luis is a co-founder and social software architect at SyndeoLabs, and a director at Exist Global. he likes building small web toys a whole lot. More ...

quick links to the good stuff

  • 25 First Dates 25 May 2009
  • True Crime: Confessions of a Criminal Mastermind 17 Feb 2009
  • Finding Your Soul Mate: A Statistical Analysis 27 Jan 2009
  • Sex and Schrodinger's Cat 07 January 2009
  • An Extended Rant on Heroes 26 September 2008
  • Zero Barrier 05 May 2008
  • Sweatshop Blogging Economics 08 April 2008
  • The Doomsday Singularity 25 February 2008
  • Piracy and Its Impact on Philippine Music 21 January 2008
  • The Manila Pen-etration by the Hotelier Antonio Trillanes 29 November 2007
  • Journey of a Thousand Heroes 17 December 2006
  • Shake, Rattle & LOL 30 December 2005

    elsewhere online

    • Last.FM
    • Del.icio.us
    • Flickr
    • Plurk
    • Multiply
    • Stumbleupon

    guttervomit

    • 17

      An Unpopular, Mildly Clarified Opinion on Volunteerism

      2 Oct 2009

      Yesterday’s piece on volunteerism and why you may be helping your countrymen more by simply staying in your office cubicle got some really great, well-thought-out comments from people. I’d like to thank all those readers who really went out of their way to contribute to the discussion. As expected, there were lots of dissenting opinions, but provoking debate is a great way to expand our thinking on these matters. I didn’t get any “fuck you”s or anything vaguely Neanderthal, which is nearly unbelievable in this day and age.

      From Erol:

      I do think that volunteering AFTER work is not such a bad thing, and neither is it an under-utilization and a waste of an employee’s hours. [...] If volunteering can satiate a person’s desire or urge to help, it is no different from a person going to the movies, mall or an amusement park to fulfill his or her need to enjoy and have fun.

      You are correct in the sense that many people derive pleasure from volunteering. A lot of readers seem to have mistaken my commentary as a call to stop volunteering. If you want to volunteer – for any reason, be it religion, boredom or a misplaced sense of guilt – you should. I’m simply saying that you need to consider whether that’s truly the best way for you to help the relief effort.

      From teem:

      You need to consider the urgency of the situation. More people could get sick, die of hunger or whatever, if everyone goes on with their jobs and not volunteer to be able to give more.

      Well, we need to differentiate “emergency rescue” from the volunteerism that I was referring to previously, i.e., organizing and/or distributing relief goods. Both of these things are urgent, but I would argue that feeding victims is not as urgent as rescuing the drowning. Also, I fail to see how you mobilizing your friends to help during an emergency is any faster than you mobilizing a group of hired professionals (the latter would be one phone call away, the former would be three to four).

      Please do not misunderstand though, I fully appreciate how devastating Ondoy’s effects are – our family was affected like many others. During the typhoon, the first floor of our family’s house in Katipunan was completely flooded, and two of our cars were submerged. When the water had receded, we essentially had two choices. My father, my sister and I could all work together on cleaning the place up, or we could hire a small crew to do the work for us. Although the former option might have been an interesting bonding experience, the total value of our combined time would have been well in the $US1,000 range, i.e., a very expensive cleaning crew. Meanwhile, the real cleaning crew cost about PhP1,000, and they got the job done faster. (Guess which option we picked.)

      Now imagine that the house in question wasn’t ours. The same logic applies to volunteering to clean your friends’ houses, or a random stranger’s. Instead of handing a bunch of senior engineers shovels and mops, you could just pay for someone to do it in your stead. Keep in mind that this does not make your contribution any less significant. You’ve still cleaned that person’s house – you just did it in the most cost-effective way possible.

      From Ryan:

      If most developers took your advice and decided to simply donate more money and stop volunteering, would the goods be packaged as efficiently? Would there be enough people to take their place?

      This question stumped me momentarily, then I realized that the phrase “more money” already provided a solution. It doesn’t matter if there would be enough volunteers to take their place because if the operation heads had more money, then they could simply announce (on the radio, say) that they are willing to pay each “volunteer” PhP100 per day. Or if you’re in a hurry, PhP200 per day, but only to the first 100 volunteers. Your relief center would be running on full steam within an hour.

