Famous people quitting their day jobs to do humanitarian work full time?

June 15, 2009 12:37 AM

Have there been any pro athletes / CEOs / celebrities (famous actors and musicians) in the past 100 years who have quit their careers midway to do humanitarian work full time?

I want to make a case that people at the top do not care. They don't want change.

Let's say if Kobe Bryant goes on the news tomorrow and announces that he's quitting pro sports to do humanitarian work full time. That would be the perfect answer for my question.

Would like to hear some names, see some links and articles.

posted by querty to human relations (39 comments total)

Bob Hope ?
posted by iamabot at 12:39 AM on June 15

Jimmy Carter? I'm not really sure I get this, though:

I want to make a case that people at the top do not care. They don't want change.

So the only way to show that the "people at the top" do actually "care" would be if they quit to do full-time humanitarian work? Where does that leave Bill Gates, whose foundation (with a $35 billion endowment) is the largest charity in the world?
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 12:42 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

Jerry Lewis?
posted by jabberjaw at 12:45 AM on June 15

So the only way to show that the "people at the top" do actually "care" would be if they quit to do full-time humanitarian work? Where does that leave Bill Gates...

Not to mention the fact that working with his foundation is his full-time job now. It's hard to imagine a more relevant example.
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:49 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Depending your definition of "humanitarian work," Pat Tillman. Because without military security, there can be no "humanitarian work."
posted by paulsc at 12:52 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Bob Geldof. Arguably, Bono.
posted by dhartung at 12:52 AM on June 15

Pat Tillman, while not at the top, turned down a $3.6M contract to enlist in the Army and was in fact killed by friendly fire.

I'm not sure what you're getting at either with the "people at the top don't care, show me they do" phrasing.

Bill Gates is a perfect example. He quit his job to do humanitarian work full-time.
posted by disillusioned at 12:53 AM on June 15

Good point, 0x - I knew he had stepped down as chairman of Microsoft, but I didn't realize he was working full-time at the foundation. But even if Bill Gates had decided to stay on as an MSFT executive indefinitely, I would still say it's hard to claim that the guy who's created the largest charity in the world "doesn't care."
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 12:56 AM on June 15

The one that pops most immediately into my mind, although he's just barely in the last 100 years, is the great man Albert Schweitzer, who left a successful musical career as a scholar and performer of the works of Bach in Europe in 1913 to travel to Lambaréné, now called Gabon, in Africa to treat the sick.

Although I don't know how much luck you'll have with this argument. Who exactly are “the people at the top”? Does such a group exist, or are they an amalgam of all sorts of different kinds of people? It seems to me that when you talk about actors, musicians, businessmen, and atheletes, and you say that you're looking over the last 100 years, you have a group that's so diverse that there's absolutely no way to say that they agree on anything. Did Charlie Chaplin agree with Russell Crowe, even? Does Lawrence Olivier agree with Jimi Hendrix on many significant issues? I don't think there's such a thing as “the people at the top.”
posted by koeselitz at 12:57 AM on June 15

dhartung: Bob Geldof. Arguably, Bono.

It's not even arguable—it's certifiable fact. Bono quit being a musician years ago; he's all charity nowadays.
posted by koeselitz at 12:58 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Billy Sunday could be considered perhaps...
posted by dawson at 1:00 AM on June 15

Roberto Clemente, sort of.
posted by bardic at 1:00 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

While we could perhaps say that people who quit doing what they enjoy to instead do humanitarian work "want change", It is a logical fallacy to make any conclusions about people not wanting change from this data.
posted by floam at 1:03 AM on June 15

One could argue "that quitting while at the top" would be counter productive for most when it comes to making the biggest humanitarian impact. For instance, I know a few CEOs that donate millions. If they quit their jobs and say joined the peace corp, they lose a stream of donatable income that has a much bigger impact than a say a single person swinging a hammer in Africa somewhere.
posted by ill3 at 1:32 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Bill Gates is an excellent example.

Andrew Carnegie was one of the original US Robber Barons, who nonethless quit, turned to philanthropy, on the basis that "...the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced." Rockefeller was another hyper-aggressive capitalist turned philanthropist.

Carnegie was influence by John Astor.
posted by rodgerd at 1:35 AM on June 15 [2 favorites has favorites]

George Soros never really quit his day job, but it's hard to not consider him "at the top" or "wanting change".
posted by milkrate at 1:43 AM on June 15

I want to make a case that people at the top do not care. They don't want change.

I assume this means that either
a) You do full-time humanitarian work.
or
b) You do not care and you don't want change.

