MacKenzie Scott gives an additional $4.2 billion to help 384 organizations

Shawn Knight

Posts: 13,269   +132
Staff member
What just happened? MacKenzie Scott is a relative newcomer on the list of the world’s wealthiest individuals but she is having no problem parting with her money. Scott said she asked a team of advisors to help her accelerate her 2020 giving. They took a data-driven approach to help identify organizations with strong leadership teams that could benefit from additional support.

In early 2019, Scott acquired roughly a quarter of the joint Amazon stock that she and former husband Jeff Bezos had amassed since founding Amazon in the mid-90s through their divorce agreement.

In May 2019, she signed the Giving Pledge, vowing to give at least half of her fortune to charity. She’s making good on that promise in 2020.

By July, she had already given $1.7 billion to various charities and causes but that pales in comparison to the nearly $4.2 billion she has given over the last four months alone. The exact amount, $4,158,500,000, was dispersed as gifts to 384 different organizations across all 50 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.

Some are filling basic needs: food banks, emergency relief funds, and support services for those most vulnerable. Others are addressing long-term systemic inequities that have been deepened by the crisis: debt relief, employment training, credit and financial services for under-resourced communities, education for historically marginalized and underserved people, civil rights advocacy groups, and legal defense funds that take on institutional discrimination.

From 6,490 prospective leads, the team narrowed the list down to just 822 organizations and ultimately chose to help 384 groups. The other 438 are still up for consideration, with Scott describing them as “on hold” for now.

The full list of organizations that received donations in this latest round can be found over on Medium.

Permalink to story.

 

SirDigby

Posts: 809   +611
TechSpot Elite
We need more rich people who give ludicrous amounts to charity, good job MacKenzie Scott, still more to give, but 4.1 billion is way more money than I'd know what to do with, or who to give it to so really good job so far!
 

Irata

Posts: 1,512   +2,474
We need more rich people who give ludicrous amounts to charity, good job MacKenzie Scott, still more to give, but 4.1 billion is way more money than I'd know what to do with, or who to give it to so really good job so far!

Absolutely agree that it‘s great she‘s giving this money away.
Then again, it might be easier to part with money one did not have to work for.

Note: I may have misunderstood her involvement in Amazon‘s operation.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,449   +1,622
TechSpot Elite
I think that people need to keep something in perspective. Is it great that she's giving this money to those who need it? Absolutely! However, this is affecting her about as much as the average person giving $10 to charity, if not less.

The problem that I see is that she's spreading it around far too much. A little here and a little there is enough to keep a charity alive but it's not going to permanently solve any problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that four billion dollars would have cured cancer. She's spreading her wealth, sure, but she's also maximising the fame she receives for it. Like seriously, 384 charities? How is it that so many exist?

It's better to dedicate all of your resources to developing a permanent solution for something horrible than to throw little bits here and there which may result in a far less profoundly positive effect on humanity.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 471   +349
It's tax deductible and so on...Better to give that money than to pay that money as tax. ;) Sure, comes naturally to every multimillionaire in the world, just, you are looking at your sphere of interest so you are missing trillions of donation money for various projects an so on. Do you write about Bill Gates when he gives millions every month? No you don't...
 

TheBigFatClown

Posts: 931   +364
I think that people need to keep something in perspective. Is it great that she's giving this money to those who need it? Absolutely! However, this is affecting her about as much as the average person giving $10 to charity, if not less.

The problem that I see is that she's spreading it around far too much. A little here and a little there is enough to keep a charity alive but it's not going to permanently solve any problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that four billion dollars would have cured cancer. She's spreading her wealth, sure, but she's also maximising the fame she receives for it. Like seriously, 384 charities? How is it that so many exist?

It's better to dedicate all of your resources to developing a permanent solution for something horrible than to throw little bits here and there which may result in a far less profoundly positive effect on humanity.

4 billion dollars is all it takes to cure cancer....how did you calculate that exactly?

There's already much cheaper ways to cure cancer. We already know that if you are a smoker you have a very high risk of developing cancer. So, what's the cure? Don't smoke. Free cure.

The type of cure most people are looking for, and honestly you probably are too, is a way to cure cancer in spite of anything people do to their own bodies. In other words, I want to smoke but I want a magic pill that doesn't cause me to have to suffer for my actions.

That kind of cure is probably never going to happen. If I were a smoker I'd make sure I smoked filtered cigarettes and ate one hell of a healthy diet to counter the effect of the smoking.

Cancer doesn't just fall out of the sky. God is not up there dropping cancer bombs randomly on people's heads. There's science behind cancer. But if the cancer patient doesn't want to participate it makes it pretty hard to find a magical cure.
 

TheBigFatClown

Posts: 931   +364
I think that people need to keep something in perspective. Is it great that she's giving this money to those who need it? Absolutely! However, this is affecting her about as much as the average person giving $10 to charity, if not less.

The problem that I see is that she's spreading it around far too much. A little here and a little there is enough to keep a charity alive but it's not going to permanently solve any problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that four billion dollars would have cured cancer. She's spreading her wealth, sure, but she's also maximising the fame she receives for it. Like seriously, 384 charities? How is it that so many exist?

It's better to dedicate all of your resources to developing a permanent solution for something horrible than to throw little bits here and there which may result in a far less profoundly positive effect on humanity.

