Having a value of $1Trillion is not the same thing as making $1Trillion per year.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accepting Red Cross Donations for California Fire Relief
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having a value of $1Trillion is not the same thing as making $1Trillion per year.
First, you are wrong about this area being "one of the hottest, driest areas in the country". Those would be the vast desert areas of the Southwest. Obviously since tree grow to hundreds of feet these areas are not dry except in periods of drought, which occurred from 2012-2016.
Second, a lot of the homes that have burn in recent years are in subdivisions miles from a forest. When these fires get going, winds laden with burning material follow terrain and can burn homes 4-7 miles from any forested area. Also, the winds can get up to 100 mph and carry a burning shingle from a house 4-5 miles where it can start another house on fire whose burning structure can provide material that gets transported ....
My relatives that were burn out in last fall's fires in Napa county were victims of this. From their home you could barely see the mountains. They lived on a typical suburban housing track where hundreds of homes and a few neighbors were consumed.
Third, almost all of us live somewhere with natural hazards. The worse loss of life in natural disasters occurs due to water. Be that from flood like in the Virginia's recently, hurricanes (Katrina, Sandy, etc). And most people live within 75 miles of the coast or a major body of water.
Fourth, even in areas not near mountains or water there are hazards. The Mississippi and other major rivers flood. The strongest earthquake in the US occurred along the New Madrid fault that threatens Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Mississippi. It was strong enough to ring church bells in Boston and temporarily reverse the flow of the Mississippi.
And of course there the man-made earthquakes caused by fracking in Oklahoma and Texas where unfortunately people do not have earthquake insurance and build basements.
So the bottom line is there are hazards everywhere. And when the disaster strikes the best one can do is pick yourself up and keep moving forward. And the best those of us not effected by the tragedy can do is try to find ways, like contributing money, to help those effected. Because we all know one day the roles could be reversed.
Last edited:
Not your shirt of course, more of the pic and the fact that you think California is the greatest place to live.
Oh great, can’t wait for people to point out the percentage of every charitable donation Apple makes now that they’re worth a trillion dollars.
“Apple donates $100 million to hurricane relief”
“That’s only .001%!!!!”
Not your shirt of course, more of the pic and the fact that you think California is the greatest place to live.
Oh, I don't think it's the greatest place to live. In America, it is, though.
It hasn't been this bad for a long time... I have lived in California since 1989. There has been a pretty severe drought here in the last decade that has hit the place REALLY hard.
Even the place I'm renting right now in the high desert, if you go to Google Maps, you see trees, grass, bushes... in the street view. Now? I have dirt in my front yard, dirt in my backyard - everything has died in the last 10 years.
CA has worked hard to require places to create a safe zone around their houses but there always seems to be idiots who love starting fires (getting worse) every year. Thanks to the drought, it's ... really bad here.
We're all fined if we use a lot of water too. So I have a bucket in the shower to flush the toilet to help with the water shortage that we've been having here for the last year+.
Just an FYI for those who aren't a native Californian.
As a 40-year native of California forests, I'd like to second that, and also add that for a good number of years the state has stopped doing fuel cleanup and controlled burns of the dry and dead brush on the forest floor. All this fuel has been piling up, and this lack of prevention is contributing heavily to the severity of these fires.
I live in Redding and it's not exactly like that. Yes, it's hot and dry, but it's a normal small city that's surrounded by nature, which in my opinion is the best part of living here. Changing weather patterns and a freak accident caused this. I hope in the future people will be more prepared with fire lines, evacuation plans, and the understanding that this is possible. Regardless, for the type of lifestyle I like to have, I love it here and do not plan to leave anytime soon.
i dont mind it, even if it is on fire. However there are things I dont like about this state. what can ya do..
ahh yes - the red cross. everyone that i know that applied for assistance when Hurricane Harvey hit down here were denied. you hear the stories. local churches and business did a lot more in peoples eyes than the red cross.
https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-official-after-harvey-the-red-cross-was-not-there
https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-official-after-harvey-the-red-cross-was-not-there
The Red Cross keeps 70% of donations for "administration costs". There's never been a disaster where the involvement of the Red Cross actually made a significant difference. The only thing the Red Cross has ever helped is themselves. As always it's left to Govt & Insurance to pay the real costs. If Apple really want to help people maybe stop weaselling out of taxes which is what funds true disaster relief. Instead of asking us to tip charities 'cause they ran out on the bill.
Maybe you did not notice, but Red Cross usually has a large presence at fires like this.
Here is some local reporting about their involvement in the Redding area.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/...nd-refuge-at-red-cross-shelters/103-578378677
https://www.redbluffdailynews.com/2018/07/27/checking-on-a-loved-one-in-redding/
https://www.redding.com/story/news/...hasta-college-can-take-plenty-more/854211002/
[doublepost=1533322705][/doublepost]
These two sites are reporting the Red Cross is spending about 11% on costs/overhead.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/american-red-cross/360
I know it is popular to dump on the Red Cross, but I have personal experience with them at local disasters and they really do provide a valuable service.
