There’s a very provocative article on the New York Times website that criticizes Steve Jobs for his supposed lack of charitable giving.
Surprisingly, there is one thing that Mr. Jobs is not, at least not yet: a prominent philanthropist. Despite accumulating an estimated $8.3 billion fortune through his holdings in Apple and a 7.4 percent stake in Disney (through the sale of Pixar), there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity. He is not a member of the Giving Pledge, the organization founded by Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates to persuade the nation’s wealthiest families to pledge to give away at least half their fortunes. (He declined to participate, according to people briefed on the matter.) Nor is there a hospital wing or an academic building with his name on it. …the lack of public philanthropy by Mr. Jobs — long whispered about, but rarely said aloud — raises some important questions about the way the public views business and business people at a time when some “millionaires and billionaires” are criticized for not giving back enough… In 2006, in a scathing column in Wired, Leander Kahney, author of “Inside Steve’s Brain,” wrote: “Yes, he has great charisma and his presentations are good theater. But his absence from public discourse makes him a cipher. People project their values onto him, and he skates away from the responsibilities that come with great wealth and power.”
But why, to address Leander Kahney’s criticism, should we assume that Mr. Jobs has done nothing for the poor? He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the hands of people other than himself. And that doesn’t even begin to count how consumers have benefited from his products, the jobs he has created, and the indirect positive impact of his company on suppliers and retailers.
To give credit where credit is due, the article does present this counter-argument. It reports that Mr. Jobs told friends, “that he could do more good focusing his energy on continuing to expand Apple than on philanthropy.”
This is a critical point. Do we want highly talented entrepreneurs and investors dropping out of the private sector and giving their money away after they’ve reached a certain point, say $5 billion. Or do we want them to focus on creating more wealth and prosperity?
Interestingly, Warren Buffett used to understand this point (before he started arguing that politicians could more effectively spend his money). And Carlos Slim Helu still does.
Mr. Jobs, 56 years old, is not alone in his single-minded focus on work over philanthropy. It wasn’t until Mr. Buffett turned 75 that he turned his attention to charity, saying that he was better off spending his time allocating capital at Berkshire Hathaway — where he believed he could create even greater wealth to give away — than he would ever be at devoting his energies toward running a foundation. And last year, Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican telecommunications billionaire, defended his lack of charity and his refusal to sign the Giving Pledge. “What we need to do as businessmen is to help to solve the problems, the social problems,” he said in an interview on CNBC. “To fight poverty, but not by charity.”
None of this is to say that charitable giving is wrong. I’m proud to say that my employer, the Cato Institute, refuses to accept money from government. This means we are completely dependent of private philanthropy.
But those of us who work at Cato understand that creating wealth – maximizing the size of the economic pie – is the most important priority. And if the pie is big, generous people then have more ability to make contributions to worthy causes such as school choice scholarship funds, the Salvation Army, or (ahem) America’s best think tank.
[…] Punitive tax policies that discourage job creation and productivity advances. […]
[…] And the pursuit of profit is what generates efficiency, which is economic jargon for higher living standards. And that’s good for rich people and poor people. […]
[…] And the pursuit of profit is what generates efficiency, which is economic jargon for higher living standards. And that’s good for rich people and poor people. […]
[…] And the pursuit of profit is what generates efficiency, which is economic jargon for higher living standards. And that’s good for rich people and poor people. […]
[…] People with lots of income and wealth, by contrast, generally work very hard to offer goods and services of value to society, so they actually earn their riches. […]
[…] wise (i.e., profitable) investments. Because getting a healthy return on his investments would be the best possible evidence that he was helping the […]
[…] state is injurious and that it is more effective to focus on policies such as school choice, economic growth, and occupational […]
[…] state is injurious and that it is more effective to focus on policies such as school choice, economic growth, and occupational […]
[…] he’s not just doing what’s right from his band’s perspective, he’s also doing what’s right for the rest of us as […]
[…] not just doing what’s right from his band’s perspective, he’s also doing what’s right for the rest of us as […]
If you can help me to stay and work in America,i will be very grateful and i will worship you.it is my dream,thanks
It is always good helping the poor but in Nigeria the rich people oppress and suppress the poor thereby increasing poverty rate.i luv ur article.
HAVE A NICE DAY
DEAR if you have wish to help me perchase a house. l wll be thankful to you.JAVED ANWER
MY EMAIL ADDRESS
jaksufi12@yahoo.com
There already is charity in his name… free cell phones are going out to “needy” in the midwest… And lets not forget he could be donating anonymously… as stated above, he’s not seeking glory or recognition for his generosity.
It takes 20 Steve Jobs, or more to the point, Apple Corporations to make 1,000,000 US jobs.
PS: I’ll bet his brilliant mind has thought more about value and life and contibution while on this earth than the average bear. Judge not, as you may be judged as the old saying goes. I worry less about what people do in private than what they do in public.
Mr.Jobs can rest assured that he has made a great contribution.
excuse me, I had the privilege, that should read.
I had the privileged to attend a Jesuit university in the Midwest and I am absolutely sickened by this whole theme of “Social Justice.” It’s socialism with a Vatican II twist. All they do is brainwash you about “Social Justice” being an avenue to God and spiritual enlightenment. It’s complete bullshit.
What a crock of shit. There are literally hundreds of ways to help the down-trodden in society without giving a dime. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate old clothes, etc.
Steve Jobs and thousands of other Americans have put in the hours, have been smart with their money and have created jobs for millions of Americans.
Their service is noted.
Oh but Mr Jobs is not against giving to what he thinks are worthy institutions; he has contributed at least $228 thousand to democrats and democrat causes! http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php
Couldn’t agree more. Growth over time — and relentlessly compounding — dwarfs all other factors when it comes to prosperity. If humanity’s growth rate had been a mere 10% less throughout history we would now be finally achieving the prosperity levels of 1650. Had it been 10% more, we might very well be facing a life expectancy of 200+ years or have even unraveled the process of aging altogether.
—————————
But 5 billion the cutoff point? What about 5 million and retire at 43? If you have ever been there, the tropical waters are full of French people on yachts with just barely 5 million in the bank. They own 5-6 apartments in housing supply restricted, communally planned Paris and live moderately wealthy lives on the proceeds. Amongst them are the French Steve Jobses that might have been, the ones you never came to hear of, because they increased the pie by a much smaller amount, not motivated enough to swim against a 60%-70% tax rate, too regulated to be worldwide competitive, and unable to find enthusiastic employees because their countrymen have similarly blunted pecuniary incentives.
—————
Now, in Bill Gate’s case, I understand his feeling of guilt. After all, he gave the world DOS. 🙂
Who really knows of Mr Job’s gift giving? There are those who’s faith precludes them form identifing themselves in their giving. The thought is that if one gives and the name is associated, there is no gain in the hereafter as the gain has been in this life.(it is done for show, not charity) I think some folks act like they are really contributing, but I would refer them to Christ’s parable about the poor woman who gives a few small coins, but it is all she has, versus the rich man who gives what he would like others to think is a great gift, when he feels no sacrifice.