      And then there’s the consideration of time, ie how long does the money you donate take to be converted into relief goods? how many lives might be lost for lack of a proper meal at the soonest possible opportunity?

      Well, now we’re talking about the actual relief packs, instead of the act of packing them. Whether I make a donation, or haul ass to the nearest relief center, doesn’t affect the availability of anything for me to sort and pack. I daresay that my cash donation has a higher chance of eventually being converted into relief goods though, as opposed to my butt parked on the floor of a relief center waiting for contributions.

      From Marco:

      First of all, you begin by using a developer in your company as an example. This automatically invalidates many of the arguments, should they be directed at the general public.

      I wanted to thank you individually for the exhaustive comment; I didn’t know the comment-box could even accommodate that much text, to be honest. I wanted to discuss your post point by point, but there were so many that I might not be able to. (Folks, jump on over to Marco’s full comment here.)

      UPDATE: I’ve written a lengthy response to Marco’s comment at the bottom of this entry.

      I will say though that you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the piece, if you think that my engineer example invalidates my arguments. The example was intentional, not accidental. My post was never meant to be directed at the general public, because the general public doesn’t make US$25/hour, as I’m sure you’re aware. I picked an engineer as my example primarily because lots of my readers work in the tech industry, but more importantly because they make well above the average income. That part is key to the argument, and does not invalidate it in any way. In other words, I would not make the same recommendations to someone earning minimum wage (i.e., the general public), because the numbers wouldn’t make sense. Generally: the higher your income is, the more valuable your time is, the more you need to think about the value of standing in that packing line.

      On Facebook, my friend Monica had this to say:

      [...] you should look for something to do that will have the maximum impact. For instance, Kris Aquino did an excellent job of being the spokesperson for ABS-CBN’s fundraising efforts vs. the classic photo op of a celebrity going to Marikina to hand out food packs.

      High-income citizens have a little bit of Kris Aquino in all of them – if you’ll allow me to be momentarily facetious – in that they are in a position to provide aid in a wider reaching way than simply packing relief goods.

      From Aissa, also on Facebook, in support of my larger point:

      Repacking etc. only goes so far, and several centers for these relief activities are already overstaffed. They don’t really need you to be there, so go find something more useful to do.

      What she said.

      From April:

      Can it be that this article only applies to an obviously small chunk of the Philippine populace? You know, the rational above minimum wage earner with no sick leaves?

      I don’t know about sick/vacation leaves, but yes, the article was meant for a small chunk of the populace, i.e., the kind of people who read this blog. I mean, duh, if I didn’t feel they were being misallocated, I wouldn’t have written this piece, you know?

      From Noreen:

      [...] and with the number of relief goods a person can pack, even the smartest guy’s time can never be wasteful.

      If you truly had “the smartest guy” at your disposal, you should have him rewrite PAG-ASA’s prediction software. Having him sort relief goods, when he could be preventing the deaths of hundreds or thousands instead, is horrifically wasteful.

      From Hunter:

      There is one thing you may not have considered with donating the money directly to an organisation. As with most aid organisations only a proportion of the donations would go directly to benefit the people affected. The rest going to keep the organisation running (staff, marketing, etc). So, a fair amount of inefficiency there if you are looking for the most impact.

      That’s a great point, and you’re right, I hadn’t considered the overhead. Perhaps the lesson here is that a donation in kind would be more impactful. Or perhaps, you could contribute to logistics, i.e., hiring a truck for the social workers to use. There are tons of alternative ways to help out, we just need to think creatively.

      From Someone (jeez, is that hard to come up with a real first name):

      Lets be more reasonable – the average dev will make $10-12. Take the BIR percentage and you are left with what? $8-10 per hour? Which means your $125 is now only $40-50. Guess the allocation of resources doesn’t sound that wasteful anymore. And that’s not counting the fact that people can help on non-work hours.

      I’m not gonna argue with your math since that depends on a lot of factors, but I will say that even at $40-50/day, your time is still worth about 6 to 7 minimum-wage workers. So yes, unless you think you can pack food 6 to 7x faster than the average person, you are still being misallocated.

      From Someone, again:

      But the worse is that it just put money as the parameter for help. Help and volunteering is a LOT deeper than that.

