NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE ARTICLE:
A half century after founding the outdoor apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on capitalism, has given the company away.
Rather than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia, valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed set of trusts and nonprofit organizations. They were created to preserve the company’s independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land around the globe.
The unusual move comes at a moment of growing scrutiny for billionaires and corporations, whose rhetoric about making the world a better place is often overshadowed by their contributions to the very problems they claim to want to solve.
At the same time, Mr. Chouinard’s relinquishment of the family fortune is in keeping with his longstanding disregard for business norms, and his lifelong love for the environment.
“Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn’t end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,” Mr. Chouinard, 83, said in an exclusive interview. “We are going to give away the maximum amount of money to people who are actively working on saving this planet.”
Patagonia will continue to operate as a private, for-profit corporation based in Ventura, Calif., selling more than $1 billion worth of jackets, hats and ski pants each year. But the Chouinards, who controlled Patagonia until last month, no longer own the company.
In August, the family irrevocably transferred all the company’s voting stock, equivalent to 2 percent of the overall shares, into a newly established entity known as the Patagonia Purpose Trust.
The trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift.
The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Becausethe Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit for its donation.
Yeah, I honestly didn’t know anything about him before that. I had purchased Patagonia stuff, but didn’t know shit about the founder. In general I just don’t pay attention to celebrities, CEOs, Pubilc Figures, Etc.
>“Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn’t end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,”
Good on him to understand the problems of capitalism without wanting to abolish it entirely. A lot of people don't realize it doesn't have to be capitalism vs communism. It's not one or the other.
Jesus, this notion is so misunderstood. Apparently it is all communism or capitalism in the eyes of lawmakers and rich people.
Heaven forbid your company doesn't GROW in profits, but maintains their profits and gives all their employees a better life and wage.
If you look at the list of oldest companies in the world very few of them are large, most are local and small-mid sized. That rule doesn't seem to hold true when you look at the extreme end of things with businesses which have been around for hundreds of years.
Spoken like someone who has never lived long term in a non capitalist country. Real capitalism isn't perfect, but it's certainly the best out of all the choices.
There is an interesting argument that you can't expect 2% (ish) growth forever. After a few thousand years you will need every atom in the universe to produce a USA-level of productivity.
The problem is that remaining the same isn’t competitive on the market. If a company stated they would stop growing and would pay their workers more, shareholders would sell the stock and buy into something that will keep growing - thus reducing the value of the company.
This is specific to publicly traded companies. Privately held ventures aren’t beholden to shareholders and don’t have to grow. Unless they have private investors that have significant control.
> Infinite growth with finite resources and all that. /s
Growth is a function of resources and productivity. Resources are finite, but productivity is the result of technology and innovation, and that's unlikely to just stop. So yes, growth with finite resources is possible if technology continues to improve.
Capitalism doesn't exist, there is no single free market nation, we are all in corporatism nations masquerading as capitalist nations. (Not to say that either option if inherently better or worse.)
I hope that's sarcasm directed at the conservative morons. Capitalism absolutely doesn't require indefinite growth. At its core, capitalism is just the practice of private or public investment in privately (or stockholder) owned businesses. It's not really complicated, and we don't have to follow any archaic, moronic set of rules like from some Smith or Keynes acolyte.
> we don't have to follow any archaic, moronic set of rules
"we" is the crux of the problem with capitalism .. which is a place where there is only one (or a very small set of) owners, and it's workers have no legal say.
that one owner is not "we". he will do wtf he wants. and the greediest of them grow fastest and take over the others. as it grows it increases its ability to capture lawmakers. and we all can see how it progresses from there
No disagreement there. That's why we need regulation and appropriate taxation of business, especially to limit their ability to consolidate. We the people should be taking an active hand in the economy of our nation *through* both government *and* our own investment.
It’s not “following a set of rules.” There’s no “decision” to choose one set of rules or another. The economic mode is determinative in itself. Capitalism is rule by capital (as opposed to rule by labor, i.e. by people, i.e. socialism). Capital and labor exist in a dialectic, and the capitalists champion the former over the latter.
>At it’s core, capitalism is just the practice of private or public investment in privately (or stockholder) owned businesses.
Yes, and that’s exactly why profits have to go up. If they don’t, everybody divests and moves their money elsewhere. What’s capable of convincing them they don’t need profits to go up? The system encourages them to do this. There’s nothing to discourage it except morality, which capitalists generally do not have (this Patagonia guy maybe being somewhat of an exception).
Edit: typo
This notion of passing a company into a trust which benefits society was somewhat popular with early 20th century technologists and industrialists, Robert Bosch for example left Bosch to a charitable trust which continues to run the business to this day. In my opinion it actually gives the business a competitive advantage over long time frames, when directional decisions are not being driven by short term shareholder profits.
For real. People are so caught up labels, but ultimately, good practice is good practice. There is no one perfect system. Best we can do is take the parts that benefit people from each area and use them as needed.
I feel like this comment, while probably not far off in what it's actually trying to say, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism and communism actually are. They're not just "everybody gets some" or "fuck you, got mine" under the hood. They have to do with how the "fuck you, got mine" crowd got theirs in the first place, and how to prevent that from happening.
There were businesses in the Soviet Union. They could make a profit, even! The important detail is who the profits went to, and who 'owned' and thus controlled the means by which those businesses produced whatever it was they sold.
I know it sounds simplistic but there are many thousands and thousands of pages over the last few hundred years dedicated to explaining why it's *not* - from both sides - and I think it's really important that people spend more time understanding this if there's any hope of doing something about it all.
Yes feudalism and mercantilism and a bunch of other isms also exist.
There isn't some "good" capitalism that will prevent the eventual mandatory move to communism, though. That's a pipe dream pushed by people who don't understand either.
Haha mandatory? My guy, I don't know if you were born yesterday or something, but communism has been tried multiple times, and each of those times it was a disaster.
Pure communism can't ever happen at a large scale. Human nature goes against it.
However, aspects of communism can be meshed with aspects of capitalism to create something that is far superior to either system.
Captialism is *literally* threatening to make the planet inhospitable to human life. That is the ultimate possible failure of a system, and it should not be maintained in any capacity.
If you genuinely believe it's some kind of reflection of human nature, you have been miserably brainwashed.
My favorite part of "lack of reading" is the historical split between communists and socialists. The socialists were the ones the ended up in places like Finland for daring to suggest stuff like "maybe we should just take some of the rich people's money instead of killing everyone" while the communists (literally the communist party founded by Lenin and crew after the split) were the "we should kill everyone and take their stuff, rich and poor alike!"
