I think that's the trap: you can't work yourself to the bone then have energy to work more to be active in your community, volunteer, run for office, pester politicians with letters, etc. Those are the kind of activities that I think could avoid the decay and perhaps even lead to some improvement.

I think it's a mistake to view "donating money" as meaningful response to many current social problems. Many of them are caused or propped up by people with more money than you could ever dream of having. Thinking that mere donations can win is like thinking a group insurgents could win in a stand-up direct fight against the US Army. The insurgents have different advantages than the US Army, and if they're smart, they'll use them rather than futilely attempting to reach parity with the US Army's strengths.

There's definitely some minimum amount of donations that will be required to really change things, but at a certain point I think the returns diminish.

  I think it's a mistake to view "donating" as
  meaningful response to many current social problems.

A guy on minimum wage can ladle out soup at a soup kitchen every bit as well as I can.

But can he convince my elected representatives that I care about soup kitchens? Or make soup kitchen users into my personal friends? Not so much.

Keeping people busy with real or artificial work is extremely common in dictatorships.

Not sure if this counts but this image of a soldier mopping in the rain comes to mind.

They all disliked unemployed people and often forced them into work or in the military, loathed artists and writers that were able to work independently. They glorified "work for work's sake".

Created work artificially through gargantuan public works, bureaucracy and... war - the ultimate instrument to keep people busy and give them a common purpose.