23 ms·

Not being an asshole will make you more money

397 points by dumbfoundded 7y ago

jariel 7y ago
I don't see any evidence to support the assertion unfortunately :) Also, the huge difference between emotional/perceptive aggression, and actual aggression. There are loud, crude people who like to push for a fair deal, or who are not aggressive terms. There are 'nice', cunning manipulative people who seek excessive terms. There are actually truly nice people, who push for assertive terms, not realising how far they are going. And of course, there's mostly tons of misinterpretations: people who have totally different needs, perspective, expectations with respect to how to go about a situation. A founder seeing aggression might actually be an investor taking a perfectly normative demand. But yes, I've seen utter stupidity in deal making. Relationships do matter, and you need a working agreement with whoever you're working with, investors included.
- seventytwo 7y ago
  I think you’re missing the point. Make “rising tide lifts all boats” deals. Here, you’re entering in a deal to create additional value to the world. Don’t make deals with a zero-sum outlook. Here, you’re entering into a deal for, at best, a transfer of existing value within the world.
  - munificent 7y ago
    That is the point of the article, yes. But it doesn't offer evidence that that is a financially better strategy. It is self-evidently morally better, of course. And it may be financially better too. But the article just flatly claims it in a number of single-sentence paragraphs without communicating any real data.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    From The Godfather Part II: "Hyman Roth always makes money for his partners. One by one, our old friends are gone. Death, natural or not, prison, deported. Hyman Roth is the only one left, because he always made money for his partners."
- eloisant 7y ago
  Indeed: "So many people are straight assholes in business. Especially the more you climb the ladder." This sentence alone contradicts the title...
  - dumbfoundded 7y ago
    Not necessarily, but good point. I think many people become assholes once they get anywhere to protect what they have. The risk equation flips once you've "made it". People optimize for minimizing loss rather than maximizing for expected value. If you're going for maximizing ev, I believe my thoughts hold true.
seanhunter 7y ago
I have an example. In a previous role was in a position where we were negotiating a large-ish (>1M USD) multi-year contract when our client asked us to also do a proof of concept about some topic. It was just 1 week or 2 weeks so I said it would be free but because of various regulatory stuff we needed a contract in place. I was dealing with the same purchasing lawyer on both contracts. The process was super-standard: someone sends a first draft, the other side redlines (proposes changes and makes comments), then the first team redline, etc, at some point you all compromise a bit and someone makes a clean copy of the document containing all the agreed changes for everyone to sign. So we got to the point we had all agreed and the purchasing lawyer on the other side produced the "clean copy" but he obviously thought we were a bunch of rubes so he produced a clean copy for us to sign by backing out all of our changes and only putting in his changes. This is a ridiculously low-integrity bush-league stunt and he did it on the zero-cost POC contract while we were still negotiating the >1m big contract. Some people just want to win so bad it doesn't even matter to them that they are being total assholes, the prize is zero and it's outright harmful to their own interests. I bet he cheats when playing his own kids at boardgames.
- azinman2 7y ago
  Are you sure it wasn’t a genuine mistake?
  - seanhunter 7y ago
    He did a few things when he did it which made it clear it wasn't a mistake. He had to sort of go out of his way to do it.
  - Nrbelex 7y ago
    And if you're sure, did you report this to the relevant disciplinary body?
    - jandrese 7y ago
      What, the bar association? Sleezy as this is you wouldn't be able to show damages since you didn't sign the contract. The other lawyer can claim error and the burden of proof would be on you. If you did accept, then you have a lengthy court battle ahead where a jury could very well rule "abide by the contract you signed you reneging moocher." The real world isn't a school playground. Calling a teacher over is time consuming and expensive and far from a guarantee of justice. It is up to you to keep yourself safe from assholes like this by always doing your due diligence. Someone who pulls this kind of shit constantly will eventually lose their license, but many years down the road and after many victims.
jacquesm 7y ago
Most of the billionaires are assholes and/or criminals with a couple of noteworthy exceptions. So maybe not being an asshole will get you ahead in the middle but it won't get you all the way to the top of the foodchain. So this is solid advice, but unfortunately the role models are exactly those people that didn't follow this sort of advice. Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Apple, Google and Facebook all would not have been as large and would not generate as much money for their founders if the founders had been nice guys. Fortunately we also have Woz and a couple of others like him to balance things out a bit.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That's what bothers me about all the adoration "billionaires" are getting lately. These guys got where they are by taking advantage of whatever they could, not by being generous or nice.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    It's not even that - people venerate the results of luck. For every "self-made" billionaire, there's untold legions of people who had nearly the extra same formula, but were just a little off. Sure, a lot of them worked hard and had good ideas, but so do tons of people. Somehow it's more acceptable to think these people earned their success more than a simple lottery winner, whose long hours and hard work at their janitorial job gave them enough free cash to buy a ticket.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      I think it’s also wrong to attribute everything to luck. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Zuckerberg or Gates are certainly very capable people who would have done well under most circumstances. But they were also lucky to be at the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        I would say it leans HEAVILY towards luck. Given their background and abilities, they certainly would have done well regardless, we have to remember that "done well" can be measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. To increase that by another 4 orders of magnitude isn't going to be simply due to being capable.
danaw 7y ago
Ok no i
koheripbal 7y ago
The major flaw in this article is that it does not defined what constitutes "asshole" behavior. There is a difference, for example, between being vindictive towards others, and simply pushing people out of their comfort zone. The term "asshole" is so vague that it borders on useless.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  Even if you could come up with a good definition, it would still be a silly assertion. He’s wrong: not being an asshole won’t make you more money. Being an asshole will also not make you more money. How nice or not nice you are to other people is almost entirely unrelated to how much money you make.
  - illumanaughty 7y ago
    It's not a silly assertion, it's just that you've taken silly things away from this article. He's asserting that if you're too self interested / lack empathy you will hurt yourself in the long run.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      It's ludicrous, not just silly. People are talking here like this is a study that can be verified. It is a random person ranting and completely subjective.
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      You just re-defined asshole in a way that suits your argument. The article doesn't define it that way.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Only if you can avoid subsequent deals with the same counterparties.
  - eloff 7y ago
    I suggest you look up game theory. Not being an asshole is actually the winning strategy over the long term.
miguelmota 7y ago
The term asshole is very subjective; some people will perceive being candid and telling it how it is as being mean while others love the straightforwardness. Bosses have to put emotions aside to think more logically and that comes off as unsympathetic when talking to employees or partners. Steve Jobs was known to not have been the nicest guy yet he’s praised all the time.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  You're talking about being nice, not being an asshole. Assholes are people who come in and shit all over everything instead of trying to play fair. People who are not nice can be fair. Take as an analogy the difference between social class and economic class, and how people can have a social class that's different from their economic class.
  - miguelmota 7y ago
    Being apathetic and selfish are some attributes that both assholes and top billionaires exhibit. I'd say it’s not so black and white and people will perceive what being nice means to them differently depending on their social economic status since people of lower economic status tend to be more susceptible to emotions than a business person.
    - jschwartzi 7y ago
      Yeah, I was trying to use social and economic class as a metaphor for asshole versus not-nice. Because it's easy to conflate the two in both cases.
papito 7y ago
