By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Caring for others is a question of values, not income
ea25f50156
Whether at the country, family or individual level, having more money does not necessarily imply that people are going to be more charitable. Caring for others is a question of values, putting others in front of ourselves and having a big heart.

The American people are no strangers to the spirit of charitable giving. A phenomenal figure from Charity Navigator shows that as many as 50 percent of American households donated money when the 2010 earthquake devastated Haiti. This giving accumulated to $1.4 billion. Another example of American goodness was the $1.6 billion donated to victims of the South Asian tsunami. These figures tell a magnificent story of how we care for our sisters and brothers all over the world when disaster hits.

In addition, during 2013, approximately $335 billion was given to charities in America, making it the fourth consecutive year of increased giving.

To put this figure into perspective, this amount was larger than the total governmental expenditures of countries like Mexico ($314 billion), India ($281 billion) and South Korea ($287 billion), according to the CIA World Factbook. Citing Giving USA, the vast majority of donations (72 percent) came from individuals, and five percent came from corporations. So, it is not just the big companies which donate large amounts of money.

From this data, an interesting question remains: How is this charity divided up between the types of organizations that receive donations? The biggest winner is religion with 31 percent, followed by education with 16 percent and human services with 12 percent. Moreover, according to Frank Sammartino’s 2011 testimony before the U.S. Senate, people earning under $100,000 allocated 67 percent of their donations to religious organizations and only a small fraction to education and health organizations (three and nine percent respectively). On the other hand, people earning more than a million dollars allocated their donations between education (25 percent), health organizations (25 percent), and 17 percent to religion.

So when comparing income demographics, who donates more: The low-income or the wealthy Americans? According to Samartino’s report, people earning more than $500,000 donate 3.2 percent of their adjusted gross income, whereas people earning under $50,000 donate about 2.1 percent. Does this mean that wealthier people contribute more? Not necessarily, the important factor is that well-off people can satisfy their basic needs with a smaller percentage of their income. Therefore, they have a larger amount of money available for charity. Furthermore, people earning under $50,000 dollars often must spend almost all of their income for basic needs. Yet, they find a significant amount of money to give to charity. For them, 2.1 percent of their income is something more significant.

Assessing charity on an international scale, as measured by the World Giving Index, America ranks fifth, surpassed by Australia, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand. Notice that giving doesn’t only come from rich countries: Paraguay ranks ninth and Liberia ranks 11th based upon the percentage of annual income given away. On the other hand, many moderate-income countries ranked very low. China, for example, ranked 141st and Venezuela, a country with large oil reserves, ranked 123rd.

So, what does one conclude after reviewing these figures? Whether at the country, family or individual level, having more money does not necessarily imply that people are going to be more charitable. Caring for others is a question of values, putting others in front of ourselves and having a big heart. In general, low and moderate income people may be more sensitive to the needs of the poor, even though they do not have much. In any case, the important thing is that whether monies come from the poor, the middle class or from the rich, donations to charity are increasing.

John Hoffmire is director of the Impact Bond Fund at Saïd Business School at Oxford University and directs the Center on Business and Poverty at the Wisconsin School of Business at UW-Madison. He runs Progress Through Business, a nonprofit group promoting economic development. Mario Mercado, Hoffmire’s colleague at Progress Through Business, did the research for this article.

Its toxic: New study says blue light from tech devices can speed up blindness
93cbd7a5475cccd1cee701424125d3abaa9b4beaa58d3663208f656cbbbd7661
A new study from the University of Toledo found that blue light from digital devices can transform molecules in your eyes retina into cell killers. - photo by Herb Scribner
It turns out checking Twitter or Facebook before bed is bad for your health.

A new study from the University of Toledo found that blue light from digital devices can transform molecules in your eyes retina into cell killers.

That process can lead to age-related macular degeneration, which is a leading cause of blindness in the United States, according to the researchs extract.

Blue light is a common issue for many modern Americans. Blue light is emitted from screens, most notably at night, causing sleep loss, eye strain and a number of other issues.

Dr. Ajith Karunarathne, assistant professor in the UT Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, said our constant exposure to blue light cant be blocked by the lens or cornea.

"It's no secret that blue light harms our vision by damaging the eye's retina. Our experiments explain how this happens, and we hope this leads to therapies that slow macular degeneration, such as a new kind of eye drop, he said.

Macular degeneration is an incurable eye disease that often affects those in their 50s or 60s. It occurs after the death of photoreceptor cells in the retina. Those cells need retinal to sense light and help signal the brain.

The research team found blue light exposure created poisonous chemical molecules that killed photoreceptor cells

"It's toxic. If you shine blue light on retinal, the retinal kills photoreceptor cells as the signaling molecule on the membrane dissolves," said Kasun Ratnayake, a Ph.D. student researcher working in Karunarathne's cellular photo chemistry group. "Photoreceptor cells do not regenerate in the eye. When they're dead, they're dead for good."

However, the researchers found a molecule called alpha-tocopherol, which comes from Vitamin E, can help prevent cell death, according to Futurism.

The researchers plan to review how light from TVs, cellphones and tablet screens affect the eyes as well.

"If you look at the amount of light coming out of your cellphone, it's not great but it seems tolerable," said Dr. John Payton, visiting assistant professor in the UT Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. "Some cellphone companies are adding blue-light filters to the screens, and I think that is a good idea."

Indeed, Apple released a Night Shift mode two years ago to help quell blue lights strain on the eyes, according to The Verge. The screen will dim into a warmer, orange light that will cause less stress on the eyes.