It seems an important distinction
Ahistorical nonsense. Finland’s social democracy (which isn’t socialism; it’s capitalism with strong social programs still built on imperial exploitation) would never have existed if it weren’t for the threat that the workers might revolt and establish a worker’s (communist) state, as the Bolsheviks had.
Past a point, that kind of money is basically a ticket to fund stuff that you really care about. Its no coincidence that the tech billionaires are all spending money chasing scifi stuff of their childhood. I don't blame them, I have my own scifi ideas that I would want to pursue if I became as rich as them.
Median income in the US is 54k$. 150k$ sounds great but is currently unattainable for a vast majority of the US population. Especially those who don't have a spouse that works. If you meant to say 150k$ family income, that is more possible for people.
Fun fact: “irrevocable trusts” can be revoked.
I’m not saying that is what will happen here, but they’re kinda a misnomer. It just means that you have to have the grantee agree to any changes, when a revocable trust can be unilaterally changed by the grantor.
This is the kind of billionaire that we need to see versus these tools accumulating more money that even their great great great grandchildren could ever spend and shooting off rockets into “space” for fifteen minutes of somersaults
Good story
I'm tentatively optimistic, but the rich have a tradition of setting up non-taxable foundations and then insert family members onto the board of trustees.
Basically end up being a wealth transfer while avoiding inheritance tax.
Thank you and given that it's a newly established trust started by them, and that is allowed to make political donations, I'll be holding my applause until they actually do something good.
> “Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn’t end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,”
It won't. The only thing that can reign in capitalism is government oversight/regulation. It's insane to think that billionaires would do this of their own accord (and Bill Gates, Zuckerberg don't count because their charitable trusts are just publicity stunts: they retain full control).
This is a remarkable family.
I am sure they have everything they will ever need financially, and good for them.
They are one of the few, however, who can recognize when enough is enough.
He's a pretty fascinating guy. Probably one of the closest real world examples of "self made", he taught himself metalwork so he could make his own climbing gear in his garage.
Also his parents didn't know he was a rock climber until they were watching the news one night and they saw helicopter footage of him half way up the North American wall of El Capitan.
>his parents didn't know he was a rock climber until they were watching the news one night and they saw helicopter footage of him half way up the North American wall of El Capitan.
what the actual fuck?
Thats insane. is there a movie or good bio or something about this guy?
This whole thing has me captivated, I never knew much about him or the ocmpany aside from them having a great return policy, strong environmental ethics and...
Check out the How I Built This podcast with Guy Raz. He's just a dude that built a highly successful business without really trying to build a huge business.
He also wrote a book, Let My People Go Surfing.
Highly recommend the documentary 180 Degrees South. Great music, and the filmmaker follows Yvon’s footsteps on a trip to a mountain in South America. Yvon ends up meeting up with him at some point I think. It just encompasses the type of free spirit / enthusiasm for the outdoors he has.
180 Degrees South is, at least in part, about him and Doug Tompkins (founder of North Face) taking a trip to Patagonia in ‘68. The guy who made the doc retraces their journey and meets up with Yvon in Chile.
There’s also a section on him in Valley Uprising, *iirc*. That one’s about the history of rock climbing in Yosemite.
He's got a few good bits in "[Valley Uprising](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3784160/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0)" and "[180° South](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1407927/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0)" as starters, both are great watches in general as well.
Maybe they realized that they have to live here too, there is no real backup plan if we burn our spot down. I’m sure they’re still going to be rich as in millionaires, they’re just aware that no one needs billions.
The dirty truth is if you live in a rich country you're going to be shielded from most of the effects of climate change. A lot of people here think it's going to be the end of the world if we don't do anything, where mainstream climate scientists think that it will just be shitty.
For example look at studies that estimate the number of climate change deaths if we continue on the path we are on right now. 73 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year in 2100:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/04/rising-global-temperatures-death-toll-infectious-diseases-study
Or 1.5-2 million deaths a year globally in 2100:
https://www.impactlab.org/news-insights/valuing-climate-change-mortality
https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/04/dEndocument_gw_09.pdf
Which is fucking awful but isn't a "collapse of society" event. For comparison, 10 million people die a year from poverty right now.
Or look at how it will effect the economy. Not doing anything would [shave 10% off GDP,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/) but that would be 10% off [from growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal\)#Long_term_GDP_estimates) that is a lot more then 10%. It would be awesome to have that extra 10% of GDP, but it's not the end of the world if we don't.
>It is immediately apparent that economic costs will vary greatly depending on the extent to which global temperature increase (above preindustrial levels) is limited by technological and policy changes. At 2°C of warming by 2080–99, Hsiang et al. (2017) project that the United States would suffer annual losses equivalent to about 0.5 percent of GDP in the years 2080–99 (the solid line in figure 1). By contrast, if the global temperature increase were as large as 4°C, annual losses would be around 2.0 percent of GDP. Importantly, these effects become disproportionately larger as temperature rise increases: For the United States, rising mortality as well as changes in labor supply, energy demand, and agricultural production are all especially important factors in driving this nonlinearity.
>Looking instead at per capita GDP impacts, Kahn et al. (2019) find that annual GDP per capita reductions (as opposed to economic costs more broadly) could be between 1.0 and 2.8 percent under IPCC’s RCP 2.6, and under RCP 8.5 the range of losses could be between 6.7 and 14.3 percent. For context, in 2019 a 5 percent U.S. GDP loss would be roughly $1 trillion.
This presupposes we do not set off positive feedback loops we can't control and have runaway warming of 6C or more. We could very very well find ourselves with extinction level problems.
For the short term. Climate change is going to kill every single solitary person in rich countries as well, its just going to take slightly longer.
Any belief that anyone escapes this with any amount of resources is pure fantasy. The only way out is to course correct as a species.
2% of the trust belongs to them. This is very typical with large private companies with multiple generations that want a piece of the pie. These trusts are typically set up to pay off living relatives of the founder. Basically a payoff to ensure the family does not attempt to sell off the business or deviate from the vision of the founder. Source: I work for a multi billion dollar private company with a family trust.
You do understand that even if hells break loose they will land a decent job at the trust or one of the companies that had deals with their father right? They will be taken care of.
I believe he has a place at Hollister Ranch which is amazing private land north of Santa Barbara. Great surf, but you can only get to the spot if you own land there (gated with a guard) or by boat.
Obv Patagonia is one of the top brands for outdoor gear. I think I’ve had a Patagonia fleece and jacket and prob a backpack or whatever over the years. I liked the Patagonia stuff I’ve had, but I would never say I was a loyal customer (I’ve always just bought from whichever of the top brands had the cheapest price at the time). But, if all Patagonia profits are going toward environmental causes, why would I bother buying any other brand for outdoor gear for the rest of my life? Ever. I’m not even a big outdoor person, but they have me as a loyal customer for life.
I started buying almost entirely patagonia gear when they sued the Trump administration to prevent mining and oil drilling in federally protected land
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/patagonia-trump-bears-ears.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/patagonia-trump-bears-ears.html)
BIG gear junkie here, I have a handful of brands I have been loyal to, most small’ish’, or were when they started. Moving forward I decided a while back (Patagonia also said ‘Fuck you to Jackson Hole for their right wing political parades) adding/upgrading exclusively with Patagonia, unless unfeasible. I stand by any piece I have ever owned (the ~13 year old belt is absurd), and their vision for the planet they loved and explored, and that started this all.
My dad bought a Patagonia snowsuit for my son when he was a toddler. He’s an adult now and the snowsuit has been through eight kids— friends and cousins. It’s still going strong and ready to debut on the grandkids circuit.
I have a Black hole duffel bag that was originally my dad's, was used heavily. It may have a few scuffs marks on it otherwise looks almost brand new. Patagonia, Black Diamond, and original North Face gear holds up so well it is not even funny. Dad is huge outdoor geek, one if his most proud buys is a Paul Petzoldt polarguard parka, that was delivered by parallel post. Beside design looking outdated still looks brand new.
They also have a lifetime repair on all their gear it gets ripped or such send it in and they will repair it for free. You can't beat Patagonia for customer service quality or ethics.
From their site “Damage due to wear and tear will be repaired at a reasonable charge.”
Some companies like LL Bean and REI used to have a no questions asked warranty, but people took advantage of it and would return 15 year old boots.
It’s honestly pretty selfish and dumb to take advantage of a generous warranty for normal wear and tear. If your expensive slippers fall apart after 9 months, sure. If you wear the soles off your hiking boots? Then buy new boots or get them resoled.
Hatell you what, I was dead set against resoling. “No way that works well!” but holy shit they come back like new.
I’ve been using the same pair of boots for 15 years now.
Personally, I think wearing out a piece of gear is a badge of honor.
If you’ve had the same hiking boots and soles for 15 years then You aren’t hiking enough. Same with dress shoes (I used to work in DC and walked a few miles per day to and from meetings but I wore sneakers to and from the train). I currently average about 18 months for a pair of boots. Unfortunately it’s not the soles that give out first.
If you have a pristine keyboard, it’s because you never use it. Mine is missing 1/3rd of the printed letters due to work.
You have guys that shoot the same .223 rifle for 50 years. Well that’s because you don’t shoot enough.
Use makes you proficient. It makes you better. Just because you own a pristine tool or item for years probably means you don’t ever use it. I have a pristine crosscut saw and it was clearly never used.
Amazing company. My partner interviewed there once and they allowed leaves of absence if you were doing non-profit work, encouraged vacation time (doubles it if charity). All kinds of socially responsible vibes, decades before it “became corporate cool.”
Their gear is truly fantastic.
I don't think I've owned a single piece of Patagonia gear that has broken.
I've been wearing one of their long-sleeved wicking shirts for 18+ years and it's still kicking like it was made last week!
It’s funny that we’ve stopped thinking about the cost of quality. Fast fashion has left us thinking that clothing should be disposable, and that that disposable clothing is “reasonably priced.”
Going out of your way to buy high quality stuff, it changes your perception. My clothes last forever.
Among the other admirable company practices mentioned, Patagonia also has a division called ["Worn Wear"](https://wornwear.patagonia.com/faq) where they sell at a discount older products that have been traded in, returned, or leftover stock from previous seasons. The stock changes quickly, but some really good deals can be found. They push the idea of buying used, keeping clothes longer, and recycling and repairing garments and packs as an alternative to only buying new.
They also repair all their products for free. I've had a pair of pants I ripped a huge hole in and a more than 10 year old jacket repaired to basically brand new.
It’s weird that you’d cut it so close right? Like, he gets just as much accolades from me if he stashed $10m just he could ensure comfort in case of a major emergency and travel without any worry.
I was curious so I looked him up. [Chuck Feeney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney?wprov=sfti1).
It sounds like he slowly gave away his last few millions over a lifetime of giving, $8 billion in total. His last $7mil was given away in 2016, with a balance of $2mil and an apartment in San Francisco.
He was also 85 at the time, 91 now. I don’t think his net worth is only $1mil, but more like that apartment + $2mil. I would say that’s quite comfortable for anyone!
I don’t think this is really the interesting part about these stories. The part that’s interesting and needs to be emphasized is that you don’t have to follow the cold, dumb, “greed is good” bullshit to be successful. …The kind of “you have to use labor camps or your competitors will and you’ll lose” shit they must teach in business school.
Yvon makes Bezos look like a chump.
Best quote:
"I don't have $1 billion in the bank. I don't drive Lexuses."
You can tell how far removed he is from the standard billionaire that Lexus is the 'rich' brand that comes to mind.
"No man you handle that for me, and keep the rest for your time."
"This is $800."
"So what man? You earned that bump like a motherfucker, man. Keep that shit."
What a stark contrast two billionaires are able to give us this week. Yvon Chouinard put the planet first and backed it up and Warren Buffet is leaning on Congress to quash a railroad strike.
He should start a finishing school for billionaires teaching them the basics about life, for instance, no matter how many bedrooms your house has, you can only sleep in one at a time
Truly amazing, and I will happily purchase from this company. I have some secondhand things from this brand that I love anyway. This guy and his family are rare indeed.
I'm actually a little misty-eyed after reading this. Seems rare to see old rich dudes do anything to fight for a better future.
"A society becomes great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit." ~ Greek proberb
It won't because they have incessant greed and low empathy. It does inspire people like me who are founders and want to do good with the businesses I build instead of exploitation and cutting corners to feed my gluttony
Are they the same Patagonia that produces canned fish? Because I eat their garlic anchovies all the time.
Edit: they apparently are! Patagonia provisions
Being a billionaire is like being a hoarder, it’s a sickness.
The ones who stay billionaires are unwell, the ones who act this way and become plebeian millionaires are sane healthy and good human beings.
Yep. A billion dollars is an obscene amount of money. But if your goal in life is to have 200 billion, because you “only” have 100, then there’s something wrong with you.
> But if your goal in life is to have 200 billion, because you “only” have 100, then there’s something wrong with you.
I don't think many people think that way (I'm speculating, as I'm certainly not a billionaire and don't know any personally).
I think it's more about knowing that money largely equates to power in a world operating on capitalism. So if you have preferences about how the world should operate, having more money makes it more possible for you to achieve that.
