We are Generation Breakthrough - formerly known as Generation Y. We are creative, determined, and entrepreneurial. Join the movement to embrace these qualities, so we can redefine success, and ultimately our impact on the world. Let’s redefine our generation as “Generation Breakthrough.” |
Member Login
| Is It Ethical To Make Millions Off Poverty? [Blog Action Day] |
 |
| Written by Mike Fogel | |
| Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:01 | |
|
[This posting has been written in participation of "Blog Action Day: 2008 Poverty" ]  Can you sip Pina Colada's in Cabo while also building Community Centers in Calcutta? Could such a thing ever be ethical, or more importantly beneficial for society at large? That's exactly what many of us in Generation Breakthrough are posed to prove in our lives. Yesterday I read an article in the local section of the Washington Post about the increased tendency for Generation Y to forgo high paying, ladder climbing, corporate jobs, to instead found and develop their own charitable organizations. The article, "For this Generation, Vocations of Service", focused on Drew Chafetz, 25, who founded a 50 volunteer nonprofit that helps build safe soccer fields in developing nations, where children normally play in dangerous streets or landfills. Drew's efforts shows the tremendous passion and persistence of an entrepreneur, but the article makes no mention of Drew making ANY money, explaining that he actually has to live with his parents. I have a problem with this scenario; the valuable contributions of a great person like Drew should offer him decent, if not exemplary, rewards. Sure, Drew's success proves his entrepreneurial chops, indicating he could later start a profitable business. But I would rather he continue his currently socially valuable passion, or perhaps even expand it. And the only way to ensure such a nonprofit's sustainability or growth, is to maintain its founders' motivation and availability of time... this means making plenty of money. Therefore, as a society, we should accept that success in social entrepreneurism, should equate into the same financial fortunes of successful traditional for-profit businesses. Besides, who else is more deserving of wealth, than selfless passionate individuals? An all too common alternative are those who make money at the direct expense of others. Some people view the world's wealth as a pie chart: in order for them to make more, they feel they must take it away from others. This might have been true during the Dark Ages, when feudal lords had to plunder one another to increase their riches. But since Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations", we know a little better. The greatest riches come when we expand the size of the entire pie! When the pie gets bigger, not only does your portion grow, but so does that of others. Social entrepreneurs can use this principle to raise others out of poverty, an incredibly noble act, and at the same time, improve their own comfort and prosperity. This is actually one of the founding principles of GenerationBreakthrough.com. Although Generation Breakthrough LLC isn't a non-profit, we believe that through our efforts supporting and encouraging others to not only improve their own lives, but the lives of others, that in turn we, the founders, will benefit in all those positive ways as well. Of course, this isn't to say that a social entrepreneurs should covertly skim money from their charities. All compensations should be fully disclosed. And it goes with out saying that the cause should receive many times the financial gain of its organizer. Which is far better than the publicly accepted marketing tools that huge corporations abuse, like Yoplait's "Save Lids to Save Lives" or Product(RED), that are implemented to take advantage of consumers' compassion to reap greater profits. I'm pretty certain that most people would have no problems donating money to an organization that admits some reasonable portion goes towards supporting the lifestyle of the people who devote their energy to benefiting others. Someone should do it, and unless it can sustain their capabilities and motivation, it can't continue to generate that benefit for others. Do you agree? For example, would you be willing to to donate to a charity that feeds a community of homeless people, and still allowed its founder to only work 2 days a week? Share your comments below! Bookmark with:
Trackback(0)
Comments (1)
 Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
2) There are already some very large beneficial organizations that are also very financially successful (ie."making plenty of money"). Some people believe that WALMART does an enormous benefit by forcing its suppliers to cut costs so that the savings can be passed on to the struggling consumer. I'd also bet that Pfizer (the drug company that markets viagra) is pretty proud of the benefit they provide to society while making an enormous profit. Lets not forget Ray Croc (founder of McDonald's). Oops, maybe I went to far, this week we believe that he caused an obesity epidemic (rather than providing billions of inexpensive meals that people seem to love).
Remember though: "I could be wrong".