or (lacking that) volunteer time, or in another way. Otherwise, I'd find it incredibly hypocritical of them to be making said comments in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said. If it turns out Jobs has been giving so quietly no one knew, good for him. However he does have the limelight, and thus the ability to change opinion on the margins; which is the greater "evil", lack of humility in showing off your giving, or failing to use said limelight to inspire more people to give? Hypothetical question, I'm not sure it is clear-cut either way, although I lean towards the latter.
 
The US is a very greedy country full of greedy people (just listen to a Republican debate).
 
Staples said:
The US is a very greedy country full of greedy people (just listen to a Republican debate).
Click to expand...

Is this really turning into a political debate ? :rolleyes:

How does not liking to hand out free money to anyone who raises their hand greedy? Maybe we would rather just give our money out to people who actually have initiative? You know, like... charities that help employ poor people, charities that help cure diseases, and organizations in general that help people on a much larger scale than handing out welfare checks to drug dealers and coke snorting hookers that feed the problems (and thus recycles the problems all over again).
 
Cyraxx said:
Is this really turning into a political debate ? :rolleyes:

How does not liking to hand out free money to anyone who raises their hand greedy? Maybe we would rather just give our money out to people who actually have initiative? You know, like... charities that help employ poor people, charities that help cure diseases, and organizations in general that help people on a much larger scale than handing out welfare checks to drug dealers and coke snorting hookers that feed the problems (and thus recycles the problems all over again).
Click to expand...

Who said aything about him only donating free money to anyone who raises their hand? It was only "charity."

And as for the welfare checks to drug dealers and coke snorting hookers - so far Florida has only found 2% failed drug testing after mandating drug checks for welfare recipients. The cost of the program may in fact outweigh the savings.
 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/welfare-and-drug-testing

Since testing began in mid-July, just two percent of welfare applicants have tested positive. By way of comparison, the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health put the rate of illicit-drug use among the general public at 8.7%. Another two percent are not completing welfare applications, putting the pass rate at 96%. The state expects between 1,000 and 1,500 people to take the test each month, at a cost of $30 per test—a cost borne by the state for applicants who pass. At the current rate of failure, the state will save a grand total of $40,800 to $98,400 out of a welfare program that will cost an estimated $178m this year.
Click to expand...

But hey, at least the poor are demeaned and humiliated to be down on their luck, right?
 
Sineira said:
If he was really concerned about other peoples well being I suggest he should publicly support social support programs, job aid, health Care programs, Medicare etc. People giving to charity and saying they care about other people while voting republican just sickens me. Making sure somebody gets a meal on Christmas while not caring the other 364 days is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

News flash: Some people actually believe that coercively funded social[ist] programs hurt the poor [and everyone else] in the long run, because they create dependency cycles and redirect capital from the market, which could otherwise be used to make more goods and services available to everyone more cheaply. For the record, I'm not some hard-hearted wraith who has never seen things from your point of view. I actually used to believe in full-blown socialized healthcare and higher education...I just don't anymore.

You can disagree all you like (and this isn't the thread for that kind of debate), but the point is that fiscal conservatism is NOT about selfishness; it about genuinely trying to make the world a better place with a more indirect and cautious approach. (Note that I'm referring to consistent fiscal conservatives here, not the kind that think, "let's cut back on entitlements but continue spending obscene amounts of money on defense and corporate welfare.")

Having different economic beliefs from you (or Marx for that matter) is not selfish; it's a legitimate disagreement. It is also not selfish to have moral issues with extorting money from OTHER people to give to [supposedly] charitable causes [which they have no individual choice regarding]. (I'd argue that selfishness goes the other way.) Real charity is voluntary, and real charity allows individuals to discriminately choose who is and who is not worthy of their money and why.

Anyway, all of this is beside the point, which is about Steve Jobs. Should most rich people be publicly shamed for not giving? No, because many prefer to give privately instead of using philanthropy as a springboard for egotistical grandstanding. I know I would do my giving in private, because I have a deep aversion to people who do good for the sake of appearances. (As others said, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. ;))

Steve Jobs may be a special exception, because as raz-0 said (in his excellent post), he is a total narcissist (the "reality distortion field" is an unmistakable red flag). Along with Bono, the only reason he would ever give is to play out a role, so others can reflect his "greatness" back to him. Given Steve Jobs's personality, the fact that he does not publicly give a whole lot is a strong indication that he doesn't give a whole lot at all. So, if you're going to crap on anyone, Steve Jobs is probably a good one to crap on...after all, he's a bad person regardless of what he does publicly. ;) (It doesn't help that he made his money off of a company that heavily leverages copyrights, patents, and the DMCA, not to mention labor in a country that deliberately suppresses its currency's value to keep its workers poor and its exports high.)
 
Monkey God said:
Its also proves 98% of people on welfare are smart enough to not do drugs right before testing, and 2% aren't that smart.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Drug tests are simply worthless, because the only drug they can detect over a reasonably long timespan is marijuana. All of the hard drugs - the ones that people get physically addicted to and spend all of their money on - pass through the system quickly enough that even a hardcore addict can bear a few days of withdrawal before the occasional drug test. Requiring welfare recipients to take drug testing is nothing more than a wasteful "pretend like we're doing something" measure, and it's a shame people fall for it. Argh, this is way off topic now.
 
