Salaried professionals often cannot do an extra hour of work in order to donate the proceeds to charity. My employer basically prohibits me from moonlighting/consulting/etc. Even many hourly employees can’t get extra hours at work as that would be higher-rate overtime that their employer is unwilling to pay. Monetary charitable giving takes away from my current bottom line, but charitable working just eats into my leisure hours.
Since I cannot do extra paid work without fear of consequences at my primary job, my non-work time may be practically worthless. I can only use it to do things that I might otherwise pay someone else to do. If I can do work around the house, then I can save the cost of paying the plumber. Suppose I make $100/hr (nominally) and the plumber charges $50/hr. Assuming we can do the same job in the same time, I haven’t lost $50/hr by doing it myself instead of paying the plumber, I’ve simply lost the utility of those hours which I may not rate highly if I’d have otherwise laid on the couch watching Simpsons reruns.
Some units of caring cost more than others. I can donate $100 to charity, or I can do 100 hours of work for that charity using hours that only cost me $1/hr (presuming that I rate the utility of those hours otherwise spent low enough).
Clearly, people shouldn’t be derided for donating excess money (the “overemployed”?) to charity rather than their time, but I think the calculus is a little more complex than what you describe in your post. For those living near their means (neither under- or overemployed), there are additional economic factors that make donation of time heavily favored over donation of money. That a culture of valuing this has arisen to justify/rationalize such behavior shouldn’t be terribly surprising.
Julian’s comment is on point though. I’ve been involved with any number of charitable organizations where it is expected that people donate significant time for things like bake sales or craft fairs or dinners in order to raise money, where if you took the money raised minus costs divided by the total hours spent, people would have done better taking second jobs at McDonald’s and donating the money.
Plus, we’re often providing a product which wouldn’t sell for that price on the open market, with custom driven largely by people’s affinity for the organization raising the money.
All in all, fund-raisers that aren’t either a good leisure activity for all involved, or relentlessly and professionally focused and profitable (i.e. don’t encourage random volunteers—only those with relevant marketable skills and make sure the venture would at least be break-even if you accounted for fair value of labor) are just a horrendous waste of resources. Just get people to write checks.
And yes I beat this drum at every socially appropriate opportunity for every charitable organization I’m associated with.
You might be underestimating the value of social involvement in your equation. If new people become involved in the organization as a result of a “fundraiser” then this may lead to a higher expected value than direct donation, all things being equal.
From direct experience: Most charities encourage volunteer time for one and only one reason: The more someone has volunteered their time, the higher the expected dollar amount they will donate. The main purpose of volunteering is to establish emotional engagement.
Related to this, people often donate their ‘extra’ time because taking low wages instead would seem to devalue them—they can imagine they’re donating a very high value rather than the $5 the work is worth.
Salaried professionals often cannot do an extra hour of work in order to donate the proceeds to charity. My employer basically prohibits me from moonlighting/consulting/etc. Even many hourly employees can’t get extra hours at work as that would be higher-rate overtime that their employer is unwilling to pay. Monetary charitable giving takes away from my current bottom line, but charitable working just eats into my leisure hours.
Since I cannot do extra paid work without fear of consequences at my primary job, my non-work time may be practically worthless. I can only use it to do things that I might otherwise pay someone else to do. If I can do work around the house, then I can save the cost of paying the plumber. Suppose I make $100/hr (nominally) and the plumber charges $50/hr. Assuming we can do the same job in the same time, I haven’t lost $50/hr by doing it myself instead of paying the plumber, I’ve simply lost the utility of those hours which I may not rate highly if I’d have otherwise laid on the couch watching Simpsons reruns.
Some units of caring cost more than others. I can donate $100 to charity, or I can do 100 hours of work for that charity using hours that only cost me $1/hr (presuming that I rate the utility of those hours otherwise spent low enough).
Clearly, people shouldn’t be derided for donating excess money (the “overemployed”?) to charity rather than their time, but I think the calculus is a little more complex than what you describe in your post. For those living near their means (neither under- or overemployed), there are additional economic factors that make donation of time heavily favored over donation of money. That a culture of valuing this has arisen to justify/rationalize such behavior shouldn’t be terribly surprising.
Julian’s comment is on point though. I’ve been involved with any number of charitable organizations where it is expected that people donate significant time for things like bake sales or craft fairs or dinners in order to raise money, where if you took the money raised minus costs divided by the total hours spent, people would have done better taking second jobs at McDonald’s and donating the money.
Plus, we’re often providing a product which wouldn’t sell for that price on the open market, with custom driven largely by people’s affinity for the organization raising the money.
All in all, fund-raisers that aren’t either a good leisure activity for all involved, or relentlessly and professionally focused and profitable (i.e. don’t encourage random volunteers—only those with relevant marketable skills and make sure the venture would at least be break-even if you accounted for fair value of labor) are just a horrendous waste of resources. Just get people to write checks.
And yes I beat this drum at every socially appropriate opportunity for every charitable organization I’m associated with.
The charities are being rational—they’re raising money in a way which is effective given the irrationality of the givers.
Yet another thing where raising the rationality waterline would help us all.
You might be underestimating the value of social involvement in your equation. If new people become involved in the organization as a result of a “fundraiser” then this may lead to a higher expected value than direct donation, all things being equal.
From direct experience: Most charities encourage volunteer time for one and only one reason: The more someone has volunteered their time, the higher the expected dollar amount they will donate. The main purpose of volunteering is to establish emotional engagement.
Related to this, people often donate their ‘extra’ time because taking low wages instead would seem to devalue them—they can imagine they’re donating a very high value rather than the $5 the work is worth.