On The Job
The Case for Selfishness
Want to make the biggest difference to the greatest number of people? For-profit work may be the ticket.
By Marty Nemko, Contributing Columnist, Kiplinger.com
October 23, 2008
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
We live in an era in which selfishness is reviled. Individuals and corporations who aren't charitable are seen as uncaring, greedy, even evil.
It may seem strange, but a strong case can be made that so-called selfishness, as often manifested in for-profit work, does more good for more people than nonprofit work or volunteerism.
1. For-profit work, on average, produces greater benefit to the world. Trillions of dollars have been spent on nonprofit ventures from Head Start to drug-addict rehabilitation to third-world-development. Think, for example, about the billions spent to forgive third-world nations' debt. While noble, those massive efforts have yielded disappointing results. Certainly, the gap between the haves and have-nots is wider than ever.
In contrast, think of how much benefit for-profit efforts have generated: from the company that built your home to the one that built your car, from the corporation that invested a fortune to create the drug you need to the one that produces the milk your family drinks at a price almost anyone can afford. Even the most mundane companies, such as those that make nuts and bolts, yield clear benefits to customers. Multiply all those benefits by the billions of beneficiaries around the globe and it's clear that the "greedy soulless" for-profit companies provide enormous benefit.
2. For-profit enterprises create more jobs. When a company makes a product or service that the world wants, not only does that improve quality of life, the company must hire more people.
3. For-profit jobs are better-paying. People who work in the private sector, on average, earn higher salaries and receive better benefits than those in the nonprofit sector. So, in working to build a business, as long as it's one that treats workers fairly, you're creating good jobs, thereby improving its employees' standard of living.
4. Most people work harder at things they'll personally benefit from. Nearly all of us derive satisfaction from helping others, but most people first and most often act from self-interest. That's why communism failed, why most people vote their pocketbook, and why nonprofits struggle with volunteers who aren't reliably productive.
So, even in non-profit work, when people work in their self-interest (for example, trying to do well so they get self-satisfaction, praise, a raise, or promoted) rather than purely altruistically, more work typically gets done, which means better or more cost-effective goods and services for the public.
Overrated Ways to Make a Difference
If your goal is to make the biggest difference in society, I consider these to be particular bad investments. They certainly are virtuous in their intention, but they won't help the greatest number of people. Yet so many individuals, corporations, and foundations do them:
Donating to an arts organization that needs your money to stay alive because ticket sales are insufficient. If the public isn't willing to pay to see a particular entertainment, it is saying it prefers other entertainment.
Volunteering your time to elect a political candidate. The odds are tiny that your efforts will put him or her over the top.
Donating to a college's or nonprofit's scholarship fund. It rarely enables a student to attend college who otherwise wouldn't. Usually it just means that instead of the government or college's endowment paying for it, you are.
"Selfish" Ways to Make a Big Difference
Here are some selfish investments likely to significantly benefit society:
Work for a for-profit company you believe in. Instead of serving soup to the homeless, put in a few extra hours a week at work. Focus on efforts that would provide a better or more cost-effective product or service, thereby improving the public's quality of life.
Invest in a company with maximum potential for making a difference, for example, a biotech startup with a promising approach to developing a better non-polluting car or to preventing sudden heart attack, the leading killer.
Be a mentor. Want to do something nonprofit? Mentor the people you believe most likely to abet the world who nonetheless could benefit from your counsel and support. I do that mentorship by writing, for example, this column -- and I'll selfishly make some bucks for it.
Marty Nemko (bio) is a career coach and author of Cool Careers for Dummies.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy
Reader Comments (17)
Posted by: JD at 10/23/2008 02:08:17 PM
Excellent article. Bill Gates in particular ought to read it. He's crazy if he thinks he can benefit the world doing charity as much as he did as a tech pioneer. His computers have probably led to trillions of dollars in productivity, employing millions and feeding their families. He could give away every cent and not come close to matching that value. We as a society have lost our minds if we think that producing goods and services that people eagerly buy is evil. The world needs hard work. Besides, it's hard-wired into human nature to work to improve oneself and one's lot in life, and that has to include earning some hard coin.
Posted by: Keelight Harsh at 10/23/2008 04:04:04 PM
Some good points, but negates the final authority, the Word of God on matters of giving time and money to Kingdom business.
Posted by: Art Low at 10/23/2008 05:24:47 PM
You can actually do both. As an optometrist, I am able to help thousands of people see their best and also make a good living at it. But I also donate my time and efforts to a number of non-profit community groups including seeing patients free and matching used eyeglasses for them thru Lions In Sight in developing countries.
Posted by: Anca at 10/23/2008 05:25:30 PM
This article could have really been thought-worthy, but instead it just provided the barest validation for people who want to justify not donating or volunteering. Most laughable was the "don't bother" suggestion regarding political campaign volunteering. Really, that's your stance this election season? When there are thousands of people going door-to-door and calling voters to educate them and prod them to do their civic duty. All this article has done is mistake the group of people non-profits are designed to help. It's not the average Joe with an ok job and roof over his head. It IS the person getting their meal in a soup kitchen or being the victim of poverty or bloody African wars. If you're not someone who cares about people much less well-off than yourself, that's fine, but when you try to convince others they aren't making a difference when they volunteer or donate, that's not fine.
