I am confused by the concept here of “Opt-Out Philanthropy” having the example of Bear Sterns. What Bear Sterns did was to require a 4% donation and proof of same. Where is the opt out option, other than quitting?
Alternate frame: Bear Sterns contributed 5% of profits to charity, and directed it proportional to people’s salaries, then paid costs to document this in a strange way in order to signal.
I think it might be more along the lines of making the employees signal. The employees try to convince each other, and by extension themselves, that they’d have donated anyway. They then proceed to act like the sort of person who would have donated.
I am confused by the concept here of “Opt-Out Philanthropy” having the example of Bear Sterns.
Bear Stearns didn’t really have an “opt-out” option. To my knowledge, no company has ever publicly implemented a giving requirement and allowed people to opt-out from it.
I am confused by the concept here of “Opt-Out Philanthropy” having the example of Bear Sterns. What Bear Sterns did was to require a 4% donation and proof of same. Where is the opt out option, other than quitting?
Alternate frame: Bear Sterns contributed 5% of profits to charity, and directed it proportional to people’s salaries, then paid costs to document this in a strange way in order to signal.
I think it might be more along the lines of making the employees signal. The employees try to convince each other, and by extension themselves, that they’d have donated anyway. They then proceed to act like the sort of person who would have donated.
Bear Stearns didn’t really have an “opt-out” option. To my knowledge, no company has ever publicly implemented a giving requirement and allowed people to opt-out from it.