[jholman]

I'm confused. You're complaining about the use of the word "charity"?

Background: You make an argument that at least some people should consider putting contributions to society ahead of "making yet another few hundred thousand". I agree with you, at least broadly, and I think the up-thread poster is not disagreeing.

Summary: We're discussing the act of taking a personal financial hit, for the good of society.

The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.

---------

I also am sympathetic to the GP's point, about which you are so "disgusted", but I think there's room to disagree there.

I am sympathetic because professionally I do work that many people think is "good for society", I currently earn approximately median income (below mean) for my age/gender/nationality, far far below software engineer pay, and I am treated with unbelievable disrespect by my employer, the government. If I was not trapped in this job by personal circumstance (for now), the disrespect part would definitely factor into my decision making about staying in this allegedly-virtuous job. If you're gonna pay people below market, and you treat them badly, that's not a combination that gets you quality employees. Even if there's some social purpose.

[coldtea]

>Summary: We're discussing the act of taking a personal financial hit, for the good of society.

The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.

Calling it "charity" impies it's done out of pity/compassion.

The parent implies it should be seen as a duty / contribution to the country instead.

[evilduck]

Doing something out of a sense of duty should not require a vow of poverty along with it unless we plan on committing to lifetime benefits and support for the people who take that path (like providing food and housing, because the low end of the GS scales are literally below poverty rates as it is).