I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I’m sure the people who have access to water after his “build 100 wells in Africa” stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don’t know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I’m unsure what would be better.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that.
This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don’t know if they would be worse off if they weren’t helped.
He “built 100 houses and gave them away” earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they’re tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don’t like their job and there isn’t another job available? They’re stuck.
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.
I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money?
Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.
Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc?
That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.
Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.
Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.
Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.
And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting.
If you’re given a house, paying property taxes and insurance is almost certainly better and cheaper than renting.
I agree with your other points and overall with your perspective, but not this one.
Typical property taxes run about 1-2% of the home’s overall value. Unless they were all given multi-million dollar mansions they’ll be paying like 2-4k a year in property taxes. That’s far less than the cost of renting a place of equivalent size basically anywhere. You can probably afford basic homeowner expenses on a job at McDonald’s if you own your place outright.
Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?
You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.
Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.
You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.
They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.
Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?
Maybe it could have been made clear before the house was given to them in the first place? Game shows have to put all the catches in fine print when they give prizes. Mr.Beast doesn’t do that.
Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it’s always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it’s worse than if it weren’t allowed to accumulate in the first place.
Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren’t so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.
That’s just not how sustainable charity or development works, especially when it comes to things like building wells. There are existing charities that can do more than he does with the money he spends and have sustainable methods of doing so. Maybe some of them aren’t great, but if he actually wanted to address those issues he could set up a foundation with people who know how to do that work.
My guy, I’m willing to believe thus but you just can’t spew massive claims like this without proof. I’ve seen the accusation videos too and at best a handful of people there were plants but definitely not most. Just give me some links and I’ll easily believe it.
Just pay attention. There have been several articles about how the winners of a lot of his contests are family members of his cronies. They don’t get traction but I have no reason to doubt them.
So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation
Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
Well, that’s good isn’t it?
In exchange for being on video.
I didn’t watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It’s likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What’s wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.
If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping.
In that video, it doesn’t look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn’t take.
He makes more money off each video than he spent.
Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that’s fine, but that means it can’t be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it’s voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn’t need the help if we solved the actual issues.
I agree, but on the other hand the people he helps, well, get helped, and would be worse off if he didn’t do that. Obviously it would be better if he wasn’t making money off of it, but would it be better if he stopped?
As morally dubious as he is, I’m sure the people who have access to water after his “build 100 wells in Africa” stunt would disagree with opinions that he should stop.
So I don’t know. I agree with the criticism, but I always think of the people who got help and I’m unsure what would be better.
This is fallacious and it plays into what I said. There is no follow-up on those people. You don’t know if they would be worse off if they weren’t helped.
He “built 100 houses and gave them away” earlier this year. Great. Is he going to pay to maintain those houses? Is he going to pay to insure them? Is he going to pay the property taxes? And, of course, now they’re tied down to one specific area because they have a house and if they don’t like their job and there isn’t another job available? They’re stuck.
Home ownership isn’t necessarily cheaper or better than renting. They may very well have been better off before the IRS let them know what they owed for that house.
Can’t they sell the house and do whatever they want with the money? Or rent it out and use that to pay for the maintenance/taxes, etc? Feels like it’s hard to argue against giving people a free house.
That being said, if even a small part of what is being said about him is true, then he’s a massive piece of shit.
I’d still take a free house from a massive piece of shit, tho.
Possibly. If they didn’t sign some sort of contract agreeing not to do so and if there would be a market for that house. And then there’s just the psychological burden of having to give up a free house because it turns out you can’t actually afford to own a free house.
That is not a simple thing. And it puts you legally on the line for a lot. That’s why corporations tend to do it.
I can show you so many stories of people who inherit valuable things only to end up in more debt than they started with. Did MrBeast make sure all of those people actually were good at managing their money before he gave them a house? If they weren’t, did he give them some way to become financially literate? We have no idea because he won’t tell us. We also have no idea what will happen to these people and their houses in one year or five years or ten.
Fair enough, I see how it could all fall apart if not done properly. And based on what people are saying… it’s unlikely that he did things properly.
Maybe if it’s just me, but if you’re unable to do the research to become financially literate after being gifted a $200k investment for free… I’m not really going to turn your problems into ill will for the person that gave it to you. Library’s are free.
Lots of people “do the research” on such things and end up becoming things like sovereign citizens.
That’s the problem with doing your own research with no one to guide you. That’s especially dangerous in areas like financial literacy.
Most of those “houses” were three room shacks in third world countries. No way they were worth 200k. They were roofs over peoples’ heads yes, but not investment vehicles.
And please, explain to a war ravaged town in sub-saharan africa financial literacy. See how that goes.
And that’s pretty much my argument.
If you’re given a house, paying property taxes and insurance is almost certainly better and cheaper than renting.