The most common difference between us peasants and the people of means is that those other people ASK more often. Ask for more money, ask for a bonus, ask for lower rent. And then it adds up. The one thing that holds most of us back is shame. But shame is a good thing in general. It's the glue that keeps societies together, preventing them from spiraling down to the lowest common denominator. Questionable if this still works nowadays. But, anyway, the trick is to uncork some of that shame is small doses and be a little bit selfish every once in a while.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I often ask people who are complaining about their salary whether have asked for a raise. Most of the time the answer is “no” followed by reasons like “I am afraid to get fired” or “they will make my life miserable” or “they should just do the right thing”.
  - papito 7y ago
    Exactly. 9 out of 10 managers will give you more money. They are not going to offer it to you, normally, because they are not a charity. They want to give you the least amount of money that you will except. Secondly, who ever gets fired for asking for a raise? I mean, that is not normal. And if that does happen to you, it's most likely of some other underlying factors, where asking for a raise is just the last drop.
    - bradlys 7y ago
      > Exactly. 9 out of 10 managers will give you more money. I don't know - man. I've worked at a lot of places and this doesn't seem to be a common thing. It could be I've just worked at a lot of bad places but still. Asking for more isn't enough. It has to be the threat of leaving in order to get them to give more. At which point - the advice now for managers is, if they're threatening to leave unless you pay more then just let them leave.
      - tunesmith 7y ago
asjw 7y ago
Just like Madoff or Trump or Weinstein
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  Being in jail doesn't sound profitable. Robbing a bank makes rich for a second too. As for Trump, he probably should've put his daddy's money in the S&P.
  - chinesempire 7y ago
    I think we can agree that billionaires main trait is not being nice Putin is worth 200 billions...
    - dumbfoundded 7y ago
      I'm almost certain that Putin makes tons of money for those immediately around him and as soon as he stops, he'll be replaced. That's generally how dictatorships work.
      - chinesempire 7y ago
        The money doesn't disappear though and I'm sure the Bush family is still doing well
        dumbfoundded 7y ago
        I've heard that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. That doesn't mean you should be irrational though. Or if you do, understand that it's a short play. Rationality generally wins.
        chinesempire 7y ago
        An assholes can be completely rational, become incredibly rich and still be an asshole. It doesn't mean being an asshole it's the best strategy to become rich, it isn't enough to become one and generally I think being good decent human beings is much better for society and for themselves, but the numbers shows that very rich people are usually not among the best people in this world.
projektfu 7y ago
Some examples of the term sheets would have been nice. But it's so true that people are often wasting your time trying to secure a win for themselves only. It makes me think about good recruiters and bad recruiters. The good ones want to find a great fit for the position and have a reputation for getting good salaries for the people they place. The bad ones want to undercut the other recruiters and try to convince the candidate to accept a lousy offer. I'm sure the candidates are perfectly able to do that themselves.
minikites 7y ago
Becoming a billionaire requires you to be an asshole by definition because the only way to accumulate and retain that (frankly incomprehensible) amount of money is through the exploitation of your employees and the surplus value of their labor at a tremendous scale.
tlb 7y ago
Don't respond to emails from random people trying to buy your business. They're all scammy. If you respond to these, or offers to re-fi your house, or help someone move their royal fortune out of Nigeria, you're indeed going to be dealing with assholes. If you want to sell your business, take charge and run a competitive bidding process. But ignore unsolicited offers.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  It's tough when someone in your industry with a big name reaches out but in general, you're right. Very rarely do people come to you with good intentions. You generally have to seek out good people.
draw_down 7y ago
Who decides who is an asshole? Makes all the difference.
circlefavshape 7y ago
Reputation information doesn't always flow freely. After agreeing the purchase of the site for the house I'm now sitting in, the sellers changed their asking price, tried to pull out of the sale after we got planning permission, accused us of swindling them, and the night before we fenced the property moved the boundary markers. When it was all done and dusted one of our neighbours said "it's great to see someone getting the better of $FAMILY_X". Seems like we weren't entitled to access to their reputations until we'd started to build the house, and became true locals
gigatexal 7y ago
But, but ... nice guys (and girls) finish last - or so the saying goes. It’s been my experience that the belligerent and those that take charge and those that are just the loudest garner more attention and cash. That’s not me though.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Of course it won't. Otherwise the advertising industry wouldn't exist. More than that. In general, the market rewards being asshole and borderline fraudster. Reputation is a thing within smaller groups, but what matters is primarily reputation related to your behavior towards your peers in that group. And if your peer group is composed of assholes, then being an asshole is a positive trait as long as you're not an asshole towards members of that group. Another thing: when you're a no-name upstart, reputation matters little because nobody knows you. When you're a large, successful business, any bad reputation can be compensated by proportionate spending on PR and advertising. Yet another thing: in B2C, consumers often don't have a meaningful choice. An individual is juggling a lot of different priorities in their lives, not least of which is "saving money" and "buying stuff one likes". So e.g. Coca-Cola does a pretty lot of evil stuff, but people have strong taste preferences in the product category Coca-Cola sells, so nobody really boycotts them. Or, pretty much every major brand of smartphones is doing evil things, and every major telco provider is filled with assholes - yet as a citizen of the western world, I really do need to have a smartphone. So I have to choose someone. Or, a grocery store next to the place I used to live would wash stale meat with detergent and sell as fresh. This lands straight into asshole category, but I still went there, because a) it was the closest store, and b) I have no guarantee other stores don't do the same (and plenty of reasons to suspect they do). And yet another thing: taking VC investments; when investors come knocking for their returns, plenty of startups are forced to become assholes. -- TL;DR: The market rewards assholes. If you're not an asshole, your competitors will force you to either become one, or get marginalized. There's an excellent essay that goes into details about the mechanics of that: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Was Food Lion the meat bleacher?
ta1234567890 7y ago
A few years ago I started a company, then raised money through convertible notes. By the time the notes were due (2 years), we weren't ready to raise a round yet, so all investors extended their notes. All except one. The investor that didn't want to extend the note was also the CEO of the company that was our largest client, so not only did he call his note, he also ended his company's contract, making a huge hole in our revenue. After doing that, and knowing that the company would be struggling financially, he sued, forcing the company into bankruptcy. From the beginning we tried negotiating a payment plan or some other form of compensation, to no avail. Although at some point he did "offer" to completely take over the company and fire the founders (which we of course refused). During bankruptcy, he took over the assets of the company while also giving us and the trustee a hard time. Now, after having ruined the jobs of everyone that worked at our company plus the potential upside of all the other investors and shareholders, he is suing me and my cofounder personally. The company closed 2 years ago and it looks like this new lawsuit will take another 2 years. Also no one knows if this guy is going to stop at that. Be very careful about doing business with assholes, especially if they have a lot of money and you will be taking any type of potential liability (e.g. debt) in their favor, even if it's not personal liability, they might still try to go after you and make your life miserable.
- swsieber 7y ago
  Is it possible for you to name said investor such that people know to stay away from said investor?
  - volkk 7y ago
    i'm going to guess that giving his name out in a public forum combined with the contextual knowledge we now have will make it very obvious who OP is. and then its possible for that asshole investor to further sue him for slander or whatever else
  - ta1234567890 7y ago
