Last year around this time, I decided to begin an experiment: to match everything I spend on a non-essential purchase with an equal donation to an effective charity
( Read more... )
Re: so what percentage was it?zestypingJanuary 10 2011, 01:18:51 UTC
Hi David, thanks for writing!
Non-essential spending came out to 21%; I donated 24%.
Glad to hear you're a member of GWWC-which chapter? I applied to become a member when I discovered the site a week ago; no reply yet. I guess Toby or other folks must be pretty busy or on holiday. :) i'm not sure why you consider your method less arbitrary - it is also arbitrary but regulated by your criteria for essential/non-essential and your own hedonism essentially. btw, i think it's a great idea and think many people would be able to take it on board. Certainly, of course, this method is arbitrary, like any method that creates artificial causality between some other action and donation. It's just as arbitrary as, say, sponsoring someone to run a race for charity-it makes no logical sense to "run for a cure"-but people do it. So, I don't claim that the offset method is objectively less arbitrary, just that it feels less arbitrary to me. I can make sense out of the 1:1 relationship.
I think it would be really interesting to talk about the effects that particular donation rules have on the giver. What incentives does the rule create? How does the rule affect givers with different personal needs and different levels of income? On what does it focus the giver's attention? How will that affect the giver's future course of giving?
When I look at it in these terms, the offset method has some properties that I find attractive. It aligns the act of giving with personal enjoyment (unlike every other method I know, in which giving and enjoyment are opposed). It obligates the giver to decide what is essential and what is not. And the offset rule works for everyone, regardless of income or expense level, without having to state any dollar figures. I haven't come across another rule that has any of these three properties... are you aware of any?
Re: so what percentage was it?ext_384563January 10 2011, 02:39:00 UTC
Thanks for the reply. Thanks for sharing that info as well - afterwards I thought it might be a bit too personal. It's great to see it working so well for you and enabling you to give so much.
I agree that it would be interesting to think about the rules, but I guess when I made my pledge with GWWC I wouldn't have thought about the commitment as being about adhering to rules. There's a bigger discussion in there about motivation I think. There's a discussion board for GWWC members where I recall some talk about what gets people to sign up - I'll have a look soon (or I guess you can have a look soon!) for an overview.
I don't think I agree that in every other method (we'd need to define them all really) giving and enjoyment are opposed. I certainly don't feel that way about giving. In fact, for me it is simply a logical argument for giving. A very small change in my income can have a large impact on other people's lives. Personal enjoyment isn't part of those thoughts.
It's great to get people to address what they consider essential or not, but i still don't think the offset rule works for everyone regardless of income - i think for people on lower incomes, it is probably easier to track a percentage than to keep track of what you spend on non-essentials while also making sure you have enough reserve to match your spending. Whereas with a percentage you can always put that into your budget and know it's not available for other uses.
I'm sure Toby or someone there will get back to you soon. And then you'll get a lovely postal letter.
Non-essential spending came out to 21%; I donated 24%.
Glad to hear you're a member of GWWC-which chapter? I applied to become a member when I discovered the site a week ago; no reply yet. I guess Toby or other folks must be pretty busy or on holiday. :)
i'm not sure why you consider your method less arbitrary - it is also arbitrary but regulated by your criteria for essential/non-essential and your own hedonism essentially. btw, i think it's a great idea and think many people would be able to take it on board.
Certainly, of course, this method is arbitrary, like any method that creates artificial causality between some other action and donation. It's just as arbitrary as, say, sponsoring someone to run a race for charity-it makes no logical sense to "run for a cure"-but people do it. So, I don't claim that the offset method is objectively less arbitrary, just that it feels less arbitrary to me. I can make sense out of the 1:1 relationship.
I think it would be really interesting to talk about the effects that particular donation rules have on the giver. What incentives does the rule create? How does the rule affect givers with different personal needs and different levels of income? On what does it focus the giver's attention? How will that affect the giver's future course of giving?
When I look at it in these terms, the offset method has some properties that I find attractive. It aligns the act of giving with personal enjoyment (unlike every other method I know, in which giving and enjoyment are opposed). It obligates the giver to decide what is essential and what is not. And the offset rule works for everyone, regardless of income or expense level, without having to state any dollar figures. I haven't come across another rule that has any of these three properties... are you aware of any?
Reply
I agree that it would be interesting to think about the rules, but I guess when I made my pledge with GWWC I wouldn't have thought about the commitment as being about adhering to rules. There's a bigger discussion in there about motivation I think. There's a discussion board for GWWC members where I recall some talk about what gets people to sign up - I'll have a look soon (or I guess you can have a look soon!) for an overview.
I don't think I agree that in every other method (we'd need to define them all really) giving and enjoyment are opposed. I certainly don't feel that way about giving. In fact, for me it is simply a logical argument for giving. A very small change in my income can have a large impact on other people's lives. Personal enjoyment isn't part of those thoughts.
It's great to get people to address what they consider essential or not, but i still don't think the offset rule works for everyone regardless of income - i think for people on lower incomes, it is probably easier to track a percentage than to keep track of what you spend on non-essentials while also making sure you have enough reserve to match your spending. Whereas with a percentage you can always put that into your budget and know it's not available for other uses.
I'm sure Toby or someone there will get back to you soon. And then you'll get a lovely postal letter.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment