Would You Sacrifice Your Paycheck? These Rutgers Students Did

For most of us, work means earning a living. We wake up, work for most of the day, come home, and go to bed. In between the cracks of our days, during breaks and during those rare moments of down time, we go to the supermarket, run to doctor's appointments, enjoy much-needed time at the gym, and enjoy good food.  For many of us, our paycheck sustain our lifestyles and who we are. It's a scary thought, but it's a reality-- it would would be tough to survive without our jobs.

There are some of us who work to survive, and others who push beyond the requirements of daily life to pursue something bigger and better-- something that makes us passionate or a goal that inspires us to keep doing what we do.

Every job comes with its costs and benefits. We may trade the prospect of 80-hour work weeks for a smaller paycheck, for instance. On the flip side, we may choose an 80-hour work week for more money while we deal with student loans, medical bills, and credit card debt. Whatever we choose, we do what we do as responsibly as we can. At the end of the day, we go home with pride, happiness, and a flurry of emotions. Whatever rewards we reap, the biggest one is a paycheck-- big or small-- because it helps us get by.

As hard as I work, and as much as I admittedly need money, I am an idealist deep-down who believes that there is more to life than money. The rare people who have enough of it are lucky. The even rarer people who can get by without it -- well, they are truly something else.

I was surprised to read recently, about three Rutger's PhD Students who pledged to donate up to 100% of their graduate student incomes. As part of a movement to fight poverty in developing countries, Nick Beckstead and Mark Lee chose to donate their $20,000 fellowship stipends instead of taking the money home. For now, Campbell is donating 5 percent, and he plans to donate more once he's established himself in a caraeer.

Does a $20,000 annual income make these men wealthy? The answer really depends on your vantage point. If you're from the U.S., the answer is absolutely not. If you're from the developing world, you see that yes-- in the context of the entire world, these men are among the planet's wealthiest.

That idea underlines Giving What We Can, a British-based movement that encourages everyone in the developed world to "help" others in the developing world by sharing their wealth.

On the one hand, Beckstead, Lee, and Campbell are exemplary. They have done what so few people do in their careers and everyday lives: to  see the world beyond themselves and show compassion for complete strangers. No matter who we are, we need to open our eyes and understand that we're all vital organs in a living society.

At the same time,  I'd be hesitant to give my money away. While some causes are worthwhile, I think that the most worthwhile inspire long-standing infrastructural change. The fact is that a dollar in the United States isn't the same as a dollar in the developing world. Even though $20,00o is a lot of money, it's not always enough for  U.S. to get by with the costs of health care, student loans, and simply existing. I'm  not here to present a moral debate about who has it better or who has it worse-- the developing world or us, but I am here to question these students' rationale, inspire dialogue, and help open our eyes to how we think about money and social entrepreneurship.

I wonder-- would the money be better invested in a health savings account, entrepreneurial venture, or 401(K) plan? Is the process of giving up $20,000 a year a symbolic gesture, or is it a force in a movement towards permanent infrastructural change? At the very least, could the gesture -- whatever it is-- help us engage in meaningful dialogue about investments, money, and their true value?

What is the best way to manage our money if our objective is social entrepreneurship for a better world? Would you sacrifice your paycheck to search for the answer?

Photo Credit.