    As user volkk said, unfortunately it would be legally risky for me to disclose the identity of the investor. Which is pretty frustrating, because then you realize that when someone does something bad to you (legally/morally), there are very few (legal) ways to remedy it, especially if they have a lot more money than you. I can say that he's not based in the Bay Area, so if you are raising money there it is very unlikely you will run into him. I can also say that our best investors were RightSide Capital, based out of SF. They supported us throughout the whole ordeal with the company and even offered to buy out the other guy. They also said that, out of 600+ investments they had done at the time, they had never seen another investor act the way ours did.
potta_coffee 7y ago
This is a decent article. I generally agree with the sentiments presented, but I disagree with the font-choice, which I found difficult to read.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  I appreciate the feedback. Any recommendations for something legible?
  - potta_coffee 7y ago
    The font is really thin, even when I zoom it's difficult to read. A thicker sans font would be easier to read. The one you're using looks nice visually, it's just hard to see.
mikekij 7y ago
I totally agree. A business school professor of mine, Stuart Diamond, wrote a book called Getting More about using these ideas in negotiation. His theory is that you should always be leaving money on the table. If you're not, you're playing the short game. https://www.amazon.com/Getting-More-Negotiate-Succeed-Work/dp/0307716902 https://www.amazon.com/Getting-More-Negotiate-Succeed-Work/d...
- fuzzfactor 7y ago
  When both parties leave a representative but not show-stopping amount of money on the table intentionally, this can potentiate exponential growth like nothing else. Effectively each group gets to focus on efforts & shape the outcome in pursuit of mutual growth, with a non-lopsided good-faith buffer to start with, compared to predatory terms. The reduction in risk and increase in functional leverage is phenomenal. Alternatively, with a ruthless arrangement, there will be opportunity-sucking or destructive imbalances for operations across a financial spectrum, whether prosperous or underperforming at the time. Greedy ars'les thrive making surplus look & act like shortage.
duxup 7y ago
Kinda off topic but other side of the coin, befriending the asshole: At my first job there was this grizzly old engineer who was known for being pretty surly, but knew the code base almost as if by memory, and the behavior of the code. He was bothered by anything and everything and really just wanted to run out the clock and go home and work in his wood shop. I was in support and nobody wanted to go to him for help, but man you had to sometimes. I read something about guys like that being really particular about things so I just made a long list of what he was annoyed that people didn't bring him (information wise) and how they brought it to him when people or I did go to him. Most importantly I'd make a point that he would see that I brought him information (about customer problems) based on his past feedback. Eventually over the course of months he warmed to me and I could get his help bringing him virtually nothing and he wouldn't complain. Dude was still annoyed for not getting a mountain of information from other techs, but not so much me. People there for 10 years would get a "Have Mark look at it first." talk from him... I had been there for 9 months. For him it was about getting to know people and trust that they would bother to get him what he needed, once you proved that, he didn't so much care.
- itwy 7y ago
  Not a native speaker but shouldn't grizzly above be grizzled? :)
  - mewse 7y ago
    If you go by the dictionary, "grizzled" and "grizzly" both have the same meaning; having grey hair. In common use, though, "grizzled" is generally used to imply "old" or even "unkempt", and "grizzly" is generally used to imply "bad-tempered" (probably alluding to the behaviour of the "grizzly bear") ..in this case, according to the story, either word would apply!
    - itwy 7y ago
      Got it, thanks.
- bsder 7y ago
hypnotist 7y ago
you cannot AB test that.
mrwnmonm 7y ago
Now you stop being an asshole to get more money, which is exactly what an asshole will do.
jdkee 7y ago
Encouraging human interactions to operate along chimp-like hierarchies instead of bonobo-like co-ops is why we see this behaviour everywhere. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Science/Study-compares-peaceful-bonobos-to-aggressive-chimps https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Science/Study-compares-peac...
jiveturkey 7y ago
also, you won't be an asshole. that's good, in and of itself, isn't it?
angarg12 7y ago
I don't own a business, but I have encountered these behaviours at a smaller scale. Now I think about this situation as a variation of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties play nice, each one gets a smaller payoff. If one is an asshole and the other is nice, the asshole gets a bigger payoff (by shafting the nice party). This article proposes that being nice is beneficial for all parties in the long term. That holds true also in the prisoners dilemma, if the game repeats over time. Now, why do people still act that way? One option, as this article presumes, is that people are simply not aware that is the best option in the long term. The second, most insidious option, is that they are aware, and do it in purpose. Maybe the world is still big enough that you can play a first game with different people until your fame catches up. Maybe the payoff for being an asshole is so high that a single win is enough to retire.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  Sometimes I feel like humans do not understand that we're the prisoners and nature is the police. Nature does not care about killing us. The universe will feel no remorse if an asteroid kills us all or we do it ourselves with nukes. Corona doesn't feel shame. We're prisoners in so many ways. When are we going to start cooperating to try to escape our death sentence? Or are we content to fight each other over scraps while we await our fate?
  - solatic 7y ago
    > Sometimes I feel like humans do not understand that we're the prisoners and nature is the police. Understanding that cooperation provides higher benefit to players compared to competition requires prior education among the players. It is literally part of any Introduction to Economics course. The problem is a) under-education b) irrational players.
- brutt 7y ago
  You assume that all parties have same IQ, same previous experience, equally informed, share same moral values, and share same goal. In this case, yes, they are doing wrong.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
It seems like the bigger asshole tends to make more money, unfortunately for myself.
zelphirkalt 7y ago
> I really don't understand why. > So many people are straight assholes in business. Especially the more you climb the ladder. As my bootstrapped business reached $3M ARR, a wave of no-name investors approached us. Some of the term sheets more than insulted me. They sought to take control of the company without any payout for the co-founders or employees. They just wanted to capitalize a company they'd now own. > I don't understand why. (Warning: Probably unpopular opinion for capitalistic mind sets following) Well, big surprise, because they got corrupted (ethically) by their money and greed, or that is the way they got a hold of it in the first place. They got some, so they want more. Money buys almost anything in capitalistic society after all. They see a chance to take advantage of a fellow human being, a chance to profit! They do not care about the human in your business. They care about ways they could profit from it. You are only a means of increasing their capital. The higher the amount of money investors have, the more likely, that they got it through ethically questionable means, because that is, where the big money is made. There might be ethical investors out there too. Haven't knowingly met any such yet, might have unknowingly met some. It is probably also quite difficult to keep a clean sheet through all the complexity of today's financial world. (perspective change from having a company which others want to invest in, to investments being done by people) There is a difference between working for a wage and using money to "magically" create more money, fueling turbo capitalism. In many cases that difference is an ethical one: What investments does one make? Can one be sure, that those investments are not actually investments, which flow directly or indirectly into production of weapons, climate destroying big companies, pesticide producing giants, who are responsible for decimating bee populations and starvation in third world countries? Anyone "investing" should really think hard about it and be on the lookout for superficially nice investments, which are actually indirectly quite unethical. Now I will admit, that there are probably still many ways to make ethical investments. Of course there are. It's just that those are not yielding the highest returns. You could invest in social projects, in green energy/technology, in research for many good things. You can even donate to a good cause (like protection of rain forest) and thereby make an investment into all our future. Most people, who "invest" in something however, are almost completely after the returns those things yield and do not give a damn about the ethical aspect of that investment. They do not give a thought about indirectly investing in some huge company, which takes part in producing weapons or building the next big coal mine (thinking of a recent example). Lets take a look at for example DAX (German stock index). Anyone investing in any "financial product" that invests into the top n DAX companies. There we have BASF and Bayer, responsible for producing, selling and lobbying for pesticide usage and killing natural diversity and species, starvation of people in India and forcing farmers to use genetically modified seeds, in