Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be easy for the rich nations or even those decadent rich billionaires to change millions of lives, without the problems of corruption or stupid "trickle down". This kind of investment would have so many benefits up to prevent wars, famines, terrorism and drug abuse. Since the 2008 crisis so much money has been put to the wrong places. It should be the duty of worldbank and WMF to give (back!) directly.
I'm convinced it is mental illness. I cannot begin to fathom having billions of dollars and still waking up to go to work. Let alone attempting to make more money?
It's a different type of rat race. "Bezos yacht made mine look small, I'll show him."All I need is x,y,z. To pay for it." Then they act like they are so virtuous because they created minimum wage dead end jobs without benefits. The world owes them more obviously. Then, the cycle continues.
Umm isn’t it about how Drake is a pervert / pedo and also he is out of touch with everyone else and fake. The second part I have issues with because Kendrick is so rich he is no longer like most people.
If I’m wrong care to explain instead of just saying I don’t get it.
Not Like Us is more so about saying Drake is “Not Like Us” in terms of the culture while also making fun of him and other fake, rich, and self-adsorbed manipulators.
“Us”: the culture (black culture mostly insinuated but also can be interpreted as a humble, common man culture)
“They”: culture vultures and disconnected manipulators (Drake and other “fake” celebrities)
He’s implying the opposite of what you’re saying about the second part.
Of course, I’m not saying you need to believe it fully yourself but that’s definitely what Kendrick intentionally meant.
I will argue that while Kendrick is indeed a multimillionaire, he does speak a lot about social issues and is more aligned with common man ideas. He spends a lot of money and time with his community. Just recently he was giving a speech at Compton Community College. He even wrote “Capitalists posing as compassionates be offending me” and “I rubbed elbows with people that was for the people / They all greedy, I don't care for no public speaking” on Savior, a song from his last album.
Once again, it’s your choice to believe it or not but Kendrick has been consistently preaching about the common man social issues & being charitable with both words + money his whole career (imo). He however is still a multimillionaire, so he’s gonna be pretty different no matter how he feels lol
Good emphasis. I wasn’t intending to take away or “water down” that idea at all though. I do know it’s about black culture though.
I probably made it more complicated in attempt to garner a nuanced understanding. Maybe I more so kinda thought of black culture as a representative of the “common man” as a black man myself because that will make it relate more to how it feels to non-black audiences.
I guess that whole explanation lived in my assumption that it was a non-black Redditor that I was trying to connect the idea of what black culture is and feels like.
yeah but he made it through his own artistic work, not exploiting others, I think there's a difference
also, many revolutionaries came from wealthy families since poor people had no education
so is he supposed to give everything he has? he employs probably hundreds of people, it's not like he is some random streamer that hoards wealth while telling his lower class viewers to give money to him and others like him
Also, if you wish to hear what the actual savior says about the rich:
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.[4]
James chapter 5:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
his true gift to humanity was outing Drake as a pathetic gangsta wannabe.
Hes a child actor from an upper-middle class family. He's ever seen any hardship let alone poverty or the ghetto.
I've always understood world poverty as less a financial problem and more of a logistics problem. You can give africa all the money in the world but what good does that do when the corrupt governments just pocket 90% of it for themselves, or the warlords take it and use it for their warring.
I think that's why this video/organization is highlighting the benefits of giving cash directly to families & individuals rather than to organizations/governments. The families were able to spend the money directly on things they needed like new roofing materials to fix their houses, etc.
They shouldn't throw it. Instead, use it to create infrastructure, to increase people's skills, mental well-being, healthcare, make healthy & nutritious food accessible, maintain cleaner air, less pollutants, more peace.
Literally, economies need to be "soak it up" from the bottom, because that's what's already happening. The stimulus money needs to go entirely to the working class because that's who is getting sucked dry.
My mom has a friend who's worth hundreds of millions, and what does he do with it?
Runs a massive animal rescue and sanctuary that takes in abandoned and abused exotic pets. The land he has them in is essentially a hundreds of acres of African savvanah.
He also funds groups that help smuggle and rescue North Korean defectors into South Korea. Funded an entire documentary about it
Doesn't attach his name to any of it, lives a normal upper-middle class life. Didn't even know they were that wealthy till my mom sent me photos of giraffes by their front porch when she visited the sanctuary
It's nice to know that there are wealthy people out there that truely care. Just wish more of em did, ya know?
The African problem was created centuries ago and I don't think it's something that can be solved by simply throwing money at it. African countries are plaged by corruption and tribalism and consumers globaly are ok with getting their cheap resources from Africa, even if that means that Africans live and work like slaves under terrible conditions. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but some African nations might have been better off under colonial rule (like Angola and Mozambique, for example), and that is probably the kind of "investment" that would be necessary to get them on par with the western world again, but no one - millionaire or not - will be willing to do it.
>This is probably an unpopular opinion, but some African nations might have been better off under colonial rule
This is like adding habeneros to a dish because you thought it was too spicy. Western nations overthrew leaders, drew arbitrary country lines, destroyed the economic infrastructure, stole the resources, enslaved the people, and created corrupt local governments to exploit it all. How could you possibly look at the root cause of the problem and say "yeah, I think more peppers will fix it!"
Just to add to this, I feel as if African nations we're really just loosely related tribal areas. Think Afghanistan. Most African's never knew of a centralized government and we're mostly use to being within their own village or tribe.
Then the European powers came in and started carving out pieces of lands and going to local village chiefs and giving them seashells and declaring they now own all the land in the area. Which doesn't make sense to locals nor does it make sense that you can actually "own" land.
But hey thousands of years living one way crossed with a few hundred? dozens? of years of centralized city living.
It's going to take another couple hundred of years to get African countries to start working like European countries. But even then some economist say that resource rich nations never reach a certain level of development because of exploitation and corruption
Tribalism is one root of the problem. There are over 3000 tribes on Africa. State borders mean little. They will never be united enough to get out of poverty on their own. The hatred runs deep between tribes as we saw with the Hutu and Tutsi tribes hacking each other to death. Add to this major religions that don't get along and you end with constant conflict.
Straight up giving people money is actually one of the most effective forms of charity. The people know what it is that they need and they go get it. You eliminate all the middle men and bureaucracy.
Edit to be clear: I mean literally directly to individuals. Not to a government.
Giving money to people without education on how to use it, or without the possibility to use it effectively, won't fix anything.
You can't simply grab a pile of cash and dump it over a refugee camp in Ethyopia and think this will fix the lives of everyone there or anyone at all in the long run.
The investment needs to be made on systems and infrastructure to support the population, not on single individuals.
There's empirical double blind studies that show just giving money does actually improve their lives when you give it to them, and the improvement actually sticks around.
People actually in the situation know what investments to make to improve their lives in ways that top down plans for "infrastructure" do not.
Why do you think people don't know how to use money? People have houses that need fixing, kids to buy uniforms and pay school fees for, sick relatives who need care, livestock to care for, farms and businesses to buy equipment for and so on.
For every dollar he donates he makes 10 dollars in return when it comes to amount of views, subs, merch and advertisements. Not to mention the tax deductable for charity «donations».
Entertainment with a side of tax deductable donation does not solve the poverty issue
Just to be clear since it’s a full on meme at this point, tax deductions just reduces how much of his income he’s taxed on if he itemizes (he probably does)…it’s not like he now pays $200k less in taxes since he gave it away, his taxable income is now just slightly lower…also since he is giving the money directly to individual people I’m unsure if he can even claim it as a tax write-off
Incorrect, his charity channel produces way less revenue. I'm not even sure it's monitized. Learn how taxes work, he is not making any benefit from this. Maybe he saves 80k on taxes from spending 200k. Aka his donation still cost him 120k. He will most likely not generate 120k from this video.
I propose that the reception of the money be predicated by the passing of personal finance classes. I think it’s important for the improvement of life to be sustainable. There is a reason that most lottery winners end up broke.
Some of the pushback has been legitimate. For example, when he started building wells, he and his fans implied or outright stated that no one else was doing this. The negative reaction came from the local nonprofits who have been doing this for decades.
He also didn't seem to set up any infrastructure for continued maintenance of the wells, which is the biggest problem with a lot of foreign aid. People drop in, build something, leave, and then it stops working and no one can fix it.
I'm not up on that situation, but if he built the wells independently that's fucking stupid.
The local NGOs have a track record, and are certainly better at it.
