The Ponzi Career(drorpoleg.com)
drorpoleg.com
The Ponzi Career
https://www.drorpoleg.com/the-ponzi-career/
309 comments
It's not a character flaw or lack of skills in not being able to "sell yourself". It's a sense of dignity and pride as a working person.
You are not a commodity, you are a human being. You may look like a commodity to a business owner, but you refuse to allow yourself to become one.
Honesty and honor are worth more than money. There is money to be made in making yourself into a sort of corporate dog, but it will leave you feeling empty inside.
I am definitely not politically conservative, but I live in a conservative way as well. I don't think it's superior, but it's nice to have peace and stability.
You are not a commodity, you are a human being. You may look like a commodity to a business owner, but you refuse to allow yourself to become one.
Honesty and honor are worth more than money. There is money to be made in making yourself into a sort of corporate dog, but it will leave you feeling empty inside.
I am definitely not politically conservative, but I live in a conservative way as well. I don't think it's superior, but it's nice to have peace and stability.
> You are not a commodity, you are a human being
You know who else talked about the commodification of labour? M- is dragged off stage by angry HN audience
(Seriously, this is an interesting and important discussion to have - the dignity of labour and non-financial values - and it's interesting to watch a number of conflicting arguments made here which have been made loudly and vehemently by various historical figures)
You know who else talked about the commodification of labour? M- is dragged off stage by angry HN audience
(Seriously, this is an interesting and important discussion to have - the dignity of labour and non-financial values - and it's interesting to watch a number of conflicting arguments made here which have been made loudly and vehemently by various historical figures)
> You know who else talked about the commodification of labour? M- is dragged off stage by angry HN audience
I mean HN is the news aggregator for ycombinator, an entrepreneurial startup incubator.
Doesn't mean there aren't good points there, but this is a tech news site for technology capitalists. This is the culture that gave us hackathons and death marches and veneration of guys like Steve Jobs.
I mean HN is the news aggregator for ycombinator, an entrepreneurial startup incubator.
Doesn't mean there aren't good points there, but this is a tech news site for technology capitalists. This is the culture that gave us hackathons and death marches and veneration of guys like Steve Jobs.
It also gave us Free Software and Open Source. Not quite the same people as Y Combinator, but there's definitely an overlap. Certainly you also see an awful lot of calls for the elimination of walled gardens and for sharing important pieces of corporate-owned infrastructure (such as the dominant social media sites).
Cynically, it does look a bit as if people are M---ist when it comes to other people's stuff and capitalist when it comes to their own. But of course, often these are different individuals, who only seem to act as if there's a collective opinion.
Cynically, it does look a bit as if people are M---ist when it comes to other people's stuff and capitalist when it comes to their own. But of course, often these are different individuals, who only seem to act as if there's a collective opinion.
It's conservative only if you think of this ongoing extreme financialization of everything as progress.
I am not really sure of what it is you call honor though. To me it is a word whose meaning I don't really understand whose main purpose seems to justify leaders in sending people to their death at war and by men to justify murdering women/other men. It is at best anachronic, at worst dangerous.
(Of course I am not accusing you of promoting murder but that's a word that has a sad history and I hope we get rid of it in the context of our daily lives )
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
I personally like this definition, from one of Lois Mcmaster Bujold’s books:
“ Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.... The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same....There is no more hollow feeling than to stand with your honor shattered at your feet while soaring public reputation wraps you in rewards. That's soul destroying. The other way around is merely very, very irritating.”
Like Charles Cooley said "I am not what I think I am, and I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am."
Another fan of the Vorkosigan Saga I take it? Excellent quote, and one I’ve had cause to remember personally.
Say, what is honor? 'T is the finest sense
Of justice which the human mind can frame,
Intent each lurking frailty to disclaim,
And guard the way of life from all offense
Suffered or done.
-
Wordsworth.
Of justice which the human mind can frame,
Intent each lurking frailty to disclaim,
And guard the way of life from all offense
Suffered or done.
-
Wordsworth.
Well, this is a really weak argument. Honor is inward looking, about the individual and whether they can live with themselves.
>that's a word that has a sad history and I hope we get rid of it in the context of our daily lives
Please dont start that cancel culture nonsense because the word has previously been used in a way you don't like. You are a symptom of a society that lacks personal and community values to live by, believing mockery of pursuing the narrow, straight path. Im not talking out of my anus either, Im guilty as much as anyone here of perpetuating tech that has and will prostitute whole generations of people in ways never seen in human history. Think a little before you write.
>that's a word that has a sad history and I hope we get rid of it in the context of our daily lives
Please dont start that cancel culture nonsense because the word has previously been used in a way you don't like. You are a symptom of a society that lacks personal and community values to live by, believing mockery of pursuing the narrow, straight path. Im not talking out of my anus either, Im guilty as much as anyone here of perpetuating tech that has and will prostitute whole generations of people in ways never seen in human history. Think a little before you write.
Cancel that cancel culture?
Honor just means doing the right thing, and it is also the respect you receive for doing so. The history of the word just means being a good person.
Honor in terms of death and politics is often a manipulated distortion of what is right.
Doing the right thing is often difficult, and this notion is used to manipulate people into killing each other.
There is honor in not selling your dignity for money, or in doing the right thing when it is unpopular or difficult.
There is no honor in killing people to enforce an oppressive power structure. It's about your personal choices, it's not inherently political.
Honor in terms of death and politics is often a manipulated distortion of what is right.
Doing the right thing is often difficult, and this notion is used to manipulate people into killing each other.
There is honor in not selling your dignity for money, or in doing the right thing when it is unpopular or difficult.
There is no honor in killing people to enforce an oppressive power structure. It's about your personal choices, it's not inherently political.
> Honor just means doing the right thing
You’re not wrong, but anyone can do “the right thing” when the incentives are aligned already. I’d say that honor requires one to do the right thing even when doing the wrong thing could be immensely profitable, and even when nobody would know.
You’re not wrong, but anyone can do “the right thing” when the incentives are aligned already. I’d say that honor requires one to do the right thing even when doing the wrong thing could be immensely profitable, and even when nobody would know.
Right, that's exactly what I said. Honor as a concept is used to manipulate people, and making a lot of money often involves doing dishonorable things.
Not sure if you are talking to me, or the parent.
I used the word "Honorable," as it seemed more effective than "Integral" (as in "having Integrity).
As far as I know, that word isn't on any blacklist. If it ends up there, I'll find an alternative.
In the meantime, I'd gently suggest that accusing decent folks of supporting the murder of female children might not be the most effective way to start good relationships.
I used the word "Honorable," as it seemed more effective than "Integral" (as in "having Integrity).
As far as I know, that word isn't on any blacklist. If it ends up there, I'll find an alternative.
In the meantime, I'd gently suggest that accusing decent folks of supporting the murder of female children might not be the most effective way to start good relationships.
Look at the indentation, I am clearly responding to the parent. Especially to :
"Honesty and honor are worth more than money."
I don't think "honorable" has the same meaning and I did not even see it when I read you post.
I specifically edited my post to explain I was not accusing parent of supporting murder but maybe you were already writing yours and did not see that part.
No it is just on my blacklist and the only way I can enforce that blacklist is by trying remind anybody who uses it whence it came. Not trying to launch a censorship campaign by any means.
I don't think "honorable" has the same meaning and I did not even see it when I read you post.
I specifically edited my post to explain I was not accusing parent of supporting murder but maybe you were already writing yours and did not see that part.
No it is just on my blacklist and the only way I can enforce that blacklist is by trying remind anybody who uses it whence it came. Not trying to launch a censorship campaign by any means.
The root word of "honor" is not honor killings, just to be clear.
The word was used in a sense. You hijacked the thread with an antonymnic homophone. Seeing this a lot recently.
I reckon it was a hijack but just as when I see the world love, it is always interesting to point out how the word has been socially used.
It is not unusual for an hn discussion to become fairly distant from the original topic, this is conveniently allowed by threads, I did not think of it as a problem.
honor means recognizing the divide between your self as you experience it or wish it to be, and the 'you' enacted upon the world, and working to align the latter with the former. this can be manipulated in bad ways, obviously, but to be honorable is to manifest your virtue.
'honor killing' is a result of corporate identity -- cultural understandings of the self as inseparable from the family that created you. western culture generally does not carry this view, and treats people as individuals. individual honor is generally not burdened by the actions of your relatives unless one plays a direct role in them.
'honor killing' is a result of corporate identity -- cultural understandings of the self as inseparable from the family that created you. western culture generally does not carry this view, and treats people as individuals. individual honor is generally not burdened by the actions of your relatives unless one plays a direct role in them.
> To me it is a word whose meaning I don't really understand whose main purpose seems to justify leaders in sending people to their death at war and by men to justify murdering women/other men
You're conflating honor and valor. Honor can be derivative of valor, certainly, but they are distinct. What you're insinuating is that the military teaches honor and valor, but that'd be impossible even if they wanted to. What they do teach is a team mentality, where the safety of your fellow team mates comes before your own. I'm reminded of the story of Jason Dunham [0], citation:
Seeking honor in the service is generally a good thing - in so much as that you do the right thing even when people won't be looking; seeking valor is fairly frowned upon. Generally when I hear a story about people seeking valor you can tell the person in the story is highly annoyed, because it's considered excess risk and flies in the face of the values of the services.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Dunham
You're conflating honor and valor. Honor can be derivative of valor, certainly, but they are distinct. What you're insinuating is that the military teaches honor and valor, but that'd be impossible even if they wanted to. What they do teach is a team mentality, where the safety of your fellow team mates comes before your own. I'm reminded of the story of Jason Dunham [0], citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service
Seeking honor in the service is generally a good thing - in so much as that you do the right thing even when people won't be looking; seeking valor is fairly frowned upon. Generally when I hear a story about people seeking valor you can tell the person in the story is highly annoyed, because it's considered excess risk and flies in the face of the values of the services.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Dunham
Can you eat honor? Can you sell it? What is the worth of a man besides his ability to profit? Seeing endless people of honor scrape out meagre existences while those who exploit others endlessly become billionaires is more enlightening to the worth of honor than our useless platitudes.
I think the issue here is that you’ve tied a monetary value to honor, when honor is often tied to other things and occasionally explicitly the lack of a desire to maximize profit.
It's not monetarily valued. It's not societally valued, in any tangible sense. Power is not allocated to whomever has the most honor. So what good is it?
Some beliefs and values are personal, and thus, intangible. Try to recognize that not everything good in life has to be (or even can be) quantified.
This implies that power is the only good, which is a hell of a way to look at the world.
Do you only care about things that bring power to you personally? Or do you care about intangible values that are important to you as a human? One defines character and personality, the other is just a way to achieve personal gains.
Can you eat profit? What is the worth of a man besides his honor? What profiteth a man if he gaineth the whole world, but loseth his soul?
Apparently Bill Gates has the ability to buy his back given his current PR and general perception at around 130BN so seems like it might not be a bad play. ;)
It’s a fair question. I’d say that if/after you’ve made your millions you may soon find that your life is no less empty, and that internal substance - however intangible - is all there is. The exogenous manifestations of it are honour, duty, morality and so on. I think the Stoic literature best explains it if ever you’re interested.
Can you eat or sell happiness? What about contentment, satisfaction, meaning or purpose?
I mean, no skin off my back if you want to frame yourself as a cog in the economic machine, but surely there's more to life than materialism?
Am I perhaps misunderstanding your post and are you instead making a point about the disposable nature of men as a gender group?
I mean, no skin off my back if you want to frame yourself as a cog in the economic machine, but surely there's more to life than materialism?
Am I perhaps misunderstanding your post and are you instead making a point about the disposable nature of men as a gender group?
Wow, this is a really mean attack on people who can sell themselves... I think I can do so reasonably well, and I wouldn't say it has anything to do with what you're describing here.
I don't have dignity or pride? That doesn't make any sense... I can sell myself because I really believe in the product. I've done lots of good work in my life and I have genuinely useful skills that can help people or companies.
And I don't have honesty and honor? Seriously? You seem to think that all selling is the type that unethical used car salespeople do. That is wrong. Good salespeople are experts who work with you to understand a problem and provide a solution to it. This is what I'm doing when I sell myself - you need a product manager, and I've worked on many similar projects to the type that you need help with, ergo I think I'd be a great fit. Again, to call that dishonest or dishonorable is simply wrong.
There's nothing wrong with disliking selling yourself, nor do I think it's a character flaw - different people have different communication styles, some of which are not very self-promotional. Nothing wrong with that. But to make such vicious attacks on the ethics of anyone who can sell themselves is just baseless and cruel.
I don't have dignity or pride? That doesn't make any sense... I can sell myself because I really believe in the product. I've done lots of good work in my life and I have genuinely useful skills that can help people or companies.
And I don't have honesty and honor? Seriously? You seem to think that all selling is the type that unethical used car salespeople do. That is wrong. Good salespeople are experts who work with you to understand a problem and provide a solution to it. This is what I'm doing when I sell myself - you need a product manager, and I've worked on many similar projects to the type that you need help with, ergo I think I'd be a great fit. Again, to call that dishonest or dishonorable is simply wrong.
There's nothing wrong with disliking selling yourself, nor do I think it's a character flaw - different people have different communication styles, some of which are not very self-promotional. Nothing wrong with that. But to make such vicious attacks on the ethics of anyone who can sell themselves is just baseless and cruel.
> I don't have the personal skills to "sell" myself
Actually you do. You've demonstrated them in this very comment. Maybe you don't realize this, or maybe your self-deprecation is a deliberate part of your strategy. Either way, it worked on me. This comment led me to your profile, which led me to your company web sites, which impressed me. I don't need an iOS app developer at the moment, but if I did you'd be at the top of my list of people to contact.
Actually you do. You've demonstrated them in this very comment. Maybe you don't realize this, or maybe your self-deprecation is a deliberate part of your strategy. Either way, it worked on me. This comment led me to your profile, which led me to your company web sites, which impressed me. I don't need an iOS app developer at the moment, but if I did you'd be at the top of my list of people to contact.
To reiterate, it is very likely that those people who passed on you or didn't become interested due to the lack of self-marketing are not the people you would want to work with and doubly are not actually offering the job you thought you were applying for.
Grifters interview and hire grifters because their org/team/company relies on the grift more than the truth to make ends meet. If you can't grift, you frankly don't have the skills for that job. It's an unfortunate side-effect of the nature of grifting that they can't tell you this upfront.
Grifters interview and hire grifters because their org/team/company relies on the grift more than the truth to make ends meet. If you can't grift, you frankly don't have the skills for that job. It's an unfortunate side-effect of the nature of grifting that they can't tell you this upfront.
My fear with this mindset of "They're people i wouldn't want to work with anyway" is that it's easy to say that when i'm not hungry.
If my mortgage is on the line my desire for a paycheck increases. Perhaps i don't live simply enough - but i'm always concerned about stability and until i'm retired i will always be concerned about the next paycheck. I too lack skills to feel confident about common interviews, but i look at this as a fault. If i felt more confident about interviews perhaps i'd feel more confident about my stability.
If my mortgage is on the line my desire for a paycheck increases. Perhaps i don't live simply enough - but i'm always concerned about stability and until i'm retired i will always be concerned about the next paycheck. I too lack skills to feel confident about common interviews, but i look at this as a fault. If i felt more confident about interviews perhaps i'd feel more confident about my stability.
Having a few months to a year of expenses on the side fixes this. When you know that no matter what happens, you have enough savings to pay your recurring costs, you just aren't as vulnerable.
You are going to find a job in a year, or you could find a cheaper place to live in a year... Things just aren't as scary anymore once you have enough saved up.
If you live paycheck to paycheck it's going to be stressful no matter how big that paycheck is.
You are going to find a job in a year, or you could find a cheaper place to live in a year... Things just aren't as scary anymore once you have enough saved up.
If you live paycheck to paycheck it's going to be stressful no matter how big that paycheck is.
> Having a few months to a year of expenses on the side fixes this.
It doesn't, for me. I'm sitting at ~12mo with full expenses. I budget everything, so i do me full expenses, all the niceties, enterainment, etc. If i lost my job i could probably stretch it to ~24mo with the fat cut away.