the name of profit. We have BMW and Daimler, where at least to my knowledge Daimler is part of the diesel scandal, making people believe their cars were cleaner than they really are, indirectly guilty of dealing huge damage to our environment and health. We have Deutsche Bank and Telekom there as well. Telekom just sucks for being a monopoly (at least was) and keeping technology way behind in Germany. Deutsche bank does not have a good name, when we talk about ethics, although I do not personally know exactly what they did. Probably investments in weapons and stuff like that. And wasn't Adidas connected to child labour in third world countries? So basically anyone investing in DAX as such invests in these at least partly evil players, knowingly or unknowingly. But people are being scared by people working in banks and other places, who tell them that, if they do not invest into something with more risk, they will not be able to take advantage of those precious percentages at the stock market and then those scared people stop thinking and become investors. Notice also how usually the people, who are consulting you at banks and insurances try to steer you into the direction of stock market backed investments. Usually they will make other options simply look worth, simply based on percentages. That is often, because when you invest into such products of theirs, their company gets more flexibility of investment itself and can do more unethical investments, yielding higher returns for them. In my opinion anyone investing into anything has a responsibility. That responsibility is not to increase their own riches, but to look out (not only superficially) for any ethically questionable consequences of their investment and even the responsibility to try to make the world a better place with their investment.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
There are basically two ways to make money: 1. Add value so there is more pie to go around and get your cut of it. 2. Extract value from what already exists. You get yours, but other people tend to get screwed over. If you aren't doing the first, you are probably doing the second. This is not really a good long term strategy.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  I appreciate this concise framing. I do think it gets more complicated than this though. Defining the pie gets really complicated. Sometimes you make one pie bigger and another smaller. Companies like Lyft certainly decreased the taxi pie but then made a new one altogether. I believe there are fair ways to extract value from what already exists by creating a better version in a competitive market. Ultimately I think the value should be defined at the customer and societal levels. The tangents and levels in between make things messy.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I believe there are fair ways to extract value from what already exists by creating a better version in a competitive market. Adding efficiency is a means to add more pie. Obviously, my comment is a simplification. It kind of goes without saying that simplifications leave out a lot of nuance and gray zone.
    - dumbfoundded 7y ago
      Yeah, I didn't mean to add unnecessary complexity. I agree with your original statement.
nitwit005 7y ago
Unfortunately, you'll find people often respect assholes. Look no further than how people are outright worshipful of successful criminals. Some people also seem to learn how to capitalize on their poor reputations. If you're well known in an industry, even for something bad, you can often get people to talk to you.
chrisbennet 7y ago
I had a clients contract that had this in it: "Recover any and all actual, incidental and consequential damages to XYZ, including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs.." I wrote back: "Nice try but yeah, no. ;-) " (My lawyer fixed all these overreaches and they were a great client.) As an aside my lawyer told me that when you a drafting a contract with someone you want to work with, its best to be fair. If you don't, you're starting the relationship where the counter-party doesn't trust you. After all, you tried to screw them the very first chance you had.
- fred_is_fred 7y ago
  If you are replying to clients like that then I am glad you have a lawyer.
  - chrisbennet 7y ago
    Lawyers are good tool in our business. If someone gives me a one page "mutual NDA" I can handle it myself. If I get 9 pages of "our standard contract" and I read it through, ask if I can make changes and if they say yes, I give it to my lawyer. For that contract I actually wrote back this: Who signs these “standard contracts”?
    - fred_is_fred 7y ago
      I was thinking of the legal ambiguity of reply with "but yeah, no". Perhaps you were paraphrasing.
      - chrisbennet 7y ago
        When you have they whole email, there isn't any ambiguity. :-) This is the whole email: "Hi Guys, Who signs these “standard contracts”? 4.2. In the event the Provider is in breach of any of the representations or warranties set forth in Section 4.1 above, in addition to any other remedies IPG may have under this Agreement, IPG, at its sole option and without incurring any liability, may: (d) Recover any and all actual, incidental and consequential damages to IPG, including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs; Nice try but yeah, no. ;-) If I can strike out the unreasonable parts we can probably come to some agreement. -Chris"
voodootrucker 7y ago
As long as the fed is printing fake money, money is essentially free to those with good credit, and it makes sense to do all the things described by the OP. Someone will bite, and you may as well make the money. One day, I hope for a society where money is a real measure of productivity and all the things the OP said will be 100% valid. This is not that day.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
I want to see stats for this. There's an evolutionary reason why ass holes exist and they exist because the ass hole strategy is viable. Good people exist too, also because there is viability in the good strategy as well.
blackrock 7y ago
This is true.. Until you have a lot of money, and then you become an asshole.
forkexec 7y ago
It worked for Denis Leary, and not just stealing Bill Hick's act. More of a musical thing.
rs23296008n1 7y ago
I've met plenty of assholes. They're rich and getting richer. Being an asshole is like emitting a poison: at certain doses other people are fine. As it increases they become more transactional* until they shut down or let the relationship die. But this doesn't stop a lot from getting rich. Assholes do get "handled" however. Often it is used against them. But does this matter to them? Probably not to the extent you would expect. A lot of assholes hide their ways until they pounce. Being an asshole pays well. Does that make it ok? No. Does it matter to them? Likely not: they're assholes. The real lesson is to learn not to include assholes in your inner circle. And make it hard for them to join or get too close. There are benefits to not being an asshole. All that said, there are benefits to having an asshole. Shit needs to go through somewhere. And particular people are well suited to it. Let them. Some deals go better when done between assholes. * Or they're like a hot oven. We will tolerate the heat because we like cookies. But won't leave our hands in there too long or unprotected. We will turn the oven off completely when we don't need cookies. Transaction complete, cut ties. We might come up with ways to reduce exposure down to minimal levels. We'll wear gloves. Less time spent. Or we'll find a better oven with a better door and insulated handles.
isjustaguy 7y ago
"Not being an asshole will make you more money" Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Paul Graham, Jack Dorsey, all of AirBNB and Uber's executive staff, Mark Benioff, Larry Ellison and Donald Trump would all beg to differ.
winrid 7y ago
Telling people what you want and telling others when they screw up is commonly seen as mean behavior in the world today. But it's hard to be successful if you don't do those things.
RestAndVest 7y ago
Keep in mind that many people become business owners because they are too toxic and conflictive as employees.
tzjmetron 7y ago
Yeah, being one will get you even more.
bitxbit 7y ago
I think this is being naive. You can wreck your career this way. You can be very talented but get screwed over if you are not aware of the people around you. In sense you need to have an “asshole” radar on at all times and be ready to respond in kind. Personally, this is exhausting.
- eric234223 7y ago
  You can't change an asshole but you need to be more asshole to an asshole in order to inspire respect among peers and people around you. In my career before i get promoted i was already a go to guy among my peers because people knew i don't expect sympathy from an asshole and push their ideas if i see merit in it.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> Smart successful people do not want to work with people they cannot trust. It's not worth it. The world's too big. You'll only ever whittle away your reputation until you're surrounded by mirrors of yourself. It's not worth it. This can also be said for the hiring of talent. But these hiring people aren't only aholes, plenty of them are simply plain ol' dumbasses. Of course you're not getting the best people, you're sending up red flags like fireworks on 4th of July.
Razengan 7y ago
“But it won’t make it more fun” - Assholes, probably.
lazyjones 7y ago
Not being one will earn you more in the long run, if you can fend off all the axxholes who fare better at short-term gains. Unfortunately, our economy is now based on high short-term gains, there's plenty of axxholes everywhere.
the_burning_one 7y ago
Goldman Sachs disagree