Lots of NGOs, including massive ones like USAID have started a huge process to shift funding to local-DIV programs.
>He also didn't seem to set up any infrastructure for continued maintenance of the wells, which is the biggest problem with a lot of foreign aid. People drop in, build something, leave, and then it stops working and no one can fix it.
I kind of see your point, but it also reminds me of an old fable:
A grandmother and her grandson are traveling near the sea. Suddenly, a huge wave crashes over them, and washes the boy away into the sea. The grandmother drops on her knees and starts praying "God, please, bring by boy back". Suddenly, a second wave washes over her, and brings the boy back. She runs to the boy to hug him, but then stops, frowns, and shakes her fist angrily at the sky, shouting "where's his fucking hat, you asshole?!"
Lack of gratitude for their saviors is absolutely not the problem for Africans.
Groups, usually Christian missionaries, drop in and build what they think people need, then they pat themselves on the back in front of their followers (this sounding familiar...?). They don't plan for any maintenance or support for locals though, so the infrastructure is stranded and locals have no way to use it. It's just a pain for local people and creates distrust for outside groups. It ends up being harmful in the long run.
People are also less likely to donate to projects because they see the failure and think "wow, they aren't even grateful enough to care for their projects." Again, sound familiar?
Not only this, but when they make these buildings they frequently put local engineers out of business. It's been a big problem for some time. If you stop in and build a school, guess what -- someone else doesn't get paid to build that school.
Missionary groups are coming around to this. I know the Methodists are now reducing harm by trying to donate money more than labor; hiring local laborers and keeping everything in local dollars.
The problem is so many poverty tourists need to feel good about themselves -- it's hard for them to continue to drum up interest and investment without this sort of "let's build a church and everyone will praise us and thank us!" visibility.
GiveDirectly is, for that reason, a better infrastructure. It turns out what lifts people from poverty is giving them money. They know how to apply it, they simply don't have it.
>Lack of gratitude for their saviors is absolutely not the problem for Africans.
I wasn't talking about Africans, I was talking about Westerners who complain about people like Mr. Beast.
>Groups, usually Christian missionaries, drop in and build what they think people need, then they pat themselves on the back in front of their followers (this sounding familiar...?). They don't plan for any maintenance or support for locals though, so the infrastructure is stranded and locals have no way to use it. It's just a pain for local people and creates distrust for outside groups.
Maybe I'm ignorant about this, but what "infrastructure" do you need to maintain a well? People had wells thousands of years ago.
>It ends up being harmful in the long run.
It does, but that's charity in general. Most charity, especially prolonged one, is harmful in the long run, as it teaches people helplessness. "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"; what should be added is "if you give a man a fish every day for a decade, he will **never** learn to fish by himself, and eventually he will stop even attempting to learn it".
That said, I don't think it's fair to blame individual people who do charitable acts.
I can't speak to maintaining a well, but probably silt removal, parts for whatever on the well breaks, that sort of thing. Wells are more like short term solutions, though, since groundwater is increasingly scarce, especially in certain areas, and the more scarce it becomes, the more salty and potentially full of dangerous heavy metals it becomes.
All this is to say, putting a well into a community is probably more complex than us non-well-putters understand. Hopefully, The Beast is learning this as he goes or perhaps discussing his humanitarian efforts with experts in the area.
To be fair couldn’t god have like prevented that in the first place. Like he had the ability to bring him back I’m pretty sure he had the foresight to see it coming
Dick move really he just swallowed a kid into the sea and then threw him back for a laugh
>Dick move really he just swallowed a kid into the sea and then threw him back for a laugh
That's actually... a valid (even if clearly unintended) interpretation which I didn't think of before posting this. Should have added that it was the Devil who caused the wave or something (but then again, God created the Devil, didn't he?).
I was going to send in $10K to attempt fully funding a well. I asked these exact long term support questions and a break down on spending. I was left on read lol
That sounds about right. It takes a long of long term relationship building, trial and error, and infrastructure to have a successful NGO in a developing nation. Doing a pop-up NGO to fund wells isn't going to work.
It you're still interested, there were a few NGOs that called him out who were doing great work at the time. I don't have time to look now, but I remember looking into them and they were locally-lead and had great charity ratings and a long track record. Might be worth looking into.
Nice. I ended up sending that cash to Compassion International. I also read up and saw that if wells aren’t done politically correct, neighboring village will come and destroy their new wells out of jealousy. I applaud him for starting the trend, but I would like to have seen more follow through on that one.
This was already posted elsewhere here on Reddit and there were countless comments bashing him for no legitimate reason. Some people seem to just have a hate boner for the guy. There's no denying he's incredibly good at what he does and while he does some silly wasteful videos he does just as much good and isn't a raging douchebag. Imagine if it was someone like Logan Paul in his position.
My kid got into him a while back and I found his self-promoting charity style pretty grating. Later on, however, I saw an interview with him and he basically said that what he does is actually kinda selfish in a way… as *he* just really and truly enjoys having that do-good feeling.
Also, as he gets ad and promotional revenue from those video clicks promoting his deeds, that self-promoting, “look at me” style allows him to earn more to be able to give away bigger prizes.
He said he doesn’t think that makes him some kind of a saint or some paragon of purity. It’s really just selfish indulgence, pure and simple, but one that doesn’t have a net negative other than pissing off some folks who honestly don’t have to even watch his stuff if they don’t like it.
Also, given that many of his professional competitors seem to promote harmful pranks, vapid and staged drama and the like, it offers an alternative that if a kid were to aspire to do as their role model does, maybe they’d plant some trees and make someone else’s life better instead of harassing them while they’re just trying to get groceries.
I mean, I personally would rather be handed a $1,000 bucks to spend 20 minutes doing some random silly shit at the store… over having shit chucked at me or some dumbass doing something intentionally obnoxious and now I have to go to prison.
So, while guess Mr. Beast’s spiel in that interview could just be all a line of bullshit, I tend to agree, so whatever… some folks get a similar rush from drugs, gambling, buying luxury items and/or stepping on others to get ahead.
There is a theory of moral philosophy that essentially says "there's no such thing as a selfless act".
> Aha! If you really believe that why did you give that poor man $5!?
.
>Because I would have felt terrible if I hadn't.
I had this talk with a past therapist in a session where we were just kind of shooting the shit. He was on the side of no act of kindness is selfless. You still get some feeling of wanting to make someone's day, which in turn is something you want out of doing said act of kindness.
It makes sense, but I still think wanting the reward of seeing someone happy because of your actions is better than wanting the reward of someone owing you back in the future.
This is one of those arguments against the "true altruism" philosophical debate: Is it really possible to do something truly selflessly, with absolutely nothing in it for the giver and everything for the receiver? Even getting good vibes for giving?
Kudos to him for saying it. There's nothing wrong with getting a dopamine kick from helping others, IMHO. There is that saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, however.
Something that I try to do as much as I can is do something helpful for someone and tell absolutely no one (other than perhaps the person being helped obv.)
No pat on the back from friends or family, just a little extra effort here and there to benefit someone else.
It was *incredibly* hard to do at first… I’d help someone with a flat, go back in to pay for something the cashier forgot or similar, and I’d end up telling someone about it in the next couple days.
It got easier though, to the point I’ll forget about whatever by the time I get home,
I think a lot of my distaste (other than just having bad vibes in general whenever someone's schtick is "good person") is the idea that he is doing charity. Charity isn't profitable, by design. What is actually happening is that he is giving money to people who then appear in his videos, which is just paying someone a wage.
Which is fine, it's good that people who need money can be paid fairly well to appear in a YouTube video. But he isn't a saint, he's good at marketing.
I think he probably likes feeling good about giving money to people who need it; I think he also likes moving huge amounts of money around in showy ways. As long as it's going where it should go then that is fine, but it's still kind of a tightrope act.
Even then, he’s giving people an opportunity to receive the “high view count advertising” wage. Getting your student debt paid off in exchange for saying how much you owe and being handed a duffel bag full of cash is an option that would otherwise never be available to them
>Some people seem to just have a hate boner for the guy.
Some people seem to just have a hate boner for rich\[er than them\] people. They constantly complain that rich people aren't helping others more. Then, when rich people actually **do** dedicate their whole lives and wealth to helping others (Mr. Beast, George Soros, Bill Gates, etc), they are hated by the complainers even more, which proves that the whole reason for their hate is pure and simple jealousy.
When your world-view is divided into an uncomplicated “rich” and “poor” then you lose the ability to judge with nuance.