Still, i worry. Keep in mind i do partially agree with you, paycheck to paycheck is a massive concern for people. It's why i obsessively envelope budget. But the concern i described in my prior post is a concern of skill, interview success, etc. Ie, feeling unsure in success of finding a job in my career path.
It doesn't, for me. I'm sitting at ~12mo with full expenses. I budget everything, so i do me full expenses, all the niceties, enterainment, etc. If i lost my job i could probably stretch it to ~24mo with the fat cut away.
Still, i worry. Keep in mind i do partially agree with you, paycheck to paycheck is a massive concern for people. It's why i obsessively envelope budget. But the concern i described in my prior post is a concern of skill, interview success, etc. Ie, feeling unsure in success of finding a job in my career path.
Yeah, building a bit of a nestegg helps, but I think I share your concerns on work security. And I think you're right to worry. If you walk out of every failed interview assuming they just weren't a fit for you, you run the risk of arrogance and never properly tuning yourself to the industry and its opportunities. 100%
BUT All of an individual's interviews are a terrible sample from which to draw any inferences about the industry and your place in it. Successful interviews give a signal. Failed/Not-followed-up-on interviews give none at all. My point being, tuning and training yourself must be a separate endeavor from interviewing or you will always be in for a bad time.
BUT All of an individual's interviews are a terrible sample from which to draw any inferences about the industry and your place in it. Successful interviews give a signal. Failed/Not-followed-up-on interviews give none at all. My point being, tuning and training yourself must be a separate endeavor from interviewing or you will always be in for a bad time.
I know someone on the internet saying you shouldn't worry doesn't mean you won't worry, but ... you should try to worry less :)
If you have the wherewithal to put away a year of expenses, and the self-restraint to double that if you needed to, I'm pretty sure you could find some gainful employment during that time.
You could also probably stretch things a bit farther if you really had to by doing things you'd rather not do. Skipping rent or mortgage payments probably doesn't fit with your ethos, and will have negative consequences eventually, but it'll take time to go through eviction or foreclosure procedures, and that gives a bit more time to figure out something.
If you have the wherewithal to put away a year of expenses, and the self-restraint to double that if you needed to, I'm pretty sure you could find some gainful employment during that time.
You could also probably stretch things a bit farther if you really had to by doing things you'd rather not do. Skipping rent or mortgage payments probably doesn't fit with your ethos, and will have negative consequences eventually, but it'll take time to go through eviction or foreclosure procedures, and that gives a bit more time to figure out something.
I agree, and i appreciate the post.
As a bonus though, my worry results in true appreciation for my current status. I feel undeserved, and compared to middle America i often struggle to imagine how they get by.
I make enough to budget nicely. I can start paying off my mortgage. I can start saving for retirement. Yea, it's far from perfect, but i truly feel like i "make enough" for a happy life. I have money to work towards my goals, be it retirement or whatever.
I can't imagine making half as much and still being expected to retire. To have safety. The state of the world confuses me. But i am grateful nonetheless.
As a bonus though, my worry results in true appreciation for my current status. I feel undeserved, and compared to middle America i often struggle to imagine how they get by.
I make enough to budget nicely. I can start paying off my mortgage. I can start saving for retirement. Yea, it's far from perfect, but i truly feel like i "make enough" for a happy life. I have money to work towards my goals, be it retirement or whatever.
I can't imagine making half as much and still being expected to retire. To have safety. The state of the world confuses me. But i am grateful nonetheless.
This is also known as "Fuck-you money"
https://thedeepdish.org/fuck-you-money/
https://thedeepdish.org/fuck-you-money/
Unfortunately, this hits the nail on the head for a lot of folks, these days.
It's easy for me to say that I will only work with those I want. I'm set, and don't actually need the work (the money would be nice, but it's not a need).
I refrain from being an "OK Boomer," but I would gently suggest that folks starting out, devote significant portions of their income to savings, and conservative (not politically "Conservative," real "conservative") investments. I'd further suggest against looking to your peers for guidance in spending habits or lifestyle choices.
The ageism in tech is really quite puzzling. We're all gonna become old. White people won't become black, men won't become women (well, they can, but it requires some really significant dedication and resources. I have friends that have made that transition. It is not something for the faint of heart); but we will all become old. The alternative is not something we like to think about.
A lot of young people that treated their elders like crap, are now, suddenly, on the receiving end of the behavior. I don't find it satisfying, in any way at all. It's heartbreaking.
It's easy for me to say that I will only work with those I want. I'm set, and don't actually need the work (the money would be nice, but it's not a need).
I refrain from being an "OK Boomer," but I would gently suggest that folks starting out, devote significant portions of their income to savings, and conservative (not politically "Conservative," real "conservative") investments. I'd further suggest against looking to your peers for guidance in spending habits or lifestyle choices.
The ageism in tech is really quite puzzling. We're all gonna become old. White people won't become black, men won't become women (well, they can, but it requires some really significant dedication and resources. I have friends that have made that transition. It is not something for the faint of heart); but we will all become old. The alternative is not something we like to think about.
A lot of young people that treated their elders like crap, are now, suddenly, on the receiving end of the behavior. I don't find it satisfying, in any way at all. It's heartbreaking.
> but I would gently suggest that folks starting out, devote significant portions of their income to savings, and conservative (not politically "Conservative," real "conservative") investments. I'd further suggest against looking to your peers for guidance in spending habits or lifestyle choices.
I do, but this is unfortunately not what i'm describing in the post. Yea, i don't have enough to retire, but i've got ~12mo full expenses.
My concern is a concern for the long term, the career.
I do, but this is unfortunately not what i'm describing in the post. Yea, i don't have enough to retire, but i've got ~12mo full expenses.
My concern is a concern for the long term, the career.
[deleted]
One of my favorite bosses got summarily fired for getting tired of the grift and telling a customer we were still in analysis on something that the founders wanted them to think was well underway. This wasn’t the first time and our code was on the way to intractable due to layers of expediencies.
When a bunch of us quit 18 months later, we had stuck around for 6 months for a bonus that worked out to about 7-8 weeks’ pay. As we sat around having a beer down the road, I asked if it was worth it to stay the extra six months. Almost 3/4 said no.
When a bunch of us quit 18 months later, we had stuck around for 6 months for a bonus that worked out to about 7-8 weeks’ pay. As we sat around having a beer down the road, I asked if it was worth it to stay the extra six months. Almost 3/4 said no.
OP took the high road and the much harder path. All you have to do these days is put all your skill points into Charisma and bullshit your way through an entire career. No other skills needed. Look at Elizabeth Holmes and that WeWork guy. People were falling over themselves giving them money. Generational wealth achieved by having no ability bedsides running their mouth. Even normal jobs, so many people just blah, blah, blah their way through the interview and the job, and then by the time anyone checks, they're off to do it again at a different company.
It’s getting harder and harder to teach my kid that honor, integrity and hard work are still important, when you can easily find counter-examples, and they are more and more becoming the norm.
It’s getting harder and harder to teach my kid that honor, integrity and hard work are still important, when you can easily find counter-examples, and they are more and more becoming the norm.
Especially so when these 'all talk no action' types are prominently displayed on television being lauded precisely for their talk.
I ended up working in sales for an investment bank and found out exactly how true this is...
I had the exact same sentiment. I'm a sucker for these types of reflective, self-deprecating descriptions for oneself. And good for him as well, because I don't doubt his honesty at all.
> I don't doubt his honesty at all.
Neither do I. That the mark of a truly great con artist ;-)
Neither do I. That the mark of a truly great con artist ;-)
:) It would be nice. I'm a bit "on the spectrum," and we don't make very good con artists.
We are, however, often perceived as arrogant, rude and unsympathetic.
We are, however, often perceived as arrogant, rude and unsympathetic.
Yes, I know :-) I also know (from first-hand experience) that managing the behaviors that lead you to be perceived that way is a learnable skill. It's not easy, but in my experience, putting in the effort pays handsome dividends.
Yup. I feel as if I have done well, in that arena. I was a manager, for 25 years. I managed a couple of people "on the spectrum," and they were (and still are) amazing.
Last night, I watched The Accountant again. I really enjoy that movie. It does kinda go a bit crazy in advocating for autistic people (I get the feeling it was written by people that studied hard, but maybe don't have a lot of personal experience), but it's really fun.
I wish I had a teak-lined camper and a Renoir in my bedroom, but I'm fairly happy how things turned out.
Last night, I watched The Accountant again. I really enjoy that movie. It does kinda go a bit crazy in advocating for autistic people (I get the feeling it was written by people that studied hard, but maybe don't have a lot of personal experience), but it's really fun.
I wish I had a teak-lined camper and a Renoir in my bedroom, but I'm fairly happy how things turned out.
"The secret to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made."
> I don't have the personal skills to "sell" myself
Your comments do just that, though. Perhaps writing is a good medium for you to make the point to others -- I recommend you do more of it. It makes a great first impression, from which you can follow-up. Be genuine in person as you are in your writing.
Your comments do just that, though. Perhaps writing is a good medium for you to make the point to others -- I recommend you do more of it. It makes a great first impression, from which you can follow-up. Be genuine in person as you are in your writing.
Thanks.
I like your site (> I wear many hats, but graphic designer is not one of them).
This looks cool: http://graceofgodmovie.com
Looks like you're a great conversationalist.
I like your site (> I wear many hats, but graphic designer is not one of them).
This looks cool: http://graceofgodmovie.com
Looks like you're a great conversationalist.
> Looks like you're a great conversationalist.
Thanks. That, too, is a learnable (and teachable) skill. It did not (and still does not) come naturally to me. Took me about 20 years of concerted effort to really figure it out (and I sometimes lapse even now). But in retrospect well worth the effort.
Thanks. That, too, is a learnable (and teachable) skill. It did not (and still does not) come naturally to me. Took me about 20 years of concerted effort to really figure it out (and I sometimes lapse even now). But in retrospect well worth the effort.
I agree. I would buy some Chris Tokens.
You forgot the TM...
Thanks. I’ll let you know when I do the ICO...
Thanks. I’ll let you know when I do the ICO...
NFT these days
Hello Chris,
I wanted to say that I found your comment extremely good especially this
> I'm actually fairly good at what I do, but If I mention that, it comes across as "arrogant," despite the enormous ocean of hubris that pretty much defines today's tech scene.
> I'm actually fairly good at what I do, but If I mention that, it comes across as "arrogant," despite the enormous ocean of hubris that pretty much defines today's tech scene.
Thanks!
I agree probably since my experiences were similar. Things are much better now, but I don't remember people telling me 'here is some money; remember me when you make it big'.
There are definitely people who would benefit from this. Some of my friends would have said 'some people just put everything in their char stat'. In fact, I have this HS friend. When we were growing up, he could barely turn his PC on. Now he is an IT manager for a major US brand. He either has gotten better or he was able to BS everyone with his cool guy persona ( and he is cool ). In short, I would buy his personal IPO.
There are definitely people who would benefit from this. Some of my friends would have said 'some people just put everything in their char stat'. In fact, I have this HS friend. When we were growing up, he could barely turn his PC on. Now he is an IT manager for a major US brand. He either has gotten better or he was able to BS everyone with his cool guy persona ( and he is cool ). In short, I would buy his personal IPO.
It seems like you may be indexing on a reaction that either doesn't exist, or attributing a response from individuals as if it were coming from "everybody". In the latter case, it sounds like you've adopted the right mentality, which is to let the ball be on their court if they don't want to believe in you. Unless it's actually doing you from doing something you want to do, it doesn't really matter.
Oh, I'm not doing that whole "anecdotal evidence indicates totality" thing, but it has happened enough, that I've decided that I'm best off, being my own advocate.
I actually found a company that worked with me, for 27 years. I did not find them to be as gratifying a venue as I'd have wanted, but they did have a similar set of values, and we were able to find common ground. I found that having folks that appreciated my personal values was important. They paid well enough, and actually treated me with a lot of respect. I think they made some unfortunate choices, as the time went by, and I did my best to help them through the consequences of those choices, because doing stuff like that is how my value system works. I don't "cut and run." It was appreciated, but I don't think it was enough to make that much of a difference. Long story; tears, laughter, joy, despair, etc.
That stability was extremely valuable to me. It allowed me to set things up, so I am in the position I'm in, now. I can't even imagine what it would have been like, if I had spent my career in two-year stints, like everyone does now.
It also allowed me to work on some side projects that have been quite successful, in their own rights. None have been monetarily profitable; but they weren't meant to be. I like to help people help people.
It has been interesting (at first, infuriating, but now, amusing), watching people ignore my bona fides. I happen to have a pretty vast trove of open-source material (see "side projects," above). It's really not difficult to do. All you need to do is click on a link. It takes to to my SO Story, which has a chronologically-sorted history of my work since 1987.
I actually found a company that worked with me, for 27 years. I did not find them to be as gratifying a venue as I'd have wanted, but they did have a similar set of values, and we were able to find common ground. I found that having folks that appreciated my personal values was important. They paid well enough, and actually treated me with a lot of respect. I think they made some unfortunate choices, as the time went by, and I did my best to help them through the consequences of those choices, because doing stuff like that is how my value system works. I don't "cut and run." It was appreciated, but I don't think it was enough to make that much of a difference. Long story; tears, laughter, joy, despair, etc.
That stability was extremely valuable to me. It allowed me to set things up, so I am in the position I'm in, now. I can't even imagine what it would have been like, if I had spent my career in two-year stints, like everyone does now.
It also allowed me to work on some side projects that have been quite successful, in their own rights. None have been monetarily profitable; but they weren't meant to be. I like to help people help people.
It has been interesting (at first, infuriating, but now, amusing), watching people ignore my bona fides. I happen to have a pretty vast trove of open-source material (see "side projects," above). It's really not difficult to do. All you need to do is click on a link. It takes to to my SO Story, which has a chronologically-sorted history of my work since 1987.
> I'm actually fairly good at what I do, but If I mention that, it comes across as "arrogant," despite the enormous ocean of hubris that pretty much defines today's tech scene.
That's really insightful as I've definitely noticed many people judge by looks and impression more than the content of what's said. Unattractive/awkward people are frequently treated as insufferable when they are correct.
That's really insightful as I've definitely noticed many people judge by looks and impression more than the content of what's said. Unattractive/awkward people are frequently treated as insufferable when they are correct.
It's interesting to me that you think you don't have the personal skills to "sell" yourself yet most of your business is centered around consulting and app development as a service. How can these be successful without convincing people you know what you're doing? Do you work with someone who has those soft skills? Or maybe you mean something else.
I can relate to a lot of what you said. Specifically, I've overheard people say things like "grog454 does it so how hard could it be?" when deciding to try to get in to software dev (they failed). 10+ years ago a talented comp sci major was openly hostile toward me when I spoke or gave a presentation on multiple occasions.
I like to think I know what I'm doing. My personal software projects made me a millionaire before age 30 with no outside investment and minimal employees (0-1). Like you, I think I lack soft skills in the traditional sense of convincing other people that I know what I'm doing. I am routinely approached by recruiters for FAANG, and will occasionally begin the interview process just to see what it's like. In 4+ processes I've gotten to the final round of interviews but never received an offer.
What I do have is a different kind of "soft skill". Search algorithms love me. I attribute the success of my projects and (apparent recruiter magneticism) to clever SEO more than anything else, followed by luck, followed by a kind of relentlessness with which I approach my work, followed by meaningful software dev skill / business acumen. 100% of revenue is from end-users, 99.9999+% of which have no clue who I am.
I don't mean to come across as hostile, but its eye-opening to see what "I've always been on my own" and "not expect much from others" looks like to other people.
I can relate to a lot of what you said. Specifically, I've overheard people say things like "grog454 does it so how hard could it be?" when deciding to try to get in to software dev (they failed). 10+ years ago a talented comp sci major was openly hostile toward me when I spoke or gave a presentation on multiple occasions.