      Using money as a parameter is the only way to discuss this in quantifiable terms, detestable as that may be to you. I’m not going to argue about the “depth” of volunteerism here, as that’s purely subjective and honestly I don’t see how useful that is to the discussion.

      Another way to look at it: quite a few male volunteers are going to relief centers because there are lots of hot, perspiring chicks volunteering there too. Others are doing it primarily because they want to be seen helping. I suppose in your eyes that would be defiling the concept of volunteerism, but ultimately, what does it matter? What difference does it ultimately make what your motivations are. They’re still helping out, wolf-whistles notwithstanding. I know that “the end justifies the means” is a slippery slope, but it seems to me that “beggars can’t be choosers” either.

      This piece fusses about the overall output, i.e., how quickly and efficiently we can help our countrymen who are in need. Do you really think they would care if they received aid from someone who volunteered vs. someone who was paid to be there? We’re talking about starving, injured people here. If you can provide aid in a manner that is 6 to 7x faster than before, wouldn’t you do it, even if it meant losing that personal touch? That’s pretty logical, isn’t it?

      =====

      Marco:

      In the interest of open discussion, I should’ve commented on your points. I’ll do that here now:

      Point 1: The funds the volunteer would have earned had he stayed in his cubicle are being under-utilized. This may be true, if everyone were paid on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, most people in this country are paid bi-weekly, causing a delay in the arrival of cash.

      The frequency of compensation doesn’t change the value of that person’s time, methinks. It’d still be US$25/hour, and what that means, from a business standpoint, is that the loss of that person for X hours means that the company is paying for time that went elsewhere. You’re under-utilized because of the loss of *potential* output.

      That said, I totally agree that rescue operations cannot wait for money to come in, and in these instances, whoever is able-bodied and physically closest to Ground Zero is the overall “best person to volunteer.” But that’s kinda common sense, isn’t it, and not really something I needed to spell out in my piece.

      Point 2: It doesn’t matter who you are when you volunteer; what matters is that you do what you can.

      Actually, yes, it does matter who you are. I’ll give you a concrete example, since I was on the whole developer thing earlier. We’ve got an open-source disaster management project called Sahana that software engineers are volunteering to help populate and maintain. The project is an online sitrep of a given disaster, with a missing persons registry, aid management, inventory management, etc. Remember how I said that software engineers need to think about whether they are maximizing their skills by being at the relief center? The average volunteer does not have the ability to run Sahana, it’s a skill that’s unique to software engineers.

      Let’s say you were a musician, instead. Playing a large charity event to raise funds for the typhoon victims is a great way to maximize the aid you provide, and again, this contribution is unique in that not everyone has the capacity to help in this fashion. So, yes, it matters that you “do what you can,” but I’m saying there are ways to do a heckuva lot more, the more specialized your skills are.

      Point 3: The number of available minimum-wage earners is already quite low, and yet the operations are still lacking in manpower.

      Perhaps I’m in a unique position to have an optimistic opinion on this matter because our family runs a manpower agency, so we have a good idea of where to find minimum-wage earners quickly. Also, there are varying reports on the availability of volunteers - some places are over-capacity, others are utterly bereft. I would argue that it’s not an issue of *numbers*, but a problem with information. If we could quickly see which centers were running light - like say, with Sahana - then volunteers could be more properly allocated.

      Point 4: Volunteering for the joy of volunteering is romantic and selfish. While this might be true, it also means that the need for immediate help is being addressed.

      Again, I don’t disagree on any particular point. But see Point 2 for my thoughts on what is appropriate “immediate help,” given certain skillsets.

      Point 5: I’m not saying that you HAVE to volunteer, but it would help to see this issue from another perspective.

      I thought this piece *was* the other perspective, seeing as everybody is already predisposed towards the notion of volunteerism in the first place. At the end of the piece, I clarified that I wasn’t saying that people should stop volunteering, so again, we are in agreement here. I’m also saying that you should think twice about what you should volunteer for, coz there are so many other ways to be of use to the relief effort.

      17 Responses to “An Unpopular, Mildly Clarified Opinion on Volunteerism”

      1. Marco Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am

        “I will say though that you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the piece [...]”

