Another important aspect might be to consider how the $20k was obtained in the first place. What resources were consumed to generate that wealth? What pollution was generated? Which parts of society benefited, and which did not?<p>Here is a contrived example:<p>Suppose you obtained $20k by applying your skills as a consultant where you helped some business make an additional $200k profit by more effectively advertising their products.<p>Suppose that business has a profit of 20% for each item they sell, so you've actually lifted their revenue by $1m.<p>Now, suppose these products are essentially useless consumer products that will go out of fashion within 1 year.<p>I claim without evidence that the environmental impact of producing, advertising, distributing and disposing of $1m of useless products may, in many cases, be well in excess of how much of that impact you could attempt to reverse with a $20k budget.<p>So, another option is to consider is that the world may be better off if you didn't earn that $20k in the first place. It very much depends on the direct and indirect effects of how you did it.<p>edit: I am curious if I am copping the odd down-vote because this argument is complete nonsense (in which case please help me modify my beliefs!) or simply because I mention something that is perhaps uncomfortable to reflect upon. I claim no moral high ground here.
I did a stint in a rural bangladeshi hospital while a medical student.<p>I went on an outreach camp with an opthalmologist. In one village we saw dozens of elderly people partially or fully blind from cataracts. None of them could afford the surgery. I asked the opthalmologist how much the operation was and he said "$40 each", so I said "ok choose the 20 people who need this operation the most and ill give you the $800". They put 20 of them in minivans and took them to the hospital the next day and all 20 got their operations. Had a whole ward of really delighted people.
You could always find someone you like and give it to them ;) <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569" rel="nofollow">http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569</a><p>In seriousness, GiveWell ranks charities by their effectiveness. You could give to one of their top charities: <a href="http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities" rel="nofollow">http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities</a> "These are evidence-backed, thoroughly vetted, underfunded organizations."<p>Edit: (in reference to z3ugma's comment) further down that page is actually a charity whose mission is to aid salt iodization programmes in developing countries. I honestly had no idea this was even an issue until now.
It's probably shipping $20,000 of iodized salt to the developing world:<p>Iodine deficiency is a leading cause of preventable mental impairment, as iodine is a micronutrient crucial to brain development. An estimated 2 billion people-- almost a third of the earth’s population--have low iodine intake and are at risk for suffering from the complications of iodine deficiency.<p>Eradication of iodine deficiency is highly cost-effective— worldwide, the cost of salt iodization per year is estimated at $0.02-0.05 per child covered, and the cost per child's death averted is $1000 and per disability-adjusted life year gained is $34-36.
Use it to lobby people of influence to release even more funds for your hobby-horse charity. More abstract; use it to fund the creation of a site that's a merger of Getup.org and Kickstarter so that we can crowd-source lobbying. That way the common person can compete with the petrochemical and military industrial companies by dropping a dollar or ten on their chosen hobby-horse issue. Small donations multiplied by many participants will result in considerable funds.<p>Politicians are an interface to policy and money is the API.
I always liked the idea of Benjamin Franklin's two century trust.<p>In 1790 when he died, he left £1,000 each to the cities of Boston and Philly, to be kept in trust for 100 years. There was supposed to be £130,000 by 1890, of which £100,000 would be spent, and another £30,000 left to compound for another 100 years. [1]<p>Even after a significant distribution in 1890, the funds distributed about $7 million to the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in 1990. The original investment was about $80,000 (for both cities) in today's dollars. [2]<p>[1] - <a href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/what_miracle_of_compound_interest" rel="nofollow">http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_ph...</a><p>[2] - <a href="http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/heldman.ht...</a>
Instead of getting a more efficient car, how about spending it on moving somewhere where you don't need a car? That $20k could go towards a more expensive home that is closer to downtown or public transport links.<p>As a European who has lived in cities with pretty decent public transport for the last 10+ years (I lived in the countryside before that), it's mind boggling to me that most American cities are so car-centric.