I like to think I know what I'm doing. My personal software projects made me a millionaire before age 30 with no outside investment and minimal employees (0-1). Like you, I think I lack soft skills in the traditional sense of convincing other people that I know what I'm doing. I am routinely approached by recruiters for FAANG, and will occasionally begin the interview process just to see what it's like. In 4+ processes I've gotten to the final round of interviews but never received an offer.
What I do have is a different kind of "soft skill". Search algorithms love me. I attribute the success of my projects and (apparent recruiter magneticism) to clever SEO more than anything else, followed by luck, followed by a kind of relentlessness with which I approach my work, followed by meaningful software dev skill / business acumen. 100% of revenue is from end-users, 99.9999+% of which have no clue who I am.
I don't mean to come across as hostile, but its eye-opening to see what "I've always been on my own" and "not expect much from others" looks like to other people.
Actually, most of my business is not actually around that stuff. It's the shingle I hang, but I worked as a wage slave for most of my life. I'm now at the point where, if someone wants to work with me, I will do so, on my own terms, and try to make that clear, so I don't really get a whole lot of approaches (not surprising. I'm not complaining).
I am currently keeping my dance card [very] full, working for nothing, on stuff that interests me. I would have been happy as hell to work for others at a fraction of the cost of many, as I don't especially care about the money, as I do about the working environment and project goals.
I like working. I really do. I just get quite tired of having my work destroyed and hamstrung by others[0], so I'm actually living the dream, these days.
Recruiters..love me...until they find out that I'm not young. Then, the call gets interrupted, and I never hear from them again. I've taken to just making sure everyone knows my age up front, so we don't waste each others' time. That seems to have stopped a lot of those types of contacts.
And I have not "always been on my own," as I worked on huge teams, consisting of people all over the world, but I haven't found any team that was willing to cut me much slack. I've always worked in environments where I was expected to hold up my end of things without a need for much extra support. No safety net. The trapeze is all mine.
[0] https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02
I am currently keeping my dance card [very] full, working for nothing, on stuff that interests me. I would have been happy as hell to work for others at a fraction of the cost of many, as I don't especially care about the money, as I do about the working environment and project goals.
I like working. I really do. I just get quite tired of having my work destroyed and hamstrung by others[0], so I'm actually living the dream, these days.
Recruiters..love me...until they find out that I'm not young. Then, the call gets interrupted, and I never hear from them again. I've taken to just making sure everyone knows my age up front, so we don't waste each others' time. That seems to have stopped a lot of those types of contacts.
And I have not "always been on my own," as I worked on huge teams, consisting of people all over the world, but I haven't found any team that was willing to cut me much slack. I've always worked in environments where I was expected to hold up my end of things without a need for much extra support. No safety net. The trapeze is all mine.
[0] https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02
I see I made the erroneous assumption that your living was based on your personal / business projects. I too was a wage slave at a relatively chill software engineering gig until my business became financially successful.
The "always been on my own" was a quote from your original post.
The "always been on my own" was a quote from your original post.
Poor choice of words.
Sorry about that.
Sorry about that.
to sell yourself at scale you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator, like politicians must. i don’t think this is right or wrong- idealized value = how much you help someone * how many people you help. (idealized)
You sound like an ideal colleague.
Thanks. I've always thought so, but I have to respect that many others think otherwise.
I'm extremely fortunate, in that I don't really need to "play the game." I'm quite grateful to be in that position.
I'm extremely fortunate, in that I don't really need to "play the game." I'm quite grateful to be in that position.
I'm not trying to be rude and I enjoyed your comment, but you say you don't have the skills to humblebrag or sell yourself but you're doing it pretty well here
I write fairly well. I’ve been writing for most of my life. Written presentation isn’t actually as valuable as you might think. It seems that people read a lot less, these days, than they used to. I’m told that YouTube videos and podcasts are more likely to garner attention, and I have a voice made for silent films, and a face made for radio.
Also, even that writing skill has been greatly refined and improved over the last three years; since I left my last job.
Funny. Deciding not to pursue employment seems to have helped me to improve some of the skills employers might actually notice (I consider them fairly “superficial,” but they are what tend to attract attention). I feel that the really valuable stuff, like an expert grasp of Apple development, running a geographically-distributed team for decades, and a long history of releasing high-quality, finished product, is not so obvious (or valued).
I was talking, recently, with a former employee, who had gone through the interview process for a FAANG. He made it through the whole thing, and may get an offer, which he’ll likely decline (he took a job at a corporation that will probably treat him well, but won’t pay as much). What he described, sounded a lot more like a hazing, than a serious evaluation. I’m not about to put myself through that kind of crap for any amount of money. I have too much self-respect. I feel he made the right choice. He had basically made up his mind, fairly early in the process, and really went through the motions to learn and practice (he presents quite well). I feel that they missed out on a pretty damn good engineer, but maybe they weren’t really looking for what he offered.
Being treated with respect by our employer is important. I always treated my employees with respect, and was able to keep the team together, under rather stressful conditions, for decades. Most of my team consisted of highly experienced and skilled engineers, with families and extracurricular lives. In the last couple of years there, we worked with an SV startup, and I got to see, up close and personal, what working in SV is like. I had been in a “silo” for a quarter-century.
It was quite sobering.
I feel that the industry has become incredibly vicious and downright mercenary, over the years. It’s always been a business, and competitive, but the zeitgeist is much nastier, these days, than it was, when I was younger.
It’s kind of disappointing. Money has leached the fun from tech. I’m really sorry for the younger folks coming into the field. They won’t ever have that sense of wonder, adventure, and community that I enjoyed.
Also, even that writing skill has been greatly refined and improved over the last three years; since I left my last job.
Funny. Deciding not to pursue employment seems to have helped me to improve some of the skills employers might actually notice (I consider them fairly “superficial,” but they are what tend to attract attention). I feel that the really valuable stuff, like an expert grasp of Apple development, running a geographically-distributed team for decades, and a long history of releasing high-quality, finished product, is not so obvious (or valued).
I was talking, recently, with a former employee, who had gone through the interview process for a FAANG. He made it through the whole thing, and may get an offer, which he’ll likely decline (he took a job at a corporation that will probably treat him well, but won’t pay as much). What he described, sounded a lot more like a hazing, than a serious evaluation. I’m not about to put myself through that kind of crap for any amount of money. I have too much self-respect. I feel he made the right choice. He had basically made up his mind, fairly early in the process, and really went through the motions to learn and practice (he presents quite well). I feel that they missed out on a pretty damn good engineer, but maybe they weren’t really looking for what he offered.
Being treated with respect by our employer is important. I always treated my employees with respect, and was able to keep the team together, under rather stressful conditions, for decades. Most of my team consisted of highly experienced and skilled engineers, with families and extracurricular lives. In the last couple of years there, we worked with an SV startup, and I got to see, up close and personal, what working in SV is like. I had been in a “silo” for a quarter-century.
It was quite sobering.
I feel that the industry has become incredibly vicious and downright mercenary, over the years. It’s always been a business, and competitive, but the zeitgeist is much nastier, these days, than it was, when I was younger.
It’s kind of disappointing. Money has leached the fun from tech. I’m really sorry for the younger folks coming into the field. They won’t ever have that sense of wonder, adventure, and community that I enjoyed.
I like (and can relate to) your comment, and the attitude it embodies. But I tripped over
> "I couldn't rely on anyone else to ... get me out of jackpots."
Huh? TIA for clarifying.
> "I couldn't rely on anyone else to ... get me out of jackpots."
Huh? TIA for clarifying.
Sorry. It’s a “cultural” thing from some of the folks I have hung out with.
“Jackpot” === “Clusterfuck”
I think the origin is from something like “You hit the jackpot in the shit sweepstakes.”
Usually refers to a self-inflicted disaster.
“Jackpot” === “Clusterfuck”
I think the origin is from something like “You hit the jackpot in the shit sweepstakes.”
Usually refers to a self-inflicted disaster.
Such a marvelous comment.
Hey, Alex Masmej here. Just wanted to say that I had no choice because I had no money in the bank. During the start of COVID, I lost my only (and very first) source income at the time, and I lost all my savings in crypto (DeFi is dangerous even to crypto people like me).
Financially, this ISA freed me instantly, and gave me a newfound legitimacy as a crypto innovator. This was by far the best way I could find to break out as an entrepreneur.
Financially, this ISA freed me instantly, and gave me a newfound legitimacy as a crypto innovator. This was by far the best way I could find to break out as an entrepreneur.
Does nobody in here realize that this is just the first step towards the well-known as well as rightfully-abolished concept of slavery?
Fraction of future income and participation in "certain life decisions" is just the beginning. In principle this can ramp up to all future income and all life decisions.
And don't tell me this is voluntary, which makes it all different from slavery. Alex himself writes "I had no choice". Just take this further and apply it to some drone worker in an Amazon fulfillment center or other precarious employment. People who don't have a choice and would end up uneployed and hungry on the streets if they don't agree to terms put in front of them. The only thing between the worker and such a deal is labour laws, and we all know how popular those are in "entrepreneur" circles.
Fraction of future income and participation in "certain life decisions" is just the beginning. In principle this can ramp up to all future income and all life decisions.
And don't tell me this is voluntary, which makes it all different from slavery. Alex himself writes "I had no choice". Just take this further and apply it to some drone worker in an Amazon fulfillment center or other precarious employment. People who don't have a choice and would end up uneployed and hungry on the streets if they don't agree to terms put in front of them. The only thing between the worker and such a deal is labour laws, and we all know how popular those are in "entrepreneur" circles.
I've encountered something like this in a work of fiction, Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow. In the book, investors find young, brilliant but impoverished children, usually in crisis-struck places (war, civil strife, etc). They sponsor the young people's top-tier education and earn their salary when they become professionals, the sponsored only receiving a stipend necessary for living until their debt is paid off.
Interestingly, if I am gifted child in a neglected place selling myself would be a way to get out. Limited options make a bad looking options look good.
Which is very fun, counting that wealthy investor could potentially keep certain areas of the world in an impoverished state so to reap young gifted childs.
Arguably, we do see that happening already today. All developed countries with merit-based immigration systems are essentially contribution to half of this. Not necessarily on purpose, but in effect. Now, realizing that most of western "development aid" achieves the opposite of independent development provides the other half. Again, not necessarily on purpose, but in effect.
There is a lot of room between drone worker, saying you "had no choice" and actually having no choice, to both sides, but people that begin with the picture of a top down unmovable hierarchical structure of employment, and life in general, will never see that.
Employment is no slavery. It is not easy, but it is not slavery.
I'm not saying that all employment is slavery. Far from it. A good employment arrangement is mutually beneficial. The employer gets a loyal worker that is productive, creative and motivated. The employee gets relative safety, a reasonable compensation and a sense of purpose.
What I'm saying is that the described scheme of Income Sharing Agreement is a step towards a dark age. Saying that it's always a choice is ignoring realities and just buys into the myth of "If you're poor then it's just because of your poor choices. Your fault." In the average western society, especially the U.S., there is a lack of social mobility that goes directly counter to that myth and can't just be explained by people making poor choices, compared to societies where mobility is higher.
What I'm saying is that the described scheme of Income Sharing Agreement is a step towards a dark age. Saying that it's always a choice is ignoring realities and just buys into the myth of "If you're poor then it's just because of your poor choices. Your fault." In the average western society, especially the U.S., there is a lack of social mobility that goes directly counter to that myth and can't just be explained by people making poor choices, compared to societies where mobility is higher.
You had no choice but go to the most expensive place in the world ?
Kudos to you. It’s a new and innovative technique, seems like it could help many more people, and you showed how it would work in practice. I thought being able to do the crypto trade directly on you website was a nice touch—definitely shows its easier and more accessible than the Bowie Bond example from the article.
How have things played out since the initial sale?
https://defimarketcap.io/token/0x8ba6dcc667d3ff64c1a2123ce72...
Market cap is now almost $1 million with a coin price of $0.15. Considering the initial offer was $0.002 per ALEX it seems like he's doing really well.
Of course he's now running a NFT startup https://tryshowtime.com so perhaps the 15% share of his income has the potential to max out at the $100k return he offered. I don't think I'd bet against him at this point.
Market cap is now almost $1 million with a coin price of $0.15. Considering the initial offer was $0.002 per ALEX it seems like he's doing really well.
Of course he's now running a NFT startup https://tryshowtime.com so perhaps the 15% share of his income has the potential to max out at the $100k return he offered. I don't think I'd bet against him at this point.
Glad I scrolled down far enough to see this! Need to upvote this to float it to the top...
There’s literally nothing in this article that you couldn’t replace “token” or “coin” with “contract” or “membership” and have it work exactly the same. The idea of selling contracts against future income is interesting but putting the blockchain here is yet another solution in search of a problem.
I’m usually in total agreement about blockchain just being stuffed anywhere, but observationally, there must be a good reason why blockchain shows up in these situations so often. There’s definitely the hype factor, but blockchain does have value in that it’s reasonably trusted by average people (perhaps unlike signing a contract everytime you wanted to purchase a piece of a creator - coins gamify it), and it’s easy to setup trust systems - Alex setup his own token in a weekend for a “human IPO”, rather than running through the cost and time of properly setting it up with a lawyer and contracts.
Maybe blockchain’s biggest value proposition right now is that it’s lightly regulated and has hype, so using it greases the wheels when growing an audience or building a usually regulated product.
Maybe blockchain’s biggest value proposition right now is that it’s lightly regulated and has hype, so using it greases the wheels when growing an audience or building a usually regulated product.
> blockchain does have value in that it’s reasonably trusted by average people
I don't think you and I would agree on what constitutes "average people".
> it’s easy to setup trust systems - Alex setup his own token in a weekend for a “human IPO”, rather than running through the cost and time of properly setting it up with a lawyer and contracts.
Easy to set up, but how easy it is it to enforce?
I don't think you and I would agree on what constitutes "average people".
> it’s easy to setup trust systems - Alex setup his own token in a weekend for a “human IPO”, rather than running through the cost and time of properly setting it up with a lawyer and contracts.
Easy to set up, but how easy it is it to enforce?
Author mentions the ponzi scheme, and quite right. As long as the general trust is there and the investments are on the up and up you’re fine.
But the insidiousness is once you’re in, you’re in. Once you bought 4000 Tupperware to resell (insert any pyramid scheme here) , you can’t find fault in it, and when it crashes you’re burned.
I don’t want to bash blockchain, there might be interesting use cases, but I haven’t seen it yet in it’s current implementations.
But the insidiousness is once you’re in, you’re in. Once you bought 4000 Tupperware to resell (insert any pyramid scheme here) , you can’t find fault in it, and when it crashes you’re burned.
I don’t want to bash blockchain, there might be interesting use cases, but I haven’t seen it yet in it’s current implementations.
> that it’s reasonably trusted by average people (perhaps unlike signing a contract everytime you wanted to purchase a piece of a creator - coins gamify it), and it’s easy to setup trust systems
This is absolutely backwards though; the contract is enforcible, whereas the coin isn't. If Alex simply chooses not to pay back his investors, nothing happens other than a loss of face.
> it’s lightly regulated and has hype
Exactly.
This is absolutely backwards though; the contract is enforcible, whereas the coin isn't. If Alex simply chooses not to pay back his investors, nothing happens other than a loss of face.
> it’s lightly regulated and has hype
Exactly.
The incentive here is economic, not some governmental force. If some company stopped paying dividends, the stock price would crash. Some governmental entity coming in after the fact and forcing the company to pay dividends would be null at this point as the company would most likely be bankrupt. The same thing would happen here, the price of alex would crash to nothing making the other 90% that he owns worthless.
does blockchain solve the trust problem here though? my trust issue would be that the person doesnt report their entire income, or purposely delays deals past the term, which is all out of band of the coin
The only trust problem that blockchain solves is that of transaction settlement. Anything else requires a hybrid solution with a trusted third party.
I think the setup in, for example, US equity markets makes it clear why blockchain is used for any kind of “securitization” of assets or contracts. You have a single company, DTCC, that physically owns all publicly traded stock certificates and so settlement of trades is just shuffling numbers in their ledger.
Blockchain is just a ready-made DTCC for whatever asset/contract you want to securitize.
