In today’s article titled Why I’ve given up volunteering, a random visitor, Alex, left a comment about how he disagrees with me about what I wrote.  Alex considers himself a staunch capitalist, and had this to say:

 I have stumbled upon your post and consider myself a staunch capitalist. I could not disagree with you more. I see your logic with regards to whether Renkoo can build a profitable business with appropriate returns for VCs, while focusing on only charity work. However, they have capable leaders and we do not know that charity is their only source of revenue.

I’ll grant Alex that: we don’t know that Renkoo will only focus on charitable works in hopes of paying their investors a profit.  But with Om Malik’s post (linked in the original article), we have to assume that they’re going to primarily focus on charity.  Some not-for-profit companies do work out just fine, but rarely are they beacons of high return for venture capitalists.  It still sounds like a horrible waste of $9 million for those who invested.  Those same investors could have bought into another, profit-making venture and used their profits to put money into the charities that matter to them.  Alex continues:

The rest of your logic is flawed from the get-go. Assuming your logic of efficiency I want to point out one of your points. You write, “If I work at a food kitchen for 4 hours, I may be out $600 of my life, if I gauge my value at $150 per hour. If I worked those 4 hours, and paid someone else to feed those same people, the money would go very far.” You are making a critical assumption that the other person’s time is worth less than yours. How can you make that assumption? Is volunteering at a hospital and saving lives, for example, worth less than your CEO consultations?

Here Alex says that I assume that another person’s time is worth less than mine.  He thinks that my assumption is invalid, but I believe it is completely valid.  Each person’s time, as rated by themselves, is completely variable.  For me, I think $150 per hour for my time is valid, based on the tools I have, my availability for clients on-demand, my lack of roots keeping me in one city, my ability to discern reality from falsehoods, my talents in a huge variety of industries and markets, and my ability to differentiate a customer’s options in terms of long term profitability and short term costs.  I’d even go so far to say that my time may be worth double that, in specific instances, and that has proven itself time and again.

I have competitors who are worth more and less than I am, per hour.  Some of them are tied to their specific markets, say technology or printing or writing or distribution.  They may not be able to up and leave for another town or country for a long term contract because of family, health or other obligations.  They may not be able to take a big long term risk by allowing the client to pay upon completion, since they may have more debt obligations or other financial requirements that require up-front or consistent payment schedules.  Maybe their location hurts them by being far from urban clients and larger market infrastructure.  Whatever the case is, each person’s time-value is specific to that person.  I surely wouldn’t mow your lawn for $20 per hour (what my landscaper charges), but I’d do it for $200 per hour.  You probably won’t hire me for that.

Alex finishes that paragraph with a simple question: Is volunteering at a hospital and saving lives, for example, worth less than your CEO consultations?  Saving lives is a market talent (service) that differs in value based on the life being saved.  We all want to think that everyone’s life is equal in value, but that surely isn’t the case.  If a person has great value to a market, they and their market will likely pay more to save their life than someone who has less value to a market.  This is a horrible thing to say, I understand, but it is reality.  No one can stop market forces from placing a value on someone’s life.  Do I think all life is precious?  Of course.  Would I take every penny of my savings and sell all my assets to save the life of someone I don’t know?  Probably not.  Would I do it for my mother or my brother?  Absolutely.  Would I do it for a customer that covers 30% of my expenses?  Maybe.  Would you do it for my mother or brother?  I’m sure you wouldn’t.  I know Alex woudn’t.  These are market forces, individual decisions that people make, instantly, to gauge what someone else is worth to them.  You wouldn’t hire me to mow your lawn, but you’d hire another person who gauges their time as worth less than I do.  Alex continues:

Also, you completely miss the ball with regards to the fact that good business is recognizing the demand of your consumers (who do hold the power in an economy). In today’s world, let alone today’s American culture, the value of volunteering is very high. A corporation would be foolish not to volunteer their time, get involved in the community, and encourage their employees to not only donate money but to take real action.

The socialist regime that we call the voter bloc in the US has taken over quite strongly, leading people, even intelligent capitalists, to believe that volunteering and community activism is wanted.  I disagree completely.  The companies that are moving forward to offer their employees time to volunteer, or making industry changes to become “green” or “organic” or whatever socialist plan is popular, are going to find themselves out of the industry.  The people who are crying for more community involvement are the very same people who don’t buy your products anyway.  Look at organic foods and recycled products lately.  Whole Foods is down in sales.  The local grocery stores I go to are overwhelmed with such products that aren’t selling, because no one wants them at the price they cost.  I know of two clients of mine who are moving to go green, and it’s costing them a bundle, which they pass on to either their customers in higher prices, or to their investors in lower profits.