        Perhaps I didn’t misunderstand the point. Perhaps I was acknowledging the fact that the blog is open to members of the general public, and therefore will get comments from those outside of your typical readership.

        It was certainly clear that your ideas were targeted at a niche audience; one of the comments even had an accusatory “oh you’re so elitist” air about it. But since this is a somewhat debatable perspective towards a social issue discussed on a very public platform, I’m sure you would agree that counter-arguments made on the behalf of those outside your niche would add to the value of the discussion. If anything, my too-lengthy discourse wasn’t to disprove anything you said, but it was to open things up to a vantage point more suitable for the audience you’re likely to receive by publishing this on Facebook. It always helps to offer more insight, especially since your readership isn’t as focused as what was thought, don’t you think?

        It would also help not to make assumptions regarding the posters of these comments and their ability to comprehend the purpose of your post. Most especially if they took great care to direct the comments towards the content of the post itself, and not the author. It personalizes the debate and opens up the floor for pettiness (which some folk, I’m sure, would react with).

        Curious to know what you would have said about the other points, though.

      2. rafnex Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 am

        “If you truly had “the smartest guy” at your disposal, you should have him rewrite PAG-ASA’s prediction software.”

        lol

        well i guess sometimes it’s about how “guilt-free” one would feel that influence his choice to either volunteer financially or physically.

      3. Gabriel Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

        another idea is to bring the goods to relief centers and hire those evacuees, who are well and able to work, to pack the relief goods instead. so those donating money can pay for their services (say 100 pesos each) and the goods can be packed by the able paid evacuees themselves. this solves a lot of problems.

        1. you reduce the number of evacuees lining up for relief goods because a certain chunk of them who are able to work would be given a paying job instead to repack relief goods enabling them to buy their own supplies instead

        2. some of the money donated can be allocated directly as payment for the ‘conscripts’ aside from goods so we would not need to think about the fact that monetary donations to relief organizations are pooled and won’t be totally allocated to this specific calamity. (although, the beauty of donating to the red cross is that it can also mean you’re also helping out calamity victims in other countries)

        3. you provide the evacuees who are hired to work as relief goods repackers with a renewed sense of dignity because they are rewarded financially for work done which would otherwise be non-existent if they just continually line-up and pray for relief goods in the long term which are always never enough. the latter fosters the attitude of reliance on dole-outs as opposed to invigorating self-reliance and the will to survive. it is always noble to give, but it also is important to emphasize to the receiver that they must find a way to get out of their predicament and restart their lives.

        4. those white-collar workers are now able to go back to work and could strive to work more hours to have more money to donate as opposed to trying to quell the urge to volunteer out of “a misplaced sense of (survivor’s) guilt”. a company’s operation then doesn’t grind to a halt and might even make it more successful hence enabling it to provide more jobs for those who lost jobs to the calamity.

        5. hiring able evacuees instead of volunteering equate to jobs created during the calamity period to help stimulate recovery, at the very least, for these hired evacuees.

        6. there will be less rancor among those evacuees (those who are unable to receive relief goods that have run out) toward the people distributing because these people distributing the goods are victims as well.

        7. if hired able evacuees distribute the relief goods themselves instead of volunteers, there will be less opportunities for politicians to take advantage of the situation. (since politicians tend to use these distribution events as a chance for a photo op and to further enhance their campaigns)

        8. you free the military and police to concentrate on rescue efforts and security instead of being the ones tasked to hand out the relief goods.

        the structure of society during this calamity should be:

        students - volunteer (because classes are suspended and it’s better to help than go to a mall and spend money on a movie or coffee, much less gossip)

        workforce - donate (because if you are earning, you can donate the money you earn to fuel the relief effort)

        elites (actors, big business, gov’t, etc) - donate, appeal (utilize the PR and marketing teams at their disposal)

        relief organizations - organize, supervise

        able evacuees - hired to pack the relief goods and to distribute them.

        military/police - rescue, security, logistics

        lazy people - complain

      4. luis Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm

        Gabriel: That idea is worthy of a real economist, although sadly I’m quite sure people would be in an absolute uproar about how the evacuees are being “exploited.” I feel faint just thinking about the trending topics on Twitter. Brilliant idea though, seriously.