Blockchain is just a ready-made DTCC for whatever asset/contract you want to securitize.
Dont you need some legal contract in any case? Whats gonna hold Alex legally liable to give part of his income then? The coins themselves are not worth anything...
I get the point of the shocking title.
But what he describes, hedging risk, is not a new concept. It is something that people do every day when they diversify investments or buy insurance. ISAs and "person as tokens" just push this to new levels.
> In such a scenario, every career becomes a pyramid scheme.
In other words, the rich get richer--scalability works.
One thing the author left out (or that I missed) is that scalability increases overall wealth. If I have to learn calculus from an average teacher because of geographic limitations, and then my child gets to learn from the best calculus teacher in the world, in the latter case the world gets richer because the same knowledge is arrived at quicker at less expense. (Of course, there's fallout for the average worker, but this is something we've been dealing with in the developed world for decades and still haven't figured out.)
But what he describes, hedging risk, is not a new concept. It is something that people do every day when they diversify investments or buy insurance. ISAs and "person as tokens" just push this to new levels.
> In such a scenario, every career becomes a pyramid scheme.
In other words, the rich get richer--scalability works.
One thing the author left out (or that I missed) is that scalability increases overall wealth. If I have to learn calculus from an average teacher because of geographic limitations, and then my child gets to learn from the best calculus teacher in the world, in the latter case the world gets richer because the same knowledge is arrived at quicker at less expense. (Of course, there's fallout for the average worker, but this is something we've been dealing with in the developed world for decades and still haven't figured out.)
It’s protocol-ized finance. Sure you can do it all old school, but that takes a ton of effort and makes your situation a unique snowflake. If you do it the way everyone has agreed on with tokens, all of your tokens plug into the existing infrastructure, is standardized, and makes the cost of capital go down.
Why people continually can’t understand this, and keep saying “buh buh buh mysql and lawyer fees! No need for blockchain!” is a failure of imagination.
Why people continually can’t understand this, and keep saying “buh buh buh mysql and lawyer fees! No need for blockchain!” is a failure of imagination.
> Sure you can do it all old school, but that takes a ton of effort and makes your situation a unique snowflake.
Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts.
Someone could sell you an NFT that represents 15% of their future earnings over the next 3 years, but the blockchain can't enforce that. Even if we had all payments occurring on the blockchain, the person could simply create a new blockchain wallet and give their new address to future employers, claiming $0 earnings for their original blockchain address. The NFT itself is only valuable if supported by the weight of real contracts in the real world with real enforceability.
Crypto tokens only stand alone when the crypto token itself is being traded. Actual value still requires consensus that the token is worth something (Bitcoin, Ethereum) or a real-world contract that stipulates that whoever holds the token has a claim to some actual rights or asset.
It's likely that most of the real-world contracts for something of actual value have stipulations that the crypto tokens are null and void if determined to be lost or stolen. The crypto tokens are largely a distraction.
Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts.
Someone could sell you an NFT that represents 15% of their future earnings over the next 3 years, but the blockchain can't enforce that. Even if we had all payments occurring on the blockchain, the person could simply create a new blockchain wallet and give their new address to future employers, claiming $0 earnings for their original blockchain address. The NFT itself is only valuable if supported by the weight of real contracts in the real world with real enforceability.
Crypto tokens only stand alone when the crypto token itself is being traded. Actual value still requires consensus that the token is worth something (Bitcoin, Ethereum) or a real-world contract that stipulates that whoever holds the token has a claim to some actual rights or asset.
It's likely that most of the real-world contracts for something of actual value have stipulations that the crypto tokens are null and void if determined to be lost or stolen. The crypto tokens are largely a distraction.
I think the point is that smart contracts allow a handful of things to happen automatically, while real-world contracts are literally just words on paper that have no functional capability of effecting anything in reality. People interpret those words with the understanding that they can invoke a court of law to borrow the state’s monopoly on force and compel behavior in accordance with the contract, but it’s still humans reading the words and then actually doing the actions of their own will.
In any case, it’s not hard to imagine an evolution in our legal regime where tokens can gain the force of legal contracts. And then tokens will do everything that paper contracts will do, which is to say nothing except declare the terms of some mutual agreement between some meatspace entities. (obviously this only makes sense for fungible contracts)
In any case, it’s not hard to imagine an evolution in our legal regime where tokens can gain the force of legal contracts. And then tokens will do everything that paper contracts will do, which is to say nothing except declare the terms of some mutual agreement between some meatspace entities. (obviously this only makes sense for fungible contracts)
I think this entire idea is insane, but that's not the argument.
>Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts.
There is no duality of 'real-world contract'/'digital contracts'. The question is if a digital document and signatures are accepted by a judicial system. In 50 years every judicial system will accept some format of digital contracts.
The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ).
All of this is possible by human hands, but legal systems are not known for their digital innovation. ( They don't even use standard 'diffs' to negotiate contracts )
>Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts.
There is no duality of 'real-world contract'/'digital contracts'. The question is if a digital document and signatures are accepted by a judicial system. In 50 years every judicial system will accept some format of digital contracts.
The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ).
All of this is possible by human hands, but legal systems are not known for their digital innovation. ( They don't even use standard 'diffs' to negotiate contracts )
> The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ).
This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts. As far as I know the only such facts that have been made to work are facts about the prices of other cryptocoins.
Furthermore, most of the benefits can already be obtained by registering a contract to be traded over a commodities exchange. There are, for example, weather futures being bought, sold, and adjudicated without any need or use for a blockchain.
This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts. As far as I know the only such facts that have been made to work are facts about the prices of other cryptocoins.
Furthermore, most of the benefits can already be obtained by registering a contract to be traded over a commodities exchange. There are, for example, weather futures being bought, sold, and adjudicated without any need or use for a blockchain.
> This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts
Do meatspace contracts ascertain external facts? No, a court of law does. For most things that will likely never change. But if the contract is of a fungible nature, then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required. This is why I prefer to call blockchain “market-as-a-service”...
Do meatspace contracts ascertain external facts? No, a court of law does. For most things that will likely never change. But if the contract is of a fungible nature, then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required. This is why I prefer to call blockchain “market-as-a-service”...
> then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required
The same is true of the Chicago Board of Options, established 1848. The blockchain adds nothing. It’s the snake oil of the modern age.
The same is true of the Chicago Board of Options, established 1848. The blockchain adds nothing. It’s the snake oil of the modern age.
You can’t trade on that directly as a normal person in, say, Turkey or Lebanon. With blockchain you can - there are no borders.
And you can’t add a twist on the standard options contract, or experiment whatsoever, as a software dev fooling around. With blockchain you can experiment in infinite ways instantly. There is no permission.
Again, the lack of imagination and the total “blockchain equals bad! All of this tech is stupid because I say so!” nonsense is exhausting. You don’t want to learn so you won’t learn.
And you can’t add a twist on the standard options contract, or experiment whatsoever, as a software dev fooling around. With blockchain you can experiment in infinite ways instantly. There is no permission.
Again, the lack of imagination and the total “blockchain equals bad! All of this tech is stupid because I say so!” nonsense is exhausting. You don’t want to learn so you won’t learn.
> nonsense is exhausting.
So stop doing it. No one is forcing you to push these get rich quick scams.
So stop doing it. No one is forcing you to push these get rich quick scams.
Standardized contracts trade all day every day on exchanges all over the world. That’s how everyone doing legitimate business has agreed to do it. That’s where the existing infrastructure is. That’s where serious capital is.
Tokens, on the other hand, are the favorite tool of scammers.
Tokens, on the other hand, are the favorite tool of scammers.
How is a large insurance company refusing to pay on a legitimate claim any less of a scam?
I don’t think cryptocurrency is near mature enough to replace traditional contracts, but technology changes a lot in 5-10 years.
I don’t think cryptocurrency is near mature enough to replace traditional contracts, but technology changes a lot in 5-10 years.
You’re 100% correct. Which is also why I found the article thought provoking!
Blockchain isn’t magic. It can’t do very much “new”. But if it can take something old (contract) and make that more accessible to more potential contract buyers/sellers, then that’s actually interesting.
Technology that makes slow complicated things fast and easy can have a lot of impact.
I won’t be selling shares of myself nor buying shares of others. But this we’re close to the point where blockchain actually provides real value beyond tulip speculation.
Blockchain isn’t magic. It can’t do very much “new”. But if it can take something old (contract) and make that more accessible to more potential contract buyers/sellers, then that’s actually interesting.
Technology that makes slow complicated things fast and easy can have a lot of impact.
I won’t be selling shares of myself nor buying shares of others. But this we’re close to the point where blockchain actually provides real value beyond tulip speculation.
It sells itself better to a target audience that is bamboozled/enthusiastic/optimistic about the technology. Think of it as you would SEO - it's merely a feature/optimization that gets you an audience.
I always see this sentiment here on HN. Everyone says "Why use blockchain, when you could just do X". Alot of the time when people say this, i don't think they actually understand blockchain. There's a million here but i'll only ask one...How could you actively trade a 'contract' if it's not on the blockchain?
Maybe ask Masmej why he chose to use an ethereum token instead of a traditional contract. I think it probably made things much easier for him.
Or maybe he knows that traditional contracts are enforceable while ethereum tokens are not.
> The idea of selling contracts against future income is interesting
Isn't that also basically what any interest bearing loan/mortgage is?
Isn't that also basically what any interest bearing loan/mortgage is?
No, those are personal debts (in one case secured). There’s been on and off again interest for as long as I can remember about creating personal equity interests (i.e. the payout depends on how much the person earns). Now with blockchain(tm).
I agree that there is a difference in the collateral involved, but the collateral mostly functions as a risk adjuster (which is why mortgage rates are on average lower than personal loan rates: if a borrower defaults, the house can be sold to recover part of the principal).
At the end of the day, a mortgage is a contract that allows the borrower to purchase a home in exchange for a share of their future income, paid as interest on the loan.
Personal loans also already exist today. The primary difference in the scheme in the article is that it is blockchain-based, instead of bank-based, and the trust establishment mechanism between borrower and lender is based on personal marketing, not credit agencies.
Perhaps a bigger factor is that if the currency in which such a loan is offered is deflationary in the BTC style, it is a disadvantage to the borrower who will see the cost of their loan escalate over time, so this should be accounted for by lowering the interest rate.
At the end of the day, a mortgage is a contract that allows the borrower to purchase a home in exchange for a share of their future income, paid as interest on the loan.
Personal loans also already exist today. The primary difference in the scheme in the article is that it is blockchain-based, instead of bank-based, and the trust establishment mechanism between borrower and lender is based on personal marketing, not credit agencies.
Perhaps a bigger factor is that if the currency in which such a loan is offered is deflationary in the BTC style, it is a disadvantage to the borrower who will see the cost of their loan escalate over time, so this should be accounted for by lowering the interest rate.
The difference isn’t the collateral, a personal loan like a credit card is unsecured.
It’s how you calculate the payment. In a loan it doesn’t matter how much money I make, I owe what I owe.
In the proposed equity arrangement I owe a percentage of my income. If I don’t make anything, I don’t owe anything. If I’m the next Musk, I owe billions.
It’s how you calculate the payment. In a loan it doesn’t matter how much money I make, I owe what I owe.
In the proposed equity arrangement I owe a percentage of my income. If I don’t make anything, I don’t owe anything. If I’m the next Musk, I owe billions.
>I owe what I owe
Which may depend on an external factor if say it's a variable rate loan pegged to the prime. At some level, this is just using a different formula to determine the payment.
Which may depend on an external factor if say it's a variable rate loan pegged to the prime. At some level, this is just using a different formula to determine the payment.
> a personal loan like a credit card is unsecured.
That's just another way of saying 0 collateral.
> In the proposed equity arrangement I owe a percentage of my income. If I don’t make anything, I don’t owe anything
I agree the calculation is different, but I doubt there is a lender that isn't going to demand the return of their principal at the least.
Depending on the enforceability of such a contract (questionable and depends on the legal teeth they have in the respective jurisdictions) and the likelihood of default, it would significantly alter the risk profile.
That's just another way of saying 0 collateral.
> In the proposed equity arrangement I owe a percentage of my income. If I don’t make anything, I don’t owe anything
I agree the calculation is different, but I doubt there is a lender that isn't going to demand the return of their principal at the least.
Depending on the enforceability of such a contract (questionable and depends on the legal teeth they have in the respective jurisdictions) and the likelihood of default, it would significantly alter the risk profile.
>I agree the calculation is different, but I doubt there is a lender that isn't going to demand the return of their principal at the least.
You win some, you lose some. Presumably the person/organization making the loan has calculated that the upside pays for the students who end up paying nothing.
To the sibling comment about debt and equity, they're not necessarily as different as some assume. In this case, if I called it debt with a payback schedule based on ability to pay up to some cap, does that make it into something fundamentally different just because it's unusual?
You win some, you lose some. Presumably the person/organization making the loan has calculated that the upside pays for the students who end up paying nothing.
To the sibling comment about debt and equity, they're not necessarily as different as some assume. In this case, if I called it debt with a payback schedule based on ability to pay up to some cap, does that make it into something fundamentally different just because it's unusual?
There are hybrids all over the place. Preferred stock is a classic example.
But there’s still a basic framework before you get into the messy middle. Taxonomies are a useful technology, calling everything a loan obscures more than it clarifies.
But there’s still a basic framework before you get into the messy middle. Taxonomies are a useful technology, calling everything a loan obscures more than it clarifies.
Also convertibles.
And I don't disagree even though I had a long ago finance professor who hammered on the point that a lot of financial instruments weren't necessarily that distinct from each other just because they have different names. But, yes, we can generalize about the distinct characteristics of normal debt and normal equity.
And I don't disagree even though I had a long ago finance professor who hammered on the point that a lot of financial instruments weren't necessarily that distinct from each other just because they have different names. But, yes, we can generalize about the distinct characteristics of normal debt and normal equity.
It seems like you don’t understand the difference between debt and equity.
I do understand the difference, but in modern societies, you can't purchase (or sell) equity in a human being - that's called indentured servitude - and despite our society having many exploitative employment arrangements, we don't allow total or partial sale of oneself.
If you want to take an "investment" of this sort, it would have to taken by an LLC or similar entity, which is by definition isolated from personal liability and vice versa.
If you want to take an "investment" of this sort, it would have to taken by an LLC or similar entity, which is by definition isolated from personal liability and vice versa.
[deleted]
I agree. Its not unlike an options agreement...u can do that without tech.
Putting the contract on the blockchain allows it to be traded like, but not as, a security while the SEC et al. drag their feet on classifying crypto-tokens as securities. Something like that.
So it's a way to dodge the law? (while ruining the environment, of course)
No. What law is being dodged here?
Again, no. Brute force Nakamoto consensus is bad for the environment, but lumping all crypto into that bucket is ignorant/intellectually dishonest.
Again, no. Brute force Nakamoto consensus is bad for the environment, but lumping all crypto into that bucket is ignorant/intellectually dishonest.
Proof of work uses a lot of energy. There are a few steps between that and “bad for the environment”, and you probably also need to explain why any other economic activity which uses a lot of energy is not also bad for the environment.
All human production processes use energy, and therefore all economic activity is “bad for the environment” in the exact proportion of its energy use.
All human production processes use energy, and therefore all economic activity is “bad for the environment” in the exact proportion of its energy use.
[deleted]
It's a way to engage in activity that is superficially distinct enough that the law has not yet caught up with it, like driving for Uber or owning an AirBNB. It remains to be seen if the "innovation" in question is tangential to the main purpose (skirting an existing activity whose lawful bounds are already well-defined), or if it isn't, and the tech is instead truly transformative. You may think you know, but nothing really matters until a court, regulatory body, or legislature weighs in.
Also Proof of Stake.
Also Proof of Stake.
