Perspective: Hey, Silicon Valley--you can't take it with you

Another scorching summer. But not even the dog days can wilt the movable feast that is Manhattan's art scene.

So it was that during a round of museum-hopping on a recent trip to New York, my attention turned to the list of benefactors who had helped acquire and house many of these treasures over the years.

The donor roll call reads like something out of a musty edition of Who's Who in America. Names like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Frick and Rockefeller recall another time and another New York. These were the folks who helped create what later became this nation's cultural capital.

My guess is that future generations won't be much exercised about Bill Gates' corporate sins, real and imagined.

Of course, in their day, none of these gentlemen was considered, well, much of a gentleman, but money has a unique cleansing effect. Millions of dollars in contributions can do wonders to rehabilitate reputations--even when the givers included some the most notorious figures from the Gilded Age.

I doubt many people these days much care whether John D. Rockefeller conducted himself like a predatory monopolist in the late 19th century. His legacy outlives the memory of his exploits in the museums and hospitals and universities that have benefited from Rockefeller funding.

In a similar way, my guess is that future generations won't be much exercised about Bill Gates' corporate sins, real and imagined, in the late 20th century. That's because the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated more than $7 billion to global health, education and libraries around the world since its inception in 2000. With the foundation's nearly $29 billion endowment, Gates is going to figure as the greatest philanthropist in the nation's history.

This doesn't excuse Microsoft's bad behavior during the browser wars of the late 1990s. But unlike many of his super-rich contemporaries who became gazillionaires during the tech boom, Gates--like his robber baron predecessors a century earlier--is creating a lasting legacy by giving back to society on a monumental scale. I couldn't care less about his motivation. What's more important are the new facts on the ground he's creating.

Remarkably, few tech moguls have followed his lead. Maybe they're hoping for another tax incentive from the government. Maybe they're waiting to see how the fiscal year ends. Maybe they're biding their time until the kids graduate from college. Then again, maybe they just don't buy into all this do-gooder stuff. After all, they made it, so why shouldn't they keep it all?

The paucity of private philanthropy is connected to a bigger issue that rarely gets serious attention in Silicon Valley: Is there a social contract that ought to be honored? And if so, what responsibilities should corporations assume beyond that of taking care of shareholders?

It's not at all clear that there's much enthusiasm to go down that path in this supposedly bleeding heart corner of Northern California. The reality is that this is a post-industrial enclave of bonafide cheapskates.

Compare the tech elite's relative apathy toward helping the larger community to the active involvement of the rising entrepreneurial class that helped build New York in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The contrast is nothing short of dramatic.

I'm happy to see that technology writer Dan Gillmor plans to take up the issue at a public meeting next Monday in Palo Alto with Eric Benhamou, chairman of Palm, 3Com and Benhamou Global Ventures. Maybe that will kindle a conversation that needs to happen.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[ss_Whiplash]

Let's look at ourselves also though

It's nice to look at the rich and say "why aren't they giving more", but when it comes to charity, every little bit counts. We all need to be giving a percentage to worthy causes.

[dmm]

The masses have the moulah

1) I like the story and I like the comment above. Let's all keep in mind that if Americans tithed their take-home pay (gave away 10% to charity), the total given would dwarf the amounts that rich people like Gates give. All charities would be swimming in money. Well, OK, maybe not, because more charities would then automatically spring up. But the point is, volunteer fire departments would have defibrillators, churches and service organizations would have good facilities for their many programs, research into disease cures would progress faster, youth sport clubs would be better equipped to keep kids out of trouble, child development programs would better prevent wasted minds and lives, etc., etc., etc. Plus, there would be more involvement by people in their communities, because "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." So go ahead, Charles Cooper, and call them what they are: cheapskates. But don't let the rest of us off the hook either.

2) Somebody below compared guilt-induced charitable giving to mandatory taxes. There are HUGE differences!!! First, recipients of charity cannot use their votes to force givers to increase the gifts or make the gifts permanent. Second, charity givers are free to give to whomever they want, so they aren't forced to support things they are against. Third, charity givers are giving away their OWN money, not someone else's like gov't does, so they carefully watch how it is spent. They quickly punish wasteful organizations, and they stop giving when the need stops.