      5. Ryan Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm

        Gabriel: Another interesting hypothesis that I’m afraid might fall flat on its ass in the real world.

        >>6. there will be less rancor among those evacuees (those who are unable to receive relief goods that have run out) toward the people distributing because these people distributing the goods are victims as well.

        Your 100 evacuees, who would pick them? How would the rest of the evacuees feel, knowing that those 100 special folks are getting money AND relief goods? I’m merely speculating, but it’s hard to assess these things when you aren’t the one that’s been baking in the humid, superheated air for three days waiting for any sort of relief to arrive. There’s a reason why evacuees have been attacking unarmed relief trucks, and why it’s now necessary for trucks to be accompanied by elements of the army or police.

        A caveat would be that this might work in some less devastated areas, where there is a little bit more order an and a little less desperation.

      6. Marco Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm

        Point 1 - Indeed, this does cause a loss from the business standpoint; there’s no arguing that. But common sense would also dictate that the average volunteer wouldn’t be concerned with that, nor would your average victim. And the loss of potential output is outweighed by the potential loss of life in this case. We’re not disagreeing here, per se, but for the interests of relevance, we must weigh in all accounts.

        Even by your update’s own example, we can see that helping according to the standards set by the original post still isn’t financially sound for a business. Let’s put up a hypothetical software development company. In light of the crisis, the company’s developers decide to create a system much like Sahana. The work those developers put into Sahana could be put into the company’s usual business, incurring a loss of potential output.

        Point 2 - I believe the post and my comment have a different operational definition as to what a volunteer is. From I gather, the post defines that a volunteer as “one who goes to relief centers to be physically-present help”. The definition I use is “one who helps relief efforts in any capacity without need for compensation”. Volunteerism, in my definition at least, is just that - working for no pay at all. Taking into account these two different definitions, we can see that there’s no real grounds upon which our opinions can argue.

        Working on my definition, however, we can see that my statement that “It doesn’t matter who you are; what matters is that you do what you can” does, in fact, agree with you opinions towards specialized operations. The musician who dismisses his talent fees to play for a charity fundraising event is volunteering in my book.

        I may have used the example of a relief center rather heavily in my discussion, and that is my own shortcoming. I should clarify that by saying that you don’t need to be at a volunteer center to do volunteer work. I think we can both agree on that. The update even explicitly stated that Sahana was a project “that software engineers are volunteering to help populate and maintain”.

        Besides that, however, the update still fails to acknowledge the flip-side that time spent in the cubicle creates a loss in the potential output of relief endeavors. I’m sure you’ll acknowledge the fact that there are times when employees just aren’t needed, because A)The company’s needs are already being addressed by other workers; B)Running projects would only be bogged down by a surplus of workers; or C)There just isn’t any work to do. These periods would last more than a few hours, hours that could more efficiently be spent producing output at relief efforts.

        Point 3 - I addressed this on the previous post. It was my own error in failing to recognize that a surplus of volunteers actually bogged down relief efforts. In that regard, I suggested that responsible volunteering may entail moving on from where there’s more than enough help, to where you’re actually needed. I also agreed with krangsquared that in these cases, it’s better to err on the side of surplus than on the side of shortage.

        Regarding the lack of manpower, we can agree that there isn’t a shortage in potential manpower. Yet the relief centers that constantly ask for volunteers experience a shortage of mobilized manpower. Since that need is urgent, the actions of many of those who take a day off from work may very well be justified. After all, what good is the manpower of a “volunteer” if that individual doesn’t do any actual volunteer work?

        Point 4 - Addressed by Point 2. Also, in light of disaster, almost all help is “appropriate”, don’t you think?

        Point 5 - The post talked about providing an perspective alternative to that of public opinion, but as with many discourses of this sort, does so by shutting out public opinion, which weighs heavily on these matters. To simply reason out on such a limited behalf is just not going to cut it in an issue this pressing.

        This is a public medium, and as such, the public opinion must weigh in, regardless of the nature of the argument. Attempts to do so are indeed present in the original post (”But, you cry [...]“), yet they were lacking. My comment, if anything, was to supply those missing parts to the best of my ability, as is the purpose of this rather lengthy comment.

