pull down to refresh
42 sats \ 10 replies \ @elvismercury OP 27 Feb \ parent \ on: The big idea: Charge $1 to apply to a job (hear me out) econ
Makes me think of SN a little differently, something like: an honest general marketplace. The current SN is an honest marketplace of ideas, or at least, it has the tools to support evolution in that direction. But you could do a two-sided one for jobs and job-seekers, too.
Once you have something money-like, you have the possibility for reputation. (And, I suppose, vice-versa.)
reply
You might not have. I expressed it poorly, but:
Reputation -> money: if you are known to work hard, be honest, and do a good job, you'll have a good reputation and can leverage it to make money.
Money -> reputation: the getting of money confers a reputation, based on the nearly subconscious idea that people get money when they're of service to others, when "of service" is distributed across the entire universe of human interaction. It's highly but not completely untrue. Probably the more relevant one is that reputation accrues from power, and power and money are much more tightly inter-related.
reply
I'll admit that direction
reputation->money can work. But its not a given. I know many high reputation plebs. Its not always possible to profit from it nor is it required.I have severe issues with the reverse. You don't trade in reputation. Its not for sale or barter. Even though every politician does this and nowadays nearly the whole corporate world tries with their tit for tat LinkedIn recommendations.
Rich or poor, you can still be fucking awesome and worth my time.
reply
Careful not to overextend the message. People can be amazing or shitty regardless of money, even regardless of reputation. But both are signals worth attending to, so long as you're aware of the nature of those signals, their generative story, and where they can mislead.
The bidrectional connection between money and speech -- and speech and transaction -- is very useful to contextualize this. Here is one of my favorite narratives on the topic.
reply
reply
The original statement is about the tie between money and reputation. In the pure state, when things are working cleanly, money is analogous to a type of reputation: it's the score for how much service your actions have rendered to the world, in aggregate. If you read Mises, that's what you will take away.
If you're a mostly sane person living in actual reality who is not totally deluded by some kind of ideological bagholding, you will also recognize many ways in which this formulation goes obviously wrong, at least for any semantics meaningful for normal life. But that doesn't mean there's no signal in it.
reply