We absolutely SHOULD care when we see a human being, or a corporation, marinating in hundreds of millions of dollars (or BILLIONS) and not using some it to help other human beings or the world at large.

This is a lesson we teach our children: SHARE. But for some reason, when it comes to corporations and business people, it’s no longer about helping the environment or animals or humans; it’s about buying homes, yachts, and showcasing and hoarding your wealth!

Steve Jobs could have been a wonderful role model for not only someone who developed cool gadgets, but also for being humane and compassionate.

He is an incredibly innovative man — but he is also a pure, unadulterated, capitalist pig (like many, many other *supremely* rich humans on the planet).

to Q3 2011 – 36 million
2010 – 275 million
2009 – 250 million
2008 – 197 million
2007 – 141 million
2006 –88 million

I use 150 as the Ipod ranged from $99 to $199 so this is just an estimated number.

987 million Ipods @ 150$ 148,050,000,000.

160 million is what Apple says they have given thus far to Global Fund to help fund AIDS programs in Africa, off of the Apple site, today.

$160million/6 years = 26.666 million a year

That is approx. 1$ to charity for every 1k they make on Ipods and only Ipods. (It is actually $10 of every red ipod given to charity but it gives perspective) Given Apple makes 2/3 profits from the Iphone sales, we can pretty well estimate the profits would be similar so let’s make it 50%.

Given 1% of corporate profits before taxes is typical for large corporations (and of course it is not so much generosity as Corporate identity and tax write offs) and some with philanthropic foundations give 3 to 5, I think that this amount would be staggeringly tiny if we also took the other 40 some products Apple has sold since 2006.

Having put that in perspective I will happily stick by my original posts FifthDecade.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Big-Comp anies-Hold-Steady-in/123792/

Not only that, the firms often pay more on lobbying than they do in taxes. The IPS study shows Boeing as paying over $20 million to lobbyists, $13 million in tax.

And great leader in YOUR eyes, not mine. Jobs could stand on a pile of every product he has made and still not elevate himself.

I actually have nothing from Apple in my home. Most of my computer equipment is made from scraps and reused until it can’t be. It is a mishmash of recycles and will continue to be as it seems there is a never ending stream of upgrade items available to fill landfills and Chinese roadsides.

I am one of those weirdos who doesn’t need to Geek out and have the next thing and sleep in a tent to be the first in line to have it. Therefore I will happily take that “old” item of yours that works just fine, but is of course “inferior” to the newest and best.

I do not feel the need to hero worship a “great leader” like Jobs because he makes expensive toys people feel they can’t live without. To me that is a really sad legacy.

I wouldn’t wish Jobs to care a whiff about my opinion, but my word is my bond and I am more charitable than most, so I don’t feel at all guilty about expressing it. I was taught to be giving and charitable always, not just as a good will gesture to open the heavens or leave a legacy.

I would think now would be a good time for Jobs to carry out the good will he intended to accomplish in his plan for the future, being he didn’t have time while he worked. It is a perfect time for such reflection and that isn’t merely my opinion.

http://succcess.org/category/definition/

hsvkitty,
Lack of empathy is not the same thing as immorality. Great leaders are not always liked, or haven’t you brushed up on your Machiavelli recently? You may not like the man and you may choose not to buy the products his company makes based on your opinion of him and your disapproval of his charitable giving habits (at least as they are reported in the media).

I guess you would rather buy an inferior product of a company with a generous leader? Well, that’s your prerogative, just as it is Jobs’ prerogative not to give a toss for your opinion.

Words really do matter. Hate is a strong word. A lot of people really disliked Jobs. It was a strong dislike and a lot of people worked with him and didn’t respect him yet they respected his work. (or power and/or his money and position) You can separate the two when you have to. (Well some can)

People with little empathy can’t buy it and it doesn’t rub off. Add to that the same narcissistic drive that seems to make politicians, actors and CEOs successful. at work and you have men like Jobs. Looking at the man as a whole, his character might be lacking, even though the hero worship for “love” of the products might raise him up a bit in stature.

In other words he is the kind of man that should use his money for a little PR … and good will. The toys and trinkets should not be all that matters and all one gives back to the world.

The Red Crescent is a recognizable symbol to protect the workers and volunteers from being targeted when in war zones. Sheesh…

The Red Cross is “areligious”? Is that why it’s a Red Crescent in Muslim societies? Must be.

And you, like some of the other fine folk on this thread, miss my overall argument completely: Steve Jobs’ philanthropy does not matter at all, his morals don’t matter at all. He built a company that creates wealth and jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans (and Chinese and Europeans, and any other capitalist or human being who chooses to buy or invest or work for the company). THAT is superior (yeah, I said it) to rich people who give a lot more to “charities,” the object of which is usually obscure and lost in the mists of time, especially if they made their money in ways that did NOT contribute to the real economy of this or any other country.

I’ll end with this thought: to share the wealth, you first have to create the wealth. Creating the wealth can be done in ways that promote the general welfare or it can be done in ways that actually undermine it. I don’t want the latter groups’ money. Do you?

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB11150 9083186723020-email,00.html

“Frankly, philanthropy is way over-rated by the lefty do-gooders of the world. Charity as in keeping people alive or getting food/medicine/clean water to people who lack these things–this is noble and best done by religious organizations or practitioners (MSF for doctors; Red Cross for nursing/disaster relief).”

As for ‘keeping people alive or getting food/medicine/clean water to people who lack these things’ being ‘best done’ by religious groups, that’s just ideological nonsense: religious charities usually have an axe to grind: true charity is blind to religion and helps all, no strings attached. The two examples of good organisations you mentioned are both completely areligious and are good because of that. I am sure they would be aghast at having their names used to support your peculiarly misguided dogma.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=steve+wozniak