        Enough potential output has been lost for today. Excuse any typos or missing words, didn’t do a check this time. See you tomorrow. :P

      7. sparks Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm

        On Volunteerism: A Response to Luis

      8. Ryan Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm

        >>but I would argue that feeding victims is not as urgent as rescuing the drowning.

        While it’s easy to assume that rescue is more important than relief, the truth is that in many natural disasters it’s the death toll that arises afterwards that are more problematic. Consider that Relief means not only Food, but medicines as well. As more evacuees get packed into shelters the chances of communicable diseases running rampant get higher. Add to the fact that over the next few days many of them will be weak and malnourished and more susceptible to disease, and you have a pandemic waiting to happen. Not arguing the point about volunteers anymore, just volunteering that relief is oftentimes far more important in the long run than is rescue.

        >>Perhaps I’m in a unique position to have an optimistic opinion on this matter because our family runs a manpower agency, so we have a good idea of where to find minimum-wage earners quickly

        So uh, why not set up a paypal donation site where developers could send donations to hire your manpower to “volunteer” for them? Seems a logical conclusion to your arguments, unless you’ve already done so?

      9. Gabriel Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm

        Ryan,

        thanks for thinking my comment through. to make things clear though, i did volunteer and i did donate and i still help coordinate efforts here in our area. we were inundated by floodwaters and several people i care about lost their homes. what i stated were based on my observations while doing volunteer work on how things can be made to be more efficient. it’s not about exploiting the victims but more empowering them. those who are able to work and want to help.

        you said:
        “Your 100 evacuees, who would pick them? How would the rest of the evacuees feel, knowing that those 100 special folks are getting money AND relief goods?”

        sorry, i didnt clear that up. you don’t pick them, they volunteer if they want and are able to, and since we recognize that they are victims, they shall be compensated for this work and as such will be advised not to line up for relief goods anymore (a registry might help) so that the relief goods can go to someone else who needs it. the fact of the matter is, some evacuees do get double. its so disorganized in some areas that some people who live in one house will have two to three people lining up. you can only feel sorry for those at the back of the line once the relief packs run out.

        and true, this model might work for less desperate, devastated areas and could be applied as such thereby allowing other volunteers to concentrate their efforts on the areas that are more severe.

        all ideas and theories actually fall flat on their ass once applied in reality. i just believe in empowerment as a more lasting form of help as opposed to reinforcing a victim-mentality in the long run. coz let’s face it, the relief goods are here now. but what about next week?

        in the end, help if you can. no matter how, no matter what. it is a noble thing. but it’s not wrong to think of theories to make things a bit more efficient. you aren’t hurting anyone by being open minded. and if the theory won’t work in reality, be thankful it isn’t policy.

      10. noreen Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm

        let’s be realistic. we can’t even fully implement sahana during ondoy.

        let the smartest guy pack relief goods if he thinks that’s what he ought to do given the _urgency_ of the situation. if he’d packed a 1000 goods in a day, do you really think it was horribly wasteful? that you rather wish he’d recoded the PAG-ASA software that day!?

      11. Erol Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm

        Luis: That is exactly the reason why I stated in my first comment that I do not agree with sacrificing work hours to volunteer.

        But, I’ve realized that all our talk have been under the pretense that money, or material goods, is the only utility. IMHO, we have to take into consideration the fact that motivation is also a valuable utility in the sense that motivation can drive productivity up and increase efficiency. If a volunteer finds renewed motivation due to volunteering - socializing with other volunteers and seeing the product of his/her manual labor with his/her own every eyes (a stark contrast to what happens in the cramped, stressful and routinary confines of a cubicle) - the benefit goes across the board (the company included) and can out-weigh your perceived inefficiency of the person not using his full potential.

      12. noreen Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm

        let’s not waste our time on this article. there are more bags to pack. hehe. oh — sorry i think i was assigned to remodel PAG-ASA’s predictions. good thing i have knowledge in autoregression.

      13. mark Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm

        Involving the evacuees/victims in the relief operation is a good idea. However, paying them for their services isn’t a requirement. It can be volunteerism on their part - just let those who want to help to help. Hiring people to do volunteer work, seems to be out of place. It doesn’t seem to fit the word volunteer.

        Let’s not forget that people have freedom to choose what they want. They are free to choose the way they can help or wants to help.

