- “Summer of glove” campaign calls for the end of Berejiklian-era strip-searches
- The great Australian dream of owning a backyard is dead, but it can be resurrected
- Thoughts on facing the quarter life crisis
- McKenzie awarded a grant to a gun club without disclosing she was a member
- If America implements a universal basic income, the working class will be short-changed
In response to Hurricane Harvey, JLo took to social media to donate $25,000. Considering what she earns, the Internet was not best pleased. Would you give a comparative amount?
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a celebrity is possession of a good fortune, is in want of a humanitarian crisis to fix. If you happen to be said celebrity, and if that’s the case, oh em gee, I loved you in x, the problem is not throwing money at the damaged masses, but rather how much you should give.
And that equation has no solution.
In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, we bore witness to this odd societal construct, headlined by the demigods of Latin American success (and abbreviated colloquial handles), JLo and ARod; who dropped this bomb on Instagram.
Suffice to say the Internet didn’t take kindly to this act of kindness, with user grc_para2013 planting “wow only $25000 disgrace”, with a fellow user expanding slightly on that sentiment:
That being said, Lopez uploaded the following image later on, showing ARoid hitting the phones in their #DayOfGiving raising funds and what not.
Yet, the haters persist, and I kind of get it. $25,000 (times two) is an infinitesimally small amount of Benjamins considering the amount they possess. ARod alone earned $20,000,000 in his final year at the Yankees, Spotrac figures over his overall earnings somewhere near $437,159,522. Consider that sum sans taxes, but also not taking his endorsements, or current investment deals. As for JLo, Forbes places her net worth at $38 million. Now, net worth doesn’t equate to petty cash lying around the hacienda, but surely they could give more than what they did, right?
Well, I suppose so. But there’s also the counter argument of them not having to give anything. They may have a super yacht to sail to their mega yacht, but allow me to pitch a curveball to the reader, would you donate a comparative figure that JLo did? Figuring out the maths, $25,000 is 0.06% of 38,000,000. Now, considering that the mean average of an Australian salary is $78,832; 0.06% equals $472.99 of your hard-earned dollarydoos.
Would you donate that much? I wouldn’t.
That being said, yes, they’re rich. And don’t have to worry about things we paupers do. Which is a fair argument. But, venturing further along that tightrope of logic, if they were to make it rain on the flood damaged streets of Houston, what would then happen? There’s a certain performance cliff that holds celebrity charity, in what I’d like to call the Bono-scale. If the needle passes beyond orange-tinted excess, and charity involves meeting the Pope, then the public turns against the selfish nature of the act of giving. I’m no stranger to this phenomenon. I dislike Bono with a passion. Conversely, the dynamic duo of billionaire philanthropy, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet escape our ire, as they fork over their income with great humility and indeed purpose.
Maybe that’s the key. Give humbly, but give more, and also announce it via the hubris of social media. Lolwut.
Perhaps the true lesson lies within the bars of Jennifer’s gospel. In that we shouldn’t be fooled by the rocks she now possesses, as her love don’t cost a thing, and $25,000 ain’t no thing.