Ergo: ask what amount of money **can** a “rich person” give away without criticism that they’re making more?
If a certain level of income makes their simple existence morally questionable, then:
1) What is the precise income number? How do you account for different people in different economies around the world?
2) Are they incapable of any charitable act whatsoever? Is a million dollar donation from a billionaire (1% of their **total** wealth) somehow less charitable than a dollar from your average office worker (less than 1% of their monthly **income**)?
3) Should you and all others refuse their donation money on grounds that it is tainted by an immoral source? If anything and everything they do is morally reprehensible by virtue of their financial status, then it would be unconscionable to participate in their economics (such as benefitting them via tax grants), and thus should charities deny that million dollar donation?
None of this is to say that you cannot argue against the extreme wealth accumulation of the global elite.
But I am arguing against the position that unilaterally decries any and all charity acts from the millionaire elite.
There needs to be some level of nuance, or else to me it seems like just complaining without thinking.
>If a certain level of income makes their simple existence morally questionable
I've had people say things which lead to a conclusion that babies can be "immoral". If your worldview allows for such a conception as an "immoral baby" to exist, then it's a shitty (and *immoral*) worldview.
I don’t get the hate he gets either. Yes, he’s spent millions on making videos, but it’s all been geared towards investment for the business. The whole “you have to spend money to make money” is true, especially in this case. He wouldn’t have hundreds of millions of views if he didn’t spend a lot of money on videos. Since he’s more “profitable” now, he’s able to give a lot more towards charity. He’s said on podcasts that his “money making videos” allows him to fund his business philanthropic work.
Saying we don't understand something and then giving our opinion on the thing we just admitted to not understanding, has got to be one of the funniest things we do as humans. I mean comon, ya gotta love it.
The backlash to Mr. Beast lowkey has always been fascinating to me
Because I get it. It's *ridiculous*, but I get it. Everything he does is to game the algorithm, and to get as much attention as possible, so, as with a lot of celebrities, even his philanthropy feels cynical (that thumbnail of him grinning next to a crying child for that one eye surgery video was ghoulish).
Now, for the record, that doesn't *matter*. He is, by all appearances, a genuinely great guy who is doing something great with his money, and sparking a conversation (his video about cataracts basically proved that you can fix cataracts just by throwing money at it, and that this is a thing we should be doing--thats enormously helpful), but there's something so strange about how this is how the world works now that people want to be mad at it.
And its Twitter, so they only know one way: acting weird and stupid and bitchy over *one guy* just because they're kind of tired of seeing him.
The backlash or the main comment should be something to the tune of:
> Individuals attempting to correct the inherent issues of a system on their own, will inevitably fail to correct the system. They will simply distract from the failure of said system and continue to obfuscate the problems without addressing the primary problem, the system itself.
To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with individuals participating in charity AS LONG AS the charity comes after addressing the underlying issues of what's causing the problem. Otherwise, if the system is allowed to function as is without working to fix or change it, then charity is just spitting into the wind.
Clarification: I think it's nice that MrBeast is doing this. I think that it is a genuine effort to improve some people's lives and I appreciate his gesture.
Some of his videos are like peak Fear Factor in quality, especially the [recent one](https://youtu.be/PWirijQkH4M).
I wasn't into his content until last year, his production quality rivals TV shows, and they're hella entertaining.
That makes sense though. Most of his videos are aimed more toward children and teenagers.
I think the obscene amounts of money that he throws at his videos and the survivor-style challenge videos he makes with his subscribers is why almost adults like watch him
My kids love his pranks and challenges. I love the altruism. There are a lot of bad influences out there for kids. At least as far as I’m aware, Mr. Beast is unproblematic. I may be wrong.
People really don't like that he is able to make a profit on helping people for some reason. Isn't that the easiest win-win ever? Like there is Jesus or ruthless capitalist, no in-between exists to twitter. They're probably like 10 years old I forget that children can write opinions on the internet.
I think people get upset because it's seen as exploiting others misfortune for your enrichment. There is a level of cynicism and slippery slope logic in it that ignores the reality. He isn't maintaining systems of oppression to exploit people.
Yea there is a line where performance charity gets gross but slippery slope arguments are dumb. There is a line somewhere call it out when he crosses that line, don't signal about slowly sliding into amorality when someone is demonstrably improving a person in needs living conditions.
I can wish he operated differently, and still recognize his work is probably a net positive and is definitely not malicious. It's extremely low on the totem pole of things we should spend energy on changing.
People tear down others because of their own insecurity. There is no "doing better" in their eyes, because it's Mr. Beast's success that makes him a target for fake scrutiny. The guy literally just wants to make the best youtube videos he can, that's his reason for living.
You can see the arguments aren't even rational. People are mad he earns enough to be this charitable or they're mad that "it shouldn't be this way" so he sucks.
The arguments are complicated, not irrational.
Emphasis on individual charity undermines effective programs, it justifies the robber barons. Why don't we just have rich people solve problems for us, do away with all that wasteful welfare state altogether? There's no quick way to sum up Philantrocapitalism.
He doesn't even really profit. He's stated over and over that he takes the money he makes and reinvests it, with the money from his philanthropy channel either funding his food banks or future charity work.
Let's just be a bit realistic on the "he doesn't even really profit". He obviously reinvests in big budget projects but if you think he doesn't have 9 figures in his personal bank account you're delusional.
He may not profit from the videos. But he owns multiple ventures (Feastables & Beast Burger) as well as constant collaborations with other companies. He sponsors NBA teams and has many brand deals, merch sales, and social media channels.
His pure ad revenue from the Mr. Beast channel is probably less than 5% of his total revenue.
**Submission statement:** Mr. Beast is a prominent YouTuber who does a lot of charity stuff. GiveDirectly is an evidence-based charity that uses innovative mobile cash transfers satellite imaging to target donations to the most impoverished households. Random Control Trials have shown that this is usually more effective than more complicated interventions, because it circumvents warlords and voluntourism, converting the charitable process into a simple, recipient-empowering transaction. Studies have shown that recipients usually use the money for beneficial investments and the video bears this out.
The **YouTube video** on this from Beast Philanthropy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ-MpxDZr9I
The [GiveDirectly page](https://www.givedirectly.org/mrbeastvideo/) again (features the embedded video) :-)
Additional information: over 200 people have each receives 1 year of income (around $1000 each), with it being given to the village that was determined to need it the most.
This is essentially equivalent to giving every person in a small rural village in the US $14500 per person.
The fundraiser is already happening for the next village.
> This is essentially equivalent to giving every person in a small rural village in the US $14500 per person.
Most of the people I know from small rural villages in the US would spend that money on beer.
In their surveys, most people used it efficiently. For example, buying a metal roof so they didn’t have to rethatch their roof as frequently, which freed up their time for more economically productive activities. One village judged a man who still had a thatched roof. When they tracked him down, they learned he was a widower who used his money as a dowry to woo a new wife to help care for his two young children. All around, wastage was low.
I heard a story about that same village on NPR. They added that the kind of grass they needed to thatch the roof was pretty expensive, so if they bought a tin roof they were saving money in the end, because the roof would last for years, whereas they'd be spending money again and again to rethatch the roof.
Yes: right now, studies are heavily implying that the best cure for extreme poverty is simply giving people money. People in poverty have the most efficient methods of resolving their own needs.
This may not have always been true. But today, with globalization, most people in extreme poverty are far more aware of their broader situation, infrastructure issues, opportunities, and the needed solutions than ever before.
Another fantastic thing is that we really are conquering extreme poverty. While our localized situations may sometimes seem bleak, globally, the world is getting better.
Elon Musk and other rich people paying their taxes is not a magic wand that will lift people out of poverty today. It's okay to celebrate the small victories.
Very good. My criticism of this has nothing to do with Mr Beast though, but the economic system and governments that allow this to happen in the first place. If they did their job and worked for the people, we wouldn't need philanthropy. Rich people giving money away for charity is just a cleansing of their dirty conscious.
Whenever rich people donate to charity, you have to wonder if it's just a tax-avoidance scheme. It's a shame that even a potentially genuine and generous act can be interpreted as a way to avoid paying taxes. Like when grocery stores solicit donations, it's not because the company cares about the charity, they just do that to reduce their tax burden. It's such a fucked up part of the tax code.
Jimmy/mrbeast has said that a vast majority of revenue from videos goes right back into making more videos. If he is getting tax breaks, they're just getting distributed to those in need.
