'Who Cares?' -- A Visual Guide to Americans' Charitable Giving

Thank you.

I check the salary of the CEO of the charity organization. If in my opinion it is excessive, I don't contribute.

Someone on sojo commented a few days ago about the meager charitable contributions of Joe Biden. I don't know whether he has stepped up to the plate for Haiti. But I heard on the news last night that President and Mrs. Obama have made a personal contribution of $15,000. I think that's substantial, even for the President.

Truth, I think your point is well taken. Walmart is a legitimate business. Whether or not their practices are moral/ethical is a whole nother issue. But if they give 1% of the 404 billion they receive from us, in exchange for goods and service, they give 4 billion and 40 million to charity(ies). Not chump change. When Mr. Cho says large donors are giving to their own charities (like Warren Bufffet) they're not just taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. The Foundations they set up are subject to strict rules. They cannot legally use the funds in their foundations for personal expenses.

This ought not to be taken too far. After all, most evangelical Christians give tons of money to their churches; however, I came across one study that noted that 97 percent of it went directly back into the church for staff and building maintenance; most of the rest went to foreign missions. And conservatives also spend a ton of money on its own infrastructure, even though technically it could be called a charity.

I didn't know Walmart was so charitable (no sarcasm intended). If, as you say, they collect $500 billion and make--just for arguments sake--oh $50 billion in profits, then give $5 billion to charity, that would mean that they're giving 10% of their profits to charity, which would be really good. Am I reading this correctly?

Good question. I looked at their 2009 financials and their revenues were $400b and their net income was $13b, so it looks like they gave one-tenth of one percent of their gross revenue to charity, which equals 3.1 percent of their net income.

I think it is also important, though, to look at the impact they have on the NEED for charity.

A few years ago, I was involved in a campaign with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that included a 'buy in' - buying food and other items at Wal-Mart (talking to workers on our way) and then donating them to a local food shelf.

The folks at the food shelf asked if we could put some sort of sticker on each item that indicated who donated it (ie, UFCW). They wanted us to do that because so many of their clients are Wal-Mart employees.

Contributing to systemic poverty, then tossing change at people's immediate needs seems a bit disingenuous.

Why would you buy food at Wal-Mart and turn around and give it to a local food bank. Your food bank surely has greater buying power than does an individual. If you gave the money directly to the food bank they would have more to give to those in need.

As far as Wal-Mart employees utilizing the food bank, is it because they they don't earn enough, or is it because they are aware of the food bank and take advantage of your generosity?

If they don't earn enough is that the fault of Wal-Mart? Last I checked nobody in America is compelled to file an application. What's more, anyone working at Wal-Mart is free to quit and apply for work elsewhere.

The "freedom to quit" is largely illusionary. I used to work at a Wal-Mart and still maintain a decent relationship with many people there. Most do not make a substantial wage, even among managers. Anyone on the ground floor (Sales associates, cashiers, cart pushers) is making meager wages for the effort invested.

And many of the people truly do have no choice. Not because of some ridiculous law or contract that compels them to work there, but because their situation demands it. They're married with kids and need multiple jobs to support themselves. Many young adults work there because their families are less-than-well-off and they need to help support them. In fact many work rather than get an education *because* of the needs of those around them.

I think it's cold and detached to claim that these people "can just quit". Many of them face eviction, hunger, or even possibly having their children taken away if they do that.

Much of that is not Wal-Mart's fault per se, sure. But if Wal-Mart spent a fraction of the effort they put into satisfying their customers into keeping their employees provided for, they'd be doing tons of good. I'm frankly appalled at how little regard they have for their own people.

The "freedom to quit" is largely illusionary. I used to work at a Wal-Mart and still maintain a decent relationship with many people there. Most do not make a substantial wage, even among managers. Anyone on the ground floor (Sales associates, cashiers, cart pushers) is making meager wages for the effort invested.

And many of the people truly do have no choice. Not because of some ridiculous law or contract that compels them to work there, but because their situation demands it. They're married with kids and need multiple jobs to support themselves. Many young adults work there because their families are less-than-well-off and they need to help support them. In fact many work rather than get an education *because* of the needs of those around them.

I think it's cold and detached to claim that these people "can just quit". Many of them face eviction, hunger, or even possibly having their children taken away if they do that.

Much of that is not Wal-Mart's fault per se, sure. But if Wal-Mart spent a fraction of the effort they put into satisfying their customers into keeping their employees provided for, they'd be doing tons of good. I'm frankly appalled at how little regard they have for their own people.

This ought not to be taken too far.

At least Eugene has footnotes for his statistics. I'll take those further than "stats" with no sources.