397 points by dumbfoundded 7y ago

I don't see any evidence to support the assertion unfortunately :) Also, the huge difference between emotional/perceptive aggression, and actual aggression. There are loud, crude people who like to push for a fair deal, or who are not aggressive terms. There are 'nice', cunning manipulative people who seek excessive terms. There are actually truly nice people, who push for assertive terms, not realising how far they are going. And of course, there's mostly tons of misinterpretations: people who have totally different needs, perspective, expectations with respect to how to go about a situation. A founder seeing aggression might actually be an investor taking a perfectly normative demand. But yes, I've seen utter stupidity in deal making. Relationships do matter, and you need a working agreement with whoever you're working with, investors included.

seventytwo 7y ago
I think you’re missing the point. Make “rising tide lifts all boats” deals. Here, you’re entering in a deal to create additional value to the world. Don’t make deals with a zero-sum outlook. Here, you’re entering into a deal for, at best, a transfer of existing value within the world.
- munificent 7y ago
  That is the point of the article, yes. But it doesn't offer evidence that that is a financially better strategy. It is self-evidently morally better, of course. And it may be financially better too. But the article just flatly claims it in a number of single-sentence paragraphs without communicating any real data.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  From The Godfather Part II: "Hyman Roth always makes money for his partners. One by one, our old friends are gone. Death, natural or not, prison, deported. Hyman Roth is the only one left, because he always made money for his partners."
eloisant 7y ago
Indeed: "So many people are straight assholes in business. Especially the more you climb the ladder." This sentence alone contradicts the title...
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  Not necessarily, but good point. I think many people become assholes once they get anywhere to protect what they have. The risk equation flips once you've "made it". People optimize for minimizing loss rather than maximizing for expected value. If you're going for maximizing ev, I believe my thoughts hold true.

seanhunter 7y ago

I have an example. In a previous role was in a position where we were negotiating a large-ish (>1M USD) multi-year contract when our client asked us to also do a proof of concept about some topic. It was just 1 week or 2 weeks so I said it would be free but because of various regulatory stuff we needed a contract in place. I was dealing with the same purchasing lawyer on both contracts. The process was super-standard: someone sends a first draft, the other side redlines (proposes changes and makes comments), then the first team redline, etc, at some point you all compromise a bit and someone makes a clean copy of the document containing all the agreed changes for everyone to sign. So we got to the point we had all agreed and the purchasing lawyer on the other side produced the "clean copy" but he obviously thought we were a bunch of rubes so he produced a clean copy for us to sign by backing out all of our changes and only putting in his changes. This is a ridiculously low-integrity bush-league stunt and he did it on the zero-cost POC contract while we were still negotiating the >1m big contract. Some people just want to win so bad it doesn't even matter to them that they are being total assholes, the prize is zero and it's outright harmful to their own interests. I bet he cheats when playing his own kids at boardgames.

azinman2 7y ago
Are you sure it wasn’t a genuine mistake?
- seanhunter 7y ago
  He did a few things when he did it which made it clear it wasn't a mistake. He had to sort of go out of his way to do it.
- Nrbelex 7y ago
  And if you're sure, did you report this to the relevant disciplinary body?
  - jandrese 7y ago
    What, the bar association? Sleezy as this is you wouldn't be able to show damages since you didn't sign the contract. The other lawyer can claim error and the burden of proof would be on you. If you did accept, then you have a lengthy court battle ahead where a jury could very well rule "abide by the contract you signed you reneging moocher." The real world isn't a school playground. Calling a teacher over is time consuming and expensive and far from a guarantee of justice. It is up to you to keep yourself safe from assholes like this by always doing your due diligence. Someone who pulls this kind of shit constantly will eventually lose their license, but many years down the road and after many victims.

jacquesm 7y ago

Most of the billionaires are assholes and/or criminals with a couple of noteworthy exceptions. So maybe not being an asshole will get you ahead in the middle but it won't get you all the way to the top of the foodchain. So this is solid advice, but unfortunately the role models are exactly those people that didn't follow this sort of advice. Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Apple, Google and Facebook all would not have been as large and would not generate as much money for their founders if the founders had been nice guys. Fortunately we also have Woz and a couple of others like him to balance things out a bit.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
That's what bothers me about all the adoration "billionaires" are getting lately. These guys got where they are by taking advantage of whatever they could, not by being generous or nice.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  It's not even that - people venerate the results of luck. For every "self-made" billionaire, there's untold legions of people who had nearly the extra same formula, but were just a little off. Sure, a lot of them worked hard and had good ideas, but so do tons of people. Somehow it's more acceptable to think these people earned their success more than a simple lottery winner, whose long hours and hard work at their janitorial job gave them enough free cash to buy a ticket.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I think it’s also wrong to attribute everything to luck. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Zuckerberg or Gates are certainly very capable people who would have done well under most circumstances. But they were also lucky to be at the right place at the right time and meeting the right people.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      I would say it leans HEAVILY towards luck. Given their background and abilities, they certainly would have done well regardless, we have to remember that "done well" can be measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. To increase that by another 4 orders of magnitude isn't going to be simply due to being capable.

danaw 7y ago

Ok no i

koheripbal 7y ago

The major flaw in this article is that it does not defined what constitutes "asshole" behavior. There is a difference, for example, between being vindictive towards others, and simply pushing people out of their comfort zone. The term "asshole" is so vague that it borders on useless.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Even if you could come up with a good definition, it would still be a silly assertion. He’s wrong: not being an asshole won’t make you more money. Being an asshole will also not make you more money. How nice or not nice you are to other people is almost entirely unrelated to how much money you make.
- illumanaughty 7y ago
  It's not a silly assertion, it's just that you've taken silly things away from this article. He's asserting that if you're too self interested / lack empathy you will hurt yourself in the long run.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    It's ludicrous, not just silly. People are talking here like this is a study that can be verified. It is a random person ranting and completely subjective.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    You just re-defined asshole in a way that suits your argument. The article doesn't define it that way.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Only if you can avoid subsequent deals with the same counterparties.
- eloff 7y ago
  I suggest you look up game theory. Not being an asshole is actually the winning strategy over the long term.

miguelmota 7y ago

The term asshole is very subjective; some people will perceive being candid and telling it how it is as being mean while others love the straightforwardness. Bosses have to put emotions aside to think more logically and that comes off as unsympathetic when talking to employees or partners. Steve Jobs was known to not have been the nicest guy yet he’s praised all the time.

jschwartzi 7y ago
You're talking about being nice, not being an asshole. Assholes are people who come in and shit all over everything instead of trying to play fair. People who are not nice can be fair. Take as an analogy the difference between social class and economic class, and how people can have a social class that's different from their economic class.
- miguelmota 7y ago
  Being apathetic and selfish are some attributes that both assholes and top billionaires exhibit. I'd say it’s not so black and white and people will perceive what being nice means to them differently depending on their social economic status since people of lower economic status tend to be more susceptible to emotions than a business person.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    Yeah, I was trying to use social and economic class as a metaphor for asshole versus not-nice. Because it's easy to conflate the two in both cases.