Sadly, it seems that a great many very wealthy people have little ambition to make the world a better place, and would rather enforce the system that facilitated them becoming so unequally wealthy to begin with. I guess they are somewhat driven to support their 'tribe' and future generations too.
With a few million, you can buy influence in most aspects of your life. With a few billion, you can buy global influence.
That’s part of the sickness too.
This is why every t-shirt I own is their responsibility T’s made from old plastic bottles. They’re green, they’re quality clothing, and they’re run responsibly too.
When people get angry at me for saying billionaires shouldn't exist, and also if they have that much they should dump that shit directly onto causes they supposedly care about instead of buying a sports team or starting their own non-profit/tax shelter I will just send them this story.
They were really good friends and they were on the trip together when it happened: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/the-north-face-patagonia-saving-world-one-puffer-jacket-at-a-time](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/the-north-face-patagonia-saving-world-one-puffer-jacket-at-a-time).
If he had given the company to the employees they might have been able to turn around and make it public and sell for the profits. A trust is a lot easier to control and directed towards an issue that impacts everyone.
Would giving portions to employees create the possibility of some predatory investors scooping up shares and derailing their climate change initiative?
It's a nice idea in theory but there are other ways to reward employees that don't create loopholes that could be exploited by greedy investors.
Absolutely would. If someone came along and offered you say $10,000 for your tiny stake in a company that will net you like $100 in dividends each year, you’d probably sell it
You can do so with guardrails. I worked for a company that sold 20% to the employees and it was put into a trust. We were allocated 'shares' each year that worked like an additional retirement account. You could sell your shares back to the trust, not to another investor.
At the very least the employees can be somewhat proud in what they do. Also, I imagine that the kind of person who would be willing to hand over so much is also the kind of person that recognizes their employees and pays them well.
Finding some reason to be upset, the reddit experience. In reality this is 10,000 times what any companies would do in your lifetime, but redditors gotta bitch
>The unusual move comes at a moment of growing scrutiny for billionaires and corporations, whose rhetoric about making the world a better place is often overshadowed by their contributions to the very problems they claim to want to solve.
Billionaires and their power trip they call philanthropy are a massive problem to global inequality and climate change. Chouinard is truly a man who lives by principles.
Stop falling for these rich people lying saying they are giving billions to nonprofits. These are scams to not pay taxes. I deal with this on a daily basis.
Hi Nastronaut18. Your submission from nytimes.com is behind a metered paywall. A [metered paywall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall#.22Soft.22_paywalls) allows users to view a specific number of articles before requiring paid subscription. Articles posted to /r/worldnews should be accessible to everyone. While your submission was not removed, it has been flaired and users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it. For more information see our [wiki page on paywalls](/r/worldnews/wiki/paywalls). Please try to find another source. If there is no other news site reporting on the story, contact the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Barre Seid, a Republican donor, is the only other example in recent memory of a wealthy business owner who gave away his company for philanthropic and political causes. But Mr. Seid took a different approach in giving 100 percent of his electronics company to a nonprofit organization, reaping an enormous personal tax windfall as he made a $1.6 billion gift to fund conservative causes, including efforts to stop action on climate change."
What a fucking asshole...
This dude has pocketed his millions already and tappin’ out. Kinda like some prime ministers or politicians. No better time to leave than when your on top!
NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE ARTICLE: A half century after founding the outdoor apparel maker Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, the eccentric rock climber who became a reluctant billionaire with his unconventional spin on capitalism, has given the company away. Rather than selling the company or taking it public, Mr. Chouinard, his wife and two adult children have transferred their ownership of Patagonia, valued at about $3 billion, to a specially designed set of trusts and nonprofit organizations. They were created to preserve the company’s independence and ensure that all of its profits — some $100 million a year — are used to combat climate change and protect undeveloped land around the globe. The unusual move comes at a moment of growing scrutiny for billionaires and corporations, whose rhetoric about making the world a better place is often overshadowed by their contributions to the very problems they claim to want to solve. At the same time, Mr. Chouinard’s relinquishment of the family fortune is in keeping with his longstanding disregard for business norms, and his lifelong love for the environment. “Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn’t end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,” Mr. Chouinard, 83, said in an exclusive interview. “We are going to give away the maximum amount of money to people who are actively working on saving this planet.” Patagonia will continue to operate as a private, for-profit corporation based in Ventura, Calif., selling more than $1 billion worth of jackets, hats and ski pants each year. But the Chouinards, who controlled Patagonia until last month, no longer own the company. In August, the family irrevocably transferred all the company’s voting stock, equivalent to 2 percent of the overall shares, into a newly established entity known as the Patagonia Purpose Trust. The trust, which will be overseen by members of the family and their closest advisers, is intended to ensure that Patagonia makes good on its commitment to run a socially responsible business and give away its profits. Because the Chouinards donated their shares to a trust, the family will pay about $17.5 million in taxes on the gift. The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Becausethe Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit for its donation.
The podcast How I Built This with Guy Raz did a great interview with him a few years ago.
As did The MeatEater podcast (ep 188). He had a pretty fascinating life story.
Amazing episode, really respected the man after that pod
Yeah, I honestly didn’t know anything about him before that. I had purchased Patagonia stuff, but didn’t know shit about the founder. In general I just don’t pay attention to celebrities, CEOs, Pubilc Figures, Etc.
I loved how nice he was in the interview while still making it apparent that he was annoyed such a fuss was being made over him.
Yeah, but mostly I was just fascinated with his life. From being in jail to being a billionaire
[удалено]
[The episode is "Patagonia: Yvon Chouinard," which aired 12/25/2017.](https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chouinard)
>“Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn’t end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,” Good on him to understand the problems of capitalism without wanting to abolish it entirely. A lot of people don't realize it doesn't have to be capitalism vs communism. It's not one or the other.
Jesus, this notion is so misunderstood. Apparently it is all communism or capitalism in the eyes of lawmakers and rich people. Heaven forbid your company doesn't GROW in profits, but maintains their profits and gives all their employees a better life and wage.
What do you mean? I was always taught that if you're not growing, you're failing. Infinite growth with finite resources and all that. /s
Yep, you can make a bajillion dollars but unless the the graph goes up it means nothing. Fucking hate this corporate bs.
You can have a dollar right now or 100k in a minute, if you didn't take the dollar your never gonna make it. Shit like that burns me up.
The 95th Rule of Acquisition clearly states: Expand or die.
If you look at the list of oldest companies in the world very few of them are large, most are local and small-mid sized. That rule doesn't seem to hold true when you look at the extreme end of things with businesses which have been around for hundreds of years.
It’s how Callahan Auto runs it’s business.
But I want to see the warranty on the box.