Maybe it's
c) "People at the top" are inadequate just like the rest of us and your question supposes an unreasonably high standard?
posted by rafter at 2:01 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm not sure if Paul Newman counts. His Newman's Own brand of food products donates all after tax profit to charitable organizations. Some $250 million since it was founded.

He was also a founding member of Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP).

While he didn't stop acting entirely, he appeared to devote a lot of his later years to his philanthropic efforts.
posted by purephase at 2:13 AM on June 15

Expanding on ill3's point, consider your own example: I want to make a case that people at the top do not care. They don't want change. Let's say if Kobe Bryant goes on the news tomorrow and announces that he's quitting pro sports to do humanitarian work full time. That would be the perfect answer for my question.

Let's say you're Kobe Bryant. You make $21 million every year you play basketball. As a complete ballpark estimate, he probably pays $8 million in taxes. 1% of the US budget goes to foreign aid, so he's contributing $80,000 in foreign aid money just by doing his job. Despite being tall, I don't think Kobe is capable of doing $80,000 worth of humanitarian work every year with his own two hands. So just by the fact that he'd no longer be pulling in that much tax revenue on his income, it's a loss for foreign aid for him to quit playing basketball.

This is the entire idea behind comparative advantage: Hypothetical humanitarian Kobe does more for humanity by being really good at basketball and using the extra money he gets from making baskets to pay people who are really good at solving hunger to set up irrigation systems.

But let's say you don't buy the tax argument or the economic argument for whatever reason. Kobe the hypothetical humanitarian has two choices:
1) Play basketball until he's 40, quit, and then spend his retirement doing humanitarian work. He'll have picked up $210M in salary at current rates, let's say he keeps about a third of that, and can spend an extra $60M while doing humanitarian work
2) Quit now and start doing humanitarian work, exchanging $60M for an extra 10 years with which to do his work.

Maybe one tall guy doing humanitarian work really is worth $6M / year. I have my doubts. If the argument is that he should tour the country asking for money or doing fundraisers (like Bono), it's a false dichotomy to say that he can't do this while playing pro basketball. It's like saying you don't care about public transit because you haven't quit your job to drive a bus.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:30 AM on June 15 [23 favorites has favorites]

Kal Penn just recently walked away from doing movies\House MD to go work at the White House.
posted by zephyr_words at 2:47 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Eric Liddell, one of the central characters in the film 'Chariots of Fire' seems to have given up competition to do missionary work in China the year after his Olympic win.
posted by biffa at 2:53 AM on June 15

Also on the missionary tip, WWE's Molly Holly.
posted by Karlos the Jackal at 3:09 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Where does that leave Bill Gates, whose foundation (with a $35 billion endowment) is the largest charity in the world?

Some people are of the opinion that if you are (for example) a lawyer who charges $200/hour, and you want to do an hour a week of humanitarian work, you shouldn't spend that hour working at a soup kitchen; instead, you should spend an extra hour at work, and donate the $200 you make so the soup kitchen can hire someone for 20 hours at $10/hour.

Granted, if the charity was in need of that lawyer's specific services, it's just as good if he donates those services directly; but a lot of professions aren't in much demand in the voluntary sector*, so from a financial perspective working and donating money makes more sense.

Popping brown people for the US government is actually the opposite of humanitarian work.

I think what disillusioned meant is: Tillman quit a lucrative sports career to spend his time doing something that some people think is a virtuous, or even heroic, thing to do. It's a matter of opinion whether serving in the military and dying in a war zone is in fact a virtuous or heroic thing to do, but I think it's reasonable to say that querty, who posted the question, is the person whose opinions will dictate whether Tillman belongs on the list, so it makes sense for disillusioned to mention him.
posted by Mike1024 at 5:06 AM on June 15

He didn't quit his career so much as his career quit him, but David Lee Roth was an EMT for a while a few years ago (he may still be doing it but I can't find any recent cites).
posted by Gortuk at 5:52 AM on June 15

Tom Monaghan, former CEO of Domino's Pizza. I don't agree with his positions but I admire his commitment.
posted by disclaimer at 6:03 AM on June 15

Cat Stevens quit music following his religious conversion and subsequently did lots of humanitarian work including founding several schools and a charity, Small Kindness.
posted by hibbersk at 6:07 AM on June 15

Mia Farrow
posted by hellboundforcheddar at 6:25 AM on June 15

Daryl Hannah joined the crew of the Sea Shepherd.
posted by glider at 7:02 AM on June 15

Lance Armstrong, perhaps. He says his comeback attempt is motivated by the opportunity to promote the Lance Armstrong Foundation, and that he won't be taking any salary or bonuses while he races for the Astana team. (I'm not sure if "bonuses" means "winnings.")

