OK, so let’s say I have $5 million. And rather than buy a nice boat, or an expensive apartment, I decide to use it in the service of the greater good. How much good exactly could I do with it?
Now, $5 million ain’t going to cure cancer, nor is it going to make a dent in the standard of living of underprivileged folk en masse. And if I want to put it to use overseas, unless I spend the time and effort administering the funds myself I imagine most will get eaten up in admin, or go to line the pockets of foreign governments. Or not.
I read of an Indian family that is spending $2 billion on a new home. Twenty-seven stories tall. Nice one. Perhaps $2b could actually cure cancer, or make a significant contribution to the wellbeing or standard of living of their countrymen.
So I guess what I’m trying to get a handle on here is what is the “guilt free” level of discretionary wealth where spending it on yourself instead of others won’t make a tangible difference to humanity. And at what level should one start to think, “You know, I could do a lot of good with this money. Maybe I won’t buy that island”.
5 million can stock a lot of food pantries, fund a lot of animal shelters, buy a lot of computers for youth centers or pay the salaries of the staff of your favoriet not-for-profit organization.
So you don’t get to save the whole world. Pick out a small sliver of it and work on that.
Here’s an article from Slate.com that describes the work of the Copenhagen Consensus Center to identify the issues that offered the best “bang for the buck.” Providing “micronutrients” to children was number one (at a cost of about a buck per child, a lot of good can happen) followed by immunizations, deworming and education (particularly for girls).
Word. That’s my motto…I can’t save the world, but I can be the world for just one person/critter at a time.
If I had 5 million, I’d buy some spay/neutor vans and send them out to fix critters for free. This would help critters, and would help the humans who loved them. If I kept my vans local, it would make a difference in the pet overpopulation here. This would mean that Animal Control wouldn’t have to put down as many pets and the savings would mean that property taxes would lower, which would help even more people.
I don’t really believe in big charities myself. Breast cancer for example is a terrible thing but it is so overdone it is becoming a cliche. Let the masses take care of that because I could give everything I had and wouldn’t make a measurable difference.
I have a scholarship in mind that targets just plain good kids who don’t have any one exceptional talent but still show good promise. An Eagle Scout raised by a single parent in a regular area who has to work through high school to help support the family is one example. There are already have scholarships for kids with top test scores and who can play sports or a musical instrument like no tomorrow but I worry about the more regular ones who just try really hard despite what they are given. The world only needs so many top violinists or college football players. Good, educated worker bees are for life.
You can also donate things like livestock to individual people in 3rd world countries through some programs. That may make a big difference to them. You won’t ever see me on a list of donors to build something like a new hospital wing. Other people can do that. I think semi-anonymous but targeted giving fits me best.
All big programs are made of little contributions. There is no amount so small that the contribution you make won’t help someone.
Actually, I think the best thing you could do would be to start a scholarship fund for young development professionals (perhaps from overseas) studying development and related topics (perhaps social entrepreneurship) that enables them to work with an NGO or start a social enterprise after their degree rather than having the brightest minds in development snatched up by unwieldy institutions (the US government, the UN, etc.) where they are unlikely to ever make much change.