"Acting locally" is no substitute for acting globally, and can indeed be a trap: you think that something significant has been accomplished and you feel good about what you have done. It's a mistake to think that trying to fill the bucket with an eyedropper is an effective substitute for working to try to turn on the spigot.
Nevertheless...
Posted by DeLong at November 28, 2004 07:58 AM | TrackBackContra Costa County Community Services Department
Family circumstances: Father unemployed.
Name Age Gift Requests T** 29 clothes, pants, shoes, pillows (2), blanket (queen size) M******* 24 shoes, shirts, pots for cokking, sheets (queen size; no preference for color) S***** 4 shoes, pillow, socks, puzzles, books, pajamas D****** 1 pajamas, socks, diapers (size 4), cups, shirts, pillow, educational toy
In the richest country in the world. How sad.
Posted by: old ari at November 28, 2004 12:31 PMJust the opposite, Brad: since no one of us has a lever long enough to move the world, we are much more likely to make a lasting impression on the world in which we live by taking a bite-sized chunk out of the problem.
Posted by: diddy at November 28, 2004 05:11 PMClearly, they just have tried hard enough. Otherwise, they only have themselves to blame for their predicament, particularly the one and four year olds. Puzzles? The kid should be trying to acquire some marketable skill. At least the one year old wants an educational toy.
On a more serious, less compassionate conservative note, I side with Diddy here. I've basically given up on donating to organized charities, particularly ones which venture anywhere near any organized religion (with a few exceptions such as Habitat which really isn't a charity). I'll find a local charity whose track record I know and donate to it - United Way be damned.
I guess the final straw was when I found out the salvageable clothing we dutifully donated to Goodwill was more often sold to the needy and quite possibly shipped to sweatshops in Guatemala, et. al. as rags.
Pardon the rant. The season does it to me.
Posted by: Charles M at November 28, 2004 05:37 PMCharles M, allow me to recommend America's Secod Harvest. They are the organization that stands behind most local organizations and has pioneered innovative programs to get food that is about to go bad at the grocery store into humgry stomachs at local soup kitchens.
Posted by: Charles at November 28, 2004 06:51 PMI agree about United Way. We support a number of organizations, but particularly Second Harvest and Habitat.
Posted by: Ben Langhinrichs at November 28, 2004 07:16 PMHow isn't Habitat a charity?
Posted by: Julian Elson at November 28, 2004 09:09 PMcount me among the contrarians: I'd rather see my money spent locally (for a charity or a shop) than sent out of town only to return as a fraction of what I contributed/spent.
Posted by: paul at November 28, 2004 10:09 PMHow isn't Habitat a charity?
250 hours sweat equity. At any reasonable rate for unskilled construction labor (and the labor, as used, is actually quite skilled), this is at least $2000 and probably closer to $4000. Plus, the house isn't given to you - you pay for it. They just eschew any profit.
Thanks for the referrals to Second Harvest. I'll check into it.
Posted by: Charles M at November 28, 2004 10:27 PMPaul, America's Second Harvest directs your money to your local charity.
They don't take a cut. It's really quite innovative and inspiring.
Posted by: Charles at November 29, 2004 08:23 AMDon't forget about local churches and religious groups -- they tend to have a better usage ratio than organizations that have to provide for their administrative costs directly from the donated dollar. Groups like the Lutheran Church's LINC outreach program are also pretty good at finding innovative charitable program opportunities.
If you want to act globally, consider the IRC's national office for international refugee aid. If you want to help refugees locally, please make sure you give directly to your local IRC office -- money paid to the IRC's umbrella unit doesn't make its way to the local offices, though local money is still required to find its way up. (Actually, IRC is pretty awful to its local offices, but they do such good work that my complaints are halfhearted.)
Posted by: WatchfulBabbler at November 29, 2004 09:42 AMDear Brad,
This is a very poignant posting. But your comment about acting locally vs. globally can't help but make me think, why is it so universally assumed among economists -- or is it? -- that local decision-making will always lead to the global optimum? There are lots of systems a whole lot less complicated than the economy for which that isn't true...