Hmmm... people simply wanting to keep what they legally earn is "greedy", but people using the government to take other people's money is just fine. Numerous studies have shown conservative voters give about twice as much in charitable giving as liberals, yet liberals keep running their traps. They somehow think they've "given" when they vote for higher taxes on other people. How special.
 
Mini-Me said:
Exactly. Drug tests are simply worthless, because the only drug they can detect over a reasonably long timespan is marijuana. All of the hard drugs - the ones that people get physically addicted to and spend all of their money on - pass through the system quickly enough that even a hardcore addict can bear a few days of withdrawal before the occasional drug test. Requiring welfare recipients to take drug testing is nothing more than a wasteful "pretend like we're doing something" measure, and it's a shame people fall for it. Argh, this is way off topic now.
Click to expand...

WHAT?! Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

Are you honestly suggesting that people will lie, cheat, and steal at just about everything? I mean, you hear about people who pass tests through sly means, rob banks/houses and never get caught, rape, counterfeit, cheat, steal, lie, insider trading, forge divorce papers, malpractice, pay someone off to get them to do something ----But passing drug testing that is probably every 4-6 months while still doing them? NO FUCKIN WAY!, I don't believe that for a second. People could NEVER possibly be able to do something like that, you would have to be like... Albert Einstein or something!!!!11
 
Forced giving isn't charity. Oh, and the poor don't act that way because they're poor, they're poor because they act that way. As usual, +++++++s have things exactly backwards.
 
It's his money he earned it and can do whatever he wants.

I can criticize what he wants to do with his money all I want, that's in the constitution.

Personally I hate the money choices of lots of people, usually poor people more often than rich.

Do I think he's a jerk if he doesn't donate to charity.... hmmm I think he's a jerk regardless, but I'd feel like he screwed me over (ibook mobo never replaced even though it was covered under warranty, patent troll etc.) for a worthy cause if he donated some money to cutting off balls in Africa, aka "fighting hunger" or building some giant golden middle finger statue flipping off al queda. It's just one opinion though, but it's mine and you can't take it from me. You can call me childish if you want though. I'll allow that.

(p.s. Maybe he could build a launch loop or something similar instead of the finger, that would be cool also.)
 
NKDietrich,

Do you sit around at night and figure out how EVERBODY ELSE BUT YOURSELF could have done more for other people? You say it only takes a little to save a life? Really, how many have you saved? What if it actually took $1 billion to save a life? Should Apple still have given it? What if they quit making products and just paid their employees to take home homeless people until the money ran out - should they do that or go overseas and work in African HIV hospitals? Man, these imaginary decisions are hard, aren't they? No matter what they actually did, you could still have imagined they should have done something else. Maybe we should lower the interstate speed limit to 25, bet that would save lives.
 
FWIW Steve Jobs was a jerk as a kid and is a jerk today.

He is entitled to do whatever he wants with his own money though (except whatever Uncle Sam decides belongs to him)
 
Coerced giving isn't giving at all. It's wealth distribution at gunpoint, basically.
 
If I had $8 billion I would be perfectly content with giving 7.9 billion away and the leaving the rest to charity after I die.
 
Valshistixol said:
If I had $8 billion I would be perfectly content with giving 7.9 billion away and the leaving the rest to charity after I die.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing on the way home. If his heirs could make due with just $100,000,000...
 
So that means that from 2006-2010 when Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress, that you believe Bush has nothing to do with anything right?

So full of B.S.....

Anyways, the "death tax" of 55% is a fact and was put into place by Obama, in part, to pay for his healthcare plan....took effect the beginning of 2011. January 11th, 2011 to be exact.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-07-21-estatetax21_CV_N.htm



txfeinbergs said:
Proof that that is the current policy please? You won't find it, because it isn't. I think you are also confused as to what branch of government makes the laws - including tax rates. Hint, it's not Obama.
Click to expand...
 
I was just talking about this over the weekend. How there are so many billionaires out there "saving the world", and Steve Jobs is just bitching about Apple's patents and how magical he is.

Although, I could care less - it's his money, etc. - from a philanthropist point of view he isn't (public) contributing. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't, but as far as charities go, he isn't.
 
shawnoen said:
So that means that from 2006-2010 when Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress, that you believe Bush has nothing to do with anything right?

So full of B.S.....

Anyways, the "death tax" of 55% is a fact and was put into place by Obama, in part, to pay for his healthcare plan....took effect the beginning of 2011. January 11th, 2011 to be exact.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-07-21-estatetax21_CV_N.htm
Click to expand...

Taxes are enacted by congress, not by presidents. A president may propose a tax but, ultimately, congress chooses to enact such legislation. If a tax cut is written with an expiration date and congress does nothing to renew said tax cut, does that really mean that the president is raising taxes?

I have links, too!

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top