I walk to school every day. I used to listen to music but now I listen to podcasts. I listen to NPR’s “Fresh Air,” “Up First” and “Embedded,” The New York Times’ “The Daily” and “The Book Review,” Malcolm Gladwell’s “Revisionist History,” Marc Maron’s “WTF” and Nigel Warburton and David Edmonds’ “Philosophy Bites.” Although I am largely a print journalist, I get most of my news from the radio and podcasts. Speaking of which, if you have any recommendations about some podcasts I should listen to, comment below.
Normally I zone out during the advertisements. I understand they are an essential part of the funding for my favorite podcasts and I should give them my money, but I am pretty stubborn about who I give my money to (it’s usually Popeye’s and various book and record stores). But there was one ad that I heard over and over while listening to “Fresh Air” that stood out to me. The company was Swell Investing.
Swell Investing is an investment advisement company. But the difference between them and all the other advising companies is that they offer advising in choosing progressive stocks. Their portfolios’ sections range from renewable energy to healthy living. While I think that what Swell Investing is doing isn’t all that bad, the broader message they are giving off is more unnerving.
If you read my articles, then you have established I am probably liberal. Shouldn’t I, the nice little bleeding-heart, be happy with companies and corporations trying out progressiveness?
My problem with capitalist entities using charity is that they use it not just because they care but because they know it helps sell products.
A good empirical example of this is Toms. Toms’ whole shtick is that they donate one pair of shoes for every pair you buy. Instead of buying a nice-looking pair of shoes, you could buy a pair of Toms and feel good about donating to charity! You add a strike to your “good actions” column and get a pair of shoes that are slightly less ugly than Birkenstocks in the process. Meanwhile, Toms makes a boatload of money.
Starbucks and other companies do the same thing. They tie a charitable cause to a purchase.
While it is great that these companies are doing this, they are also limiting people’s total charitable giving. We have to be honest with ourselves a little: No matter how liberal most of us are, we aren’t exactly the most giving people. We have a very limited sense for charity. We give once in awhile. We don’t have to be saints who give everything we have away, but we could give a bit more.
Instead of that chemistry experiment you just paid too much for at Starbucks, how about you drink black coffee and give the rest to charity?
The capitalist entities create a system of inequality in our society. Anyone who has overheard a discussion about economics knows that inequality is essential to capitalism. There needs to be winners and losers. These capitalist entities do get in trouble for underpaying employees and using unethical tactics to guarantee their profit, but by simultaneously boasting their charitable actions, they obscure the fact that they’re causing a lot of the problems they are offering a pittance to solve.
By supporting these entities, we are essentially paying the shooter and then using post-it notes to bandage up the victim.
It is essential that these entities give to charity. But they should give more, and they should have to justify their actions. “Oh so you 10 percent of your profits go to charity, you say?” If you are so charitable, please give me an explanation as to why all your employees make minimum wage while all your executives drive in sports cars.
Give your money to the causes you care about and not a middle-man only interested in your money.