3) For the reasons given above, people like Reagan and Limbaugh are AGAINST taxes to support gov't social programs but FOR voluntary donations to support charitable organizations which often run similar programs. (Notice that this also has the desirable effect of reducing church/state entanglement.) Government "charity" should only be used to perform massive interventions that would be beyond the ability of local charities. Possible examples are flood control dams, interstate highways, disaster relief, toxic waste cleanup, halting epidemics, etc. Nine times out of ten, the phrase "I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you" should make you terrified.

[JLBer]

Wow.

Okay, let me get this straight.

A. The company provides a product or service.
B. The public purchases that service.
C. The public likes the services that they purchase again and again.
D. The public's continual, voluntary purchasing (yes, it's voluntary - even if the product or service is someowhat proprietary) for the company's product or service makes the company earn boatloads of money.
E. If the company does not give some of that money back to society, money that was given to them voluntary by customers who want their products and services, the company is labelled as a bunch of cheapskates.

Oh ... my ... God ...

The arrogance of applying such a holier-than-thou label is staggering. No company is obligated to perform any kind of social or philanthropic service. Indeed the statement of "they earned it, they should keep it" is 100% viable regardless of how much people might not like it. Why is it always okay to tell others (particularly corporations) to give their money to charity when most people are reluctant to do so themselves?

Corporate philanthropy is a marketing and PR scheme more than anything else, so from a public image perspective it is good for a company to give back. But the simple fact is that if they have a product or service that I need and fits my budget, I will buy from them whether they're philanthropic or not. Companies are no more required to give back to the community than you are obligated make a purchase from that company. To label any company or individual as a cheapskate just because they don't want to give up money that - horrors! - actually does belong to them because they earned it is nothing short of arrogant, hypocritical judgementalism.

Wow is right

I think you misunderstood the piece. It was promoting philanthropy on the part of those individuals in the tech industry who have made more $$$ than they can sensibly spend in several lifetimes. I won't name any names, but anyone who's lived in the Valley for any length of time can probably think of a few.

Although I doubt if any of them are reading this. :-)

giving back

well the fact remains that a company that gives
back gets more in return. if i had a company i
would be the first in line to give to say hud
homes or something that would reach the public.
cause i know that that charity what ever it may
be will give back to me, in say a radio add.
its just the way things work if i gave something
to my family i know that i will get something in
return even if its a thankyou i get something in
return so i would say that a company not give
what they could is only hurting there self by
not letting pr do its magical wonders.

[CompEng]

Everything you earned was given to you

First, most transactions are not really based on exchanges of equal value - they're based on exchange of equal value + leverage. That is, most of our economy is based on people trying to get enough ownership/leverage not to have to do any real work. As much as I hate to admit it, folks like Bill Gates that continue to add value and vision to the world, rather than simply trying to increase their leverage to increase their wealth, are relatively rare (although I'm sure you can come up with a number of more examples).
Second, whatever you're exchanging in a transaction was given you. Period. Everything in this world, every talent and opportunity you have, was given to you. You don't have to be religious to recognize that basic truth - it's a fact of life.
But a Christian like myself believes that what I was given, I have an obligation to give back, minus whatever is required to sustain my well-being. This is what most religions teach. Furthermore, that type of morality is required to hold a free society together, or it will fall apart. We all have to live in the same society, and the underlying social contract that keeps interactions civil simply can't survive the natural inequities that any society will produce without the love and compassion to continually mend them. Ignore that factor, you'll never understand the rising crime, lowering work ethic, and basic corruption and dishonesty that always threaten to tear society apart. And the greater the technical strength of the society, the worse it gets, since each individual has the ability to do a lot more damage when alienated.

This is OLD NEWS

This is such old news.

Paulina Borsook discussed this issue at considerable length in her book Cyberselfish. For a concise statement of the theme, see http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1996/07/borsook.html

[papifrank]

it's always old

Just because it has been discussed in the past, doesn't mean that everyone heard about it. We also need a constant reminder of what we tend to forget. Thanks cnet.

[markdoiron]

Old News; You Bet!

i remember reading an article years ago on zd-net scalding Gates for being a cheapskate! that was before the gates foundation, of course.

mark d.

[inouyde]

5-Foot Philanthropy

A company pays taxes and some of that is used by the government to support social programs and needs.

A company hires people and pays them a salary, some of which they can use to help support social programs, the arts, medical research, etc.