What's more, during Katrina they beat the tar out of the government in getting aid to people.

I shop at Walmart because it is on the Tulsa Transit bus route that goes by where I live. It's also the closest place to buy groceries, less than mile away. The next place is 2 1/2 miles a way. And I would have to take to buses to get the actual nearest supermarket which is a little over a mile away.

I go to Walmart at least twice a month and my last 2 major purchases were from there. A new PC monitor and HDTV. I needed both because of failing eyesight and they are quite larger than what I had.

While I don't approve of the way that Walmart does things and its calling its general employees "Associates," it's convenient for me as a retired and disabled man.

But it's hardly different pay and working conditions than anywhere else in their industry, correct? And was it any different when K-Mart was dominant, or even mom and pop furniture stores?

Not everyone in America can get a four year degree, perhaps (but a lot can), but anyone, ANYONE can learn a marketable skill and earn more than Wal-Mart pays.

Please tell us where all these jobs are that are so much better than working at Wal Mart! There are millions of unemployed that would appreciate this information. A lot of people would consider it a blessing if they could get a job at WalMart because that is all there is and there are many situations where hundreds of people are applying for one or two jobs.

It's odd that people place so much emphasis on charity when Walmart has done more for poor people by reducing the prices of clothing and food than all of the charity in the country combined. Some have even recommended WalMart for a Nobel prize for its contribution to alleviating poverty.

Help me understand why people cheer a $1 in charitable contributions but completely ignore business that reduces the cost of living for the poor by $10. If we really cared about the poor, we would cheer the business more than the charity. The fact that the opposite happens makes me question the sincerity of peoples' concern for the poor.

However, statistics have to be interpreted properly. Cho does not specify where that money goes, how it is spent and who benefits.

The problem is that, in the process, Wal-Mart squeezed its workers, some of whom were eligible for food stamps. There were actually lawsuits filed on behalf of employees who were essentially forced to work after they had already punched out. And their high-volume approach to sales often undercuts other stores, putting them out of business and other people out of work. They bought many, if not most, of their goods wholesale from China, helping to prop up that regime. Besides, at one time very little of that money spend there stayed in the community; it went to Arkansas. Small wonder it was a target -- its business practices were unethical.

So WalMart does more to help all poor people in the country than any charity, but because they didn't do it exactly as you think they should, it doesn't count?

I'm not defending WalMart's business practices, but in perspective, no one forces people to work at WalMart. If they can find a better job, they should. And WalMart helps the poor by cutting prices below what others charge. That puts some smaller companies out of business, but it helps the poor. If WalMart never competed on price, it could not help the poor.

I doubt that WalMart helps prop up the Chinese regime. It's a very small part of their economy. And again, WalMart helps the poor in China buy buying their products while helping the poor in the US by selling them here.

So WalMart does more to help all poor people in the country than any charity, but because they didn't do it exactly as you think they should, it doesn't count?

No, it doesn't because its policies often make or keep people poor in the first place; in that context, its charity work is little more than a PR stunt to counter the bad press it gets. Ironically, such policies force people to rely on charity, which is never the optimum. And please tell me how putting people out of jobs helps the poor.

Some years ago I covered the fight over a Wal-Mart one of the local townships was trying to build, the concern being a number of mom-and-pop stores that would likely fold due to lack of business.

And again, WalMart helps the poor in China buy buying their products while helping the poor in the US by selling them here.

That kind of thinking is so ridiculous Steely Dan titled one of their albums with it.

Yes, Walmart does give 1% which ends up as you say "not being chump change," but Target gives 5% and doesn't have moral/ethical issues to the same extent as Walmart. Might be worth "investing" in Target a lot more instead of Walmart!

When was the last time you arrived at the checkout counter and said to the cashier, "Please add 20% to the bill because I want to contribute to keeping your employees provided for."?

If you're like most people, you'd be more inclined to find out if you can make the purchase at less than the stated price!

That is exactly what happens at Wal-Mart and every other business establishment in America. They compete with other employers for people who have a certain skill set. They then bid for those people's time.

If they bid too low, a competitor may offer a higher price and deprive Wal-Mart of an employee with a wanted skill set. If they bid too high, they may upset their operating margins making them less competitive in the marketplace.

Does Wal-Mart pay a fair wage? Absolutely. As a large company they probably do a better job than most of identifying the wage that will give them the optimal pool of applicants from which to choose. They have mastered the art of balancing salary, benefits, turnover, training, etc. to optimize their labor costs.

Remember, Wal-Mart is not an amorphous entity. It is a collection of people who operate together in an environment of mutual trust. The employment policies are published for all to see (unlike most of the employers in America). Wages vary from store to store depending upon market conditions.