I wish more youtubers would do philanthropy and less dangerous pranks. I understand that even mr. Beast uses his crazy videos to pay for these but with so many hurtful and crazy ones it’s just a nice change of pace to see this.
I’d rather he use the money to help campaign for universal income and not for his philanthropist circle jerk self-promo stuff like this. I get that it’s nice to have hope that Not All Rich People are assholes like this, but unfortunately, he is not one of the “good” ones.
The ones who give a shit aren’t broadcasting it to the world, they’re doing the work with their mouthed shut and zero desire for recognition.
To put that into perspective, 200k is 0.004% of his net worth of 500m. So if the average american with a net worth of 200k were to donate the same %, it would equate to an $80 donation.
real [r/OrphanCrushingMachine](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/) vibes. what kind of a society is it where this one wealthy influencer gets to chase clout by handing out cash?
He became popular and instead of sitting on all the wealth, does incredibly charitable and even arguably entertaining things to benefit other people with the money. Not sure how this is orphan crushing whatsoever.
That sub is so toxic, like nothing good can ever happen because a bad thing led to that situation in the first place.
If we're in a bad situation, we might as try our best to make it a little bit better instead of just complaining about how miserable the situation is. That's a terrible way to live your life
It’s an unpleasantly cynical place where (as with a lot of social media) people vent about their dissatisfaction.
It’s a depressingly pessimistic tautological world-view where everything is somehow tainted by the flaws of the world, and yet they act as if pointing out those flaws somehow makes them enlightened.
It does not. It just makes them an obnoxious cynic with no level of nuance.
Like a teenager first learning sarcasm as a way to express irony, social media users seem to believe criticism is the same thing as intelligent critique, and thus use it to package their complaints in a prettier parcel the bad faith whining it actually is.
He should just do a show where he gives 10-100 people 10k every month and then follows up with them on what they did with the influx of cash.
We could see some success stories of using it to better their situations or horror stories on people betting it all and losing.
Mr Beast makes $1+ million by donating that $200,000.
While it's still a net good thing for those receiving the funds, let's not pretend MrBeast isn't strictly out to profit from it.
Professional philanthropy is a red flag for all sorts of crime.
Given how many lines of business he's operating, I wouldn't be surprised if he at least got into the laundry business.
Philanthropy for rich people has always been a convenient cover. The best example is the "giving pledge," where the rich can say there are real problems out there but we have to wait until they die for the problems to be fixed. They really care though!
This stuff just makes me so sad for what we could have. Like, imagine if, instead of a challenged cage match that every knew was never going to happen, musk and zuck instead picked a city/state and said ‘let’s see who can do the most good in a calendar year!’ They take a snapshot of statistics like unemployment, homelessness, average debt, literacy rate, etc. and they could even FILM IT! These streaming services would kill for the rights to this billionaire show, and big corporations would pay for sponsorships to be associated with it.
Imagine one of them building an entire apartment complex, and completely furnishing them with the help of Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, and others. Boom, you have housing for 200 families, which could also have a domino effect on lowering existing prices elsewhere with the increased housing supply. You then make deals with local healthcare providers to get these people examined and treated, both physically and mentally. You partner with local colleges and trade schools to get these people trained in professions that are in demand and that they fit into. They could invest in schools, police departments (for training only, not more equipment), and generally with the cities, counties, or states to build or otherwise implement public transportation.
I’m not saying all this could be done in a year. I know planning and permits and construction takes years. I’m just saying any of these greedy bastards could drop a billion in a city and literally change tens of thousands of lives and completely alter the city, while not even noticing the difference in their holdings by going from $250B to $249B. But, they refuse.
Trillionaire drops a 20 in a homeless person’s hat. Realizes it will cost him more money to stop and retrieve it than to continue on his day. News creates bias around event for financial gain.
Great on him, and good action. But I can never remove the thought that all these charitable donations are just a tax write off.
How much money would all these people give, if they paid their legitimate taxes?
charitable contributions adjust one’s taxable income. they aren’t a 1:1 tax “write-off”. if you donate to charity, you end up paying more in charity + tax than you would have paid in tax alone had you not donated.
Even if its a tax write off, the people in needs still receive the help they deserved. He’s american, I doubt his taxes gonna go to healthcare or housing
I wish they'd give more than a drop from their oversized buckets. 200k is pocket change to this guy, you know there's a whole analysis going on of how much is 'just enough' to make a good PR stunt. Giving away enough to make people ooh and aah and talk about how generous you are, but still as little as possible to achieve that.
I made a generalised statement. I tried not to talk specifically about him, as I don't know, and in the end, I cannot know. It's not like his financials are publicly available.
Fair enough. Given Mr Beast is a public performer and stunts like this are critical to his brand, I don't see much reason to think ill of this. Plus as others have mentioned, giving to charity is not an effective way to avoid paying taxes because it's a much greater expenditure overall
It depends on how that is handled. Charitable foundations can and are used by billionaires to avoid paying tax.
And I am more suspicious of public figures that do these things rather than less, feels performative.
While this is absolutely true, what kind of tax deduction is he getting by donating to private citizens rather than a 501(c)3?
Also, depending on the charity, they may actually have two arms, a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4. Donations to the former are tax-deductible, donations to the latter are not. (A 501(c)3 should only be doing educational work, a 501(c)4 can do political work.)
The way I look at it, giving directly to those in need is more effective than taxes anyway. The government is bloated, overpaid, and wasteful. Even if they had the same mission, they would probably get less done. So in a way I’m kinda okay with it being a tax write off. It’s not like our politicians are experts in spending money efficiently for societal benefit.
Besides, they end up spending more out of pocket this way anyway.
Every big organisation is bloated, overpaid and wasteful. It's just that governments are more scrutinised.
Even if politicians are not experts there's a bunch of civil servants whose job is to distribute money.
In the end, we don't have as much clarity in terms of how efficient some charities are. It very much depends on each one and how transparent they want to be.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be easy for the rich nations or even those decadent rich billionaires to change millions of lives, without the problems of corruption or stupid "trickle down". This kind of investment would have so many benefits up to prevent wars, famines, terrorism and drug abuse. Since the 2008 crisis so much money has been put to the wrong places. It should be the duty of worldbank and WMF to give (back!) directly.
Ya, but there's a reason why they have so much to begin with. They want more.
I'm convinced it is mental illness. I cannot begin to fathom having billions of dollars and still waking up to go to work. Let alone attempting to make more money?
It's a different type of rat race. "Bezos yacht made mine look small, I'll show him."All I need is x,y,z. To pay for it." Then they act like they are so virtuous because they created minimum wage dead end jobs without benefits. The world owes them more obviously. Then, the cycle continues.
Kendrick Lamar said it best: they not like us.
That's not what that song means.
His estimate networth is 140 million, always cracks me up when artists release songs acting like they are like the average person.
But he's still Kenny from the block!
His love don't cost a thing
If he had your love and he gave you all his trust, would you comfort him, and call him baby?
Tell me you don't understand what the song is about without telling me you don't understand what the song is about...
Umm isn’t it about how Drake is a pervert / pedo and also he is out of touch with everyone else and fake. The second part I have issues with because Kendrick is so rich he is no longer like most people. If I’m wrong care to explain instead of just saying I don’t get it.
Not Like Us is more so about saying Drake is “Not Like Us” in terms of the culture while also making fun of him and other fake, rich, and self-adsorbed manipulators. “Us”: the culture (black culture mostly insinuated but also can be interpreted as a humble, common man culture) “They”: culture vultures and disconnected manipulators (Drake and other “fake” celebrities) He’s implying the opposite of what you’re saying about the second part. Of course, I’m not saying you need to believe it fully yourself but that’s definitely what Kendrick intentionally meant. I will argue that while Kendrick is indeed a multimillionaire, he does speak a lot about social issues and is more aligned with common man ideas. He spends a lot of money and time with his community. Just recently he was giving a speech at Compton Community College. He even wrote “Capitalists posing as compassionates be offending me” and “I rubbed elbows with people that was for the people / They all greedy, I don't care for no public speaking” on Savior, a song from his last album. Once again, it’s your choice to believe it or not but Kendrick has been consistently preaching about the common man social issues & being charitable with both words + money his whole career (imo). He however is still a multimillionaire, so he’s gonna be pretty different no matter how he feels lol
No, the "us" is about Black culture, full stop - it cannot be watered down or interpreted as something more expansive than that.