The idea SOUNDS nice: get involved with your community, pay your employees to take time off of work to volunteer, etc, etc.  The problem with all this is that it doesn’t work.  People don’t care.  I shop at Target often, and I always told my ex-wife that Target’s “We give back to local schools” idea was great, but it wouldn’t raise very much.  I noticed at my local Target some schools that I went to, and saw the amount of money raised OVER 7 YEARS: not so much.  Why?  People don’t care.  If they did, more would sign up for the program, which costs the customer nothing up front.  So Target gets to advertise that they’re helping schools, and in reality, they’re not doing much.

For some reason you assume that you, are so much better (in your value per hr argument) than the other “minions” that you can just pay to do some good deeds in your name. I am appalled. From what you wrote here, I would not hire you to help me with any kind of strategy.

But that IS the case, isn’t it?  Why can I charge $150 per hour, and my landscaper only $20 per hour?  Because we value our time differently.  Not just that, but OTHER people also agree with those valuations.  If I tried to charge someone $300 per hour, they’d probably say no, other than rare circumstances.  I have clients I bill out at only $80 per hour because I prefer that work, and it’s fun for me, so I profit in entertainment value as well as educational profit, not just money.  If my landscaper tried to charge $80 per hour, he’d have NO WORK.  Why is that?  Because we only put out our money for things that add efficiency to our lives.   Capitalists spend money wiser than non-capitalists, because we actually take the time to look at the increased efficiency we get from spending money.

When you spend a dollar for a McDouble at McDonald’s, you do it because that burger is worth more than $1 to you.  You’d have to buy meat and buns and toppings (and store excesses), pay to heat your oven, pay for an oven, and take 15 minutes to prepare a small burger.  Or you pay McDonald’s $1 for a fast burger ready now.  McDonald’s feels that their burger and buns and ingredients and oven heat and employee labor is worth LESS than $1, so that $1 makes them a profit.  You profit from a burger and saved time and energy, McDonald’s profits by making a buck.  That’s capitalism: both parties profit from the exchange, both parties increase each other’s efficiency.  It’s a fantastic system, capitalism.

Yet I wouldn’t work at McDonalds, not at the moment at least.  They wouldn’t see any value in hiring me at my wage, and I couldn’t work for their wages when others would pay me more.

Those “minions” who only command minimum wage jobs may not be minions for life.  The work they’re doing for minimum wage has MANY profits for the individual:

1. The individual is earning some money for their time, more than they’d earn elsewhere.
2. The individual is learning many skills: how to operate equipment safely, how to deal with customers nicely, how to manage your time properly to maximize your efficiency.  These skills will make them worth more money to a future employer.
3. The individual is building a resume of proven responsible work ethic.  Employers love employees with a history of responsible work ethic.

Just because they’re making close-to-minimum wage TODAY doesn’t mean that they won’t challenge me in the work market tomorrow or 5 years from tomorrow.  They might, and some likely will.  As an employee gains knowledge and a work history portfolio, they can try to see if they can be even more efficient for another employer.  If they can save another employer more time and money, they’ll command a higher wage.

As they grow to learn how much they can save people time and money, they’ll command higher wages, and maybe eventually go out on their own, as their own boss.  This comes from years of learning about customers, handling money, using your talents wisely, and focusing on teaching future customers how you can save them money.

Maybe you’ll never hire me, Alex, but that’s fine.  I turn away work constantly, because I know when I can’t prove to a client that I’m saving them time or money.  I know I’m incredible at providing customers with added efficiency.  I know that paying me $50,000 in a year can show immediate savings of $100,000 or even $500,000 for the client.  That’s why I get rehired, year after year.  That’s why I can turn away work — because I know what I want to do, and I know who I want to do it for.

I tend not to work for socialists who hide behind the name of capitalism.  Real capitalists understand that a person’s value to a market rests solely with 5 things: their talents, their tools, their location, their ability to travel, and their responsibility to finishing a job.  Nothing else really matters.  For those lacking in market-desired talents, tools, living in a bad location, not willing or able to travel, or who don’t have the responsibility to finishing a job, they’re going to be worth less in the market.  That’s too bad for them, but it’s good for me and anyone else who works hard and uses their tools fully.

Related posts:

1. Why I’ve given up volunteering
2. No, we can’t: why teamwork is a bad idea
3. A response to praying at the pump comments
4. Increasing your basic efficiency to save time and money
5. A response to avoiding teamwork
6. A response to a Christian’s view on Intellectual Property
7. In response to Day without a Gay comment
8. Forming a just and loving response to public figures who err.
9. Feb 02, 06: Morning Gold and Silver News
10. How to go international with your services