Also keep in mind other companies and individuals are paying their taxes and so covering the aid bill Apple avoids then generously donates a tiny fraction of back later.
I mean, not to just dump on ARC, but "opening" 2 shelters at community owned locations and then saying that they "need donations" in order to help the victims doesn't really sound like they actually did anything...
If you ever get the chance, you should try and stop by one of these centers they operate. It really is a huge undertaking and they are good at it. You have hundreds and hundreds of people who often literally left their home with just the clothing they are wearing and the Red Cross provides bedding, clothing, and food for all these people.
They also operate a service (I cannot remember what it is called) where they connect up displaced people with family who is trying to find them.
If you prefer to donate to some other organization, that is great also, but you really need to be on the ground at a disaster like this to to see what Red Cross really does.
Like I said man, I've lived in SoCal my whole life. The fire has been literally across the street from me. I've never seen anything ARC before. What does $1MM in water bottles and blankets look like? I'm willing to bet they don't spend more than 10% of what they raise on things like this
Actually, you should compare profits and income. My salary is 90% profit (transport around London is expensive, or it would be more).
Source for this? I don't see anything stating the Red Cross keeps 70 percent of donations for administrative costs. I do, however, reports from NPR on Red Cross spending that suggests ~70 to ~75 percent of donations go towards services, with the rest being used for administration and fundraising, so there is some cause for concern if that's still the case. There were specific concerns raised about spending in Haiti and following Hurricane Harvey.
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/4820...fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...rtion-of-donations-will-go-directly-to-harvey
https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
https://www.npr.org/series/377506201/special-report-on-the-american-red-cross
The Red Cross's own website says that on average, 91 percent of every dollar is invested in humanitarian services and programs. In 2016, the Red Cross says $286M was spent on fundraising, management, and general expenses out of $2,721.5M, accounting for approximately 10 percent of spending.
http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/How-the-American-Red-Cross-Spends-Your-Donations
The site says for major disasters, a minimum of 91 cents for every dollar raised is allocated to programs to help affected people.
Charity Navigator suggests that 89.3 percent of the Red Cross's 2017 expenses were spent on programs and services, with 4.2% going towards administrative costs and 6.4% going towards fundraising expenses.
https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/...oes-red-cross-give-to-those-in-need/470270671
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
The Red Cross has set up shelters in Shasta County at several locations, providing beds, food, drinks, and health services and it operates a long-term fire relief program in California.
https://www.redding.com/story/news/...hasta-college-can-take-plenty-more/854211002/
http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/RED-CROSS-OPENS-SHELTERS-FOR-CARR-FIRE-EVACUEES
I'm not advocating for the Red Cross here, but it sounds like there is at least some misinformation that's being spread. I am more than happy to list alternate places where MacRumors readers can donate if someone wants to suggest some good alternatives that are known to provide more assistance to victims.
Please give me your suggestions and I'll add them to the post.
Thanks for posting that, i've heard a lot of stuff about Red Cross, but the proof seems to show they actually do help and care.
That's usually how it'll work. A massive organization can help, but theres steps and procedures that slow them down. Locals can mobilize a lot faster.
For the same reason people live in flat tornado ridden plains, earthquake ridden coasts in the west, and hurricane and flood ridden coats in the east: they choose to live where they are happy and can afford.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Thank you to MacRumors staff to replying to my and others' concerns.
I think criticasm is wrong about this and maybe is accidentally confusing the percent of donations that goes towards services (which would be in line with what you say below).
Yes, and that is enough in my book to rule them out. Their mismanagement in both cases was reported in several places, but since you already posted the links to NPR (including one that mentions that the Red Cross now refuses to talk to NPR about how much of its efforts go towards relief) that is probably enough for people to get an idea of what the complaints are. NPR is not some conspiracy site; there are legitimate concerns about how they recent deal with disasters.
ProPublica is another source I know that has been reporting on concerns about the Red Cross for a long time. For a more mainstream source, here is an NBC report that gives a nuanced analysis of their response to Katrina and 9/11, with criticisms and defense of the Red Cross.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9518677/n...ina-relief-red-cross-criticized/#.W2S_D_5Kgy4
One issue many people have with the Red Cross is how much their administrative team makes. Even Business Insider said that the Red Cross "may want to reconsider its priorities" when it found out that their three top execs made over $500,000 each. That's more what you would expect from a private sector company, not a charity.
https://www.businessinsider.com/executive-compensation-at-the-red-cross-2012-11
As one of the articles you linked to said, the problem is that the Red Cross, unlike many charities, is very tight-lipped about its spending, so it's hard to verify its claims. I hope they have improved, but IMO there's a big difference between 89.3 percent and 70-75 percent like you mentioned earlier. It's hard to know what the truth is for the exact figures.