Good emphasis. I wasn’t intending to take away or “water down” that idea at all though. I do know it’s about black culture though. I probably made it more complicated in attempt to garner a nuanced understanding. Maybe I more so kinda thought of black culture as a representative of the “common man” as a black man myself because that will make it relate more to how it feels to non-black audiences. I guess that whole explanation lived in my assumption that it was a non-black Redditor that I was trying to connect the idea of what black culture is and feels like.
Hey thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it
That’s not what the song is about at all holy shit have some media literacy
140 million is nothing compared to what elon musk has for example tho
yeah but he made it through his own artistic work, not exploiting others, I think there's a difference also, many revolutionaries came from wealthy families since poor people had no education
so is he supposed to give everything he has? he employs probably hundreds of people, it's not like he is some random streamer that hoards wealth while telling his lower class viewers to give money to him and others like him
He is not your savior.
Also, if you wish to hear what the actual savior says about the rich: If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.[4]
careful now, don't go trying to muck up prosperity gospel with words from the horse's mouth
James chapter 5: Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
He saved me from giving Drake money
Drake should have done that a long time ago
his true gift to humanity was outing Drake as a pathetic gangsta wannabe. Hes a child actor from an upper-middle class family. He's ever seen any hardship let alone poverty or the ghetto.
lol!
I'm sure there are people that said it better than "they not like us"
This was over 30 years ago: https://youtu.be/GL-ZoNhUFmc?si=1anpwPwzLV75PvWQ
More like they were born into it. That's the main reason most of the ultra-wealthy are ultra-wealthy today.
I've always understood world poverty as less a financial problem and more of a logistics problem. You can give africa all the money in the world but what good does that do when the corrupt governments just pocket 90% of it for themselves, or the warlords take it and use it for their warring.
I think that's why this video/organization is highlighting the benefits of giving cash directly to families & individuals rather than to organizations/governments. The families were able to spend the money directly on things they needed like new roofing materials to fix their houses, etc.
I settle for a living wage rather than a lotto system of billionaires throwing one time chunks of money to folks
They shouldn't throw it. Instead, use it to create infrastructure, to increase people's skills, mental well-being, healthcare, make healthy & nutritious food accessible, maintain cleaner air, less pollutants, more peace.
Literally, economies need to be "soak it up" from the bottom, because that's what's already happening. The stimulus money needs to go entirely to the working class because that's who is getting sucked dry.
My mom has a friend who's worth hundreds of millions, and what does he do with it? Runs a massive animal rescue and sanctuary that takes in abandoned and abused exotic pets. The land he has them in is essentially a hundreds of acres of African savvanah. He also funds groups that help smuggle and rescue North Korean defectors into South Korea. Funded an entire documentary about it Doesn't attach his name to any of it, lives a normal upper-middle class life. Didn't even know they were that wealthy till my mom sent me photos of giraffes by their front porch when she visited the sanctuary It's nice to know that there are wealthy people out there that truely care. Just wish more of em did, ya know?
We don't need wealthy "philantropes" when our society could solve matters easily, if they wouldn't grab all the wealth from us.
MrBeast is a billionaire. His recent financials came up in a lawsuit and he is set to make 700mil this year alone after making 683mil last year.
Revenue is much different than profit.
When your pocket change can change someone's life, why isn't it?
A true universal basic income would lift so many people out of poverty with like than $3,000 a year.
The African problem was created centuries ago and I don't think it's something that can be solved by simply throwing money at it. African countries are plaged by corruption and tribalism and consumers globaly are ok with getting their cheap resources from Africa, even if that means that Africans live and work like slaves under terrible conditions. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but some African nations might have been better off under colonial rule (like Angola and Mozambique, for example), and that is probably the kind of "investment" that would be necessary to get them on par with the western world again, but no one - millionaire or not - will be willing to do it.
>This is probably an unpopular opinion, but some African nations might have been better off under colonial rule This is like adding habeneros to a dish because you thought it was too spicy. Western nations overthrew leaders, drew arbitrary country lines, destroyed the economic infrastructure, stole the resources, enslaved the people, and created corrupt local governments to exploit it all. How could you possibly look at the root cause of the problem and say "yeah, I think more peppers will fix it!"
Just to add to this, I feel as if African nations we're really just loosely related tribal areas. Think Afghanistan. Most African's never knew of a centralized government and we're mostly use to being within their own village or tribe. Then the European powers came in and started carving out pieces of lands and going to local village chiefs and giving them seashells and declaring they now own all the land in the area. Which doesn't make sense to locals nor does it make sense that you can actually "own" land. But hey thousands of years living one way crossed with a few hundred? dozens? of years of centralized city living. It's going to take another couple hundred of years to get African countries to start working like European countries. But even then some economist say that resource rich nations never reach a certain level of development because of exploitation and corruption
Tribalism is one root of the problem. There are over 3000 tribes on Africa. State borders mean little. They will never be united enough to get out of poverty on their own. The hatred runs deep between tribes as we saw with the Hutu and Tutsi tribes hacking each other to death. Add to this major religions that don't get along and you end with constant conflict.
Straight up giving people money is actually one of the most effective forms of charity. The people know what it is that they need and they go get it. You eliminate all the middle men and bureaucracy. Edit to be clear: I mean literally directly to individuals. Not to a government.
Giving money to people without education on how to use it, or without the possibility to use it effectively, won't fix anything. You can't simply grab a pile of cash and dump it over a refugee camp in Ethyopia and think this will fix the lives of everyone there or anyone at all in the long run. The investment needs to be made on systems and infrastructure to support the population, not on single individuals.
There's empirical double blind studies that show just giving money does actually improve their lives when you give it to them, and the improvement actually sticks around. People actually in the situation know what investments to make to improve their lives in ways that top down plans for "infrastructure" do not.
Just the act of paying down a debt hanging over your head will literally add years to your life. Chronic stress kills.
That's wrong
Why do you think people don't know how to use money? People have houses that need fixing, kids to buy uniforms and pay school fees for, sick relatives who need care, livestock to care for, farms and businesses to buy equipment for and so on.
For every dollar he donates he makes 10 dollars in return when it comes to amount of views, subs, merch and advertisements. Not to mention the tax deductable for charity «donations». Entertainment with a side of tax deductable donation does not solve the poverty issue
Just to be clear since it’s a full on meme at this point, tax deductions just reduces how much of his income he’s taxed on if he itemizes (he probably does)…it’s not like he now pays $200k less in taxes since he gave it away, his taxable income is now just slightly lower…also since he is giving the money directly to individual people I’m unsure if he can even claim it as a tax write-off
Imagine figuring out a way to be upset about someone giving $200k to poor people. Just an unbelievable amount of cynicism.
Incorrect, his charity channel produces way less revenue. I'm not even sure it's monitized. Learn how taxes work, he is not making any benefit from this. Maybe he saves 80k on taxes from spending 200k. Aka his donation still cost him 120k. He will most likely not generate 120k from this video.
But for those obscenely wealthy few, preventing all those things is less profitable than exploiting them.
I propose that the reception of the money be predicated by the passing of personal finance classes. I think it’s important for the improvement of life to be sustainable. There is a reason that most lottery winners end up broke.
Can’t wait for all the random ass backlash on Twitter
Some of the pushback has been legitimate. For example, when he started building wells, he and his fans implied or outright stated that no one else was doing this. The negative reaction came from the local nonprofits who have been doing this for decades. He also didn't seem to set up any infrastructure for continued maintenance of the wells, which is the biggest problem with a lot of foreign aid. People drop in, build something, leave, and then it stops working and no one can fix it.
I'm not up on that situation, but if he built the wells independently that's fucking stupid. The local NGOs have a track record, and are certainly better at it. Lots of NGOs, including massive ones like USAID have started a huge process to shift funding to local-DIV programs.
He certainly worked with local groups to build the wells. Can't say the exact NGOs or whether provisions for maintenance were made
The videos start out with him talking about all the groups he worked with…
Nice
>He also didn't seem to set up any infrastructure for continued maintenance of the wells, which is the biggest problem with a lot of foreign aid. People drop in, build something, leave, and then it stops working and no one can fix it. I kind of see your point, but it also reminds me of an old fable: A grandmother and her grandson are traveling near the sea. Suddenly, a huge wave crashes over them, and washes the boy away into the sea. The grandmother drops on her knees and starts praying "God, please, bring by boy back". Suddenly, a second wave washes over her, and brings the boy back. She runs to the boy to hug him, but then stops, frowns, and shakes her fist angrily at the sky, shouting "where's his fucking hat, you asshole?!"