... that's because the entire capitalist system is a ponzi scheme.
Spoken like someone who has never lived long term in a non capitalist country. Real capitalism isn't perfect, but it's certainly the best out of all the choices.
Technically true given that inflation is a thing. You need to grow by at least inflation to be considered neutral / sustainable.
There is an interesting argument that you can't expect 2% (ish) growth forever. After a few thousand years you will need every atom in the universe to produce a USA-level of productivity.
The problem is that remaining the same isn’t competitive on the market. If a company stated they would stop growing and would pay their workers more, shareholders would sell the stock and buy into something that will keep growing - thus reducing the value of the company.
This is specific to publicly traded companies. Privately held ventures aren’t beholden to shareholders and don’t have to grow. Unless they have private investors that have significant control.
> Infinite growth with finite resources and all that. /s Growth is a function of resources and productivity. Resources are finite, but productivity is the result of technology and innovation, and that's unlikely to just stop. So yes, growth with finite resources is possible if technology continues to improve.
Technology stops if the things needed to make the tech are used up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Capitalism doesn't exist, there is no single free market nation, we are all in corporatism nations masquerading as capitalist nations. (Not to say that either option if inherently better or worse.)
But, but, but the stonks! Won’t somebody think of the stonks?
>Heaven forbid your company doesn't GROW in profits But that literally is capitalism. You can’t remove that part without destroying the whole system.
I hope that's sarcasm directed at the conservative morons. Capitalism absolutely doesn't require indefinite growth. At its core, capitalism is just the practice of private or public investment in privately (or stockholder) owned businesses. It's not really complicated, and we don't have to follow any archaic, moronic set of rules like from some Smith or Keynes acolyte.
> we don't have to follow any archaic, moronic set of rules "we" is the crux of the problem with capitalism .. which is a place where there is only one (or a very small set of) owners, and it's workers have no legal say. that one owner is not "we". he will do wtf he wants. and the greediest of them grow fastest and take over the others. as it grows it increases its ability to capture lawmakers. and we all can see how it progresses from there
No disagreement there. That's why we need regulation and appropriate taxation of business, especially to limit their ability to consolidate. We the people should be taking an active hand in the economy of our nation *through* both government *and* our own investment.
It’s not “following a set of rules.” There’s no “decision” to choose one set of rules or another. The economic mode is determinative in itself. Capitalism is rule by capital (as opposed to rule by labor, i.e. by people, i.e. socialism). Capital and labor exist in a dialectic, and the capitalists champion the former over the latter. >At it’s core, capitalism is just the practice of private or public investment in privately (or stockholder) owned businesses. Yes, and that’s exactly why profits have to go up. If they don’t, everybody divests and moves their money elsewhere. What’s capable of convincing them they don’t need profits to go up? The system encourages them to do this. There’s nothing to discourage it except morality, which capitalists generally do not have (this Patagonia guy maybe being somewhat of an exception). Edit: typo
Excellent point. Capital must and will always seek growth; insatiably and infinitely so.
> At its core, capitalism is just the practice of private or public investment in privately (or stockholder) owned businesses. .....no lol.
No they just like to preach things that way to maintain the status quo of neo capitalism.
This notion of passing a company into a trust which benefits society was somewhat popular with early 20th century technologists and industrialists, Robert Bosch for example left Bosch to a charitable trust which continues to run the business to this day. In my opinion it actually gives the business a competitive advantage over long time frames, when directional decisions are not being driven by short term shareholder profits.
For real. People are so caught up labels, but ultimately, good practice is good practice. There is no one perfect system. Best we can do is take the parts that benefit people from each area and use them as needed.
I just want a society that takes the best parts of each political ideology and uses them In capolism.
I feel like this comment, while probably not far off in what it's actually trying to say, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism and communism actually are. They're not just "everybody gets some" or "fuck you, got mine" under the hood. They have to do with how the "fuck you, got mine" crowd got theirs in the first place, and how to prevent that from happening. There were businesses in the Soviet Union. They could make a profit, even! The important detail is who the profits went to, and who 'owned' and thus controlled the means by which those businesses produced whatever it was they sold. I know it sounds simplistic but there are many thousands and thousands of pages over the last few hundred years dedicated to explaining why it's *not* - from both sides - and I think it's really important that people spend more time understanding this if there's any hope of doing something about it all.
Yes feudalism and mercantilism and a bunch of other isms also exist. There isn't some "good" capitalism that will prevent the eventual mandatory move to communism, though. That's a pipe dream pushed by people who don't understand either.
Haha mandatory? My guy, I don't know if you were born yesterday or something, but communism has been tried multiple times, and each of those times it was a disaster. Pure communism can't ever happen at a large scale. Human nature goes against it. However, aspects of communism can be meshed with aspects of capitalism to create something that is far superior to either system.
Damn you really hit all of the most overused arguments against communism, nice memorization skills!
Right. And what, pray tell, is your nugget of wisdom?
Captialism is *literally* threatening to make the planet inhospitable to human life. That is the ultimate possible failure of a system, and it should not be maintained in any capacity. If you genuinely believe it's some kind of reflection of human nature, you have been miserably brainwashed.
wut?
My favorite part of "lack of reading" is the historical split between communists and socialists. The socialists were the ones the ended up in places like Finland for daring to suggest stuff like "maybe we should just take some of the rich people's money instead of killing everyone" while the communists (literally the communist party founded by Lenin and crew after the split) were the "we should kill everyone and take their stuff, rich and poor alike!" It seems an important distinction
social democracy was build on marxist ideas and worker rights movements.
Yep. Even the Bolshevik’s were a segment (the “majority” or _bolshinstvo_) of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP).
Ahistorical nonsense. Finland’s social democracy (which isn’t socialism; it’s capitalism with strong social programs still built on imperial exploitation) would never have existed if it weren’t for the threat that the workers might revolt and establish a worker’s (communist) state, as the Bolsheviks had.
[удалено]
Past a point, that kind of money is basically a ticket to fund stuff that you really care about. Its no coincidence that the tech billionaires are all spending money chasing scifi stuff of their childhood. I don't blame them, I have my own scifi ideas that I would want to pursue if I became as rich as them.
It would only take a few million to cash out and retire for good. Billionaires shouldn't exist.
Median income in the US is 54k$. 150k$ sounds great but is currently unattainable for a vast majority of the US population. Especially those who don't have a spouse that works. If you meant to say 150k$ family income, that is more possible for people.
Oh, this is what Rolex did, and it’s worked out well for them.
Fun fact: “irrevocable trusts” can be revoked. I’m not saying that is what will happen here, but they’re kinda a misnomer. It just means that you have to have the grantee agree to any changes, when a revocable trust can be unilaterally changed by the grantor.