It’s just more top signals. There’s too much money floating around if people want to invest in nonsense like this. When equities correct from the current Shiller PE ratio higher than 1929 I think you will find less people want to invest in a career token for someone.
https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
The Bowie Bond part of the post was fascinating by the way. Had never heard that story. He issued them in 1997 which is a high Shiller PE value also before the 2000 stock bust. Lots of money floating around looking for a home then too.
https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
The Bowie Bond part of the post was fascinating by the way. Had never heard that story. He issued them in 1997 which is a high Shiller PE value also before the 2000 stock bust. Lots of money floating around looking for a home then too.
>When equities correct from the current Shiller PE ratio higher than 1929 I think you will find less people want to invest in a career token for someone.
The government is actively preventing a correction by minting new dollars at unprecedented rates [0]. In this environment, the Shiller P/E doesn't make sense anymore.
The pressure in the society is building up and it's gonna eventually blow up, but it will follow some completely unexpected path because the usual safety valve has been welded shut.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
The government is actively preventing a correction by minting new dollars at unprecedented rates [0]. In this environment, the Shiller P/E doesn't make sense anymore.
The pressure in the society is building up and it's gonna eventually blow up, but it will follow some completely unexpected path because the usual safety valve has been welded shut.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
I totally agree. We are already past where a correction should have occurred. They are just delaying and making the inevitable crash more violent with money printing. Like a volcano that hasn’t erupted for a long time.
I agree that there's a ton of money floating around / frothiness, but what's inherently wrong or ill-advised about investing in future cashflows of a person. Assuming you diversify across a bunch of people in a bunch of fields, this actually sounds better than some of the stuff people are investing in in the stock market.
Because having a share in an individual sounds very much like slavery?
So does usury.
You loan someone $40000 @ 5% APR and he spends it on education. If the loan is to be paid back in a decade, he has to cough up $416 per month. Unlike a mortgage, he can't foreclose on his education.
Since he doesn't have any assets to sell, and is by law unable to get out of them through bankruptcy, his only choice is to work some amount of hours every month to pay off the loans.
If that is not slavery, then surely ISAs are fine too? And if that is slavery, then how are ISAs any worse?
You loan someone $40000 @ 5% APR and he spends it on education. If the loan is to be paid back in a decade, he has to cough up $416 per month. Unlike a mortgage, he can't foreclose on his education.
Since he doesn't have any assets to sell, and is by law unable to get out of them through bankruptcy, his only choice is to work some amount of hours every month to pay off the loans.
If that is not slavery, then surely ISAs are fine too? And if that is slavery, then how are ISAs any worse?
Small nitpick, if you're diligent with the paperwork and aren't a victim of some of the recent loan servicing scandals then the (federal) loan will eventually be forgiven so long as you pay a percentage of your income (which can be as low as $0). Functionally student loans are a lot like a typical ISA with a longer period (and comparable max total payments) which can't be discharged.
but it's not like slavery because you can quit at any time. Outside of blockchain contracts should be considered 'Slavery' because an 18 year old can take out a loan that ruins his whole life because he is forced to pay back the loans by some outside entity. Investing in an individual via the blockchain makes it so you are investing because you believe in the individual, but at any time the individual can simply stop working, stop earning and enjoy a simple life without any repercussions. This makes the investment more risky for sure, but stops it from being slavery because a.) the individuals don't have to be worried about some gun forcing them to do something b.) i can sell my tokens at any time.
>There’s too much money floating around if people want to invest in nonsense like this.
Alex had his human IPO shortly after the march 2020 crash
Alex had his human IPO shortly after the march 2020 crash
We went through the 2008 financiy crisis and this is what people think is a good idea?
How long before people are trading options on risk weighted batch of people? Leveraged buyouts if whole specialties? Movement controls to enforce greatest P/E? "I'm sorry sir, you can't leave the country without presenting a Holiday Risk Bond. Perhaps a Virtual Vacay is more affordable?"
And most of all: you, as an individual, have almost no information about the market, and are almost certain to get a bad price.
Anyone who thinks they are good at this should practice buying a new car. Once you get to the final sale price, with no finance, demand another 9% off. If you can get that, and the car isn't a lemon, you're ready to negotiate for a well understood commodity.
Selling people futures, when you've just given them capital up front with the goal of enabling higher returns, is less understood, though of course there are many immigrants who do just that. But already wealthy people? It seems much less certain.
How long before people are trading options on risk weighted batch of people? Leveraged buyouts if whole specialties? Movement controls to enforce greatest P/E? "I'm sorry sir, you can't leave the country without presenting a Holiday Risk Bond. Perhaps a Virtual Vacay is more affordable?"
And most of all: you, as an individual, have almost no information about the market, and are almost certain to get a bad price.
Anyone who thinks they are good at this should practice buying a new car. Once you get to the final sale price, with no finance, demand another 9% off. If you can get that, and the car isn't a lemon, you're ready to negotiate for a well understood commodity.
Selling people futures, when you've just given them capital up front with the goal of enabling higher returns, is less understood, though of course there are many immigrants who do just that. But already wealthy people? It seems much less certain.
> How long before people are trading options on risk weighted batch of people?
Lol I actually love this idea. Funding an ETF of people who want to move to SF to start a career in tech, or LA to start a career in acting. Diversify your risk and support some people with potential. Could have an acting school equivilant of ycombinator and you can invest in all each batch and get a return if some succeed.
If we want a metiocracy this could help build it, by giving more capital to those who have potential but are disenfranchised by existing institutions.
Lol I actually love this idea. Funding an ETF of people who want to move to SF to start a career in tech, or LA to start a career in acting. Diversify your risk and support some people with potential. Could have an acting school equivilant of ycombinator and you can invest in all each batch and get a return if some succeed.
If we want a metiocracy this could help build it, by giving more capital to those who have potential but are disenfranchised by existing institutions.
Yes but remember 2008? All those loans that turned out to be sub-prime? All those complex risk products no one really understood?
So, instead of Indian SWEs and 3rd sons of teachers you thought you were investing in for grad school, you're paying people to be swindled at Trump University and indentured training for long haul trucking.
Meanwhile the YC30 talent bonds were sold to a select group of connected investors, and pension funds bought job lots of Invisalign techs from brokers making a steady commission.
So, instead of Indian SWEs and 3rd sons of teachers you thought you were investing in for grad school, you're paying people to be swindled at Trump University and indentured training for long haul trucking.
Meanwhile the YC30 talent bonds were sold to a select group of connected investors, and pension funds bought job lots of Invisalign techs from brokers making a steady commission.
[deleted]
Have people forgotten the classic way of investing in humans?
Social programs.
In Denmark part of my taxes goes to pay public pensions, and when I get old taxes will fund some pension for me.
The public pension isn't huge, so yes, almost everybody has a private pension scheme too.
My private pension is exposed to global stock performance over ~30 years.
My public pensions is exposed to value of humans in Denmark in ~30 years.
So in a way I do have exposure to some human investment :)
This is also why it makes sense for my taxes to fund tuition for everybody.
Social programs.
In Denmark part of my taxes goes to pay public pensions, and when I get old taxes will fund some pension for me.
The public pension isn't huge, so yes, almost everybody has a private pension scheme too.
My private pension is exposed to global stock performance over ~30 years.
My public pensions is exposed to value of humans in Denmark in ~30 years.
So in a way I do have exposure to some human investment :)
This is also why it makes sense for my taxes to fund tuition for everybody.
So Denmark would forcibly take more than half of my income to invest in stuff I don't have a say on, while no one is held accountable by competition and economic incentives.
I'll pass.
I'll pass.
I pay 30% of my income in taxes.
I get, in no order:
- free transportation (free high quality high-ways, train network, subway, tram, bus, rent-a-bike...),
- free education for myself and my children, from pre-kinder garten up to university.
- paid very high-level education (PhD, postdoc) for myself and my children,
- free health-care for everyone,
- universal salary for everyone (no homeless people around, extremely low crime rates)
- free sport offerings, open-air health activities, safety sport training (climbing, skiing, ...)
- free internet,
- free cable TV,
- all the usual stuff (garbage collection, street cleaning, access to water and power networks, etc.)
Of course, "free" does not mean "free", since I'm paying all of this with my taxes.
But how many taxes do you pay, and what do you get from them?
Because what I get is that my biggest worry in life is "How will the weather look like at the weekend?" and "Depending on that I might go hiking, or cycling, or surfing, or skiing...".
I don't worry about my children, or school, or being able to pay for anything, or crime, or security, I don't worry about my 6 year old son taking the subway and a bus alone to go to primary school, or them making it back home safely, or my 16 year old daughter going partying till 5am and then walking home alone at night, or what happens if they break an arm and need to go to the hospital, or whether I can afford the university they want to go to, etc.
Like, really, my only worry in life is "What's the weather like and what am I going to be able to do in the weekend depending on the weather".
I get, in no order:
- free transportation (free high quality high-ways, train network, subway, tram, bus, rent-a-bike...),
- free education for myself and my children, from pre-kinder garten up to university.
- paid very high-level education (PhD, postdoc) for myself and my children,
- free health-care for everyone,
- universal salary for everyone (no homeless people around, extremely low crime rates)
- free sport offerings, open-air health activities, safety sport training (climbing, skiing, ...)
- free internet,
- free cable TV,
- all the usual stuff (garbage collection, street cleaning, access to water and power networks, etc.)
Of course, "free" does not mean "free", since I'm paying all of this with my taxes.
But how many taxes do you pay, and what do you get from them?
Because what I get is that my biggest worry in life is "How will the weather look like at the weekend?" and "Depending on that I might go hiking, or cycling, or surfing, or skiing...".
I don't worry about my children, or school, or being able to pay for anything, or crime, or security, I don't worry about my 6 year old son taking the subway and a bus alone to go to primary school, or them making it back home safely, or my 16 year old daughter going partying till 5am and then walking home alone at night, or what happens if they break an arm and need to go to the hospital, or whether I can afford the university they want to go to, etc.
Like, really, my only worry in life is "What's the weather like and what am I going to be able to do in the weekend depending on the weather".
Which country is this? 30% seems reasonable for all that.
Most likely a Scandinavian country.
I figured as much, but was surprised by the 30% figure. I always assumed a tax rate of > 40% to support those social programs and benefits.
Paying 50% of your salary can be "ok" for a rich person, tough on middle class families with children, and impossible for a poor person (difference between making and not making rent).
This is why tax rates aren't constant for all incomes, they depend on income, costs (family, children, etc.), etc.
My tax rate would be slightly over 40% if I were single, but my partner's income isn't as high (still over >35% taxes), and we have two children. We get taxed as a family, so our incomes kind of get added and divided by four, and then our "family" tax rate is ~30%.
If you earn a lot of money and have no family / children to care for, then you get taxed with the highest rate which is slightly less than 50%.
If that's not your situation, your tax rate will be lower.
Also, there are some ways to delay paying at least a portion of your taxes (e.g. by getting stock compensation, and paying the taxes on the original price of the stock much later when you sell, etc.), which are often used for high paying jobs (somebody working on a dinner doesn't get "stock").
Having said all this, I've payed almost 50% taxes before, and it was ok. My net salary was still way above the median, and the cost of living here is relatively cheap.
The only real difference of this tax systems are (1) all the benefits that you get, and (2) the variable tax-rate widens the middle class significantly: it is harder to become "poorer" if your salary decrease because the tax rate decreases with it, and it is harder to double your net salary because the tax rate grows with salary increases, at least up to the almost 50% limit.
Many of the benefits are just the outcome of having a large number of people that live with 1 job, working 35h/week, and that don't have to look at their bank account ever to see if they'll make it to the end of the month.
This is why tax rates aren't constant for all incomes, they depend on income, costs (family, children, etc.), etc.
My tax rate would be slightly over 40% if I were single, but my partner's income isn't as high (still over >35% taxes), and we have two children. We get taxed as a family, so our incomes kind of get added and divided by four, and then our "family" tax rate is ~30%.
If you earn a lot of money and have no family / children to care for, then you get taxed with the highest rate which is slightly less than 50%.
If that's not your situation, your tax rate will be lower.
Also, there are some ways to delay paying at least a portion of your taxes (e.g. by getting stock compensation, and paying the taxes on the original price of the stock much later when you sell, etc.), which are often used for high paying jobs (somebody working on a dinner doesn't get "stock").
Having said all this, I've payed almost 50% taxes before, and it was ok. My net salary was still way above the median, and the cost of living here is relatively cheap.
The only real difference of this tax systems are (1) all the benefits that you get, and (2) the variable tax-rate widens the middle class significantly: it is harder to become "poorer" if your salary decrease because the tax rate decreases with it, and it is harder to double your net salary because the tax rate grows with salary increases, at least up to the almost 50% limit.
Many of the benefits are just the outcome of having a large number of people that live with 1 job, working 35h/week, and that don't have to look at their bank account ever to see if they'll make it to the end of the month.
[deleted]
Most folks don't pay that much in tax, and I'm guessing that your state taxes, federal taxes, insurance premiums, and deductible is more than whatever tax rate you'd be paying in most countries that charge similarly.
It isn't like you get a real say in where your taxes are spent in any country, honestly, and part of paying taxes is that they get spent on some thing you don't like. Not only that, but no one is really held accountable by competition in most things that taxes pay for (health care and infrastructure and a safety net aren't held accountable because of economics since someone always has leverage and they are easily monopolies as the choice isn't real).
It isn't like you get a real say in where your taxes are spent in any country, honestly, and part of paying taxes is that they get spent on some thing you don't like. Not only that, but no one is really held accountable by competition in most things that taxes pay for (health care and infrastructure and a safety net aren't held accountable because of economics since someone always has leverage and they are easily monopolies as the choice isn't real).
> So Denmark would forcibly take more than half of my income to invest in stuff I don't have a say on..
If you could invest in humans, you'd want a diversified portfolio anyways. Indeed to keep operating costs low, you might want a passive investment scheme, like index funds.
Paying taxes to fund education and pensions is kind of like investing in an index fund tracking all humans in a given country.
Only kind of like! Such schemes definitely shouldn't be the primary assets in your portfolio. But it's failure modes a very different from stocks, so some exposure is good.
If you could invest in humans, you'd want a diversified portfolio anyways. Indeed to keep operating costs low, you might want a passive investment scheme, like index funds.
Paying taxes to fund education and pensions is kind of like investing in an index fund tracking all humans in a given country.
Only kind of like! Such schemes definitely shouldn't be the primary assets in your portfolio. But it's failure modes a very different from stocks, so some exposure is good.
Also it's usually less than half.
Average tax rate in Denmark is around 45%.
In San Francisco I was paying 38%.
Can you pay education for your kids with 7% of your income? How about healthcare?
What is a social safety net worth?
Average tax rate in Denmark is around 45%.
In San Francisco I was paying 38%.
Can you pay education for your kids with 7% of your income? How about healthcare?
What is a social safety net worth?
Salary in SF is much higher than Copenhagen. Factor that into the equation.
But the tax rate isn't the reason salaries are higher in SF.
(Oh, and most people aren't software engineers)
7% of 130k is that enough to cover education, healthcare, etc?
Note. To be fair, the us does have some pension through medicare. (But I was honestly shocked to learn that it was regressively taxed)
7% of 130k is that enough to cover education, healthcare, etc?
Note. To be fair, the us does have some pension through medicare. (But I was honestly shocked to learn that it was regressively taxed)
130k is not a good salary in SF.
Including your pension and healthcare, how much of your income is “taxed”?
> how much of your income is “taxed”?
Generally all income is taxed. I think the personal deductible is around ~10k USD. -- That's not meant to ask, but it's what you asked :)
Taking all taxes deductibles etc. then all in all I think I pay around ~48% of my income in taxes. Note. that lower income means less taxes too.
When I lived in SF it was around 38% (I think). Not that much considering cost of healthcare wasn't covered through taxes in the US.
None of this includes sales tax or VAT, just income.
Generally all income is taxed. I think the personal deductible is around ~10k USD. -- That's not meant to ask, but it's what you asked :)
Taking all taxes deductibles etc. then all in all I think I pay around ~48% of my income in taxes. Note. that lower income means less taxes too.
When I lived in SF it was around 38% (I think). Not that much considering cost of healthcare wasn't covered through taxes in the US.
None of this includes sales tax or VAT, just income.