I had the opportunity to speak with some Bangladeshi labor organizers who help workers organize unions in the textile factories there. It sounds like they are doing some great work[0][1]. Organizers' salaries are apparently well under five hundred USD per month, and they are on the front lines of a struggle against the global wage race to the bottom and unsafe working conditions. There are some organizations I've worked with in the US that have connections with some of them, and I am strongly considering to these groups in Bangladesh.<p>The main question is whether or not this will simply lead to these jobs being pushed to even poorer countries with even lower wages -- though that would probably help those poorer countries.<p>0: <a href="http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ranaplaza-arrangement.org/</a> Compensation to victims of the Rana Plaza factory disaster.<p>1: <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garment-industry/2744414.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.voanews.com/content/labor-unions-bangladesh-garme...</a> "Since 2010, the number of active garment industry unions grew from seven to 200. They represent some 150,000 workers."
Charged at $200/hr, $20k = 100 hours.<p>Keep the money for yourself, and spend 100 hours of your time talking to a poor person. Help them find a better job, or make a better financial plan, or eat healthier, or just listen to what they have to say and tell them they can call you if they need someone.<p>This is by far the biggest impact a person like Paul Buchheit could make on the world. Even if his $20k could go 100% to a better water bottle in Africa, or a more efficient hybrid, or whatever, it will pale in comparison to how he could personally change someone's life if he walked up to them and took the time to try.<p>So go blow $20k at the club or on a cool car, after you've earned it by hitting the streets and solving your neighbor's problems for 100 hours. Someday your neighbors might do the same ;)
I would make STEM kits for $20 each (common lab compounds, electronic components, microcontroller, lenses, list of online resources, etc.) I would give them to high school kids rather than the younger kids they're usually geared towards. Make it a little bit edgy - high schoolers love fire we all know this - not like a bit of rocket candy is more dangerous that whatever else they have access to. If they want the next kit they pay $20, but they also have to give the previous kit to a noob first. The second kit would how them how to get all the components/compounds they need generally free or cheap.
One thing this article didn't mention is giving money towards research. There's no lack of underfunded labs filled with scientists researching rarer diseases or unique approaches to humanitarian issues. 20K could go a long way in helping these smaller labs. It would take some searching and talking on the giver's end to find the right cause and scientists he or she trusts, but it wouldn't be too hard with the powers of the internet.
If you want to be utilitarian about it, maximizing common good derived from a modest donation, then pick (a) the venture that will produce the greatest gain in common good if implemented, and (b) an organization with a low administrative overhead that is in your opinion doing a good job of making progress towards (a). That is the 80/20 calculation. You'll never know if you got it right, but it has the best chance of doing something rather than nothing.<p>For my money, (a) is ending degenerative aging by periodic repair of that damage that causes it, and (b) is the SENS Research Foundation. There is no other single cause of death and suffering as large as the biological wear and tear that causes degeneration and death in aging. There is no other organization I know of that will definitely put all donations to research, advocacy, and scientific organization relating to this task. There are other single-disease or single-field patient advocate and research organizations out there that do a little work relevant to age-related damage, but you've got no way to ensure a donation as small as a few thousand dollars will actually go to the aging-relevant 1% of what they do. Even cancer and stem cell fields are doing a large amount of work that has no bearing on the best path forward.<p>In fact I'm personally donating $25K to the SENS Research Foundation this year, and running a matching campaign in search of others willing to do the same.<p>There are other options for using modest amounts of money that are more of a lottery; use your money to persuade other people to give money, try to grow your money to give later, etc, etc. But these are much more unreliable, or for a few thousand dollars just not even worth trying versus outright donation to a cause.
> Invest in a startup. This is better than investing in the S&P500. The expected return is higher.<p>Is that actually true, or is the author using some meaning of the phrase "expected return" that isn't common?
What's really interesting is that if you are (far) less intelligent than the average person you should almost certainly destroy it (assuming you can't just give it to someone smarter than you.)<p>This assures you don't do something stupid and guarantees everyone else is at least a tiny bit better off (because their money is now worth more).
He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to directly (rather than indirectly) improve the environment, you don't get what your are doing.
If I had the money, I think I'd give half to my local primary school. They could do with some books and PCs.<p>The other half I spend in Uganda, I'd just do random acts of kindness. Buy medicine for someone, school books for a kid. Shoes or clothed for someone else. Would be a really fun way to spend the money.<p>Rich people seem so clinical about their money. Get yer hands dirty, talk to some people in need.