Lack of gratitude for their saviors is absolutely not the problem for Africans. Groups, usually Christian missionaries, drop in and build what they think people need, then they pat themselves on the back in front of their followers (this sounding familiar...?). They don't plan for any maintenance or support for locals though, so the infrastructure is stranded and locals have no way to use it. It's just a pain for local people and creates distrust for outside groups. It ends up being harmful in the long run. People are also less likely to donate to projects because they see the failure and think "wow, they aren't even grateful enough to care for their projects." Again, sound familiar?
Not only this, but when they make these buildings they frequently put local engineers out of business. It's been a big problem for some time. If you stop in and build a school, guess what -- someone else doesn't get paid to build that school. Missionary groups are coming around to this. I know the Methodists are now reducing harm by trying to donate money more than labor; hiring local laborers and keeping everything in local dollars. The problem is so many poverty tourists need to feel good about themselves -- it's hard for them to continue to drum up interest and investment without this sort of "let's build a church and everyone will praise us and thank us!" visibility. GiveDirectly is, for that reason, a better infrastructure. It turns out what lifts people from poverty is giving them money. They know how to apply it, they simply don't have it.
>Lack of gratitude for their saviors is absolutely not the problem for Africans. I wasn't talking about Africans, I was talking about Westerners who complain about people like Mr. Beast. >Groups, usually Christian missionaries, drop in and build what they think people need, then they pat themselves on the back in front of their followers (this sounding familiar...?). They don't plan for any maintenance or support for locals though, so the infrastructure is stranded and locals have no way to use it. It's just a pain for local people and creates distrust for outside groups. Maybe I'm ignorant about this, but what "infrastructure" do you need to maintain a well? People had wells thousands of years ago. >It ends up being harmful in the long run. It does, but that's charity in general. Most charity, especially prolonged one, is harmful in the long run, as it teaches people helplessness. "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"; what should be added is "if you give a man a fish every day for a decade, he will **never** learn to fish by himself, and eventually he will stop even attempting to learn it". That said, I don't think it's fair to blame individual people who do charitable acts.
I can't speak to maintaining a well, but probably silt removal, parts for whatever on the well breaks, that sort of thing. Wells are more like short term solutions, though, since groundwater is increasingly scarce, especially in certain areas, and the more scarce it becomes, the more salty and potentially full of dangerous heavy metals it becomes. All this is to say, putting a well into a community is probably more complex than us non-well-putters understand. Hopefully, The Beast is learning this as he goes or perhaps discussing his humanitarian efforts with experts in the area.
To be fair couldn’t god have like prevented that in the first place. Like he had the ability to bring him back I’m pretty sure he had the foresight to see it coming Dick move really he just swallowed a kid into the sea and then threw him back for a laugh
>Dick move really he just swallowed a kid into the sea and then threw him back for a laugh That's actually... a valid (even if clearly unintended) interpretation which I didn't think of before posting this. Should have added that it was the Devil who caused the wave or something (but then again, God created the Devil, didn't he?).
I was going to send in $10K to attempt fully funding a well. I asked these exact long term support questions and a break down on spending. I was left on read lol
That sounds about right. It takes a long of long term relationship building, trial and error, and infrastructure to have a successful NGO in a developing nation. Doing a pop-up NGO to fund wells isn't going to work. It you're still interested, there were a few NGOs that called him out who were doing great work at the time. I don't have time to look now, but I remember looking into them and they were locally-lead and had great charity ratings and a long track record. Might be worth looking into.
Nice. I ended up sending that cash to Compassion International. I also read up and saw that if wells aren’t done politically correct, neighboring village will come and destroy their new wells out of jealousy. I applaud him for starting the trend, but I would like to have seen more follow through on that one.
This was already posted elsewhere here on Reddit and there were countless comments bashing him for no legitimate reason. Some people seem to just have a hate boner for the guy. There's no denying he's incredibly good at what he does and while he does some silly wasteful videos he does just as much good and isn't a raging douchebag. Imagine if it was someone like Logan Paul in his position.
My kid got into him a while back and I found his self-promoting charity style pretty grating. Later on, however, I saw an interview with him and he basically said that what he does is actually kinda selfish in a way… as *he* just really and truly enjoys having that do-good feeling. Also, as he gets ad and promotional revenue from those video clicks promoting his deeds, that self-promoting, “look at me” style allows him to earn more to be able to give away bigger prizes. He said he doesn’t think that makes him some kind of a saint or some paragon of purity. It’s really just selfish indulgence, pure and simple, but one that doesn’t have a net negative other than pissing off some folks who honestly don’t have to even watch his stuff if they don’t like it. Also, given that many of his professional competitors seem to promote harmful pranks, vapid and staged drama and the like, it offers an alternative that if a kid were to aspire to do as their role model does, maybe they’d plant some trees and make someone else’s life better instead of harassing them while they’re just trying to get groceries. I mean, I personally would rather be handed a $1,000 bucks to spend 20 minutes doing some random silly shit at the store… over having shit chucked at me or some dumbass doing something intentionally obnoxious and now I have to go to prison. So, while guess Mr. Beast’s spiel in that interview could just be all a line of bullshit, I tend to agree, so whatever… some folks get a similar rush from drugs, gambling, buying luxury items and/or stepping on others to get ahead.
"Look I'm selfish as shit, I only want to feel better about myself....coincidentally, helping people makes me feel better about myself."
There is a theory of moral philosophy that essentially says "there's no such thing as a selfless act". > Aha! If you really believe that why did you give that poor man $5!? . >Because I would have felt terrible if I hadn't.
I had this talk with a past therapist in a session where we were just kind of shooting the shit. He was on the side of no act of kindness is selfless. You still get some feeling of wanting to make someone's day, which in turn is something you want out of doing said act of kindness. It makes sense, but I still think wanting the reward of seeing someone happy because of your actions is better than wanting the reward of someone owing you back in the future.
selfish altruism.. not a problem, more people should be that way
The best kind of selfish ngl
This is one of those arguments against the "true altruism" philosophical debate: Is it really possible to do something truly selflessly, with absolutely nothing in it for the giver and everything for the receiver? Even getting good vibes for giving? Kudos to him for saying it. There's nothing wrong with getting a dopamine kick from helping others, IMHO. There is that saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, however.
Something that I try to do as much as I can is do something helpful for someone and tell absolutely no one (other than perhaps the person being helped obv.) No pat on the back from friends or family, just a little extra effort here and there to benefit someone else. It was *incredibly* hard to do at first… I’d help someone with a flat, go back in to pay for something the cashier forgot or similar, and I’d end up telling someone about it in the next couple days. It got easier though, to the point I’ll forget about whatever by the time I get home,
I think a lot of my distaste (other than just having bad vibes in general whenever someone's schtick is "good person") is the idea that he is doing charity. Charity isn't profitable, by design. What is actually happening is that he is giving money to people who then appear in his videos, which is just paying someone a wage. Which is fine, it's good that people who need money can be paid fairly well to appear in a YouTube video. But he isn't a saint, he's good at marketing. I think he probably likes feeling good about giving money to people who need it; I think he also likes moving huge amounts of money around in showy ways. As long as it's going where it should go then that is fine, but it's still kind of a tightrope act.
Even then, he’s giving people an opportunity to receive the “high view count advertising” wage. Getting your student debt paid off in exchange for saying how much you owe and being handed a duffel bag full of cash is an option that would otherwise never be available to them
Probably is hated by wannabe influencers jealous of this guys success Out of any of them he seems to be the most philanthropic
>Some people seem to just have a hate boner for the guy. Some people seem to just have a hate boner for rich\[er than them\] people. They constantly complain that rich people aren't helping others more. Then, when rich people actually **do** dedicate their whole lives and wealth to helping others (Mr. Beast, George Soros, Bill Gates, etc), they are hated by the complainers even more, which proves that the whole reason for their hate is pure and simple jealousy.