Do you think taxes are necessary for a cohesive society?
> Do you think taxes are necessary for a cohesive society?
I don't know if a better way to fund public services. Maybe we could tax work less and tax natural resources higher.. but I'm not expert on the long-term economic implications -- so who knows.
In any case: my point was that getting exposure to human capital as an investment instrument is probably best done through public pension schemes rather than ISA or human token IPOs :)
Investing in humans makes sense. Most countries already do it! Do we need to reinvent it?
I don't know if a better way to fund public services. Maybe we could tax work less and tax natural resources higher.. but I'm not expert on the long-term economic implications -- so who knows.
In any case: my point was that getting exposure to human capital as an investment instrument is probably best done through public pension schemes rather than ISA or human token IPOs :)
Investing in humans makes sense. Most countries already do it! Do we need to reinvent it?
Yes, of course, but not > 50%.
I'm not refuting your point but where did you get >50% from?
You absolutely can get taxed up to 54% but for that you would need +200k (krona) per month.
And also only applies to the amount above the threshold.
Thank you!
I can't believe that not even HN can get tax brackets into their head. It is not a hard concept!
I can't believe that not even HN can get tax brackets into their head. It is not a hard concept!
Did it come from propaganda talking points that outline the dangers of “socialism”?
I hear similar statements from my relatives in the US.
I hear similar statements from my relatives in the US.
Crickets. No reply from the original poster. I think you're right :-)
Thanks for sharing. we have similar programs in Norway and about %35 of my income is taxed.
This only works if you have a reasonable population growth rate. And this isn't happening anymore. So we are boosting population numbers through immigrants that will never afford the kind of housing and retirement the previous generation had. And we are boosting the stocks through printing more money, that also drives real estate prices insane.
That's a recipe for a social conflict. Once the majority can't afford a house and a pension comparable to yours, they won't just stand aside and let you enjoy it. They will label you an oppressor and will come and take it. And the laws won't help you if the majority finds them unfair.
That's a recipe for a social conflict. Once the majority can't afford a house and a pension comparable to yours, they won't just stand aside and let you enjoy it. They will label you an oppressor and will come and take it. And the laws won't help you if the majority finds them unfair.
Why do you need population growth rate? You can just have each individual self fund their retirement, no Ponzi shenanigans.
Because otherwise if you graduate at 25, work until 65, and expect to die at 85, your retirement contribution during work years needs to be half of your retirement check. If you are aiming for the same income level, 1/3 of your income needs to go towards retirement.
In reality, people cannot put aside that much, so the % is much lower, relying on higher returns (private) and population growth (public).
In reality, people cannot put aside that much, so the % is much lower, relying on higher returns (private) and population growth (public).
Public pension is only part of the puzzle.. the pensions is tiny, you can maybe live off it, well barely.
But it means that your private pension doesn't have to be as big.
More importantly: the point is that your private pension depends on the stock market. You public pension depends on future generations.
So overall part of my pension is going to be private: the underlying assets it's invested into is private companies through stocks. Another part of my pension will be public: the underlying asset is humans that can be taxed.
But it means that your private pension doesn't have to be as big.
More importantly: the point is that your private pension depends on the stock market. You public pension depends on future generations.
So overall part of my pension is going to be private: the underlying assets it's invested into is private companies through stocks. Another part of my pension will be public: the underlying asset is humans that can be taxed.
Returns on investment? Even public pension plans can have them.
Actually, the point was to not have the public pension save up money.
Instead, we're betting that future generations will pay through taxes.
Note. Public pensions are tiny, so you'll still want a private pension that is invested in stocks.
But both is fantastic, because you have diversified your pension into stocks (private pension) and humans (public pension).
Instead, we're betting that future generations will pay through taxes.
Note. Public pensions are tiny, so you'll still want a private pension that is invested in stocks.
But both is fantastic, because you have diversified your pension into stocks (private pension) and humans (public pension).
> "By letting other people invest in you, you are incentivizing them to promote your own story and do their best to increase your tokens' value."
In 1946, the US Supreme Court established the so-called Howey Test to determine if an investment opportunity is a security offering. These are the Howey criteria:
"Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract if:
"It is an investment of money;
"There is an expectation of profits from the investment;
"The investment of money is in a common enterprise;
"Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party."
IANAL, but these personal tokens seem to match every condition of the Howey test. I'd be extremely careful about conducting your own little security offering if you're resident in the US, or allow US residents to participate.
It's worth noting that Alex Masmej, the person mentioned in the article, conducted his token offering while in France.
In 1946, the US Supreme Court established the so-called Howey Test to determine if an investment opportunity is a security offering. These are the Howey criteria:
"Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract if:
"It is an investment of money;
"There is an expectation of profits from the investment;
"The investment of money is in a common enterprise;
"Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party."
IANAL, but these personal tokens seem to match every condition of the Howey test. I'd be extremely careful about conducting your own little security offering if you're resident in the US, or allow US residents to participate.
It's worth noting that Alex Masmej, the person mentioned in the article, conducted his token offering while in France.
Mike Merrill has been doing this for a while (kmikeym.com) and didn’t seem to run in legal troubles. He’s in the US of A.
That doesn’t mean anything. There were hundreds of ICOs in 2017, and the SEC only sued a handful of them. The rest were not different, they just lucked out of prosecution.
"Isn't this the same as traditional student debt or, worse, indentured servitude? Not really"
Saying "not really" doesn't make something so. This is, literary indentured servitude. By definition.
Saying "not really" doesn't make something so. This is, literary indentured servitude. By definition.
Thank you. The indentured servitude character of this stuff is most clear when we look at the $ALEX example. Selling off a chunk of future autonomy and income in order to finance migration to a place with more economic opportunity is exactly what poor folks did circa the 17th and 18th centuries. Perhaps we should look at the history of how that went before replicating it.
My understanding is that economically it was usually a mutually beneficial arrangement, and servants often ended up better off than a normal immigrant. The second-class status of servants is somewhat hard to stomach by modern standards, but honestly it is not much different than the way members of the military are treated (source: I served five years enlisted in the US Navy).
The problem is that you can't separate the economic from the social---even a mutually beneficial transaction can have negative social externalities like undermining the political (and then the economic) power of a whole class of workers or potentially even undermining the individual capacity for independence of the individual involved on a psychological level.
The philosopher Debra Satz's book "Why Some Things Should Not be for Sale" has a great section on bonded labor that captures some of these consequences.
(I think the military isn't a good analogy because the public at large affords military personnel a special kind of respect that counteracts these social externalities.)
The philosopher Debra Satz's book "Why Some Things Should Not be for Sale" has a great section on bonded labor that captures some of these consequences.
(I think the military isn't a good analogy because the public at large affords military personnel a special kind of respect that counteracts these social externalities.)
Yes, but then you should apply political pressure to better the US army, not go "welp, let's give everybody that experience".
I am not sure why that needs spelling out, but social issues are actually not resolved by making them a suffering contest.
I am not sure why that needs spelling out, but social issues are actually not resolved by making them a suffering contest.
Can you point to where I said “welp let’s give everybody that experience”? I was attempting to give a nuanced view but I guess nobody in this thread has any interest in nuance. My mistake.
By what definition? In the lambda school case you only pay back if you’re in a job that pays >50k/year, it’s a percentage of income, and it’s capped at 30k. Indentured servitude requires you to do basically anything for your indenture holder for no pay until you’ve paid it back. Student loans that cannot be discharged regardless of circumstance sounds far more like indentured servitude than an ISA to me so “not really” I think is a fair assessment.
Yes. I'm not sure how making the payback variable as a function of salary up to some cap is something unacceptable while a fixed payment obligation is a run of the mill loan.
At least in the version that existed in early America indentured servitude allowed for coercion and there was no bankruptcy option. Whereas in modern law specific performance for personal service contracts are strictly forbidden and bankruptcy is out there.
But student loans are exempt from bankruptcy, so in a way that particular investment in future earnings is a bit outside the modern protections.
The grandparent’s post “this” referred to the personal equity proposal, not students loans.
That said:
- I agree that student loans ought to be dischargable in bankruptcy (indeed I think the government should have nothing to do or say with them at all)
- I still don’t think they are reasonably referred to as “literally indentured servitude”, though one step closer
That said:
- I agree that student loans ought to be dischargable in bankruptcy (indeed I think the government should have nothing to do or say with them at all)
- I still don’t think they are reasonably referred to as “literally indentured servitude”, though one step closer
We got rid of debtor's prisons too, which is an improvement.
> a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.
This != That
This != That
No, by definition it is not, because the person is still earning a salary.
> As I mentioned in an earlier piece, these tokens are not simply "certificates of ownership"; they can be pre-programmed to behave in a certain way (for example, pay a dividend each time a predefined event happens).
I don't get how you can pre-program a contact to pay a percentage of your earnings. Ethereum is very restricted as to what you can program. I don't think you can just write "check stock price of X on CNBC, if X then Y..." Even if you could you would need to prefund it with Ethereum which would make the fund raising aspect kind of pointless.
> In English, this meant Masmej was selling digital tokens under his own name ($ALEX). The token sale would sponsor his entrepreneurial journey. Owners of these tokens will receive certain rights over Masmej's future income and career decisions.
It's just a promise to backers. I can't see how its enforced by a contract. It's no different than just having people send you money via PayPal and you promising to hit them back when you make some money. I guess easier to administer and track woh you promised?
And I don't see how an income sharing agreement is a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is current investors paying out to previous investors. This is just a funding mechanism, selling equity instead of debt
I don't get how you can pre-program a contact to pay a percentage of your earnings. Ethereum is very restricted as to what you can program. I don't think you can just write "check stock price of X on CNBC, if X then Y..." Even if you could you would need to prefund it with Ethereum which would make the fund raising aspect kind of pointless.
> In English, this meant Masmej was selling digital tokens under his own name ($ALEX). The token sale would sponsor his entrepreneurial journey. Owners of these tokens will receive certain rights over Masmej's future income and career decisions.
It's just a promise to backers. I can't see how its enforced by a contract. It's no different than just having people send you money via PayPal and you promising to hit them back when you make some money. I guess easier to administer and track woh you promised?
And I don't see how an income sharing agreement is a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is current investors paying out to previous investors. This is just a funding mechanism, selling equity instead of debt
> I don't get how you can pre-program a contact to pay a percentage of your earnings.
You can't. Any agreement like this would still require a traditional, real-world contract to carry any weight. The contract would specify that the holder of the NFT is entitled to the benefits of the contract. Even in a hypothetical world where everyone gets paid on the Ethereum blockchain, the person could simply open up a second ETH wallet and collect payments there, because crypto wallets aren't people.
The unspoken catch is that these contracts would likely include a provision that the NFT is null and void in the event that it's lost or stolen. People entering into contracts aren't eager to give up their rights to hacks when they can simply add a contractual provision that limits it.
The NFT exists because it's a convenient placeholder to represent something that can be traded with commonly accepted (relatively speaking) tools.
A real-world contract would still be necessary to put any weight behind these NFTs.
You can't. Any agreement like this would still require a traditional, real-world contract to carry any weight. The contract would specify that the holder of the NFT is entitled to the benefits of the contract. Even in a hypothetical world where everyone gets paid on the Ethereum blockchain, the person could simply open up a second ETH wallet and collect payments there, because crypto wallets aren't people.
The unspoken catch is that these contracts would likely include a provision that the NFT is null and void in the event that it's lost or stolen. People entering into contracts aren't eager to give up their rights to hacks when they can simply add a contractual provision that limits it.
The NFT exists because it's a convenient placeholder to represent something that can be traded with commonly accepted (relatively speaking) tools.
A real-world contract would still be necessary to put any weight behind these NFTs.
You’re right, the personal tokens like one the from Alex are simply an IOU based on trust and reputation. Reputation systems are really interesting and can work for some things, but I’m not sure you could sell the equivalents of Bowie bonds on trust alone - and the whole point of smart contracts is that they’re supposed to be trustless.
So I think investing in future gains of a real world entity who can simply start over under a new guise or decide not to pay, without being able to enforce the contract isn’t going to work. But I’m not sure connecting current legal entities/contracts to onchain versions will be the answer either in many cases.
So I think investing in future gains of a real world entity who can simply start over under a new guise or decide not to pay, without being able to enforce the contract isn’t going to work. But I’m not sure connecting current legal entities/contracts to onchain versions will be the answer either in many cases.
>I don't get how you can pre-program a contact to pay a percentage of your earnings.
Sablier[1] is a service that is like payroll management on ethereum. Employers can deposit your monthly wage and it will be streamed to you little by little over the month. If alex had this setup he could 'pre-program' some of these payments to his token holders
[1]https://sablier.finance/
Sablier[1] is a service that is like payroll management on ethereum. Employers can deposit your monthly wage and it will be streamed to you little by little over the month. If alex had this setup he could 'pre-program' some of these payments to his token holders
[1]https://sablier.finance/
theoretically, you could do away with the whole 'i'll pay you a percentage of my earnings' and just trade the tokens. The tokens would appreciate in value as your social standing did. It's a ponzi scheme like all coins are (i have alot of money in crypto) in that you are just looking for price appreciation on the coins before you sell them.
Interestingly, there's nothing particularly novel about investing in a person's early career to reap late-career rewards.
In America, it used to be that parents and employers would invest a lot of money in raising and training young adults, respectively. But more and more, there's less money available to support these programs.
Given this situation, it makes sense that early-career people would have to look elsewhere for people willing and able to invest in them.
In America, it used to be that parents and employers would invest a lot of money in raising and training young adults, respectively. But more and more, there's less money available to support these programs.
Given this situation, it makes sense that early-career people would have to look elsewhere for people willing and able to invest in them.
> there's less money available to support these programs
Incorrect. “Since 1980, college tuition and fees are up 1,200%, while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items has risen by only 236%.” https://www.visualcapitalist.com/rising-cost-of-college-in-u...
Incorrect. “Since 1980, college tuition and fees are up 1,200%, while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items has risen by only 236%.” https://www.visualcapitalist.com/rising-cost-of-college-in-u...
And with the amount of federal and state dollars going into scholarships and loans, it's hard to say with a straight face that society isn't directly funding its most promising youth.
A couple thoughts if we were to "scale" the income-sharing contract concept beyond a novelty:
1. If there is, say, a hundred or even ten possible candidates to pick from, due diligence becomes brutal. Health information, full social media dumps, detailed financial disclosures etc. Also rampant discrimination. If it is unregulated, it's basically what insurance companies would like to be doing but with no limits.
2. If it is for five years and with no big payout at the end, the value of such a contract (via discounted cash flows) is likely pretty low and accordingly would be the funding. Note that LambdaSchool owns the whole "equity" of a person (no splitting into X shares) and gives you a service (at scale) instead of cash, so it probably makes sense for them.
3. It would be fun to see the accounting sorcery possible for shielding and offloading your earnings to other entities, to pay your investors (?)... preferably nothing.
Besides, people, as opposed to companies, are rarely truly profit-maximizing entities. Maybe in the second year your guy decides to be content with a mid-range salary and devote all his time to studying meditation. But hey, theoretically you could try to escape inflation with such a crazy scheme if the interest rates on "real" bonds would stay very low...
1. If there is, say, a hundred or even ten possible candidates to pick from, due diligence becomes brutal. Health information, full social media dumps, detailed financial disclosures etc. Also rampant discrimination. If it is unregulated, it's basically what insurance companies would like to be doing but with no limits.
2. If it is for five years and with no big payout at the end, the value of such a contract (via discounted cash flows) is likely pretty low and accordingly would be the funding. Note that LambdaSchool owns the whole "equity" of a person (no splitting into X shares) and gives you a service (at scale) instead of cash, so it probably makes sense for them.
3. It would be fun to see the accounting sorcery possible for shielding and offloading your earnings to other entities, to pay your investors (?)... preferably nothing.
Besides, people, as opposed to companies, are rarely truly profit-maximizing entities. Maybe in the second year your guy decides to be content with a mid-range salary and devote all his time to studying meditation. But hey, theoretically you could try to escape inflation with such a crazy scheme if the interest rates on "real" bonds would stay very low...