Posted by: smilergrogan at 10/23/2008 06:14:39 PM
Marty: perhaps you should consult Ayn Rand. She covers the topic with much more lucidity in her book "the virtue of selfishness". And without going into great detail, your contention that a contribution to a form of art not generating a public performance that turns a profit is therefore a waste of money is laughable. Any thoughtful person can think of plenty of examples to say otherwise. Also your Point #3 about salaries being higher in for-profits v non-profits would seem so obvious that it would be presumed, and is hardly evidence that the world is benefited more by for-profit efforts. Unless, of course, the only calculus one uses is a dollar measurement. If so, it seems so obvious as to not warrant an article. My personal opinion is that the world has plenty of money hungry capitalists, and therefore anyone who believes strongly enough in something to work for less money or benefits or for free as my mom has for the last 40 years at a old folks home is a blessing. My guess is that if you end up in the home there, you would think so too.
Posted by: JD at 10/23/2008 06:46:00 PM
Anca, look up the definition of the word "overrated". Too many people get defensive when they hear this word, but it doesn't mean "worthless". The author uses it correctly. Furthermore, the point of the article was that it is usually possible to benefit even the poorest people more by contributing to a solid society in your role than by dropping out to work in a soup kitchen. All those non-profits are funded by the wealth that the for-profits create. America is the world's most charitable nation because of people who work efficiently in their areas of skill. The excess wealth spills over.
Posted by: Nomen at 10/23/2008 10:53:11 PM
It's amazing how far some people are willing to go to assuage their guilt and rationalize their actions(greed is good). Many charities are wonderful effective organizations. It's a tough job to help the needy without creating dependence. But what could be more noble than feeding starving children or providing medical services to those who would otherwise suffer. As a mentor you are simply a good example of a bad example. I also noted from the last couple lines of your article that your proteges are Dummies. I'm not surprised.
Posted by: luis at 10/24/2008 08:37:03 AM
...selfish column...i sugest one good movie about selfish people ENRON THE SMARTESTS GUYS IN THE ROOM...
Posted by: JD at 10/24/2008 01:10:16 PM
The point of this article is that you can never give away a cent in your life and still be a "good person" and benefit the world around you tremendously....I can see from some of the comments that there are people who so reflexively condemn for-profit work that they cannot abide a rational argument supporting it.
Posted by: Flourish at 10/24/2008 01:42:18 PM
The article is a justification for greedy time spent on SELF. Non profits do MORE with LESS, something the government and public schools should learn to do. Do not understate the value and power of the seeds being sown in our communities today by non profits and their faithful volunteers.
Posted by: Keelight Harsh at 10/24/2008 08:12:52 PM
Well said, smilergrogan, very well said. Your points stand!
Posted by: keelight Harsh at 10/24/2008 08:16:48 PM
JD, I must say one more thing and then I am finished: many of us work in for profit and non profit sectors. We balance both working hard and contributing to the companies for which we work and giving our time and finances to the wonderful non profits in our communities that are committed to helping make this world a better place.
Posted by: Clare at 11/07/2008 10:23:57 AM
Mr. Nemko raises an interesting point, but does not justify it with one shred of logic or evidence. He writes: "For-profit work... produces greater benefit to the world... Think, for example, about the billions spent to forgive third-world nations' debt. While noble, those massive efforts have yielded disappointing results. Certainly, the gap between the haves and have-nots is wider than ever." I have taught logic and LSAT classes and say with confidence that this is a classic case of FLAWED reasoning. Mr. Nemko, the "gap" between haves and have-nots can no more substantiate your claim that nonprofit work is ineffective than would a cat doing somersaults down a waterslide. Catch my drift?
Posted by: SLS at 11/07/2008 04:48:21 PM
Regarding "for profit jobs pay better," I am not sure this is still true. Benefits in public sector jobs are clearly better then the for profit and non-profit. And seniority pays well in the public sector! So perhaps private, public, and non-profit jobs should be considered as the categories.
Posted by: Bdon at 11/08/2008 04:20:53 AM
Great article. It is good for someone to finally acknowledge what makes the world's motor hum!!! By working hard at your job and creating better products and /or services you are making the world better for everyone. How many people do you know that can say they know how to make an alarm clock? vitamins? sneakers? But yet somewhere right now people are thinking of better ways to deliver these things to you, but not because they care about you. And you will buy them but not because you care about them. It is pure selfishness. And the motor hums along.
Posted by: Philosopher at 11/24/2008 01:50:36 PM
Ok, Ayn Rand...
Posted by: Svetik Savishna at 11/26/2008 06:46:58 PM
I disagree with a lot but mainly donating to an arts organization?? Classical music and art museums should recieve funding and charity. I can't imagine not having that sort of artistic sanctuary only available in large cities. It's a cultural atrocity to suggest that everyone also became complacent with the mundane mainstream art. There is no enrichment or appreciation in that. It's a true shame when a price is given o something by someone who has no knowledge of the true value. Think of all those homes appraised in California.