As for Pat Tillman, I think it's more like this: without "military security," there wouldn't be as much call for humanitarian work.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:28 AM on June 15

I'd also like to suggest that being successful at sports or entertainment does not put you in the ranks of the powers-that-be. A very good salary for a few years doesn't mean you've got some say in how the system works. Often you're just a bigger pawn.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:35 AM on June 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Audrey Hepburn quit acting completely and worked very hard as a UNICEF ambassador.
posted by cushie at 7:42 AM on June 15 [3 favorites has favorites]

In order for people to work in humanitarian contexts, there has to be a framework to get them there. There are people who negotiate with governments to get aid workers into a country and ensure their safety, there are logisticians who purchase and arrange transports for supplies, and generally, there is a organizational headquarters that recruits, trains, and does fundraising so that the entire endeavor can happen. That takes money. Lots of money. And while some NGO's take government money, others don't so as to maintain their independence. That money comes, in large part, from individuals.

People at the top who make donations to the causes they support are essential to perpetuating that work. And even if they did want to "give it all up" and do direct work, that doesn't mean they are qualified to do it. There are specific skill sets that are important- and not every entertainer, sports personality or businessperson has the skills necessary to be helpful doing direct aid work.

I've worked in non-profit fundraising for 10 years... dealing with major donors, foundations, and corporations. Their money and, in some situations, advocacy, is far more important than anything that they could do on the ground in Darfur, China, DRC, or any other humanitarian context.

Certainly, not all rich and/or famous people give as much as they could, or at all. But the ones who do are as important as the people on the ground doing the work.
posted by kimdog at 7:53 AM on June 15

Dr. Paul Farmer is a professor at Harvard Medical School and yet he spends every available moment working in the most poverty ridden countries of the world to bring humanitarian aid to the very needy. In his book about Farmer, "Mountains Beyond Mountains", Tracy Kidder says about Farmer:

"And I was drawn to the man himself. He worked extraordinary hours. In fact, I don’t think he sleeps more than an hour or two most nights. Here was a person who seemed to be practicing more than he preached, who seemed to be living, as nearly as any human being can, without hypocrisy. A challenging person, the kind of person whose example can irritate you by making you feel you’ve never done anything as important, and yet, in his presence, those kinds of feelings tended to vanish. In the past, when I’d imagined a person with credentials like his, I’d imagined someone dour and self-righteous, but he was very friendly and irreverent, and quite funny. He seemed like someone I’d like to know, and I thought that if I did my job well, a reader would feel that way, too."

You can learn more about Farmer's work and his extraordinary life at Partners in Health. I don't think there is any question that he will some day win a Nobel Prize for his efforts.
posted by birdwatcher at 7:56 AM on June 15

George Weah
posted by Zambrano at 8:24 AM on June 15

Elvis joined the Army in 1958, rejecting an opportunity to go into "special services" and maintain his public life in favor of regular military service.
posted by decathecting at 8:55 AM on June 15

Following up on 0xFCAF's comment, though I can't imagine Kobe quitting for humanitarian purposes, it's important to note that - at least according to that NYTimes link - only half of that foreign aid is for humanitarian assistance. The other half is military-related. So, Kobe need only perform $40,000 in good deeds.

As for that "comparative advantage" concept, the hole in that argument was fairly well exhibited during the riots that erupted in the 1860s over the Civil War's conscription policy that allowed the wealthy to avoid service by paying a commutation fee.
posted by sixpack at 10:06 AM on June 15

As for that "comparative advantage" concept, the hole in that argument was fairly well exhibited during the riots that erupted in the 1860s over the Civil War's conscription policy that allowed the wealthy to avoid service by paying a commutation fee.

The situations are completely different, people weren't angry about the draft because they were losing earnings! They were angry about the possibility of dieing.
posted by atrazine at 10:36 AM on June 15

the hole in that argument was fairly well exhibited during the riots that erupted in the 1860s over the Civil War's conscription policy that allowed the wealthy to avoid service by paying a commutation fee

Kobe making hundreds of millions playing basketball, then hiring a gaggle of doctors to go fight malaria, is a win-win proposition for two parties engaged in voluntary trade. Paying your way out of the draft is essentially the government imposing a mandatory don't-get-killed fee on the public, otherwise known as extortion. What exactly is the connection here?
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:18 AM on June 15

Athletes always have to change. They don't remain competitive throughout their working lives so a change of career is basically guaranteed. Two of the richest men, Gates and Buffet, both donate billions to charity and continue to work.

I'm not sure your argument holds any water except as a vague generalization.
posted by chairface at 11:36 AM on June 15