The article states "Indeed, you may be able to offset a ton of CO2 for as little as $1"
and also: "... If we were to use the mean rather than the median estimate, we would get a social cost of carbon of $48 per metric ton of CO2."
So for every $1 spent, you can save society a cost of $48? A 4,800% social return on your money seems pretty good!
How about spending financial wealth on an educational program that redefines wealth? I've started studying what Arthur Brock is doing and am trying to implement it into my alternative economics startup as much as possible. You cannot break down the Co2 that is processed by a tree into dollars...It's like breaking down the value of a human being through how much plasma can be extracted and selling it at market rate.<p><a href="http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-new-economy" rel="nofollow">http://www.artbrock.com/videos/arthur-brock-transitioning-ne...</a>
You could always check that box on your tax form that says you wish to make an additional contribution. That is, assuming taxes benefit the common good.<p>I'm sure the money will be spent wisely.
Sounds very high minded. I'd research and find a need in your local community. Find some group doing good work already and allow them to expand.<p>Maybe it's a bigger kitchen for a group feeding the poor. Or a bigger office for college kids that are tutoring kids in math. If you take some time you will find something that has personal meaning for you.
There's a crisis-pregnancy center a block from where I live (in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA). I do volunteer work there, and one of my friends is their director of child-care:<p><a href="https://www.ourladysinn.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ourladysinn.org/</a><p>They do great work helping poor women in Saint Louis and their already-born children through difficult times. In addition to food, shelter and other basics, they provide professional counseling (many of their clients struggle with drug addiction) and try to help their clients get a solid footing with respect to employment and a safe place to live after they finish the program (about six weeks to several months after their child is born). Great attention is given to making sure the clients' children get to school on time, do their homework and are being given proper care.<p>I know the organization to be extremely thrifty – nothing goes to waste and they are very careful regarding how they spend money donated to the center. The organization also owns and runs a couple of resale shops in the same neighborhood, where many of the clients take their first steps (or first steps in awhile) carrying out job responsibilities, working under a manager. All proceeds from those shops flow back into the crisis-pregnancy center.
I think "effective altruism" is a big part of the reason why tech workers can't be moved to give a shit about solving the extreme social problems in their own backyards, that they have in many cases exacerbated, because solving them would be "inefficient".
I do not have a quote under hand, but preserving our history is important to make us better. Most of the recent history would already be lost if archive.org was not there. I do not see how giving to this cause could turn wrong.
$20,000 is possibly not enough but some sort of import export business to funnel money from a rich nation to a poor nation.<p>$1 stores do more to help the poor than a lot of charities (But not all charities)
This seems like helping people is something to be kept at arm's length. Even the list of options seem predicated on hyper-capitalism. Where's the compassion?
despite the many ways you could interpret "common good", i'd bet that feeding a couple of kids healthy food for several years would rank up there with just about anything.
I would generalize the finding to: spend the money on something that rewards success and not failure.<p>Giving money to failing schools rewards failing schools.<p>Giving money to the poor and unemployed rewards being poor and unemployed.<p>Giving money to the homeless rewards being homeless.<p>Use the money to create opportunity, not to reward failure.
He's wrong. Spending 20k on a hybrid car facilitates demand for a hybrid car, which leads to better hybrid cars. If your buying it to better the environment, you don't get what your are doing.
Another option is a local Church that support missions such as building schools for impoverished nations. I support a church that does this along with a missionary that runs an after school sports program in very poor area of Elkhart, Indiana. This helps gets kids off of streets, gives them food, shelter and a develops the community. Benefit of this is that I get to actually see the faces of the youth this impacts both in my backyard as well as in other nations.<p>Say what you will about religion but there are a lot of people out there who have a heart that yearns to help others, I don't care if they do it in the name of a god or not, the fact of the matter is they are going out there every day and touching peoples lives.
Americans gave $358 billion last year. $20k is a drop in the bucket.<p><a href="https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015" rel="nofollow">https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015</a><p>If you really want to make a big difference, start a company, create jobs, make millions then donate a larger sum of money.