I agree with your other points and overall with your perspective, but not this one.
Typical property taxes run about 1-2% of the home’s overall value. Unless they were all given multi-million dollar mansions they’ll be paying like 2-4k a year in property taxes. That’s far less than the cost of renting a place of equivalent size basically anywhere. You can probably afford basic homeowner expenses on a job at McDonald’s if you own your place outright.
And in a lot of states you don’t need full home owners insurance if you own the place. Would be even easier to live in a home on a McD’s job.
Well they are not forced to keep the house. They can sell it, or if they don’t want it at all, they can give it away. But then why did they sign up for it in the first place?
You are saying as if they were forced against their will to get a free house.
Would you say no to a free house? People do things against their interest all the time.
You also don’t know that they weren’t required to hold on to the house for a certain amount of time in order to accept the house. I would be surprised if there weren’t such conditions. Maybe you are financially literate enough to turn down a deal like that, they aren’t necessarily.
They’re also only one job loss away from a tax lien against the house they thought they could afford to live in because they got it for free.
You also don’t know they weren’t given ongoing support. We can both play this game.
Why wouldn’t that be made clear?
Because an 8 part youtube series with 7 parts detailing their monthly budget and giving the update, “yeah, they still own the house” doesn’t get views or make money?
Maybe it could have been made clear before the house was given to them in the first place? Game shows have to put all the catches in fine print when they give prizes. Mr.Beast doesn’t do that.
Yes it would be. The accumulation of so much money into so few hands is a net evil, and his videos glamorize and are used to justify that evil. Even if some (and it’s always a small portion) of that accumulation is used for good ends it’s worse than if it weren’t allowed to accumulate in the first place.
Put more simply, if wealth inequality weren’t so out of control there would be much fewer people requiring the charity.
I agree, but he’s far from the enemy here, he has no money compared to the billionaires we should be fighting.
This is the kindest article I could find on his wealth and ot still brings the ethics of his money into question
https://screenrant.com/mr-beast-money-millions-rich-explained/
That’s just not how sustainable charity or development works, especially when it comes to things like building wells. There are existing charities that can do more than he does with the money he spends and have sustainable methods of doing so. Maybe some of them aren’t great, but if he actually wanted to address those issues he could set up a foundation with people who know how to do that work.
But that’s what he did, he gave the money to existing charities who build wells (probably in exchange for being able to film them being built).
The people he helps are mostly part of the scam.
The random people in Africa that got wells drilled are part of the scam? His employees, sure, but I’m not arguing with that.
They are part of the ancient tribe of Mr Beast. Little did we know he is like Mumra and just keep resurrecting over and over.
My guy, I’m willing to believe thus but you just can’t spew massive claims like this without proof. I’ve seen the accusation videos too and at best a handful of people there were plants but definitely not most. Just give me some links and I’ll easily believe it.
Just pay attention. There have been several articles about how the winners of a lot of his contests are family members of his cronies. They don’t get traction but I have no reason to doubt them.
“Trust me bro, do your own research”
Even if you’re right that’s still not at all helpful. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
Okay you claim he is the greatest thing ever. prove it.
No I seriously heard him claim you owe me $50.
The guy he mentally tortured by keeping him isolated would disagree
So his curing 1000 blind people video? Most of them were gonna get the surgery done anyway, he just made it happen faster
In exchange for being on video. Which is kinda gross. It’s making entertainment out of someone who needs help. If Jimmy was in it for good, he wouldn’t exploit the people he’s helping. He makes more money off each video than he spent. That’s exploitation
Well, that’s good isn’t it?
I didn’t watch the video, but skimmed through it now. In the wide shot it shows around 200 people. Meaning 800 people got it without having to appear on video. It’s likely they just got the money and a question if they want to appear on a video. 20% said yes, 80% said no, still got the money. What’s wrong with that? Looks completely voluntary.
In that video, it doesn’t look to me like he did. Clearly people got the money no strings attached, and an option to appear in a video in they want to, which most of them didn’t take.
Which gets spent on the next stunt. If not for the 1000 blind people video, he would have no money for the 100 free houses video, without which he would have no money for the 100 wells in Africa video, ad infinitum. If you say what he does cannot be packaged into profitable media, then that’s fine, but that means it can’t be done at all. Filming people getting helped is how more people get helped next time. As long as it’s voluntary for the people getting help, as it seems to be, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
I agree with many of his criticisms, but to me he seems far from actual problems with this world caused by politicians and corporations. A YouTuber making a show of helping people seems like the last thing wrong with this world today. And people wouldn’t need the help if we solved the actual issues.
Just because they were cut out of the video doesn’t mean it wasn’t filmed. I want to see what contract they signed before he payed for their surgery.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?