Donating so that kids get an education or a trade/skill for life does have a profoundly positive effect on humanity. It keeps them from committing crimes and living on food stamps because they have good paying jobs.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,512   +2,474
Cancer doesn't just fall out of the sky. God is not up there dropping cancer bombs randomly on people's heads. There's science behind cancer. But if the cancer patient doesn't want to participate it makes it pretty hard to find a magical cure.
Is cancer always entirely attributable to lifestyle choices though ? Cervical cancer was found to be caused by a virus. Maybe there are other types where this is a factor.

No one believed Barry Marshall when he claimed that ulcers were caused by bacteria and it turns out he was right.

Edit: one reason was because treating ulcers was much more profitable than curing them quickly.
 

Norsiiii

Posts: 25   +26
I think that people need to keep something in perspective. Is it great that she's giving this money to those who need it? Absolutely! However, this is affecting her about as much as the average person giving $10 to charity, if not less.

The problem that I see is that she's spreading it around far too much. A little here and a little there is enough to keep a charity alive but it's not going to permanently solve any problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that four billion dollars would have cured cancer. She's spreading her wealth, sure, but she's also maximising the fame she receives for it. Like seriously, 384 charities? How is it that so many exist?

It's better to dedicate all of your resources to developing a permanent solution for something horrible than to throw little bits here and there which may result in a far less profoundly positive effect on humanity.
you what?? $4.2 Billion is about 8% of her net worth you liar. That's only the equivalent of "$10" if you have a net worth of $125. You might want to get a bit more perspective on the numbers before saying such ridiculous things

Further, $4 billion to cure cancer? The latest research I could find that estimates annual global cancer research funding amounts is for 2005, which estimated $14 billion spent on research in that year. This figure would have at least doubled by now, so the figure you guessed as being enough to 'cure' cancer is about an order of magnitude below the amount that is already spent every year.....

In the words of the president-elect, just shut up man
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,133   +3,009
I think that people need to keep something in perspective. Is it great that she's giving this money to those who need it? Absolutely! However, this is affecting her about as much as the average person giving $10 to charity, if not less.

The problem that I see is that she's spreading it around far too much. A little here and a little there is enough to keep a charity alive but it's not going to permanently solve any problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that four billion dollars would have cured cancer. She's spreading her wealth, sure, but she's also maximising the fame she receives for it. Like seriously, 384 charities? How is it that so many exist?

It's better to dedicate all of your resources to developing a permanent solution for something horrible than to throw little bits here and there which may result in a far less profoundly positive effect on humanity.
A person who doesn't understand how money works talks about it and other stuff he also knows nothing about.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 763   +647
We need more rich people who give ludicrous amounts to charity, good job MacKenzie Scott, still more to give, but 4.1 billion is way more money than I'd know what to do with, or who to give it to so really good job so far!

While I agree, it should also be the responsibility of government to fund them. If they didn't give the obscenely rich tax breaks they could afford to fund charities.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,512   +2,474
you what?? $4.2 Billion is about 8% of her net worth you liar. That's only the equivalent of "$10" if you have a net worth of $125. You might want to get a bit more perspective on the numbers before saying such ridiculous things

While I think it‘s good that she donated a large amount to charity, I agree with Avro Arrow that there is a difference between being ultra rich and donating and being a regular person.

If you look at a person‘s net worth, you will need to first deduct anything that is actually needed to live (the car that gets you to work, the house that you live in, retirement savings, emergency funds in case the car, house, etc. needs repairs....) to get to the money that you can spend on anything you want without having to think of it. And that is much less for many than you‘d think by looking at average net worth numbers.

The question is, do you need to make sacrifices due to your donation, or does it essentially not change anything in terms of how you are living.

Someone having $100 and giving $10 to charity, their friends, needier people... means they will have to give something up. If you have $ 10 billion and give $ 1 billion, not much will change.

The person giving $10 will also not get press coverage, awards, invitations to events or publicity for a book they may want to write.

Again, it‘s good that she donated but it‘s also money spent on self marketing. If the end result is beneficial for society then that‘s OK, but I still value a kid selling home made lemonade to donate the money they earn much, much, higher.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
However, this is affecting her about as much as the average person giving $10 to charity, if not less.
Total balderdash. She's given nearly 10% of her net worth in just the last four months alone. Since the average person in the US earns over $2.5M in their lifetime, this is equivalent to their donating a quarter of a million dollars in four months. Have you given that much this year?

The problem that I see is that she's spreading it around far too much. She's spreading her wealth, sure, but she's also maximising the fame she receives for it.
Always willing to tell other people how to spend their money, aren't you?

I'm willing to bet that four billion dollars would have cured cancer.
Given that worldwide, the total funding for cancer research has been over $1 trillion dollars in the last decade alone, that's an absurd statement. Just one single cancer research charity alone (the National Cancer Institute) spends more than $4B every year.
 

sorten

Posts: 81   +119
It's not good enough that Ms. Scott just gave away $4B in four months, we need to know that she's now suffering as a result of that giving in order for it to "count".

Good grief. And is she crowing about it, or are organizations announcing the gifts and bloggers are writing about it for a few clicks?

If she's being public about her giving, then I'd like to propose two other possible motivations: 1) it's likely pissing off Bezos, and 2) it encourages other billionaires to sign the gift pledge and start parting with their own wealth.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,512   +2,474
Sorry I live in the UK so don't know, do kids actually do the whole lemonade stand outside their house thing? I thought it was just a TV trope.
Live on the continent but while I lived in the US - which admittedly is a rather long time ago, Lemonade stands were still a thing, although you don‘t see it on every corner every day.


They can also mow the lawn or do other things to earn money. Not saying that all kids are donating the money but when they do it‘s special.