Part II of Spending What on What?!? has got to be recent stadium rental of Citi Field (capacity 45,000) for a "Mega-Gathering" --Sunday, May 20--to discuss the challenges of modern technology (see VIN report).
Is there not a school auditorium big enough and less expensive than renting a pish-posh stadium?
Tag this: Bleed Money.
10 comments:
The stadium is more impressive.
And it's better to look good than to feel good :-)
They tried to rent Ebbets Field but they could not locate it in Brooklyn!
Ironically they could have saved a ton of money and not have to rent out the stadium if they made use of a little technology called the Internet. A few lectures put on YouTube could have done the same job for a couple of bucks.
Then again, doesn't take a genius to figure out it's not about the lectures. It's about sending a message and showing how much clout you have and how big and important you are.
How sad. These people are too little, too late and out of touch with the reality today. The issue should be how to best utilize technology for dvar mitzvah rather than meaningless bans and takanahs that few will follow.
It's funny that they are doing this at the home of the Mets, an organization that says everything is great fiscally but are cutting costs everywhere (they even had their GM drive to spring training to save on flying him down and renting a car)*. While orthodox jews keep on saying there is huge fiscal crisis, but spend like drunken sailors on leave for "religious reasons".
*I know that was just a joke from Sandy Alderson.
"While orthodox jews keep on saying there is huge fiscal crisis, but spend like drunken sailors on leave for "religious reasons"."
I so agree. It is simply obscene.
I'm less concerned about the economic cost of the stadium rental than the economic cost of the content of the planned lecture. Connected social technology is popular today, but it is rapidly becoming essential to functioning in the modern world. It's one thing to ask people to disconnect for Shabbos and Yom Tov - though even that is becoming challenging for our teens. But avoiding it entirely may well mean withdrawing from the broader economy, not just the broader culture. Which leaves, what? The Amish have developed an entire culture around technology avoidance, but they are rural farmers and woodworkers. RW Judaism is unlikely to go down that route - Brooklyn and Lakewood aren't well suited to farming. So everyone just lives off of government services? What happens when the government withdraws those services, cracks down on fraud, or makes demands for those services?
The article got me thinking about the economic welfare of our various communities. An event like this one basically works like this: Orthodox organization pays outside group for service then Orthodox group charges its members for the service hoping to make a profit. What results is a massive wealth redistribution - the outside organization makes money and the Orthodox community becomes somewhat poorer while the organization becomes somewhat wealthier.
It's the same case with shuls, yeshivas, and various charities.
Is anyone aware of any studies done which report on the economies of Orthodox communities? Is there more or less money in the community now than, say, a decade ago? What about earning power?
More specifically, in terms of wealth distribution, is there more of a disparity between the haves and the have nots? Where is all the money going once it's redistributed? It would seem the organizations (and those that run them) must be very wealthy.
It would seem that the wealth gets concentrated in the hands of those providing "services" to the community whether those are organizations running these programs or your local sheitel macher or restaurant owner.
I would also guess that this wealth disparity becomes far worse the more insular the community and thus the less outside money that comes in.
Wondering if anyone is aware of someone studying this or if you have your own thoughts on this.
I can see it now;hawkers circulating in the stands yelling,"cholent,hot cholent here."
JS-
The organizations that collect money are not making tons of money. They have to pay their staff, utilities and advertisement costs (to make more money).
Many exist to redistribute wealth- which doesn't work in the long term because they are not encouraging people to be self-sufficient. Each person wants to be the one in charge of a "major chessed organization". Therefore, instead of consolidating and cutting costs, we are spending our tzeddakah funds on multiple rent payments ect.
Why do we need 5 different organizations to help with food costs? Can a family get help from all 5? Why work if I can get 5 organizations to deliver food to my door every week!
Why do we need several organizations to help with chronic/childhood illness within the country? It is a major problem for a family to deal with but would coordinating services be a better idea?
Post a Comment