So far in America, each of us is free to choose how we will exchange our time, talents and energy for the necessities of life. If we cannot earn enough to meet our needs, there are huge safety nets to catch us when we fall.

If you don't like the way Wal-Mart pays its employees, then don't shop there. If enough people shop elsewhere, then Wal-Mart will adjust its policies to win back customers. Unfortunately, if we all boycott Wal-Mart, not only will we lose the benefits that Wal-Mart brings to the communities in which it operates, but we will also force more friends and neighbors onto unemployment lines.

Who shops at Wal-Mart? People who, because of their socio-economic status want the lower prices Wal-Mart offers.

Who profits from Wal_Mart's smart business practices? Everyone who owns Wal-Mart stock.

Who owns Wal-Mart stock? Teachers and welders and retail clerks and firemen and students--everyone who has a pension or 401K plan or mutual funds or trust accounts, or who has money on deposit in a bank--in which Wal-Mart stock is held.

So the next time you make a purchase, ask yourself, am I prepared to pay more for this purchase in order to improve the life of the person taking my money? Nothing prevents you from taking money out of your pocket and giving it as a gift to the employee. Because like the person who makes a choice to go to work at Wal-Mart, you have the choice to enrich that person's life.

For starters, no, tipping employees is actually not allowed and they can be punished if they accept, else I'd do it. If the prices were higher because they wanted to raise employees wages, I'd have no problem with it and in fact be glad. Failing those avenues, I frequently return to Wal-Mart primarily for the purpose of maintaining the relationship I have with the people there, and occasionally bringing by some "non-tip" treats to make their days better, since I can do little else without harming them more than helping and I'm not so delusional to think that my individual boycott will turn the tides of Wal-Mart. But for the record, I truly, sincerely, honestly do appreciate the personal attack on my integrity to make your point. Helps me know that I'm right.

I could make my case further and clarify what I meant, but I don't feel it will be a terribly productive use of my Saturday. Good day, sir.

Poverty reduction requires the destruction of high cost methods by lower cost ones. In a nut shell, that is how the West climbed out of starvation poverty to the wealth we have today and reduced poverty to a fringe element
instead of the majority.

When was there ever "starvation poverty" in the West?

WalMart hires people that no one else will hire. And why won't other people hire them? Because they lack the skills and experience necessary for other jobs. So WalMart gives them a chance to learn those skills and get experience to move on to better jobs. That's how entry level jobs are supposed to work.

Entry -- to what? What you don't realize is that the jobs that have been "destroyed" were often well-paying and highly-skilled jobs, in manufacturing. The service industry, by contrast, has always been low-paying unless you're in management, and even there you have to work an insane number of hours -- which causes people to neglect their health, families etc. just to make ends meet.

Of course you can't see any new jobs right now. We're still in a major depression. But did you foresee the rise of personal computers, cell phones, bullet trains, nanotechnology, or any of the many new technologies that have destroyed old jobs while creating vastly more new ones? Of course not. Few people did.

You forget one thing: To get jobs in those fields you generally have to get a post-secondary education (in fact, graduate-level), which is becoming less and less affordable by the day. And how do you pay for such if the only job you can get is at Walmart?

Charitable donations that trickle down to America's poor can keep a person going for another day (or a few), but cannot make a dent in our current poverty crisis and the suffering that it caused in conjunction with the loss of the entitlement to welfare aid. This would require a legitimate, government-run program that ensures equal access -- and a needs-based entitlement, even to those who are unable to access food pantries, etc. While deeply grateful for charitable donations, millions of America's poor live rurally, and charity simply doesn't trickle down to them. As a result, we have people living in abandoned barns, scraping by to survive, often enough not surviving.You would think America could do better.

Another problem with charitable donations is that Americans tend to easily develop a unique malady called "compassion fatigue". For example, a middle class American who sends a $50 donation (usually to a foreign country) will feel "wiped out" by his own generosity, and will feel unable to donate for a a long time after this.

That's just how we are. That's why we ended welfare while giving billions of dollars of aid to corporations. Our compassion for the poor is sporadic, and generally only theoretical. After an act of generosity, we jump to any possible reason to resent and criticize the recipients, thereby giving us an excuse to never again donate.

With Hurricane Katrina, Americans responded immediately with donations -- which was followed immediately with a media blitz highlighting the victims as the worst of people, real low-life trash, breaking into stores, etc (imagine that, desperate people acting desperately!). And America turned its back. I wouldn't be surprised if we soon see the same response to Haiti, as Americans complain that they aren't getting their homes, jobs and lives back together quickly enough to suit us.