        Thank you for your opinion. It helps people realize that there are other ways to help(effeciently). But let us give them the freedom to choose. If they choose to help or help more (by being effecient), so be it.

        [On the side] Companies should match or exceed the contribution of their employees. I.e. If I donate $50 the company should also donate $50. :D

      14. diego Says:
        October 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm

        “I’m simply saying that you need to consider whether that’s truly the best way for you to help the relief effort.”

        This quoted set of words is definitely void in meaning. Also, you are indeed an engineer at the wrong context. To help you do not need to think of the best way. It’s the help itself that is important. Moreover, would your “best way” help others if they are already dead. Urgency is the point Mr. Engineer.

      15. GabbyD Says:
        October 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm

        this is a good application of the concept of opportunity cost. good job.

        as you’ve pointed out tho, information/logistical problems cloud the practical application of this. but the general principle remains.

      16. Rich Muhlach Says:
        October 12th, 2009 at 9:35 am

        Funny how some people have missed the point. I compleletly agree with Luis, in that some people are more suited to optimize their skills / knowledge / talents that they have been blessed with.

        NOW CALM DOWN PEOPLE, it’s not as if this article is suggesting people should stop volunteering just because they earn more than this amount or their star status is this high. Like one commenter said, everyone has the right or the freedom to choose to volunteer. All this article is saying, is if people want to be efficient, then there are better ways to channel your skills / knowledge / talent if you are in the position to do so.

        In organized sports, players are assigned positions - ie the tallest player in the basketball team plays “center” and usually is responsible for rebounding / blocking shots. We’re not exactly “pigeon-hole-ing” him and forbidding him to handle point guard duties such as dribbling the ball up / passing to the open man etc. (no smart-ass comments about “doing what the coach says” or “it’s good to have variety” etc!!!) The point is, the “center” is more adept at rebounding / blocking shots as he has the height advantage - it’s all about using what you have more efficiently.

        I mean, c’mon guys. We’re all on the same team.

      17. Gabriel Says:
        October 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm

        a month has passed, relief organizations/agencies are now begging for volunteers to pack the goods before they’re spoiled. the volunteers don’t come in droves anymore. more trickle. was the unbridled fervor of volunteerism on the first and second week just a passing fancy? or as luis has stated, survivor’s guilt? should we not now consider my earlier proposal? ryan, does the theory now fall flat on it’s face?

      Leave a Reply

     

    categories

    • Home
    • Business (103)
      • Acquisitions (15)
      • Goin' Legit (61)
    • Media (326)
      • Artwork (12)
      • Books (22)
      • Comics (9)
      • Movies (140)
      • Music (102)
      • Photography (31)
      • Poker (10)
      • TV (30)
    • Randomness (300)
    • Site News (8)
    • Technology (274)
      • Games (13)
      • Hardware (112)
      • Social Software (45)
      • Software (131)
    • Tutorials (16)

    archives

    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • November 2005
    • October 2005
    • September 2005
    • August 2005
    • July 2005
    • June 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • March 2005
    • February 2005
    • January 2005
    • December 2004
    • November 2004
    • October 2004
    • September 2004
    • August 2004
    • July 2004
    • June 2004
    • May 2004
    • April 2004
    • March 2004
    • February 2004
    • January 2004
    • December 2003
    • November 2003
    • October 2003
    • September 2003
    • August 2003
    • July 2003
    • June 2003
    • May 2003
    • April 2003
    • March 2003
    • February 2003
    • January 2003
    • December 2002
    • November 2002
    • October 2002
    • September 2002
    • July 2002
    • May 2002
    • April 2002
    • February 2002
    • January 2002
    • December 2001
    • November 2001
    • October 2001

    friends

    • Dementia
    • Gabby
    • Gail
    • Gibbs
    • Helga
    • Ia
    • Ina
    • Jason
    • Kaye
    • Lauren
    • Lizz
    • Luna
    • Mae
    • Migs
    • Mike
    • Ryan
    • Sacha
    • Vicky
    • Vida
    • Yuga

    search

    notes

    Guttervomit v3 went online in January, 2008. It uses Wordpress for publishing, and was built largely with Adobe Illustrator and Textmate. Logotype and navigation is set with Interstate.