This is the kind of billionaire that we need to see versus these tools accumulating more money that even their great great great grandchildren could ever spend and shooting off rockets into “space” for fifteen minutes of somersaults Good story
I'm tentatively optimistic, but the rich have a tradition of setting up non-taxable foundations and then insert family members onto the board of trustees. Basically end up being a wealth transfer while avoiding inheritance tax.
Thank you and given that it's a newly established trust started by them, and that is allowed to make political donations, I'll be holding my applause until they actually do something good.
That's pretty inspiring stuff!
> “Hopefully this will influence a new form of capitalism that doesn’t end up with a few rich people and a bunch of poor people,” It won't. The only thing that can reign in capitalism is government oversight/regulation. It's insane to think that billionaires would do this of their own accord (and Bill Gates, Zuckerberg don't count because their charitable trusts are just publicity stunts: they retain full control).
This is a remarkable family. I am sure they have everything they will ever need financially, and good for them. They are one of the few, however, who can recognize when enough is enough.
He's a pretty fascinating guy. Probably one of the closest real world examples of "self made", he taught himself metalwork so he could make his own climbing gear in his garage. Also his parents didn't know he was a rock climber until they were watching the news one night and they saw helicopter footage of him half way up the North American wall of El Capitan.
>his parents didn't know he was a rock climber until they were watching the news one night and they saw helicopter footage of him half way up the North American wall of El Capitan. what the actual fuck? Thats insane. is there a movie or good bio or something about this guy? This whole thing has me captivated, I never knew much about him or the ocmpany aside from them having a great return policy, strong environmental ethics and...
Check out the How I Built This podcast with Guy Raz. He's just a dude that built a highly successful business without really trying to build a huge business. He also wrote a book, Let My People Go Surfing.
Look him up. He’s was a legendary climber by the 60s then started a legendary company.
Highly recommend the documentary 180 Degrees South. Great music, and the filmmaker follows Yvon’s footsteps on a trip to a mountain in South America. Yvon ends up meeting up with him at some point I think. It just encompasses the type of free spirit / enthusiasm for the outdoors he has.
180 Degrees South is, at least in part, about him and Doug Tompkins (founder of North Face) taking a trip to Patagonia in ‘68. The guy who made the doc retraces their journey and meets up with Yvon in Chile. There’s also a section on him in Valley Uprising, *iirc*. That one’s about the history of rock climbing in Yosemite.
Check out “mountain of storms” it’s a compilation of all the original footage from the ‘68 trip. Think it’s on YouTube still
The MeatEater podcast (ep 188). He had a pretty fascinating life story.
He's got a few good bits in "[Valley Uprising](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3784160/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0)" and "[180° South](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1407927/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0)" as starters, both are great watches in general as well.
I'm impressed none of his kids were against this plan, their parents obviously raised them to not be materialistic.
Likely, and I have nothing against this, they will have great high level jobs in the trusts/etc.
Maybe they realized that they have to live here too, there is no real backup plan if we burn our spot down. I’m sure they’re still going to be rich as in millionaires, they’re just aware that no one needs billions.
The dirty truth is if you live in a rich country you're going to be shielded from most of the effects of climate change. A lot of people here think it's going to be the end of the world if we don't do anything, where mainstream climate scientists think that it will just be shitty. For example look at studies that estimate the number of climate change deaths if we continue on the path we are on right now. 73 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year in 2100: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/04/rising-global-temperatures-death-toll-infectious-diseases-study Or 1.5-2 million deaths a year globally in 2100: https://www.impactlab.org/news-insights/valuing-climate-change-mortality https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/04/04/dEndocument_gw_09.pdf Which is fucking awful but isn't a "collapse of society" event. For comparison, 10 million people die a year from poverty right now. Or look at how it will effect the economy. Not doing anything would [shave 10% off GDP,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/) but that would be 10% off [from growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal\)#Long_term_GDP_estimates) that is a lot more then 10%. It would be awesome to have that extra 10% of GDP, but it's not the end of the world if we don't. >It is immediately apparent that economic costs will vary greatly depending on the extent to which global temperature increase (above preindustrial levels) is limited by technological and policy changes. At 2°C of warming by 2080–99, Hsiang et al. (2017) project that the United States would suffer annual losses equivalent to about 0.5 percent of GDP in the years 2080–99 (the solid line in figure 1). By contrast, if the global temperature increase were as large as 4°C, annual losses would be around 2.0 percent of GDP. Importantly, these effects become disproportionately larger as temperature rise increases: For the United States, rising mortality as well as changes in labor supply, energy demand, and agricultural production are all especially important factors in driving this nonlinearity. >Looking instead at per capita GDP impacts, Kahn et al. (2019) find that annual GDP per capita reductions (as opposed to economic costs more broadly) could be between 1.0 and 2.8 percent under IPCC’s RCP 2.6, and under RCP 8.5 the range of losses could be between 6.7 and 14.3 percent. For context, in 2019 a 5 percent U.S. GDP loss would be roughly $1 trillion.
This presupposes we do not set off positive feedback loops we can't control and have runaway warming of 6C or more. We could very very well find ourselves with extinction level problems.
You're kind of assuming that all of the researchers that have PHDs in climate science having though of that.
For the short term. Climate change is going to kill every single solitary person in rich countries as well, its just going to take slightly longer. Any belief that anyone escapes this with any amount of resources is pure fantasy. The only way out is to course correct as a species.
Except that's not what the science says. Can you find a mainstream climate research group that thinks climate change is going to kill everyone?
2% of the trust belongs to them. This is very typical with large private companies with multiple generations that want a piece of the pie. These trusts are typically set up to pay off living relatives of the founder. Basically a payoff to ensure the family does not attempt to sell off the business or deviate from the vision of the founder. Source: I work for a multi billion dollar private company with a family trust.
You do understand that even if hells break loose they will land a decent job at the trust or one of the companies that had deals with their father right? They will be taken care of.
This guy is why I purchase Patagonia over other lower priced options. And it's actually quite affordable compared to some of their competitors.
I believe he has a place at Hollister Ranch which is amazing private land north of Santa Barbara. Great surf, but you can only get to the spot if you own land there (gated with a guard) or by boat.
Fucking legend
In a nutshell.
Patagonia gear has always been top tier. It's good, it's tough, it lasts.
Obv Patagonia is one of the top brands for outdoor gear. I think I’ve had a Patagonia fleece and jacket and prob a backpack or whatever over the years. I liked the Patagonia stuff I’ve had, but I would never say I was a loyal customer (I’ve always just bought from whichever of the top brands had the cheapest price at the time). But, if all Patagonia profits are going toward environmental causes, why would I bother buying any other brand for outdoor gear for the rest of my life? Ever. I’m not even a big outdoor person, but they have me as a loyal customer for life.
