Help Japan

[keyboardlover]

Hi Folks,

I am urging everyone to contribute aid to Japan. Please tell your friends, relatives, etc. The situation there, as I'm sure you all know, is incredibly devastating.

Here's information how you can help:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 41f918b99b

Thanks
\KL

[yellowFreak]

You can also donate directly to Japanese Red Cross Society. Easy transaction through google.

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/ja ... e2011.html

Praying from both Denmark and Vietnam

[keyboardlover]

Thanks yellowFreak! ^^

[False_Dmitry_II]

Did all those aircraft carriers, etc that were announced as having been sent started to do anything? I tried to google it, but all I found was the announcement. Though I suppose it's possible they just aren't there yet, I don't know how fast those ginormous things can move around.

[Ascaii]

Did all those aircraft carriers, etc that were announced as having been sent started to do anything? I tried to google it, but all I found was the announcement. Though I suppose it's possible they just aren't there yet, I don't know how fast those ginormous things can move around.

last i heard theyve been sending the choppers from the carriers inland to deliver food and emergency supplies to cut off villages.

[webwit]

Be very careful who you give your money to and where it really goes. Most of these organizations are a stinking cesspool of corruption. This includes the Red Cross - actually they are probably the worst of all. And no, it doesn't make a difference for Japan. For example, the Red Cross has a vast amount of money in the banks, pays their directors more than prime ministers, get driven around in expensive cars, and operate from palaces. The only reason they collect now is because of the pr opportunity to secure some of next years' budget. What you give now will not go to Japan. Here's a trick: ask before you give about the salary of the director/management. Ask about a transparent overview of how the money for Haiti was spend. Here's are example responses for Unicef Netherlands: More than the PM, and "I don't give a fuck".

These organizations have been taken over and are rotten from within. Give your money only to real direct aid or organizations completely run by volunteers.

[keyboardlover]

A. Do you have proof to support your claims?

B. What org. do you recommend?

[gorb]

the red cross:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=3277

Total Revenue $3,301,803,766
Program Expenses $3,143,144,037
Administrative Expenses $151,855,735
Fundraising Expenses $126,579,899

Leadership (FYE 06/2009)
Name Title Compensation % of Expenses
Gail J. McGovern President, CEO $446,867 0.01%
Other Salaries of Note
James Hrouda EVP, Biomedical Services $566,629 0.01%
Mary Elcano General Counsel, Secretary $480,880 0.01%

[keyboardlover]

Those are very low salaries for those kind of positions. About what I'd expect.

[webwit]

A. Do you have proof to support your claims?

B. What org. do you recommend?

A. Yes, do you read Dutch? There was a transparency law here a few years ago which forced them to expose their financials, and it has been scandal after scandal after that. These are usual international organizations, exposing the lot of them. The latest of this was a week ago when a manager of Amnesty was fired, she was heading the department to battle poverty, got 600,000 EUR as a exit bonus. Mostly they are about the insane payments the directors arranged for themselves. Also I have been in this business myself, when I was young and did not realize it was a business yet. IT is good in that regard. You get to see all the numbers. For example, if one of those charities mails you, and you decide to donate on a yearly basis, the first two to three years your contribution goes to the mailing list provider. Of course they don't tell you that.

B. Considering Japan, at this point you can do nothing except personal help, as donations to big charities will go to the general budget and what they do now is already paid for. Do you know someone in Japan? In general, look for local or national charities which you like and try to find what the management is paid and how much of the money goes to aid. If their website or contact person throws up mist, don't trust it. In general, getting paid for a job in charity over the long term leads to corrupted bureaucracies.

[webwit]

Those are very low salaries for those kind of positions. About what I'd expect.

Half a million is low? Oh, in that case, proceed to give your money to them. I bet they didn't include pensions and secundary stuff, probably making it a cool million. What is their driver paid, what car? It's a good thing misery is creating millionaires, payed for by middle class.

[keyboardlover]

Have you ever heard of a CEO making less than 1m?

Mine makes over 15m.

Also, seeing as your keyboard collection is likely worth a nice house and two cars, it seems a bit hypocritical for you to be pointing fingers.

[webwit]

Charity isn't the commercial sector. Also, if you find it normal that your CEO makes 15m (and hence normal they make a lot of money in charity!) I have nothing else left to say except the middle class deserves their ever increasing poverty while your CEO will be making ever more.

[webwit]

Also, seeing as your keyboard collection is likely worth a nice house and two cars, it seems a bit hypocritical for you to be pointing fingers.

I donated a few years of my life to aid. What about you?

[gorb]

Those are very low salaries for those kind of positions. About what I'd expect.

They're charity organizations. The pay is excessive imo.

Have you ever heard of a CEO making less than 1m?

Mine makes over 15m.

Yes. Several CEOs have worked for free or for something like $1...the ceo of my company is not one of those -
compensation info from wikipedia:
While CEO of L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. in 2008, Michael T. Strianese earned a total compensation of $12,414,890, which included a base salary of $1,145,385, a cash bonus of $2,750,000, stocks granted of $5,123,485, options granted of $3,299,999, and other compensation of $96,021. In 2009, Strianese earned a total compensation of $13,669,590, which included a base salary of $1,284,231, a cash bonus of $3 million, stocks granted of $5,733,932, options granted of $3,499,995, and other compensation of $151,432.
2010 compensation info from forbes:


I only make $33238.4/yr, pre-tax :(

[False_Dmitry_II]

Regardless of whether their CEO is paid too much or not, if someone finds a better/more direct place to donate be sure to let the rest of us know.