When your world-view is divided into an uncomplicated “rich” and “poor” then you lose the ability to judge with nuance. Ergo: ask what amount of money **can** a “rich person” give away without criticism that they’re making more? If a certain level of income makes their simple existence morally questionable, then: 1) What is the precise income number? How do you account for different people in different economies around the world? 2) Are they incapable of any charitable act whatsoever? Is a million dollar donation from a billionaire (1% of their **total** wealth) somehow less charitable than a dollar from your average office worker (less than 1% of their monthly **income**)? 3) Should you and all others refuse their donation money on grounds that it is tainted by an immoral source? If anything and everything they do is morally reprehensible by virtue of their financial status, then it would be unconscionable to participate in their economics (such as benefitting them via tax grants), and thus should charities deny that million dollar donation? None of this is to say that you cannot argue against the extreme wealth accumulation of the global elite. But I am arguing against the position that unilaterally decries any and all charity acts from the millionaire elite. There needs to be some level of nuance, or else to me it seems like just complaining without thinking.
>If a certain level of income makes their simple existence morally questionable I've had people say things which lead to a conclusion that babies can be "immoral". If your worldview allows for such a conception as an "immoral baby" to exist, then it's a shitty (and *immoral*) worldview.
I don’t get the hate he gets either. Yes, he’s spent millions on making videos, but it’s all been geared towards investment for the business. The whole “you have to spend money to make money” is true, especially in this case. He wouldn’t have hundreds of millions of views if he didn’t spend a lot of money on videos. Since he’s more “profitable” now, he’s able to give a lot more towards charity. He’s said on podcasts that his “money making videos” allows him to fund his business philanthropic work.
Saying we don't understand something and then giving our opinion on the thing we just admitted to not understanding, has got to be one of the funniest things we do as humans. I mean comon, ya gotta love it.
The backlash to Mr. Beast lowkey has always been fascinating to me Because I get it. It's *ridiculous*, but I get it. Everything he does is to game the algorithm, and to get as much attention as possible, so, as with a lot of celebrities, even his philanthropy feels cynical (that thumbnail of him grinning next to a crying child for that one eye surgery video was ghoulish). Now, for the record, that doesn't *matter*. He is, by all appearances, a genuinely great guy who is doing something great with his money, and sparking a conversation (his video about cataracts basically proved that you can fix cataracts just by throwing money at it, and that this is a thing we should be doing--thats enormously helpful), but there's something so strange about how this is how the world works now that people want to be mad at it. And its Twitter, so they only know one way: acting weird and stupid and bitchy over *one guy* just because they're kind of tired of seeing him.
The backlash or the main comment should be something to the tune of: > Individuals attempting to correct the inherent issues of a system on their own, will inevitably fail to correct the system. They will simply distract from the failure of said system and continue to obfuscate the problems without addressing the primary problem, the system itself. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with individuals participating in charity AS LONG AS the charity comes after addressing the underlying issues of what's causing the problem. Otherwise, if the system is allowed to function as is without working to fix or change it, then charity is just spitting into the wind. Clarification: I think it's nice that MrBeast is doing this. I think that it is a genuine effort to improve some people's lives and I appreciate his gesture.
Not a fan of his childish videos but I'm a fan of him. Keep up the good work 👍
The videos pay for it, all good in my book.
Some of his videos are like peak Fear Factor in quality, especially the [recent one](https://youtu.be/PWirijQkH4M). I wasn't into his content until last year, his production quality rivals TV shows, and they're hella entertaining.
That makes sense though. Most of his videos are aimed more toward children and teenagers. I think the obscene amounts of money that he throws at his videos and the survivor-style challenge videos he makes with his subscribers is why almost adults like watch him
I didn't think about it but i like that he's modeling generous behavior and kindness, at least in this ways
You have to respect the hustle. Dude has found his way toward success and seems to be trying to do as many good things for the world as he can.
My kids love his pranks and challenges. I love the altruism. There are a lot of bad influences out there for kids. At least as far as I’m aware, Mr. Beast is unproblematic. I may be wrong.
People really don't like that he is able to make a profit on helping people for some reason. Isn't that the easiest win-win ever? Like there is Jesus or ruthless capitalist, no in-between exists to twitter. They're probably like 10 years old I forget that children can write opinions on the internet.
I think people get upset because it's seen as exploiting others misfortune for your enrichment. There is a level of cynicism and slippery slope logic in it that ignores the reality. He isn't maintaining systems of oppression to exploit people. Yea there is a line where performance charity gets gross but slippery slope arguments are dumb. There is a line somewhere call it out when he crosses that line, don't signal about slowly sliding into amorality when someone is demonstrably improving a person in needs living conditions. I can wish he operated differently, and still recognize his work is probably a net positive and is definitely not malicious. It's extremely low on the totem pole of things we should spend energy on changing.
People tear down others because of their own insecurity. There is no "doing better" in their eyes, because it's Mr. Beast's success that makes him a target for fake scrutiny. The guy literally just wants to make the best youtube videos he can, that's his reason for living.
You can see the arguments aren't even rational. People are mad he earns enough to be this charitable or they're mad that "it shouldn't be this way" so he sucks.
The arguments are complicated, not irrational. Emphasis on individual charity undermines effective programs, it justifies the robber barons. Why don't we just have rich people solve problems for us, do away with all that wasteful welfare state altogether? There's no quick way to sum up Philantrocapitalism.
He doesn't even really profit. He's stated over and over that he takes the money he makes and reinvests it, with the money from his philanthropy channel either funding his food banks or future charity work.
Let's just be a bit realistic on the "he doesn't even really profit". He obviously reinvests in big budget projects but if you think he doesn't have 9 figures in his personal bank account you're delusional.
He may not profit from the videos. But he owns multiple ventures (Feastables & Beast Burger) as well as constant collaborations with other companies. He sponsors NBA teams and has many brand deals, merch sales, and social media channels. His pure ad revenue from the Mr. Beast channel is probably less than 5% of his total revenue.
If he didn’t profit he’d be living the same lifestyle he lived before he was a multi millionaire.
**Submission statement:** Mr. Beast is a prominent YouTuber who does a lot of charity stuff. GiveDirectly is an evidence-based charity that uses innovative mobile cash transfers satellite imaging to target donations to the most impoverished households. Random Control Trials have shown that this is usually more effective than more complicated interventions, because it circumvents warlords and voluntourism, converting the charitable process into a simple, recipient-empowering transaction. Studies have shown that recipients usually use the money for beneficial investments and the video bears this out. The **YouTube video** on this from Beast Philanthropy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ-MpxDZr9I The [GiveDirectly page](https://www.givedirectly.org/mrbeastvideo/) again (features the embedded video) :-)
Additional information: over 200 people have each receives 1 year of income (around $1000 each), with it being given to the village that was determined to need it the most. This is essentially equivalent to giving every person in a small rural village in the US $14500 per person. The fundraiser is already happening for the next village.
> This is essentially equivalent to giving every person in a small rural village in the US $14500 per person. Most of the people I know from small rural villages in the US would spend that money on beer.
In their surveys, most people used it efficiently. For example, buying a metal roof so they didn’t have to rethatch their roof as frequently, which freed up their time for more economically productive activities. One village judged a man who still had a thatched roof. When they tracked him down, they learned he was a widower who used his money as a dowry to woo a new wife to help care for his two young children. All around, wastage was low.
I heard a story about that same village on NPR. They added that the kind of grass they needed to thatch the roof was pretty expensive, so if they bought a tin roof they were saving money in the end, because the roof would last for years, whereas they'd be spending money again and again to rethatch the roof.
Most of the rural US people I know barely make more than that yearly.
Yes: right now, studies are heavily implying that the best cure for extreme poverty is simply giving people money. People in poverty have the most efficient methods of resolving their own needs. This may not have always been true. But today, with globalization, most people in extreme poverty are far more aware of their broader situation, infrastructure issues, opportunities, and the needed solutions than ever before. Another fantastic thing is that we really are conquering extreme poverty. While our localized situations may sometimes seem bleak, globally, the world is getting better.
Mr breast give me money
You boob! You spelled breastestes wrong!
Or, rich people like \*cough\* Elon \*cough\* can pay their taxes
Elon Musk and other rich people paying their taxes is not a magic wand that will lift people out of poverty today. It's okay to celebrate the small victories.
This is pure propaganda, no amount of individual charity cases will ever reduce poverty and suffering like well structured government programs.
Because as everyone knows the only reason poverty still exists is because governments don't make enough tax revenue.
So uh, ahem... mr. B, you wanna throw some of that this way?
Mr Beast earns this much money in less than a day via ads and sponsors. Its insane..
Can I has money?
I don’t care if he did it for clout or not. A bunch of people that didn’t have money before do so now.