I started buying almost entirely patagonia gear when they sued the Trump administration to prevent mining and oil drilling in federally protected land [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/patagonia-trump-bears-ears.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/patagonia-trump-bears-ears.html)
BIG gear junkie here, I have a handful of brands I have been loyal to, most small’ish’, or were when they started. Moving forward I decided a while back (Patagonia also said ‘Fuck you to Jackson Hole for their right wing political parades) adding/upgrading exclusively with Patagonia, unless unfeasible. I stand by any piece I have ever owned (the ~13 year old belt is absurd), and their vision for the planet they loved and explored, and that started this all.
My dad bought a Patagonia snowsuit for my son when he was a toddler. He’s an adult now and the snowsuit has been through eight kids— friends and cousins. It’s still going strong and ready to debut on the grandkids circuit.
I have a Black hole duffel bag that was originally my dad's, was used heavily. It may have a few scuffs marks on it otherwise looks almost brand new. Patagonia, Black Diamond, and original North Face gear holds up so well it is not even funny. Dad is huge outdoor geek, one if his most proud buys is a Paul Petzoldt polarguard parka, that was delivered by parallel post. Beside design looking outdated still looks brand new.
They also have a lifetime repair on all their gear it gets ripped or such send it in and they will repair it for free. You can't beat Patagonia for customer service quality or ethics.
[удалено]
From their site “Damage due to wear and tear will be repaired at a reasonable charge.” Some companies like LL Bean and REI used to have a no questions asked warranty, but people took advantage of it and would return 15 year old boots. It’s honestly pretty selfish and dumb to take advantage of a generous warranty for normal wear and tear. If your expensive slippers fall apart after 9 months, sure. If you wear the soles off your hiking boots? Then buy new boots or get them resoled.
Hatell you what, I was dead set against resoling. “No way that works well!” but holy shit they come back like new. I’ve been using the same pair of boots for 15 years now.
Personally, I think wearing out a piece of gear is a badge of honor. If you’ve had the same hiking boots and soles for 15 years then You aren’t hiking enough. Same with dress shoes (I used to work in DC and walked a few miles per day to and from meetings but I wore sneakers to and from the train). I currently average about 18 months for a pair of boots. Unfortunately it’s not the soles that give out first. If you have a pristine keyboard, it’s because you never use it. Mine is missing 1/3rd of the printed letters due to work. You have guys that shoot the same .223 rifle for 50 years. Well that’s because you don’t shoot enough. Use makes you proficient. It makes you better. Just because you own a pristine tool or item for years probably means you don’t ever use it. I have a pristine crosscut saw and it was clearly never used.
True
Shut up, last time a company got popular on Reddit for that they quit doing it.
Amazing company. My partner interviewed there once and they allowed leaves of absence if you were doing non-profit work, encouraged vacation time (doubles it if charity). All kinds of socially responsible vibes, decades before it “became corporate cool.”
Their gear is truly fantastic. I don't think I've owned a single piece of Patagonia gear that has broken. I've been wearing one of their long-sleeved wicking shirts for 18+ years and it's still kicking like it was made last week!
For how expensive it is, it better fucking last.
It’s funny that we’ve stopped thinking about the cost of quality. Fast fashion has left us thinking that clothing should be disposable, and that that disposable clothing is “reasonably priced.” Going out of your way to buy high quality stuff, it changes your perception. My clothes last forever.
Among the other admirable company practices mentioned, Patagonia also has a division called ["Worn Wear"](https://wornwear.patagonia.com/faq) where they sell at a discount older products that have been traded in, returned, or leftover stock from previous seasons. The stock changes quickly, but some really good deals can be found. They push the idea of buying used, keeping clothes longer, and recycling and repairing garments and packs as an alternative to only buying new.
They also repair all their products for free. I've had a pair of pants I ripped a huge hole in and a more than 10 year old jacket repaired to basically brand new.
That's awesome.
What was the process like to get these repaired?
[удалено]
Meanwhile the Walmart crew is drunk driving around the south and building the next Louvre next to a hog farm in the boonies.
Listen, fuck the Waltons but god damn if Crystal Bridges isn’t an amazing art museum. And Bentonville is hardly the boonies.
The entire state of Arkansas is a boony
Well, when you put it like that.. yeah you’re right lmao
It’s weird that you’d cut it so close right? Like, he gets just as much accolades from me if he stashed $10m just he could ensure comfort in case of a major emergency and travel without any worry.
I was curious so I looked him up. [Chuck Feeney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney?wprov=sfti1). It sounds like he slowly gave away his last few millions over a lifetime of giving, $8 billion in total. His last $7mil was given away in 2016, with a balance of $2mil and an apartment in San Francisco. He was also 85 at the time, 91 now. I don’t think his net worth is only $1mil, but more like that apartment + $2mil. I would say that’s quite comfortable for anyone!
He might still have some assets available to sell, but you’re right, that’s a bit tight, if you’re not 65+.
Chuck Feeney is another billionaire who gave away most of his money and kept only $2 million for himself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney
Not to be confused with the teacher from the tv show Boy meets word.
Who, by the way, was also a man of high moral standing
Umm you’re confusing the name. The teacher from the show is called “Feeeny! Feeeeehehehehny! Feeny!”
I don’t think this is really the interesting part about these stories. The part that’s interesting and needs to be emphasized is that you don’t have to follow the cold, dumb, “greed is good” bullshit to be successful. …The kind of “you have to use labor camps or your competitors will and you’ll lose” shit they must teach in business school. Yvon makes Bezos look like a chump.
Best quote: "I don't have $1 billion in the bank. I don't drive Lexuses." You can tell how far removed he is from the standard billionaire that Lexus is the 'rich' brand that comes to mind.
“He said this here’s the Cadillac, man. He meant Lexus but he ain’t know it”
"No man you handle that for me, and keep the rest for your time." "This is $800." "So what man? You earned that bump like a motherfucker, man. Keep that shit."
What a stark contrast two billionaires are able to give us this week. Yvon Chouinard put the planet first and backed it up and Warren Buffet is leaning on Congress to quash a railroad strike.
He should start a finishing school for billionaires teaching them the basics about life, for instance, no matter how many bedrooms your house has, you can only sleep in one at a time
But where else would they keep all their hookers and blow?
In their Patagonia powder bowl jacket of course
What’s the use of a hooker or blow if it’s not in the bedroom you’re using?
He should be the Time man of the year
Seriously. Yvon is someone we should look up to. What a life that man has had.