When you're swimming in money like Uncle Bill is, a formal foundation is probably the best way to distribute boatloads of philanthropic cash.

Just because there isn't an Ellison Foundation or a Jobs Group doesn't mean they don't open their own personal checkbooks.

I make an income of mid five-figures (Boy Howdy!) and try to take care of any social ills within a 5-foot radius of my person. I'm trying to save the world one dollar at a time.

A tech mogul doesn't have to give to causes, but I'm sure his/her parents would be proud if he/she did...

[alx359]

that's a social glitch being exploited

Money, in a general sense, is a reflection of the added-value an individual is able to contribute to the social organism in a lifetime.

Similarly as muscle-power, a human being could be 2X, 4X, 10X more capable than average, but when scale goes up in the 1kX, milX, bilX range, there is simply something wrong with the measure being applied to someone's contribution. Figuratively speaking, such ranges are right for gods, not humans.

The problem is, money also measures social processes of a higher-scale, which are not related to anything that creates value per se, but simply the flowing (and growth) of huge amounts of substantial value that's already being done by others.

What happens is, a relatively few got a better chance to insert/organize/control and suck from such monetary-expressed social flowing and then came up on top claiming ownership, as if they did alone the whole thing by themselves...

That's "smart" but not fair at all to the rest of society. It should be a specific social mechanism to mitigate the exploitation of such social by-product by a few. Most of monetary moguls should understand that they do not *own* their pile of amassed money, but got the good chance (and right skills of course) to *dress authority* and *administer* a social resource that should be finally used for the benefit of others.

?Monetary leaders? should keep the right and the power to choose how such monies should be spent or invested. Entrepreneurs, leaders and visionaries are always in shortage supply in the inherently passive social organism and they deserve their special status, but they shouldn?t get the right to suck and own the product of others because of this.

[dmm]

In other words, lucky

Good point. Gates is roughly my age but has somewhere from a hundred-thousand to a million times my net worth. Although Gates is certainly smart and hard-working, I don't think he is a million times so. It doesn't take anything away from people like Gates to point out that their fortunes are mostly due to good fortune. And saying so isn't envy or covetousness either; it's just common sense. No one begrudges a lottery winner from enjoying his luck, but everyone also expects him to "spread the wealth" a bit, to his family, friends, neighbors, and world. There was even a "reality" TV show based on it.

[dmm]

all americans are lucky

Just wanted to reiterate my earlier comment. Let's all keep in mind how financially lucky Americans (and Europeans) are compared to most of the world, and act accordingly. Indeed, most people reading c/net boards are probably financially lucky compared to most others in their country.

[markdoiron]

Money and Societal Worth

"Money, in a general sense, is a reflection of the added-value an individual is able to contribute to the social organism in a lifetime."

sorry, i can't disagree strongly enough with this. think of it this way: if this were true, then are the highly paid sports stars of today making significant enough contributions to society that they're names will be remembered for longer than a few decades? most folks can't name more than a couple sports stars from 100 years ago (who may have been underpaid and exploited, but were stars of their day none the less), much less 150-200 years ago. also, what is the added value to society of breaking a home run hitting record by a couple more? the same can be applied to various professions that are highly overpaid for their contributions to society, including movie and music stars, and overpaid ceo's.

i really cringe when i read/hear someone call such folks "heroes" (as in "sports heroes"). they aren't heroes. heroes are sleeping restlessly in iraq, hoping to make it home in six months. they're fighting a fire in a local home, and comforting the mother who just lost her 3-year old daughter in it. they're volunteering in the local charities, for scouting organizations, at the church down the road from your house, at your child's school. their names won't be remember either, but they have no foolish expectation of that. they just hope that someone with a little money to spare will make a kind donation their direction; something so that they can better do their good work.

mark d.

Will Said

I contribute every time I get paid (taxes) and that is more than enough! If someone wants to donate money to whatever that is fine, and if they do not want to that should be fine too. It does not make them cheap.

[markdoiron]

Enough?

"I contribute every time I get paid (taxes) and that is more than enough!"

i could point you in the direction of a number of organizations that could use donations. there is not enough charitable giving for many of them. they could do much more good if given the resources. on top of that, unlike with taxes, you could choose the type of good you do, whether it's buying books for a library, helping boys grow up to be good men, guiding folks in their spiritual life, aiding the homeless or sick, helping refugees of war or weather, etc. you get the idea.

mark d.