>gives you a service (at scale) instead of cash
Yeah, this sort of payback scheme probably needs a few characteristics to make sense which apply in this case.
- Incremental cost of a student is relatively low. So even if, say, 25% of the class doesn't pan out, they didn't cost you a lot that has to be somehow passed on to the other 75%.
- Likelihood that graduates can get at least a workaday job at a decent salary are pretty decent. This probably wouldn't work for film school.
Yeah, this sort of payback scheme probably needs a few characteristics to make sense which apply in this case.
- Incremental cost of a student is relatively low. So even if, say, 25% of the class doesn't pan out, they didn't cost you a lot that has to be somehow passed on to the other 75%.
- Likelihood that graduates can get at least a workaday job at a decent salary are pretty decent. This probably wouldn't work for film school.
Indeed, due diligence is inherently not scalable. The world of finance has done everything in its power to overcome this constraint—basically all forms of risk pooling—but if nobody actually does the due diligence then you get stuff like NINJA mortgages repackaged into CDOs with AAA ratings on the senior tranche.
is this suppose to be good? this sounds awful. it just reads like finance and tech have eaten literally everything, down to a person's life
I guess there is more "freedom"? but that seems to come at the cost of stability and more winner take all scenarios
like a lot of this stuff isn't new, but the degree to which is seems prevalent reads dystopic
I guess there is more "freedom"? but that seems to come at the cost of stability and more winner take all scenarios
like a lot of this stuff isn't new, but the degree to which is seems prevalent reads dystopic
This is simply an example of an ecomonic/political system creating problems (in this case lack of capital needed to start a career), then creating "solutions" to those problems (debt, commodification of people as investments) that reinforce the system and enrich its key stakeholders.
Yes, when you speak in broad enough generalities then you can make almost any statement unfalsifiable.
The future outlined by these new and exciting investment vehicles is horrifying.
It is but you wonder if the instability of a career is even more horrifying?
It is essentially like a farmer selling futures contracts on their crop. The yield of the crop and market conditions at harvest time are so uncertain that trading upside for stability becomes a smart bet.
So one might think to themselves that they don’t feel certain about their ability to generate income for the next 20 years and sell a claim to their existing and future incomes for a payment today which they can diversify into other investments and tap in the future if things unravel for a period.
Of course the old fashioned way of doing this is putting part of your income into savings. But front loading savings has benefits like having a larger nut to start with and more time to compound.
It is essentially like a farmer selling futures contracts on their crop. The yield of the crop and market conditions at harvest time are so uncertain that trading upside for stability becomes a smart bet.
So one might think to themselves that they don’t feel certain about their ability to generate income for the next 20 years and sell a claim to their existing and future incomes for a payment today which they can diversify into other investments and tap in the future if things unravel for a period.
Of course the old fashioned way of doing this is putting part of your income into savings. But front loading savings has benefits like having a larger nut to start with and more time to compound.
The entire line of thinking just seems to me like it is bending over backwards to avoid just... having income taxes and a social safety net.
I think it’s more like insurance than a social safety net. It’s also private instead of public and therefore by necessity, political, which is undesirable for many people.
And I don’t think it’s in lieu of a social safety net. This would exist to stabilize a lifestyle. A social safety net would still exist for adults that can’t take care of themselves through government funded shelter and food and other things.
I would expect a professional couple with plans of a family wouldn’t be able to (or want to) rely on the whims of government assistance. You’d maybe want to plan a lifestyle and getting up front money could have benefits. Similar to purchasing additional life insurance if you have kids.
And I don’t think it’s in lieu of a social safety net. This would exist to stabilize a lifestyle. A social safety net would still exist for adults that can’t take care of themselves through government funded shelter and food and other things.
I would expect a professional couple with plans of a family wouldn’t be able to (or want to) rely on the whims of government assistance. You’d maybe want to plan a lifestyle and getting up front money could have benefits. Similar to purchasing additional life insurance if you have kids.
To call this a ponzi scheme is pretty disingenious, probably great for views/clicks though.
At the core a ponzi relies on guaranteed return, paid for by other investors.
Just because you might not like or understand how something works, doesn't mean it's a ponzi.
At the core a ponzi relies on guaranteed return, paid for by other investors.
Just because you might not like or understand how something works, doesn't mean it's a ponzi.
I think the author explains perfectly the risk of the future where we see more and more winner takes all scenarios.
But the conclusion seems a bit off. Basic income seems like the only recourse IMO
But the conclusion seems a bit off. Basic income seems like the only recourse IMO
Is it just me, but isn't an Income Share Agreement ... taxes?
Is this just a failure of government to supply the upfront investment in its citizens so that they pay enough tax in ten years?
Is this just a failure of government to supply the upfront investment in its citizens so that they pay enough tax in ten years?
"Is it just me, but isn't an Income Share Agreement ... taxes?"
No. Its profit sharing akin to how companies do so by issuing dividend paying shares.
So far as the government is concerned theyre just looking out for their most important stake holders, wealthy individuals and monied interests, by keeping taxes extremelly low. Universities being underfunded to the point they need to raise tuition to the point where students need to take on crushing debt is a byproduct of that.
No. Its profit sharing akin to how companies do so by issuing dividend paying shares.
So far as the government is concerned theyre just looking out for their most important stake holders, wealthy individuals and monied interests, by keeping taxes extremelly low. Universities being underfunded to the point they need to raise tuition to the point where students need to take on crushing debt is a byproduct of that.
I think we are violently agreeing?
Profit sharing with your citizens is basically government. I think ...
Profit sharing with your citizens is basically government. I think ...
We agree that its wealth redistribution by anyother name. Certainly.
The difference is that taxing is done in the name of public/government interest whereas profit sharing is done in the name of private/individual interest.
The difference is that taxing is done in the name of public/government interest whereas profit sharing is done in the name of private/individual interest.
what i am trying to say is that if a government supplied sufficient upfront investment in education (which is basically what's going on here) then no student would have an incentive to add an additional lieu on their future earnings.
and governments should see education if their citizens as an investment repayable through future taxes
and governments should see education if their citizens as an investment repayable through future taxes
One complicating factor: the repayment on this investment could very well be collected by another government, should said citizen leave.
A similar problem to that of businesses financing education of their current or prospective staff.
A similar problem to that of businesses financing education of their current or prospective staff.
Functionally, sure. Im totally on board with that and think its both practical and noble.
What Im saying is that although taxation and dividend distribution are both wealth redistribution from an individual/entity with capital they are different in wthe underlying reasons for why they are done and who the intended beneficiaries are.
What Im saying is that although taxation and dividend distribution are both wealth redistribution from an individual/entity with capital they are different in wthe underlying reasons for why they are done and who the intended beneficiaries are.
Taxes and government are mandatory profit sharing, these agreements are voluntary. Whether that is good or bad is up for debate.
The only problem I have with a lot of these duscussions is how often "voluntary" includes things done under duress.
You dont "have" to go to college nor get a job nor even have money to stay alive neither.
You dont "have" to be a top performer if it would mean sacrificing your time and well being but God in heaven help you if youre not.
You dont "have" to take out loans to go to med school but if you werent born into money well... tough titty.
You dont "have" to go to college nor get a job nor even have money to stay alive neither.
You dont "have" to be a top performer if it would mean sacrificing your time and well being but God in heaven help you if youre not.
You dont "have" to take out loans to go to med school but if you werent born into money well... tough titty.
$ALEX himself said on this very thread that he had no choice so I fail to see how you can just presume that these kinds of agreements are voluntary.
It's just you.
The definition of taxes is that they are taken by the government.
If you optionally sign a contract for something, it's not taxes.
The definition of taxes is that they are taken by the government.
If you optionally sign a contract for something, it's not taxes.
I'll mention the SF novel "Black oceans" [1] again. It describes a scheme where someone extremely driven and confident of success, but utterly poor, can make a deal with certain shady organizations, which - in case you don't make it and repay them in agreed time - will simply harvest you for (very valuable) organs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charne_oceany
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charne_oceany
I can’t imagine having “shareholders” governing whether I’m allowed eat meat or not, or how much I should be exercising.
You’re reduced to a slave, with many masters instead of one.
No thank you.
You’re reduced to a slave, with many masters instead of one.
No thank you.
They might as well replace the word Ponzi with "thing I don't like" because what they are describing has zero connection to Ponzi schemes
The bit about monetizing one’s influence / social “capital” reminds me of Cory Doctorow’s novel _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_ (which is a great read regardless).
https://craphound.com/down/Cory_Doctorow_-_Down_and_Out_in_t...
https://craphound.com/down/Cory_Doctorow_-_Down_and_Out_in_t...
Bitclout mentioned here steals your keys.
https://twitter.com/_prestwich/status/1379963871792799744 If you used a non unique seed with them, consider it compromised.
It’s hard to say if personal tokens will take off or not, but I’m almost certain many more things will be turned into financial instruments in the future. Almost anything that can have provable (current term is “on-chain”) revenue (future or current) can be “tokenised” and sold, bought and speculated on. Our definitions of employee, employer, nature of work and contracts, our definitions of companies, shares and financial instruments are arbitrary - we are just used to them. They will change.
I can absolutely see a future where people work on (and own pieces) of many projects, revenue share is tied much closer to measurable value creation, and “tokenised” future cash flows in almost anything measurable and enforceable (ie. on-chain activity) have liquid markets from very early on.
I can absolutely see a future where people work on (and own pieces) of many projects, revenue share is tied much closer to measurable value creation, and “tokenised” future cash flows in almost anything measurable and enforceable (ie. on-chain activity) have liquid markets from very early on.
The unstated implication is that these investment vehicles are for suckers, as in any ponzi scheme.
Unlike a ponzi scheme (which is guaranteed to be a loss overall), a ISA token could theoretically work out for all parties involved. The article mentions that lambda school's business model is based off it. The problem is that the market for such tokens is a market for lemons, and the amount of due diligence you have to do to weed out the scammers vastly outweighs whatever risk-adjusted-returns you can get compared to the s&p 500. It's the p2p loan craze all over again.
If you're interested in this concept, you may enjoy the novel "The Unincorporated Man" which is set in a future where everyone (except the protagonist) has personal shares traded on an open market.
It's a bit thick on ideological propaganda of the extreme capitalist/libertarian type, but I found the exploration of the concept fascinating enough to get through most of it.
It's a bit thick on ideological propaganda of the extreme capitalist/libertarian type, but I found the exploration of the concept fascinating enough to get through most of it.
Thank you! I knew I'd read a novel with this premise but could not recall the name.
It launches a decent series with each book having different premises, as well.
Very interesting book to read, highly recommend it!
How do you tackle issues with manipulation? Can’t I get together with my friends and wash trade each other’s tokens?
Yes, wash trading should be assumed to be ubiquitous in the NFT space. It's too cheap and easy to create fake trades of NFTs to trust that transactions are all real.
The tokens described in this article don't necessarily depend on the sale price of the NFT, though. Instead, these NFTs would represent the beneficiary of real-world contracts. Whoever holds the NFT collects the future income of the person, as enforced by a real-world contract.
Of course, nothing stops them from wash trading these NFTs in an attempt to flip them.
The tokens described in this article don't necessarily depend on the sale price of the NFT, though. Instead, these NFTs would represent the beneficiary of real-world contracts. Whoever holds the NFT collects the future income of the person, as enforced by a real-world contract.
Of course, nothing stops them from wash trading these NFTs in an attempt to flip them.
If each individual would be treated like a public company, where others own a small part, it also makes sense for this individual to have a board. A group that protects the interests of both the individual and the investors. If this was true, decisions of the individual would have to pass the board and soon enough the individual would have their own advisors on what to do next: play a game of soccer with friends(injury risk) or go for a walk in the park. It's just fun to imagine a public individual's life.
Related: the idea of income pooling schemes amongst baseball players.
"Income pooling is a concept for up and coming baseball players who would come together and contractually agree to contribute a small portion of their future earnings to the shared group. As their careers progress, even if only one person from that pool “makes it big,” everyone in that pool would receive a certain percentage of the income, thus creating a safety net for the rest of the players, ..." ([Forbes])
"Nobody has to pay a cent until they've made it to the majors and they've made $1.6 million. Then that guy has to kick 10% of his salary back to his pool mates." ([NPR])
[Forbes]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/igorbosilkovski/2020/06/26/meet...
[NPR]:https://www.npr.org/2019/10/25/773532516/some-baseball-playe...
"Income pooling is a concept for up and coming baseball players who would come together and contractually agree to contribute a small portion of their future earnings to the shared group. As their careers progress, even if only one person from that pool “makes it big,” everyone in that pool would receive a certain percentage of the income, thus creating a safety net for the rest of the players, ..." ([Forbes])
"Nobody has to pay a cent until they've made it to the majors and they've made $1.6 million. Then that guy has to kick 10% of his salary back to his pool mates." ([NPR])
[Forbes]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/igorbosilkovski/2020/06/26/meet...
[NPR]:https://www.npr.org/2019/10/25/773532516/some-baseball-playe...
> For example, if Elon Musk succeeds in landing the first person on Mars, his coin price should theoretically go up. And if, in contrast, he makes a racial slur during a press conference, his coin price should theoretically go down.
That sounds a lot like social credit system? I can't imagine a future where a small fraction of people not related to you can decide what you should do, even if they are not the government.
That sounds a lot like social credit system? I can't imagine a future where a small fraction of people not related to you can decide what you should do, even if they are not the government.
Oof, I can’t take anything this author says seriously after his mention of Quibi in one of these articles. It didn’t lose to TikTok due to algorithms and luck, it lost because no one was interested in the content. The founders will blame that on covid, but I think they’re wrong. No one would have wanted it pre-pandemic either.
I can foresee a nation-state utilizing these as a citizen credit score, and utilizing them to control behavior.
The nicest thing I've ever been told came from my best friend, telling me he'd buy stocks in "me" if it were possible. It wouldn't have been a particularly good investment, but I guess he was on to something with that concept!
Each of these articles need to be treated with a degree of scepticism: in order to have a functioning market for any of these things - whether an NFT, a share of future earnings, or ‘BitClout’ - you need people who are willing to buy into the ecosystem.
If there are not a steady stream of new entrants with new money coming to the market, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. And you will eventually run out of people. Anyone seriously looking into BitClout should look into the recent story of FootballIndex in the UK.
The Ponzi analogy is quite apt, and buyers into Ponzi schemes typically do not do well out of it.
If there are not a steady stream of new entrants with new money coming to the market, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. And you will eventually run out of people. Anyone seriously looking into BitClout should look into the recent story of FootballIndex in the UK.
The Ponzi analogy is quite apt, and buyers into Ponzi schemes typically do not do well out of it.
I enjoyed this article, and had never heard of Bowie Bonds! But isn't the sharing of risk in exchange for value just the concept of a full time job in any country with labour laws?
I work for a large multinational in a country other than America. I put up with additional bureaucracy compared to the life of a freelancer/contractor because I know that A) The company has a high chance of existing in 12 months B) I won't be fired without cause. In exchange the company is provided value in excess of my wage, training and other overhead costs. How is this different?
I work for a large multinational in a country other than America. I put up with additional bureaucracy compared to the life of a freelancer/contractor because I know that A) The company has a high chance of existing in 12 months B) I won't be fired without cause. In exchange the company is provided value in excess of my wage, training and other overhead costs. How is this different?
> these [blockchain issued] tokens are not simply "certificates of ownership"; they can be pre-programmed to behave in a certain way (for example, pay a dividend each time a predefined event happens)
For this to happen the blockchain gotta have a way to sync with events in the physical world. Moreover, all active blockchain nodes should have equal access to this data and get equal result at given time. This mechanism cannot be enforced by blockchain itself, so we are back to the issue of trust.
For this to happen the blockchain gotta have a way to sync with events in the physical world. Moreover, all active blockchain nodes should have equal access to this data and get equal result at given time. This mechanism cannot be enforced by blockchain itself, so we are back to the issue of trust.
[deleted]
I am curious whether it is easier for a startup looking to get into this space to do their ISAs via traditional contracts or Ethereum.