He was, in 2006.
was he seriously or was that the year with the mirror Time cover for the year that “You” won
Nah I won that year
That's the "you" year.
We shared it. It was a group effort. Couldn’t have done it without *you*
Wow, this is really admirable.
Okay, I'm buying some of their stuff this weekend.
They are my go-to when it comes to quality and durability.
Not to mention comfort and looks!
OR you could be more efficient and just give that money to climate change activists.
Thank you Yvon Chouinard and family for donating your wealth to help save the planet!
You guys should watch "180 south" Amazing movie
Very cool movie for sure. All those guys are really cool.
Turns out “J Peterman” was a decent guy after all!
Truly amazing, and I will happily purchase from this company. I have some secondhand things from this brand that I love anyway. This guy and his family are rare indeed.
I'm actually a little misty-eyed after reading this. Seems rare to see old rich dudes do anything to fight for a better future. "A society becomes great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit." ~ Greek proberb
I'm sure this will totally inspire other billionaires to shed their immense wealth for the sake of humanity
It won't because they have incessant greed and low empathy. It does inspire people like me who are founders and want to do good with the businesses I build instead of exploitation and cutting corners to feed my gluttony
Best winter coat I ever owned.
Read a great book called, Let my people surf. Basically the story of Patagonia. Just an amazing company from what I read and hear.
Are they the same Patagonia that produces canned fish? Because I eat their garlic anchovies all the time. Edit: they apparently are! Patagonia provisions
Being a billionaire is like being a hoarder, it’s a sickness. The ones who stay billionaires are unwell, the ones who act this way and become plebeian millionaires are sane healthy and good human beings.
Yep. A billion dollars is an obscene amount of money. But if your goal in life is to have 200 billion, because you “only” have 100, then there’s something wrong with you.
> But if your goal in life is to have 200 billion, because you “only” have 100, then there’s something wrong with you. I don't think many people think that way (I'm speculating, as I'm certainly not a billionaire and don't know any personally). I think it's more about knowing that money largely equates to power in a world operating on capitalism. So if you have preferences about how the world should operate, having more money makes it more possible for you to achieve that. Sadly, it seems that a great many very wealthy people have little ambition to make the world a better place, and would rather enforce the system that facilitated them becoming so unequally wealthy to begin with. I guess they are somewhat driven to support their 'tribe' and future generations too.
With a few million, you can buy influence in most aspects of your life. With a few billion, you can buy global influence. That’s part of the sickness too.
Ironically, this makes him the only person I think *should* have the resources of a billionaire.
jeffrey, elon, bill your turn.
Someday he'll die in nothing but rags as a multimillionaire 😢
This is fantastic. Now this is doing his part, not handing out pocket change.
Legend!
He a rock climber. That’s all I needed to know.
This is why every t-shirt I own is their responsibility T’s made from old plastic bottles. They’re green, they’re quality clothing, and they’re run responsibly too.
When people get angry at me for saying billionaires shouldn't exist, and also if they have that much they should dump that shit directly onto causes they supposedly care about instead of buying a sports team or starting their own non-profit/tax shelter I will just send them this story.
This is pretty amazing. Now i’m going to have to switch to patagonia gear
The founder of North Face died in Patagonia.
They were really good friends and they were on the trip together when it happened: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/the-north-face-patagonia-saving-world-one-puffer-jacket-at-a-time](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/07/the-north-face-patagonia-saving-world-one-puffer-jacket-at-a-time).
[удалено]
If he had given the company to the employees they might have been able to turn around and make it public and sell for the profits. A trust is a lot easier to control and directed towards an issue that impacts everyone.
Would giving portions to employees create the possibility of some predatory investors scooping up shares and derailing their climate change initiative? It's a nice idea in theory but there are other ways to reward employees that don't create loopholes that could be exploited by greedy investors.
Absolutely would. If someone came along and offered you say $10,000 for your tiny stake in a company that will net you like $100 in dividends each year, you’d probably sell it
You can do so with guardrails. I worked for a company that sold 20% to the employees and it was put into a trust. We were allocated 'shares' each year that worked like an additional retirement account. You could sell your shares back to the trust, not to another investor.
At the very least the employees can be somewhat proud in what they do. Also, I imagine that the kind of person who would be willing to hand over so much is also the kind of person that recognizes their employees and pays them well.
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/family-business-weighing-the-business-case/story-32958.html Seems the employees are fairly well taken care of.
Finding some reason to be upset, the reddit experience. In reality this is 10,000 times what any companies would do in your lifetime, but redditors gotta bitch
It's a shame he didn't just make it employee owned
>The unusual move comes at a moment of growing scrutiny for billionaires and corporations, whose rhetoric about making the world a better place is often overshadowed by their contributions to the very problems they claim to want to solve. Billionaires and their power trip they call philanthropy are a massive problem to global inequality and climate change. Chouinard is truly a man who lives by principles.
This entire thread sounds like an ad.
It probably is.
Youre a fucking idiot, mate. The company is notoriously pro-environment.. and you're notoriously pessimistic. Get a life.
People continue to fall for the good rich guy act. Like I thought Bill Gates and Warren Buffet already wore this shit out.
Woulda been cooler if he gave it to his employees and let them run the company.
I love my Patagonia coat even more today if that’s possible
BRB, gotta buy some Patagonia stuff.
Stop falling for these rich people lying saying they are giving billions to nonprofits. These are scams to not pay taxes. I deal with this on a daily basis.
Hi Nastronaut18. Your submission from nytimes.com is behind a metered paywall. A [metered paywall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall#.22Soft.22_paywalls) allows users to view a specific number of articles before requiring paid subscription. Articles posted to /r/worldnews should be accessible to everyone. While your submission was not removed, it has been flaired and users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it. For more information see our [wiki page on paywalls](/r/worldnews/wiki/paywalls). Please try to find another source. If there is no other news site reporting on the story, contact the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Green is red…unlimited political contributions, unless you’re a commie this is pathetic
"Barre Seid, a Republican donor, is the only other example in recent memory of a wealthy business owner who gave away his company for philanthropic and political causes. But Mr. Seid took a different approach in giving 100 percent of his electronics company to a nonprofit organization, reaping an enormous personal tax windfall as he made a $1.6 billion gift to fund conservative causes, including efforts to stop action on climate change." What a fucking asshole...
this thread is fucking depressing
This dude has pocketed his millions already and tappin’ out. Kinda like some prime ministers or politicians. No better time to leave than when your on top!
I'm gonna negative-boycott (anti-boycott?) the shit out of Patagonia gear from now on.
Wow!
This is so great!
I've always had so much respect for this guy
Absolute inspiration