[webwit]

Medians are the big trick. They will tell you the CEO needs to earn near the medium to compete for good CEOs (oh, and look, what a great guy, he earns slightly less). When they do that, realize it is a trick, and think the same for the work force which they are probably planning to export to low wage countries. Because you also only need one CEO for a workforce of 10000. There are enough good CEOs, and why not get a cheaper Chinese one? And why aren't you paid well because otherwise they'd have to opt for a lesser employee? Either the workforce and the CEO both earn more and more and towards an insane median based on fictional competition, or they both don't. The worst is middle class who parrot what the CEOs say which they made up in order to talk right their insane compensations.

[keyboardlover]

Regardless of whether their CEO is paid too much or not, if someone finds a better/more direct place to donate be sure to let the rest of us know.

Yea, THAT would be constructive. All I see is complaining about the red cross with no facts to back up that your money won't help people. Exec salaries don't show that.

[webwit]

Yes, where is the evidence?

[gorb]

After some quick research this charity seems decent enough:
http://brothersbrother.org/
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=3396

99.9% of their money goes to the program vs 91.8% for the red cross

[webwit]

91.8% for the red cross

You better look at that 91.8%. Yes, I'm cynical, but unfortunately it is based on experience. Accounting is an art. At the end of the chain where people actually receive stuff and services, it will be much, much less.

[IanM]

99.9% of their money goes to the program vs 91.8% for the red cross

Please don't use these types of numbers to compare charities, at best they are superficial and misleading, and total fraud at worst. Aside from the corruption issues, these charities are run like businesses and are competing with each other for the same pool of donation money. As such they exploit the same cheap marketing tactics that all advertisers use - they try to simplify everything down to a few simple numbers in order to say "hey, we have the biggest number on our specification! that means we're the best!" Usually it's meaningless and has nothing to do with reality. Remember: lies, damned lies and statistics

The real shame of this situation is how it hurts smaller charities, they can't compete on these types of number comparisons even if they use the same kinds of dirty accountancy tricks. If you really want to be sure that the cause is worthy, look at the charity more deeply, see what they do and how the money is spent, and what difference it really makes to the lives of the people it is helping.

[gorb]

Well I didn't get the numbers from the charities themselves, I got them from charitynavigator.org which is a rating website...I dunno how accurate they are of course.

[webwit]

For Dutch speaking people, here's a book about this works:
http://blog.seniorennet.be/minervaria/a ... ?ID=656452

The charities are too busy with aiding their own existence. No charity can afford to leave a humanitarian space. Because they are dependent on donors, media attention for disasters means more income for the charities. It is important to be in the focus at each humanitarian disaster. So they have to be present on the field, no matter how this looks.

International aid is an industry. The organizations are disguised as Mother Theresa. It is a moral industry, where the players are always looking for a new sweet spot in the market of Doing Good. Battles for contracts with donors divide the charities and drive them into competition. They profit from the media's urge to score. For funds they must sell themselves. There is a strong battle over attention and money. Without violence and destruction, no aid, the more total the destruction, more aid. So they focus on misery and the numbers and misery of the victims is extrapolated. In the meantime huge numbers of people don't have access to aid. They live in countries or areas where the charities cannot market themselves or where they have no interests.

On top of this not all charities can be trusted. There are a lot of bad ones. Smaller, often religiously inspired organizations are often completely incompetent and make matters worse. Sometimes money is outrageously spend on huge salaries and the decadent live of a number of charity workers.

Japan doesn't need your financial aid. They just pumped 180 billion in the economy so the stocks don't go down too much. This is a logistics problem, getting manpower, specialists and goods in the disaster areas. That operation won't change if you donate money now (too late). There is not much you can do. What you should learn from the quote is ask your charity how Niger is doing. If on the other hand they market some kind of urgency for you to donate because of what happened in Japan, you know where it is coming from, and they are just playing on your emotions, they are selling you emotion - you will feel better if you give them your money, right?

[ripster]

I remember this one argument last year over Save the Children and Haiti. I doubled my giving to them because of Webwit (just finished up my taxes so the deduction is quite fresh in my mind).

For Japan I am thinking of donating MORE to Save the Children and already have bought a 30" U3011 monitor and HP DM1z laptop in order to keep their economy moving along.

And BOYCOTT PRC MADE KEYBOARDS!!!! Reds. Oppressors of the masses and counter-revolutionary enemies of the people.

[IanM]

Well I didn't get the numbers from the charities themselves, I got them from charitynavigator.org which is a rating website...I dunno how accurate they are of course.

If you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, or review figures that were independently audited, the second part of my point is still true - the smaller charity cannot compete for donations on these simplistic terms. The small charity may do exceptional work, and yet wouldn't receive any donations if everybody considered the efficiency figure alone.

[Crazy9000]

Buy a Topre keyboard and more of your money will go to the Japanese economy. Win-win too.

[webwit]

I'm just saying all this so rapster gives more to charity.

[guilleguillaume]

I don't trust any of these charity groups. Your countries are donating money so you're donating it too because the money comes from your taxes.

[ripster]

Actually the French Government never actually does anything to help others. They just propose UN Resolutions to take out Gaddafi's Air Force without having any real military force of their own to speak of.