papito 7y ago

The most common difference between us peasants and the people of means is that those other people ASK more often. Ask for more money, ask for a bonus, ask for lower rent. And then it adds up. The one thing that holds most of us back is shame. But shame is a good thing in general. It's the glue that keeps societies together, preventing them from spiraling down to the lowest common denominator. Questionable if this still works nowadays. But, anyway, the trick is to uncork some of that shame is small doses and be a little bit selfish every once in a while.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I often ask people who are complaining about their salary whether have asked for a raise. Most of the time the answer is “no” followed by reasons like “I am afraid to get fired” or “they will make my life miserable” or “they should just do the right thing”.
- papito 7y ago
  Exactly. 9 out of 10 managers will give you more money. They are not going to offer it to you, normally, because they are not a charity. They want to give you the least amount of money that you will except. Secondly, who ever gets fired for asking for a raise? I mean, that is not normal. And if that does happen to you, it's most likely of some other underlying factors, where asking for a raise is just the last drop.
  - bradlys 7y ago
    > Exactly. 9 out of 10 managers will give you more money. I don't know - man. I've worked at a lot of places and this doesn't seem to be a common thing. It could be I've just worked at a lot of bad places but still. Asking for more isn't enough. It has to be the threat of leaving in order to get them to give more. At which point - the advice now for managers is, if they're threatening to leave unless you pay more then just let them leave.
    - tunesmith 7y ago

asjw 7y ago

Just like Madoff or Trump or Weinstein

dumbfoundded 7y ago
Being in jail doesn't sound profitable. Robbing a bank makes rich for a second too. As for Trump, he probably should've put his daddy's money in the S&P.
- chinesempire 7y ago
  I think we can agree that billionaires main trait is not being nice Putin is worth 200 billions...
  - dumbfoundded 7y ago
    I'm almost certain that Putin makes tons of money for those immediately around him and as soon as he stops, he'll be replaced. That's generally how dictatorships work.
    - chinesempire 7y ago
      The money doesn't disappear though and I'm sure the Bush family is still doing well
      - dumbfoundded 7y ago
        I've heard that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. That doesn't mean you should be irrational though. Or if you do, understand that it's a short play. Rationality generally wins.
        chinesempire 7y ago
        An assholes can be completely rational, become incredibly rich and still be an asshole. It doesn't mean being an asshole it's the best strategy to become rich, it isn't enough to become one and generally I think being good decent human beings is much better for society and for themselves, but the numbers shows that very rich people are usually not among the best people in this world.

projektfu 7y ago

Some examples of the term sheets would have been nice. But it's so true that people are often wasting your time trying to secure a win for themselves only. It makes me think about good recruiters and bad recruiters. The good ones want to find a great fit for the position and have a reputation for getting good salaries for the people they place. The bad ones want to undercut the other recruiters and try to convince the candidate to accept a lousy offer. I'm sure the candidates are perfectly able to do that themselves.

minikites 7y ago

Becoming a billionaire requires you to be an asshole by definition because the only way to accumulate and retain that (frankly incomprehensible) amount of money is through the exploitation of your employees and the surplus value of their labor at a tremendous scale.

tlb 7y ago

Don't respond to emails from random people trying to buy your business. They're all scammy. If you respond to these, or offers to re-fi your house, or help someone move their royal fortune out of Nigeria, you're indeed going to be dealing with assholes. If you want to sell your business, take charge and run a competitive bidding process. But ignore unsolicited offers.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
It's tough when someone in your industry with a big name reaches out but in general, you're right. Very rarely do people come to you with good intentions. You generally have to seek out good people.

draw_down 7y ago

Who decides who is an asshole? Makes all the difference.

circlefavshape 7y ago

Reputation information doesn't always flow freely. After agreeing the purchase of the site for the house I'm now sitting in, the sellers changed their asking price, tried to pull out of the sale after we got planning permission, accused us of swindling them, and the night before we fenced the property moved the boundary markers. When it was all done and dusted one of our neighbours said "it's great to see someone getting the better of $FAMILY_X". Seems like we weren't entitled to access to their reputations until we'd started to build the house, and became true locals

gigatexal 7y ago

But, but ... nice guys (and girls) finish last - or so the saying goes. It’s been my experience that the belligerent and those that take charge and those that are just the loudest garner more attention and cash. That’s not me though.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Of course it won't. Otherwise the advertising industry wouldn't exist. More than that. In general, the market rewards being asshole and borderline fraudster. Reputation is a thing within smaller groups, but what matters is primarily reputation related to your behavior towards your peers in that group. And if your peer group is composed of assholes, then being an asshole is a positive trait as long as you're not an asshole towards members of that group. Another thing: when you're a no-name upstart, reputation matters little because nobody knows you. When you're a large, successful business, any bad reputation can be compensated by proportionate spending on PR and advertising. Yet another thing: in B2C, consumers often don't have a meaningful choice. An individual is juggling a lot of different priorities in their lives, not least of which is "saving money" and "buying stuff one likes". So e.g. Coca-Cola does a pretty lot of evil stuff, but people have strong taste preferences in the product category Coca-Cola sells, so nobody really boycotts them. Or, pretty much every major brand of smartphones is doing evil things, and every major telco provider is filled with assholes - yet as a citizen of the western world, I really do need to have a smartphone. So I have to choose someone. Or, a grocery store next to the place I used to live would wash stale meat with detergent and sell as fresh. This lands straight into asshole category, but I still went there, because a) it was the closest store, and b) I have no guarantee other stores don't do the same (and plenty of reasons to suspect they do). And yet another thing: taking VC investments; when investors come knocking for their returns, plenty of startups are forced to become assholes. -- TL;DR: The market rewards assholes. If you're not an asshole, your competitors will force you to either become one, or get marginalized. There's an excellent essay that goes into details about the mechanics of that: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.

dillonmckay 7y ago
Was Food Lion the meat bleacher?

ta1234567890 7y ago

A few years ago I started a company, then raised money through convertible notes. By the time the notes were due (2 years), we weren't ready to raise a round yet, so all investors extended their notes. All except one. The investor that didn't want to extend the note was also the CEO of the company that was our largest client, so not only did he call his note, he also ended his company's contract, making a huge hole in our revenue. After doing that, and knowing that the company would be struggling financially, he sued, forcing the company into bankruptcy. From the beginning we tried negotiating a payment plan or some other form of compensation, to no avail. Although at some point he did "offer" to completely take over the company and fire the founders (which we of course refused). During bankruptcy, he took over the assets of the company while also giving us and the trustee a hard time. Now, after having ruined the jobs of everyone that worked at our company plus the potential upside of all the other investors and shareholders, he is suing me and my cofounder personally. The company closed 2 years ago and it looks like this new lawsuit will take another 2 years. Also no one knows if this guy is going to stop at that. Be very careful about doing business with assholes, especially if they have a lot of money and you will be taking any type of potential liability (e.g. debt) in their favor, even if it's not personal liability, they might still try to go after you and make your life miserable.

swsieber 7y ago
Is it possible for you to name said investor such that people know to stay away from said investor?
- volkk 7y ago
  i'm going to guess that giving his name out in a public forum combined with the contextual knowledge we now have will make it very obvious who OP is. and then its possible for that asshole investor to further sue him for slander or whatever else
- ta1234567890 7y ago
  As user volkk said, unfortunately it would be legally risky for me to disclose the identity of the investor. Which is pretty frustrating, because then you realize that when someone does something bad to you (legally/morally), there are very few (legal) ways to remedy it, especially if they have a lot more money than you. I can say that he's not based in the Bay Area, so if you are raising money there it is very unlikely you will run into him. I can also say that our best investors were RightSide Capital, based out of SF. They supported us throughout the whole ordeal with the company and even offered to buy out the other guy. They also said that, out of 600+ investments they had done at the time, they had never seen another investor act the way ours did.