[Andrew J Glina]

As I see it

I think many people are missing the point here. This is not a personal attack on average income earners. There is no need to go on about taxes and stuff. The point was that Bill is personally (not Microsoft, they donate separately) donating large amounts of money to world causes, and few other million and billionares are.

I suppose Steve needs to keep his wardrobe up to date and Larry's boat is getting a bit old.

[airbns]

Are you sure?

Hmmm. What evidence do we have that the valley wealthy don't give to charity? I didn't see any in this article, just some impolite finger pointing.

As someone else already pointed out, we don't know anything about what someone may have earmarked for charity when they die. And I've seen a number of articles suggesting that charitable donations in the valley are offered at a higher rate than in other areas of the country. So I find the whole premise behind this article suspect. Especially since I can think of two valley pioneers who gave virtually their entire fortunes to charity - David Packard and William Hewlett.

As for comparing Carnegie to today's wealthy, come on, now. Carnegie and the robber barons all left considerable fortunes to their families. What they gave to charity, well, let's not forget that there weren't any income taxes until, what, 1913? Today's wealthy give a significant amount of wealth to charity in the form of taxes. The middle class too. What's shocking is how little we all get in return for the immense amount of money we give. Comparing with Carnegie kind of makes one think we'd get a lot more substance out of the money if we eliminated income taxes and left the extremely rich to their own devices, doesn't it?

[kakman1]

anonymous contributors

actually, for every two dozen or so gluttons who squandered their dot com millions there has been one to three quiet philanthropists who have anonymously given back to society.
the greedheads fomented on the east coast during the eighties were far worse and hedonistic. their idea of giving back was sponsoring a derelict spray can artist or semi-pornographic mixed media performance artist and sculptor.
for every gates, wozniak, allen there are far more anonymous donors who also give personal time as well as money
lest we forget members of the open source community who contribute time and effort to create software apps,tools, etc, that benefit everyone who cannot afford proprietary software counterparts.

How do you know?

Not every rich, famous person who gives to charity brags about it, nor does every company which gives to charity. A few years ago, I found out, much to my surprise, that my (now) former employer actually gave rather sizable amounts of money to charity. It was surprising, because up to that point, they had made no effort to get any PR out of this. They weren't advertising about their contributions to generate any goodwill among their customers; they simply gave.

Unfortunately, they did decide to change that policy, and I lost a little respect for them, even though I understand the reasoning and I feel that charity for any reason is good. It must always be compared to one's other actions, of course; that's why Gates doesn't have my respect despite the billions he gives. Still, this example illustrates a valid point in that it is unwise to assume they aren't giving.

I mean, who really likes it when someone goes out and brags about how good they are? Don't we usually call that arrogance, or attention-seeking, or some other "negative" personality trait? I mean, if they are giving to charity now, and they aren't bragging about it, then they are doing it for their satisfaction--to me, at least, that's a higher form of selflessness then using one's charity to generate positive feeling about oneself. That adds more selfishness into the mix.

So, is that we're asking them to do? It is if the assumption is wrong; we would actually be asking them to be more selfish if they are giving anonymously or discreetly now.

It is only if the assumption is right--that they aren't contributing to charity--that we are actually asking them to be less selfish.

This is just another reason why relying on assumption and appearances so often leads us wrong. The simple fact is that we don't know what these tech leaders are doing charity-wise unless they make it public.

Is there something so wrong in extending the benefit of the doubt when we truly don't know, or is it too much to accept ambiguity in our lives and refrain from judgment? Perhaps it is easier to make assumptions than to admit to and either accept or correct a lack of knowledge or a misunderstanding on our part, and if so, that is one of the saddest truths of our existence.

Wow, how about programmers Charles?

Nice article. Now, how about the programmers who give back millions of dollars worht of their time building free and open source applications? Don't they deserve recognition? Or is their contribution belittled because they give time and effort from their minds, and don't have billions to give?

Curious why they who don't try to "crush everyone" don't deserve the same accolades that a Bill Gates deserves. I think they do as much as they can and do deserve respect. We can't all give away the billions we took from the public if we do things in ways that benefit all, but not to our personal enrichment. That doesn't lessen the contribution of those folks in my mind.

[MyLord]

Bring us another innovation like the internet

and they will have made a greater contribution to humanity than all of Bill Gates' donations.