In general, since it comes up every time there's a post about donations via iTunes to the Red Cross, maybe MR could put a note that if people don't want to use iTunes to donate to the Red Cross, there may also be other local and national organizations that are assisting victims. I know it's not MR's job to organize disaster relief, but since there are questions by reputable sources about Red Cross's spending, and people turn to MR for reliable news in addition to the rumors, I think some people just assume the Red Cross must be the best option.
The problem is that each disaster is different, and since they happen in different places it's hard to give blanket suggestions, which is probably why people turn to the Red Cross by default. I checked and Charity Navigator suggests four organizations currently (the Red Cross is notably absent). So that might be a place for people to go for this time.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=5456
Doctors Without Borders is one option I go to to help out with donations for many disasters, but that doesn't really apply in this case for the California wildfires.
This article on Slate is critical of the Red Cross and says it's not entirely the organizations fault — they're not designed to deal with major disasters, and people give such an influx of money they sometimes can't figure out how to spend it. I'm not saying Red Cross or the people that work for it are evil; there are questions though if they are effectively managed and put the money where it can help the most.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...money_to_the_red_cross_we_need_a_new_way.html
It ends with a quote that maybe people critical of the Red Cross, including me, may want to consider. It's about Harvey but applies more generally:
Even if I don't think the Red Cross is the best option, I think any help is better than no help and it's nice that MR posts when there is a disaster so that people know they can help. I hope people who are interested in helping found this discussion and information from you and other staff members useful. Thank you jclo and MacRumors to listening to our concerns.
I think criticasm is wrong about this and maybe is accidentally confusing the percent of donations that goes towards services (which would be in line with what you say below).
Yes, and that is enough in my book to rule them out. Their mismanagement in both cases was reported in several places, but since you already posted the links to NPR (including one that mentions that the Red Cross now refuses to talk to NPR about how much of its efforts go towards relief) that is probably enough for people to get an idea of what the complaints are. NPR is not some conspiracy site; there are legitimate concerns about how they recent deal with disasters.
ProPublica is another source I know that has been reporting on concerns about the Red Cross for a long time. For a more mainstream source, here is an NBC report that gives a nuanced analysis of their response to Katrina and 9/11, with criticisms and defense of the Red Cross.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9518677/n...ina-relief-red-cross-criticized/#.W2S_D_5Kgy4
One issue many people have with the Red Cross is how much their administrative team makes. Even Business Insider said that the Red Cross "may want to reconsider its priorities" when it found out that their three top execs made over $500,000 each. That's more what you would expect from a private sector company, not a charity.
https://www.businessinsider.com/executive-compensation-at-the-red-cross-2012-11
As one of the articles you linked to said, the problem is that the Red Cross, unlike many charities, is very tight-lipped about its spending, so it's hard to verify its claims. I hope they have improved, but IMO there's a big difference between 89.3 percent and 70-75 percent like you mentioned earlier. It's hard to know what the truth is for the exact figures.
In general, since it comes up every time there's a post about donations via iTunes to the Red Cross, maybe MR could put a note that if people don't want to use iTunes to donate to the Red Cross, there may also be other local and national organizations that are assisting victims. I know it's not MR's job to organize disaster relief, but since there are questions by reputable sources about Red Cross's spending, and people turn to MR for reliable news in addition to the rumors, I think some people just assume the Red Cross must be the best option.
The problem is that each disaster is different, and since they happen in different places it's hard to give blanket suggestions, which is probably why people turn to the Red Cross by default. I checked and Charity Navigator suggests four organizations currently (the Red Cross is notably absent). So that might be a place for people to go for this time.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=5456
Doctors Without Borders is one option I go to to help out with donations for many disasters, but that doesn't really apply in this case for the California wildfires.
This article on Slate is critical of the Red Cross and says it's not entirely the organizations fault — they're not designed to deal with major disasters, and people give such an influx of money they sometimes can't figure out how to spend it. I'm not saying Red Cross or the people that work for it are evil; there are questions though if they are effectively managed and put the money where it can help the most.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...money_to_the_red_cross_we_need_a_new_way.html
It ends with a quote that maybe people critical of the Red Cross, including me, may want to consider. It's about Harvey but applies more generally:
Slate said:
Even if I don't think the Red Cross is the best option, I think any help is better than no help and it's nice that MR posts when there is a disaster so that people know they can help. I hope people who are interested in helping found this discussion and information from you and other staff members useful. Thank you jclo and MacRumors to listening to our concerns.
Last edited:
Can you lead by example and donate, say, an extra 10% beyond your tax liability, to your tax authority to help out?
Thanks!
[doublepost=1533335386][/doublepost]For reference... Facebook will match California wildfire donations to the ARC, up to $100K.
Last edited:
