> donating most of it will probably leave a greater positive impact than using your skills directly

This is true only insofar as the vocational marketplace promotes skillsets that are highly valuable in-context, but over-all contribute to some very negative externalities.

According to the calculations I've done, my collusion in an environment-destroying military-industrial complex is far from well-enough-compensated to, well, compensate for the damage we've wrought.

Even in a simple dollar-scale, if I earn 1/10th what produce for the company, there's an outsized swath of profit spent against my philanthropic endeavors

We, as individuals, cannot outspend the corporations from whose pockets we're fed. Working for a corp it's two steps back for every one step of charitable spending.

Philanthropists give money to causes that do not result in the systemic changes necessary to reduce their wealth to a small multiplier of the average person's.

It's the old saying: "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish..."

Philanthropy will never solve the fundamental problems with our economy.

The real gift is giving a man a fishing pole. Knowing how to fish without the tools to do so is worse than just getting a single fish.

No, you missed the point. The "teaching a man to fish" includes all the knowledge, including how to make the pole.

Coercive economic dependence drives exploitation and disparities.

The Bill Gates effect. He's all Mr. Philanthropy now, and doing great work, but only thanks to the 90's-2000's ethically questionable shenanigans of Microsoft.

Even his philanthropy (or at least that of the Gates foundation) is ethically questionable [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat... ... And that's just barely scratching the surface. Honest curiosity will lead you to understanding how the megalomaniac in Bill is still alive and well.

I am a believer in your overall point that people don't change easily, but the criticism against the Gates Foundation is pretty thin considering how long it's been around and how much money they've spent.

> Honest curiosity will lead you to understanding how the megalomaniac in Bill is still alive and well.

I'll bite. Where is your evidence of Bill Gates being an egomaniac in recent history? The 3 points made in your link are underwhelming.

Gates on Making the world’s invisible people, visible:

  https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Heroes-in-the-Field-Nandan-Nilekani

Reality:

  https://jsis.washington.edu/news/the-aadhaar-card-cybersecurity-issues-with-indias-biometric-experiment/
  https://www.epw.in/engage/article/aadhaar-failures-food-services-welfare
  And in general - https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Aadhaar+problems

The basic underlying idea being pushing surveillance tech under the guise of public welfare.

Gates on Climate change:

   https://www.gatesnotes.com/Search?search=climate

Reality:

   https://grist.org/climate-energy/the-gates-foundations-hypocritical-investments/

Gates on medical assistance:

    https://www.gatesnotes.com/Search?search=medication

Reality:

    https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/another-missionary-africa-bill-gates-myth
    https://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760199/
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/gates-foundation-accused-of-dangerously-skewing-aid-priorities-by-promoting-big-business-a6822036.html
    https://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/report-slams-gates-foundation-for-self-serving-agenda-corporate-ties/

...and this is just with simple random google searches like 'gates foundation criticism' . There is a rabbit hole you can fall through if you're so inclined but the core idea of a megalomaniac comes through fairly quickly.