potta_coffee 7y ago

This is a decent article. I generally agree with the sentiments presented, but I disagree with the font-choice, which I found difficult to read.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
I appreciate the feedback. Any recommendations for something legible?
- potta_coffee 7y ago
  The font is really thin, even when I zoom it's difficult to read. A thicker sans font would be easier to read. The one you're using looks nice visually, it's just hard to see.

mikekij 7y ago

I totally agree. A business school professor of mine, Stuart Diamond, wrote a book called Getting More about using these ideas in negotiation. His theory is that you should always be leaving money on the table. If you're not, you're playing the short game. https://www.amazon.com/Getting-More-Negotiate-Succeed-Work/dp/0307716902 https://www.amazon.com/Getting-More-Negotiate-Succeed-Work/d...

fuzzfactor 7y ago
When both parties leave a representative but not show-stopping amount of money on the table intentionally, this can potentiate exponential growth like nothing else. Effectively each group gets to focus on efforts & shape the outcome in pursuit of mutual growth, with a non-lopsided good-faith buffer to start with, compared to predatory terms. The reduction in risk and increase in functional leverage is phenomenal. Alternatively, with a ruthless arrangement, there will be opportunity-sucking or destructive imbalances for operations across a financial spectrum, whether prosperous or underperforming at the time. Greedy ars'les thrive making surplus look & act like shortage.

duxup 7y ago

Kinda off topic but other side of the coin, befriending the asshole: At my first job there was this grizzly old engineer who was known for being pretty surly, but knew the code base almost as if by memory, and the behavior of the code. He was bothered by anything and everything and really just wanted to run out the clock and go home and work in his wood shop. I was in support and nobody wanted to go to him for help, but man you had to sometimes. I read something about guys like that being really particular about things so I just made a long list of what he was annoyed that people didn't bring him (information wise) and how they brought it to him when people or I did go to him. Most importantly I'd make a point that he would see that I brought him information (about customer problems) based on his past feedback. Eventually over the course of months he warmed to me and I could get his help bringing him virtually nothing and he wouldn't complain. Dude was still annoyed for not getting a mountain of information from other techs, but not so much me. People there for 10 years would get a "Have Mark look at it first." talk from him... I had been there for 9 months. For him it was about getting to know people and trust that they would bother to get him what he needed, once you proved that, he didn't so much care.

itwy 7y ago
Not a native speaker but shouldn't grizzly above be grizzled? :)
- mewse 7y ago
  If you go by the dictionary, "grizzled" and "grizzly" both have the same meaning; having grey hair. In common use, though, "grizzled" is generally used to imply "old" or even "unkempt", and "grizzly" is generally used to imply "bad-tempered" (probably alluding to the behaviour of the "grizzly bear") ..in this case, according to the story, either word would apply!
  - itwy 7y ago
    Got it, thanks.
bsder 7y ago

hypnotist 7y ago

you cannot AB test that.

mrwnmonm 7y ago

Now you stop being an asshole to get more money, which is exactly what an asshole will do.

jdkee 7y ago

Encouraging human interactions to operate along chimp-like hierarchies instead of bonobo-like co-ops is why we see this behaviour everywhere. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Science/Study-compares-peaceful-bonobos-to-aggressive-chimps https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Science/Study-compares-peac...

jiveturkey 7y ago

also, you won't be an asshole. that's good, in and of itself, isn't it?

angarg12 7y ago

I don't own a business, but I have encountered these behaviours at a smaller scale. Now I think about this situation as a variation of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties play nice, each one gets a smaller payoff. If one is an asshole and the other is nice, the asshole gets a bigger payoff (by shafting the nice party). This article proposes that being nice is beneficial for all parties in the long term. That holds true also in the prisoners dilemma, if the game repeats over time. Now, why do people still act that way? One option, as this article presumes, is that people are simply not aware that is the best option in the long term. The second, most insidious option, is that they are aware, and do it in purpose. Maybe the world is still big enough that you can play a first game with different people until your fame catches up. Maybe the payoff for being an asshole is so high that a single win is enough to retire.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
Sometimes I feel like humans do not understand that we're the prisoners and nature is the police. Nature does not care about killing us. The universe will feel no remorse if an asteroid kills us all or we do it ourselves with nukes. Corona doesn't feel shame. We're prisoners in so many ways. When are we going to start cooperating to try to escape our death sentence? Or are we content to fight each other over scraps while we await our fate?
- solatic 7y ago
  > Sometimes I feel like humans do not understand that we're the prisoners and nature is the police. Understanding that cooperation provides higher benefit to players compared to competition requires prior education among the players. It is literally part of any Introduction to Economics course. The problem is a) under-education b) irrational players.
brutt 7y ago
You assume that all parties have same IQ, same previous experience, equally informed, share same moral values, and share same goal. In this case, yes, they are doing wrong.

oarabbus_ 7y ago

It seems like the bigger asshole tends to make more money, unfortunately for myself.

zelphirkalt 7y ago

> I really don't understand why. > So many people are straight assholes in business. Especially the more you climb the ladder. As my bootstrapped business reached $3M ARR, a wave of no-name investors approached us. Some of the term sheets more than insulted me. They sought to take control of the company without any payout for the co-founders or employees. They just wanted to capitalize a company they'd now own. > I don't understand why. (Warning: Probably unpopular opinion for capitalistic mind sets following) Well, big surprise, because they got corrupted (ethically) by their money and greed, or that is the way they got a hold of it in the first place. They got some, so they want more. Money buys almost anything in capitalistic society after all. They see a chance to take advantage of a fellow human being, a chance to profit! They do not care about the human in your business. They care about ways they could profit from it. You are only a means of increasing their capital. The higher the amount of money investors have, the more likely, that they got it through ethically questionable means, because that is, where the big money is made. There might be ethical investors out there too. Haven't knowingly met any such yet, might have unknowingly met some. It is probably also quite difficult to keep a clean sheet through all the complexity of today's financial world. (perspective change from having a company which others want to invest in, to investments being done by people) There is a difference between working for a wage and using money to "magically" create more money, fueling turbo capitalism. In many cases that difference is an ethical one: What investments does one make? Can one be sure, that those investments are not actually investments, which flow directly or indirectly into production of weapons, climate destroying big companies, pesticide producing giants, who are responsible for decimating bee populations and starvation in third world countries? Anyone "investing" should really think hard about it and be on the lookout for superficially nice investments, which are actually indirectly quite unethical. Now I will admit, that there are probably still many ways to make ethical investments. Of course there are. It's just that those are not yielding the highest returns. You could invest in social projects, in green energy/technology, in research for many good things. You can even donate to a good cause (like protection of rain forest) and thereby make an investment into all our future. Most people, who "invest" in something however, are almost completely after the returns those things yield and do not give a damn about the ethical aspect of that investment. They do not give a thought about indirectly investing in some huge company, which takes part in producing weapons or building the next big coal mine (thinking of a recent example). Lets take a look at for example DAX (German stock index). Anyone investing in any "financial product" that invests into the top n DAX companies. There we have BASF and Bayer, responsible for producing, selling and lobbying for pesticide usage and killing natural diversity and species, starvation of people in India and forcing farmers to use genetically modified seeds, in the name of profit. We have BMW and Daimler, where at least to my knowledge Daimler is part of the diesel scandal, making people believe their cars were cleaner than they really are, indirectly guilty of dealing huge damage to our environment and health. We have Deutsche Bank and Telekom there as well. Telekom just sucks for being a monopoly (at least was) and keeping technology way behind in Germany. Deutsche bank does not have a good name, when we talk about ethics, although I do not personally know exactly what they did. Probably investments in weapons and stuff like that. And wasn't Adidas connected to child labour in third world countries? So basically anyone investing in DAX as such invests in these at least partly evil players, knowingly or unknowingly. But people are being scared by people working in banks and other places, who tell them that, if they do not invest into something with more risk, they will not be able to take advantage of those precious percentages at the stock market and then those scared people stop thinking and become investors. Notice also how usually the people, who are consulting you at banks and insurances try to steer you into the direction of stock market backed investments. Usually they will make other options simply look worth, simply based on percentages. That is often, because when you invest into such products of theirs, their company gets more flexibility of investment itself and can do more unethical investments, yielding higher returns for them. In my opinion anyone investing into anything has a responsibility. That responsibility is not to increase their own riches, but to look out (not only superficially) for any ethically questionable consequences of their investment and even the responsibility to try to make the world a better place with their investment.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