Traditional contracts are required either way. Anything on the blockchain would still require a traditional real-world contract to back it up.
For ISAs, there isn't really any reason to put it on the blockchain unless the company is trying to sell it. Even then, the NFT on the blockchain would only be representative of the ownership, which still depends on the real-world contract. The contract would likely have provisions that the NFT is null and void if lost or stolen, as no reasonable company would voluntarily give up protections for their assets.
For ISAs, there isn't really any reason to put it on the blockchain unless the company is trying to sell it. Even then, the NFT on the blockchain would only be representative of the ownership, which still depends on the real-world contract. The contract would likely have provisions that the NFT is null and void if lost or stolen, as no reasonable company would voluntarily give up protections for their assets.
The bit about monetizing one’s influence / reputation reminds me of Cory Doctorow’s novel _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_.
https://craphound.com/down/Cory_Doctorow_-_Down_and_Out_in_t...
https://craphound.com/down/Cory_Doctorow_-_Down_and_Out_in_t...
> For example, if Elon Musk succeeds in landing the first person on Mars, his coin price should theoretically go up. And if, in contrast, he makes a racial slur during a press conference, his coin price should theoretically go down.
Yes, and when people are making emotional/ideological financial decisions, I’ll buy the dip.
Yes, and when people are making emotional/ideological financial decisions, I’ll buy the dip.
Investors may use entrapment to cause people to make foolish decisions in order to buy the dip.
This is fine and dandy in a 10 year bull market, but I don't think this is the solution for most folks. When the market turns south, money will fly to safety, and then slowly expand over the following years. It's not going to be safe to invest in stranger's careers during a downturn.
US culture is already too self-absorbed focusing more on style than substance. Selling personal tokens to fund one's career trajectory will only create more extreme narcissism akin to unqualified/incompetent people running for office.
This basically happens already. The only way to get promoted is to make your boss look good. Basically pushing value up the pyramid, where people get paid more and "produce" intangible value (which of course is more prone to bias and promotion based on percieved contribution).
I've run into that with doctors now and again.
You'll meet a younger doctor who complains heavily about student debt and how impossible life in the US is. I'll offer to write a check for the debt in return for a negotiated percentage of their income from now on. Silence ensues.
You'll meet a younger doctor who complains heavily about student debt and how impossible life in the US is. I'll offer to write a check for the debt in return for a negotiated percentage of their income from now on. Silence ensues.
> I'll offer to write a check for the debt in return for a negotiated percentage of their income from now on. Silence ensues.
Writing someone a check in exchange for their future earnings "from now on" is a terrible deal. You're essentially offering a loan that can never be paid back, yet requires payments forever.
Loans are a good deal because the terms are known ahead of time, payments end when the principle is paid off, and the cost can be calculated.
The idea behind ISAs is that they try to align the interests of the student and the educator, as the educator only gets paid proportionally to the students' future earnings. ISAs also have limits on how long they can collect from the student and thresholds that have to be met for collection criteria, as well as an upper limit on payments.
What you're describing is just facetious and condescending to those with six-figure medical debt.
Writing someone a check in exchange for their future earnings "from now on" is a terrible deal. You're essentially offering a loan that can never be paid back, yet requires payments forever.
Loans are a good deal because the terms are known ahead of time, payments end when the principle is paid off, and the cost can be calculated.
The idea behind ISAs is that they try to align the interests of the student and the educator, as the educator only gets paid proportionally to the students' future earnings. ISAs also have limits on how long they can collect from the student and thresholds that have to be met for collection criteria, as well as an upper limit on payments.
What you're describing is just facetious and condescending to those with six-figure medical debt.
> What you're describing is just facetious and condescending to those with six-figure medical debt.
The point is that medical debt is a very good deal for the reasons you point out and because the doctor cartel in the US has forced prices up to dizzying heights.
Yet people bitching and moaning about having borrowed $300k at reasonable interest rates for the right to earn many millions with almost no risk (when was the last time you met an involuntarily unemployed doctor?) don’t acknowledge that.
The point is that medical debt is a very good deal for the reasons you point out and because the doctor cartel in the US has forced prices up to dizzying heights.
Yet people bitching and moaning about having borrowed $300k at reasonable interest rates for the right to earn many millions with almost no risk (when was the last time you met an involuntarily unemployed doctor?) don’t acknowledge that.
FWIW, garden-variety West Coast ER doc here. Right now, I'm an independent contractor who makes ~$200/h. In a few months when my small company gets acquired, I'll be a W-2 who for various reasons will make ~$160/h before CA taxes.
So, clearly not starving, and maybe even undeserving to be in the top 10--15% after working just ~24--36h/wk in night shifts. But won't make $$MILLIONS$$ and won't get as much as your average Googler with equivalent career experience to mine, I reckon. And also never made more than ~$50k in my life until my mid-30s.
Doctor pay is facing a whole lot of downward pressure from health insurers, private equity, and other FIRE people recently. Part of the C-suites' strategy has been to open self-funded residencies where they pay their residents much less than they would have to pay the equivalent lifelong salaried PA. This, then, creates an "oversupply" (from docs' perspective) of trained docs and forces pay down.
Personally I have no sentiment for the profession and do see how this could ultimately be good for patients. Unfortunately, in reality the FIRE people seem to just take all that cash for themselves and the patient is left paying the same amount or more than they did 20 years ago (via insurance or whatever you want to call it).
So, clearly not starving, and maybe even undeserving to be in the top 10--15% after working just ~24--36h/wk in night shifts. But won't make $$MILLIONS$$ and won't get as much as your average Googler with equivalent career experience to mine, I reckon. And also never made more than ~$50k in my life until my mid-30s.
Doctor pay is facing a whole lot of downward pressure from health insurers, private equity, and other FIRE people recently. Part of the C-suites' strategy has been to open self-funded residencies where they pay their residents much less than they would have to pay the equivalent lifelong salaried PA. This, then, creates an "oversupply" (from docs' perspective) of trained docs and forces pay down.
Personally I have no sentiment for the profession and do see how this could ultimately be good for patients. Unfortunately, in reality the FIRE people seem to just take all that cash for themselves and the patient is left paying the same amount or more than they did 20 years ago (via insurance or whatever you want to call it).
If I’m understanding the situation correctly you’ll be in the 97% percentile of individual income while working on average 30 hours a week. You also can pick up and move anywhere in the country and be pretty confident of finding a comparably paying job. As mentioned, involuntary unemployment is all but unheard of in your profession. Within the hospital you’re near the top of the pecking order. Outside work your profession is well respected and rarely is the subject of hit pieces in prestige media.
I’m not saying it’s the best set up in the world, but it’s pretty good. Certainly a lot of people would consider it worth the financial costs of admission. (The hazing parts of medical training are unnecessary and unfortunate, different people are going to suffer more or less from that.)
Edit: Everyone is entitled to blow off steam. Nothing is perfect and there’s always going to be downsides to every profession. It just seems like complaining doctors is something of a cliche but I’ve yet to have one convince me that’s it’s not a pretty sweet gig, loans and medmal notwithstanding.
I’m not saying it’s the best set up in the world, but it’s pretty good. Certainly a lot of people would consider it worth the financial costs of admission. (The hazing parts of medical training are unnecessary and unfortunate, different people are going to suffer more or less from that.)
Edit: Everyone is entitled to blow off steam. Nothing is perfect and there’s always going to be downsides to every profession. It just seems like complaining doctors is something of a cliche but I’ve yet to have one convince me that’s it’s not a pretty sweet gig, loans and medmal notwithstanding.
Not complaining, just giving y'all some interesting and updated information about my profession's economic situation and wondering why at least the patient end of the deal isn't getting any better. I'm pretty happy with my lot in life.
May be 97% by hourly pay but that implies I can work as many hours as I'd like. But I effectively already work all the hours I can work for various reasons, making my family 80--90th percentile.
Unfortunately, due to the physician oversupply and other forces I described, it's getting very hard to find random doctor jobs anywhere in the country. Just another interesting thing about medicine that is changing.
May be 97% by hourly pay but that implies I can work as many hours as I'd like. But I effectively already work all the hours I can work for various reasons, making my family 80--90th percentile.
Unfortunately, due to the physician oversupply and other forces I described, it's getting very hard to find random doctor jobs anywhere in the country. Just another interesting thing about medicine that is changing.
"You're essentially offering a loan that can never be paid back, yet requires payments forever."
A better analogy would be taking part ownership of a man's livelihood and expecting him to pay dividends like a stock.
If he tied his career to an LLC this would make sense oterwise he's literally selling himself.
A better analogy would be taking part ownership of a man's livelihood and expecting him to pay dividends like a stock.
If he tied his career to an LLC this would make sense oterwise he's literally selling himself.
There is such a thing as a perpetual (consol) bond although it's rare. What happens is that, over time, inflation erodes the real value of the payments. (And at that point, it looks a lot like equity with a contractually fixed dividend payout. Debt and equity can look a lot like each other.)
And, if this is a lifetime thing, this is just a form of annuity which are fairly common. (Give someone $X and they promise to pay you $Y annually for your lifetime (or other term)). There are also annuities that track the value of some investment pool like an endowment.
And, if this is a lifetime thing, this is just a form of annuity which are fairly common. (Give someone $X and they promise to pay you $Y annually for your lifetime (or other term)). There are also annuities that track the value of some investment pool like an endowment.
A doctor's salary is unlikely to be eroded by inflation.
Annuities often underperform inflation, and life annuities are typically offered by insurance companies with risk pooled assets, not by a single individual.
Annuities often underperform inflation, and life annuities are typically offered by insurance companies with risk pooled assets, not by a single individual.
Please provide the full terms before you imply the young doctor was being unreasonable. The silence was probably because you were offering an awful predatory loan, not that you were delivering the ultimate gotcha zinger.
That's probably because the deal you're offering them is objectively worse than their current deal.
Haha I love this.
If we think about it in terms of pure game play, medicine is a part of the game where the strategy is to take on a massive amount of debt, high risk and uncertainty for incredible returns.
If we think about it in terms of pure game play, medicine is a part of the game where the strategy is to take on a massive amount of debt, high risk and uncertainty for incredible returns.
I'm not sure I like the investment analogy for ones career since you have to actually put the work in to get the pay. Your time, effort and talent are at least as much of a contributor as the medical school tuition. Perhaps a name brand school gives you a significant bump in earning potential on the margins but "incredible returns" still feels reductive of what is essentially a very hard and traditional career path.
I heard a (probably invented) story that one year the Harvard Business School commencement speech basically boiled down to "you can earn an upper-middle class income for the rest of your life without ever working as hard as you did to get in to this programme".
> medicine is a part of the game where the strategy is to take on a massive amount of debt, high risk and uncertainty for incredible returns.
Not really. It's exceedingly rare for someone to complete medical school and then not be able to find a relatively high-paying job if they want one.
The risk would be something like later deciding not to pursue a career in medicine, but that's a personal decision rather than an external risk.
Not really. It's exceedingly rare for someone to complete medical school and then not be able to find a relatively high-paying job if they want one.
The risk would be something like later deciding not to pursue a career in medicine, but that's a personal decision rather than an external risk.
Illness and accident can end anyone's career any time.
That's why you need to purchase a half dozen doctors.
The article is very interesting but it implies this will be mainstream. It won't or at least not likely to. I bet the examples in the articles are just about the only options out there (at least as far as the education goes). And for a good reason.
I'm surprised it didn't mention the more extreme case of Mike Merrill https://www.wired.com/2013/03/ipo-man/
I was surprised as well. He’s been doing this for a while. I remember buying shares in him a few years back.
Lambda school seems like an example of perfectly aligned incentives.
I wouldn't mind if private higher and trade education was required to only take in money through such setup.
And if people deem less practical education necessary it should be funded from taxes only.
I wouldn't mind if private higher and trade education was required to only take in money through such setup.
And if people deem less practical education necessary it should be funded from taxes only.
The European system with higher income tax and heavily subsidised universities practically has the same result. Anyone (that is a permanent resident) can go to a top school, but you're paying it back the 40 years after with 50%+ income tax if you get a good job.
Not really, because universities don't care if what the teach is useful in the job market because they get money from tax either way.
But just having any MSc / MA is greatly helping job market prospects, because every degree includes at the very least an understanding of scientific methods and statistics, and should have given you some critical thinking skills. For a lot of jobs having some kind of degree is a generic requirement without specifying in which field.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Major complaint about paid US higher education is that for a lot of fields and universities what you get from them in the job market is less than tuition, often it's pretty much nothing. Not to mentioned yearsbof your life you've put into it.
I think it's absolutely wonderful idea to align interests of educational institution with your value in the job market after you finish it.
Major complaint about paid US higher education is that for a lot of fields and universities what you get from them in the job market is less than tuition, often it's pretty much nothing. Not to mentioned yearsbof your life you've put into it.
I think it's absolutely wonderful idea to align interests of educational institution with your value in the job market after you finish it.
I very vaguely recall the Bowie Bond issue being reported somewhere but confess to promptly forgetting it. Would have been interesting to have followed it in real time. It appears to have quickly lost news-worthyness.
The future is like that a lot.
The future is like that a lot.
Apparently there'll be Student Coin lauching soon. From what I understand it is supposed to be a platform built by students on ethereum that promises to make settingu up such personal IPOs super easy...
Thanks for this, it was an excellent read and these celebrity coins I personally was not aware of and that’s an interesting use case I never thought of.
This future sounds complicated. Is there a way to short complexity? Cash under the mattress?
This is a very good article.
Explains how people are selling ECR20 tokens with special rights to income from just one person. Also the right to message them. i.e. a fan can buy a token of a "celebrity" and get special inbox rights. But also upside if that person goes on to become very successful.
instead of a pyramid scheme i like to think of it as an inverted funnel
Can socialism be thought of as this "investment into each other" taken to the extreme? Where we put all our investment into each other, believing the future output of anyone is a net gain?
what a hideous vision.
>ponzi
It's become increasingly common to see the word "ponzi" applied to what is just really a "speculative investment".
Its a shame this is continually being done, because its a real destruction of language meaning. A "ponzi scheme" is an intentional act to defraud...using a portion of investor funds to pay other investors in hopes of attracting more and more investors. The conman then times his exit appropriately once some critical mass of investors rush in.
A risky or speculative investment is just that. There is no intent to defraud. The continual lazy use of "ponzi" does lots of harm since it unfairly implies 'an intentional act to defraud'.
It's become increasingly common to see the word "ponzi" applied to what is just really a "speculative investment".
Its a shame this is continually being done, because its a real destruction of language meaning. A "ponzi scheme" is an intentional act to defraud...using a portion of investor funds to pay other investors in hopes of attracting more and more investors. The conman then times his exit appropriately once some critical mass of investors rush in.
A risky or speculative investment is just that. There is no intent to defraud. The continual lazy use of "ponzi" does lots of harm since it unfairly implies 'an intentional act to defraud'.
Personally, I want no part of it, but I think it might work well for people who are not me.
I've always been "on my own." My life really is a series of watersheds, where I've been the only person to believe in me, before the event, and a whole bunch of folks seemed to believe in me, after the fact. Not a particularly good setup for selling "Chris-Tokens™."
Not a bad thing, in the long run. It hurt like hell, the first few times, but I realized that I don't have the personal skills to "sell" myself (like being able to spew jargon, sound like I'm TED-talking all the time, or beat LeetCode tests), so I can't blame folks for not wanting to "invest" in me. It is what it is. I come across as a socially-awkward dork, so people don't take me seriously. I'm actually fairly good at what I do, but If I mention that, it comes across as "arrogant," despite the enormous ocean of hubris that pretty much defines today's tech scene. I don't really have the skill to "humble-brag."
It taught me to live a conservative lifestyle, be Honest and Honorable, do top-shelf work, bust my ass, and not expect much from others.
I couldn't rely on anyone else to clean up my messes, or get me out of jackpots. It has taught me to learn what I have needed to learn, despite active roadblocks being tossed out by "gatekeepers," and it also prevented me from getting mixed up with some truly awful disasters; both personal, and business.