MacLeod’s “Loser” layer had me puzzled for a long time, because I was interpreting it in cultural terms: the kind of person you call a “loser.” While some may be losers in that sense too, they are primarily losers in the economic sense: those who have, for various reasons, made (or been forced to make) a bad economic bargain: they’ve given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability[....]The good news is that losers have two ways out, which we’ll get to later: turning sociopath or turning into bare-minimum performers.
Yes, although I'd disagree that it's objectively a "bad bargain". You won't get rich quick, but if you have a basic understanding of finances and a moderate amount of self-discipline you can get rich slowly. If you don't want to go into management, I'd say that's a good bargain.
but why should it be this way at all? The fact that their compensated wealth has become totally disconnected from the reality of productivity makes this a pretty shocking way to run a world. But one very compatible with our simian social organizing.
Or to put it another way, why should someone who is (arguably) producing most of the value have to stand for getting rich slowly, when the clueless middle managers fail upwards into nicer cars & long vacations, and sociopaths -- who seem to spend most of their "workday" jockeying for position, power, & prestige rather than doing useful things -- get 6, 7, 8 figure salaries & giant stock options?
The real crime is that the productive, competent people are encouraged & incentivized to coast because of the ludicrousness of the system.
Sounds objectively like a bad bargain to me.
So much so that those productive losers should start a company & try to keep the sociopaths out. in fact, if you buy that web -> lower barriers to entry -> less need for predatory sociopathic apes. They'll always try to get in, but that's another story...
The reason that losers are losers is that they don't have the balls to start their own company or seize power within an organization. They are free to attempt those things, but they don't, either because they fear risk, don't understand the nature of business, or are too nice to make the sociopathic choices necessary to survive. Sociopaths might not lay the bricks themselves, so to speak, but they take the risks and make the leaps that result in true productivity gains.
Comments
MacLeod’s “Loser” layer had me puzzled for a long time, because I was interpreting it in cultural terms: the kind of person you call a “loser.” While some may be losers in that sense too, they are primarily losers in the economic sense: those who have, for various reasons, made (or been forced to make) a bad economic bargain: they’ve given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability[....]The good news is that losers have two ways out, which we’ll get to later: turning sociopath or turning into bare-minimum performers.
That makes all kinds of crazy sense.
Yes, although I'd disagree that it's objectively a "bad bargain". You won't get rich quick, but if you have a basic understanding of finances and a moderate amount of self-discipline you can get rich slowly. If you don't want to go into management, I'd say that's a good bargain.
but why should it be this way at all? The fact that their compensated wealth has become totally disconnected from the reality of productivity makes this a pretty shocking way to run a world. But one very compatible with our simian social organizing.
Or to put it another way, why should someone who is (arguably) producing most of the value have to stand for getting rich slowly, when the clueless middle managers fail upwards into nicer cars & long vacations, and sociopaths -- who seem to spend most of their "workday" jockeying for position, power, & prestige rather than doing useful things -- get 6, 7, 8 figure salaries & giant stock options?
The real crime is that the productive, competent people are encouraged & incentivized to coast because of the ludicrousness of the system.
Sounds objectively like a bad bargain to me.
So much so that those productive losers should start a company & try to keep the sociopaths out. in fact, if you buy that web -> lower barriers to entry -> less need for predatory sociopathic apes. They'll always try to get in, but that's another story...
The reason that losers are losers is that they don't have the balls to start their own company or seize power within an organization. They are free to attempt those things, but they don't, either because they fear risk, don't understand the nature of business, or are too nice to make the sociopathic choices necessary to survive. Sociopaths might not lay the bricks themselves, so to speak, but they take the risks and make the leaps that result in true productivity gains.