There are basically two ways to make money: 1. Add value so there is more pie to go around and get your cut of it. 2. Extract value from what already exists. You get yours, but other people tend to get screwed over. If you aren't doing the first, you are probably doing the second. This is not really a good long term strategy.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
I appreciate this concise framing. I do think it gets more complicated than this though. Defining the pie gets really complicated. Sometimes you make one pie bigger and another smaller. Companies like Lyft certainly decreased the taxi pie but then made a new one altogether. I believe there are fair ways to extract value from what already exists by creating a better version in a competitive market. Ultimately I think the value should be defined at the customer and societal levels. The tangents and levels in between make things messy.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I believe there are fair ways to extract value from what already exists by creating a better version in a competitive market. Adding efficiency is a means to add more pie. Obviously, my comment is a simplification. It kind of goes without saying that simplifications leave out a lot of nuance and gray zone.
  - dumbfoundded 7y ago
    Yeah, I didn't mean to add unnecessary complexity. I agree with your original statement.

nitwit005 7y ago

Unfortunately, you'll find people often respect assholes. Look no further than how people are outright worshipful of successful criminals. Some people also seem to learn how to capitalize on their poor reputations. If you're well known in an industry, even for something bad, you can often get people to talk to you.

chrisbennet 7y ago

I had a clients contract that had this in it: "Recover any and all actual, incidental and consequential damages to XYZ, including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs.." I wrote back: "Nice try but yeah, no. ;-) " (My lawyer fixed all these overreaches and they were a great client.) As an aside my lawyer told me that when you a drafting a contract with someone you want to work with, its best to be fair. If you don't, you're starting the relationship where the counter-party doesn't trust you. After all, you tried to screw them the very first chance you had.

fred_is_fred 7y ago
If you are replying to clients like that then I am glad you have a lawyer.
- chrisbennet 7y ago
  Lawyers are good tool in our business. If someone gives me a one page "mutual NDA" I can handle it myself. If I get 9 pages of "our standard contract" and I read it through, ask if I can make changes and if they say yes, I give it to my lawyer. For that contract I actually wrote back this: Who signs these “standard contracts”?
  - fred_is_fred 7y ago
    I was thinking of the legal ambiguity of reply with "but yeah, no". Perhaps you were paraphrasing.
    - chrisbennet 7y ago
      When you have they whole email, there isn't any ambiguity. :-) This is the whole email: "Hi Guys, Who signs these “standard contracts”? 4.2. In the event the Provider is in breach of any of the representations or warranties set forth in Section 4.1 above, in addition to any other remedies IPG may have under this Agreement, IPG, at its sole option and without incurring any liability, may: (d) Recover any and all actual, incidental and consequential damages to IPG, including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs; Nice try but yeah, no. ;-) If I can strike out the unreasonable parts we can probably come to some agreement. -Chris"

voodootrucker 7y ago

As long as the fed is printing fake money, money is essentially free to those with good credit, and it makes sense to do all the things described by the OP. Someone will bite, and you may as well make the money. One day, I hope for a society where money is a real measure of productivity and all the things the OP said will be 100% valid. This is not that day.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

I want to see stats for this. There's an evolutionary reason why ass holes exist and they exist because the ass hole strategy is viable. Good people exist too, also because there is viability in the good strategy as well.

blackrock 7y ago

This is true.. Until you have a lot of money, and then you become an asshole.

forkexec 7y ago

It worked for Denis Leary, and not just stealing Bill Hick's act. More of a musical thing.

rs23296008n1 7y ago

I've met plenty of assholes. They're rich and getting richer. Being an asshole is like emitting a poison: at certain doses other people are fine. As it increases they become more transactional* until they shut down or let the relationship die. But this doesn't stop a lot from getting rich. Assholes do get "handled" however. Often it is used against them. But does this matter to them? Probably not to the extent you would expect. A lot of assholes hide their ways until they pounce. Being an asshole pays well. Does that make it ok? No. Does it matter to them? Likely not: they're assholes. The real lesson is to learn not to include assholes in your inner circle. And make it hard for them to join or get too close. There are benefits to not being an asshole. All that said, there are benefits to having an asshole. Shit needs to go through somewhere. And particular people are well suited to it. Let them. Some deals go better when done between assholes. * Or they're like a hot oven. We will tolerate the heat because we like cookies. But won't leave our hands in there too long or unprotected. We will turn the oven off completely when we don't need cookies. Transaction complete, cut ties. We might come up with ways to reduce exposure down to minimal levels. We'll wear gloves. Less time spent. Or we'll find a better oven with a better door and insulated handles.

isjustaguy 7y ago

"Not being an asshole will make you more money" Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Paul Graham, Jack Dorsey, all of AirBNB and Uber's executive staff, Mark Benioff, Larry Ellison and Donald Trump would all beg to differ.

winrid 7y ago

Telling people what you want and telling others when they screw up is commonly seen as mean behavior in the world today. But it's hard to be successful if you don't do those things.

RestAndVest 7y ago

Keep in mind that many people become business owners because they are too toxic and conflictive as employees.

tzjmetron 7y ago

Yeah, being one will get you even more.

bitxbit 7y ago

I think this is being naive. You can wreck your career this way. You can be very talented but get screwed over if you are not aware of the people around you. In sense you need to have an “asshole” radar on at all times and be ready to respond in kind. Personally, this is exhausting.

eric234223 7y ago
You can't change an asshole but you need to be more asshole to an asshole in order to inspire respect among peers and people around you. In my career before i get promoted i was already a go to guy among my peers because people knew i don't expect sympathy from an asshole and push their ideas if i see merit in it.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

> Smart successful people do not want to work with people they cannot trust. It's not worth it. The world's too big. You'll only ever whittle away your reputation until you're surrounded by mirrors of yourself. It's not worth it. This can also be said for the hiring of talent. But these hiring people aren't only aholes, plenty of them are simply plain ol' dumbasses. Of course you're not getting the best people, you're sending up red flags like fireworks on 4th of July.

Razengan 7y ago

“But it won’t make it more fun” - Assholes, probably.

lazyjones 7y ago

Not being one will earn you more in the long run, if you can fend off all the axxholes who fare better at short-term gains. Unfortunately, our economy is now based on high short-term gains, there's plenty of axxholes everywhere.

the_burning_one 7y ago

Goldman Sachs disagree