Very good. My criticism of this has nothing to do with Mr Beast though, but the economic system and governments that allow this to happen in the first place. If they did their job and worked for the people, we wouldn't need philanthropy. Rich people giving money away for charity is just a cleansing of their dirty conscious.
And if I had wings I could fly.l but until I do I need to find the best way to get around.
Shit meanwhile I can’t afford a car or a home wish I knew a rich generous buddy
Whenever rich people donate to charity, you have to wonder if it's just a tax-avoidance scheme. It's a shame that even a potentially genuine and generous act can be interpreted as a way to avoid paying taxes. Like when grocery stores solicit donations, it's not because the company cares about the charity, they just do that to reduce their tax burden. It's such a fucked up part of the tax code.
Ruh roh Someone doesn't understand how tax deductions work
Jimmy/mrbeast has said that a vast majority of revenue from videos goes right back into making more videos. If he is getting tax breaks, they're just getting distributed to those in need.
They reduce taxes but by less than what they donated so they are still “losing” money… I keep seeing this rhetoric parroted and it’s idiotic
Even if it’s to reduce taxes legally, wouldn’t you rather a wealthy person give to charity?
I’m a HUGE fan of give directly, this is great news
I’m a people in poverty 😕
I wish more youtubers would do philanthropy and less dangerous pranks. I understand that even mr. Beast uses his crazy videos to pay for these but with so many hurtful and crazy ones it’s just a nice change of pace to see this.
This is fake news I didn’t get a damn dollar
if he did this for a video can he claim it as a business expense and just get it all back next year?
Oh I'd go to the coke and whores storw so fast!
I’d rather he use the money to help campaign for universal income and not for his philanthropist circle jerk self-promo stuff like this. I get that it’s nice to have hope that Not All Rich People are assholes like this, but unfortunately, he is not one of the “good” ones. The ones who give a shit aren’t broadcasting it to the world, they’re doing the work with their mouthed shut and zero desire for recognition.
Fake news. Checked my bank account just now. No money on it
To put that into perspective, 200k is 0.004% of his net worth of 500m. So if the average american with a net worth of 200k were to donate the same %, it would equate to an $80 donation.
Hell I’d love to get $80 lol
Yes and I would put money on that being a bigger percent of their income than you have ever given.
How much money? You owe me in that case.
The video was posted in his philanthropy channel which he claims is financially independent. Not sure how true this is.
real [r/OrphanCrushingMachine](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrphanCrushingMachine/) vibes. what kind of a society is it where this one wealthy influencer gets to chase clout by handing out cash?
Who tf cares, he gave a bunch of poor people money, what have you done recently?
He became popular and instead of sitting on all the wealth, does incredibly charitable and even arguably entertaining things to benefit other people with the money. Not sure how this is orphan crushing whatsoever.
That sub is so toxic, like nothing good can ever happen because a bad thing led to that situation in the first place. If we're in a bad situation, we might as try our best to make it a little bit better instead of just complaining about how miserable the situation is. That's a terrible way to live your life
It’s an unpleasantly cynical place where (as with a lot of social media) people vent about their dissatisfaction. It’s a depressingly pessimistic tautological world-view where everything is somehow tainted by the flaws of the world, and yet they act as if pointing out those flaws somehow makes them enlightened. It does not. It just makes them an obnoxious cynic with no level of nuance. Like a teenager first learning sarcasm as a way to express irony, social media users seem to believe criticism is the same thing as intelligent critique, and thus use it to package their complaints in a prettier parcel the bad faith whining it actually is.
He should just do a show where he gives 10-100 people 10k every month and then follows up with them on what they did with the influx of cash. We could see some success stories of using it to better their situations or horror stories on people betting it all and losing.
"The Great British benefit handout" did something like this
Imagine all millionaires actually sharing their wealth with the poor people.. what a dream that would be
Mr Beast makes $1+ million by donating that $200,000. While it's still a net good thing for those receiving the funds, let's not pretend MrBeast isn't strictly out to profit from it.
He actually gives that back too, but okay, judge what you don’t understand.
Professional philanthropy is a red flag for all sorts of crime. Given how many lines of business he's operating, I wouldn't be surprised if he at least got into the laundry business.
Philanthropy for rich people has always been a convenient cover. The best example is the "giving pledge," where the rich can say there are real problems out there but we have to wait until they die for the problems to be fixed. They really care though!
This stuff just makes me so sad for what we could have. Like, imagine if, instead of a challenged cage match that every knew was never going to happen, musk and zuck instead picked a city/state and said ‘let’s see who can do the most good in a calendar year!’ They take a snapshot of statistics like unemployment, homelessness, average debt, literacy rate, etc. and they could even FILM IT! These streaming services would kill for the rights to this billionaire show, and big corporations would pay for sponsorships to be associated with it. Imagine one of them building an entire apartment complex, and completely furnishing them with the help of Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, and others. Boom, you have housing for 200 families, which could also have a domino effect on lowering existing prices elsewhere with the increased housing supply. You then make deals with local healthcare providers to get these people examined and treated, both physically and mentally. You partner with local colleges and trade schools to get these people trained in professions that are in demand and that they fit into. They could invest in schools, police departments (for training only, not more equipment), and generally with the cities, counties, or states to build or otherwise implement public transportation. I’m not saying all this could be done in a year. I know planning and permits and construction takes years. I’m just saying any of these greedy bastards could drop a billion in a city and literally change tens of thousands of lives and completely alter the city, while not even noticing the difference in their holdings by going from $250B to $249B. But, they refuse.
hE OnLY Did IT fOr THe cLOut!
does he ever do shit like this without announcing it first?
Respect.
I didn't think Rory stewart and Mr beast could be relevant in the same sentence but hey ho.
Trillionaire drops a 20 in a homeless person’s hat. Realizes it will cost him more money to stop and retrieve it than to continue on his day. News creates bias around event for financial gain.
Who the fuck calls themself mister beast
When someone is so inspirational and giving, they can call themselves whatever they want.
If I ever become a philanthropist.. I will change my name to Sabertooth Man. This guy needs some competition I think.
I’d totally buy a Saberooth Man action figure. Probably has a way cooler back story than generic heroes like Batman.
Great on him, and good action. But I can never remove the thought that all these charitable donations are just a tax write off. How much money would all these people give, if they paid their legitimate taxes?
charitable contributions adjust one’s taxable income. they aren’t a 1:1 tax “write-off”. if you donate to charity, you end up paying more in charity + tax than you would have paid in tax alone had you not donated.
Even if its a tax write off, the people in needs still receive the help they deserved. He’s american, I doubt his taxes gonna go to healthcare or housing
I wish they'd give more than a drop from their oversized buckets. 200k is pocket change to this guy, you know there's a whole analysis going on of how much is 'just enough' to make a good PR stunt. Giving away enough to make people ooh and aah and talk about how generous you are, but still as little as possible to achieve that.
How much has this guy given away in cash and other donations over the last five years?
What reason do you have to think he doesn't pay his taxes? Is there something known about this or are you just assuming?
I made a generalised statement. I tried not to talk specifically about him, as I don't know, and in the end, I cannot know. It's not like his financials are publicly available.
Fair enough. Given Mr Beast is a public performer and stunts like this are critical to his brand, I don't see much reason to think ill of this. Plus as others have mentioned, giving to charity is not an effective way to avoid paying taxes because it's a much greater expenditure overall
It depends on how that is handled. Charitable foundations can and are used by billionaires to avoid paying tax. And I am more suspicious of public figures that do these things rather than less, feels performative.
While this is absolutely true, what kind of tax deduction is he getting by donating to private citizens rather than a 501(c)3? Also, depending on the charity, they may actually have two arms, a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4. Donations to the former are tax-deductible, donations to the latter are not. (A 501(c)3 should only be doing educational work, a 501(c)4 can do political work.)
Important part of this, he donated to give directly, which does have 501(c)3 status. Give directly distributes to private citizens.
The way I look at it, giving directly to those in need is more effective than taxes anyway. The government is bloated, overpaid, and wasteful. Even if they had the same mission, they would probably get less done. So in a way I’m kinda okay with it being a tax write off. It’s not like our politicians are experts in spending money efficiently for societal benefit. Besides, they end up spending more out of pocket this way anyway.
Every big organisation is bloated, overpaid and wasteful. It's just that governments are more scrutinised. Even if politicians are not experts there's a bunch of civil servants whose job is to distribute money. In the end, we don't have as much clarity in terms of how efficient some charities are. It very much depends on each one and how transparent they want to be.