4 ms·

8. Don't overtly screw people on the way up. Most 'wealthy & successful' people I have known screwed people and never learned how to not do that and ended up p

8. Don't overtly screw people on the way up. Most 'wealthy & successful' people I have known screwed people and never learned how to not do that and ended up paranoid about everyone since they don't know who they screwed.

xwdv 6y ago
Screwing people is inevitable. The only consolidation you can really take is knowing that the people you screwed at some point probably screwed someone else, and you're just continuing a cycle of karmic justice.
- asimovfan 6y ago
  According to karmic religions him having screwed someone over doesn't let you off the hook for the bad karma you're accruing when you screw them.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Luckily karmic religions aren't real.
    - crpatino 6y ago
      Of course they are! They have a core belief system shared by millions of followers; they also have organized priesthood to oversee the whole process, and even are entitled to tax exemptions!!! They also happen to be right. Your unbelief in karma did not prevent that another sarcastic, smartypants jerk would come and bite you in the ass, did it?
    - coldtea 6y ago
      No, but real-life-karma (people you've fucked over will get back on you 10 times as much once they get the chance) often is...
    - seigando 6y ago
      Maybe not but 'karma' in its original meaning of cause and effect is: if you hurt somebody, they will be hurt.
    - asimovfan 6y ago
      luckily? yeah it would be the worst if everyone got what they deserved.
- deadwing0 6y ago
  Could it also be that being screwed is a matter of perspective? I imagine in a non-insignificant number of the she-screwed-me-on-the-way-to-the-top cases that the alleged screwee is sour because he or she missed an opportunity or simply was not the better candidate for the promotion? I'm not being a contrarian, but I think it's interesting how our biases and perspectives shape the way we understand things and situations. I've noticed people (myself included, no don't) trying to spin a situation to make them look or feel like a victim instead of admitting they were simply not as good as the alleged screwer. Not sure if I'm even stating this correctly, but maybe someone can help me elaborate.
- runeb 6y ago
  Wow. Well, your bio isn't lying, I'll give you that.
adamredwoods 6y ago
In my opinion, I would maybe rephrase this as exploitation. "Business success" (define as you see fit), accompanies exploitation. "Screwing" people, could fall under exploitation, but feels more malicious, whereas exploitation can take many forms and is commonly accepted. It can be exploiting a rules loop hole, exploiting worker pay, exploiting current wealth status, exploiting someone's social connections, etc. Exploitation is not necessarily bad, as most companies to be profitable, need to exploit something. Companies want profit so they are exploiting the price they charge, or exploiting the workers they pay, or a combination of many little exploits. Imagine a company could pay its workers more, but they don't. I believe this is an exploitation of the workers. People don't see it as "bad" in minor cases, and this practice is commonly accepted. Consider how much Apple is making and how much it is paying its workers, versus a locally owned restaurant. Imagine a company could charge less for a product and still survive. This again, is a minor exploitation, and commonly accepted. When the exploitation gets large enough, workers sometimes revolt.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  That concept of exploitation makes zero sense on a microeconomic or macroeconomic level. If there is any money available to expand that is charging more money than they need to survive. A company could always pay their workers more unless it brought them to precarity - even the actual workers wouldn't want that and they are the direct beneficaries of said excess! That would be like your drug dealer staging an intervention.
  - adamredwoods 6y ago
    I don't understand your argument. I don't think a business would succeed if it was pushed to precarity, so this is not dealing with exploitation. Exploitation needs to present in many aspects to create business success, it supports the definition of profit. The money made exceeds what it took to make the product or service. To profit is to exploit. I'm not trying to cast the act of exploitation in business in a judgmental way, but rather to show it exists, because it is universally accepted. It's the other side of the same coin. Yes, it's a weird interpretation of Marxian economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour
inv13 6y ago
Those are the kind of people that are not going to reach out to this guy to get help. Its a hard step to make as the author mentioned it too.
fedreserved 6y ago
A slight wrinkle I have found is contractors that discover how profitable you are, can often "feel" screwed over after the deal is struck and the project is on motion despite their position being profitable and exactly what they bargained for.

xwdv 6y ago

Screwing people is inevitable. The only consolidation you can really take is knowing that the people you screwed at some point probably screwed someone else, and you're just continuing a cycle of karmic justice.

asimovfan 6y ago
According to karmic religions him having screwed someone over doesn't let you off the hook for the bad karma you're accruing when you screw them.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Luckily karmic religions aren't real.
  - crpatino 6y ago
    Of course they are! They have a core belief system shared by millions of followers; they also have organized priesthood to oversee the whole process, and even are entitled to tax exemptions!!! They also happen to be right. Your unbelief in karma did not prevent that another sarcastic, smartypants jerk would come and bite you in the ass, did it?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    No, but real-life-karma (people you've fucked over will get back on you 10 times as much once they get the chance) often is...
  - seigando 6y ago
    Maybe not but 'karma' in its original meaning of cause and effect is: if you hurt somebody, they will be hurt.
  - asimovfan 6y ago
    luckily? yeah it would be the worst if everyone got what they deserved.
deadwing0 6y ago
Could it also be that being screwed is a matter of perspective? I imagine in a non-insignificant number of the she-screwed-me-on-the-way-to-the-top cases that the alleged screwee is sour because he or she missed an opportunity or simply was not the better candidate for the promotion? I'm not being a contrarian, but I think it's interesting how our biases and perspectives shape the way we understand things and situations. I've noticed people (myself included, no don't) trying to spin a situation to make them look or feel like a victim instead of admitting they were simply not as good as the alleged screwer. Not sure if I'm even stating this correctly, but maybe someone can help me elaborate.
runeb 6y ago
Wow. Well, your bio isn't lying, I'll give you that.

adamredwoods 6y ago

In my opinion, I would maybe rephrase this as exploitation. "Business success" (define as you see fit), accompanies exploitation. "Screwing" people, could fall under exploitation, but feels more malicious, whereas exploitation can take many forms and is commonly accepted. It can be exploiting a rules loop hole, exploiting worker pay, exploiting current wealth status, exploiting someone's social connections, etc. Exploitation is not necessarily bad, as most companies to be profitable, need to exploit something. Companies want profit so they are exploiting the price they charge, or exploiting the workers they pay, or a combination of many little exploits. Imagine a company could pay its workers more, but they don't. I believe this is an exploitation of the workers. People don't see it as "bad" in minor cases, and this practice is commonly accepted. Consider how much Apple is making and how much it is paying its workers, versus a locally owned restaurant. Imagine a company could charge less for a product and still survive. This again, is a minor exploitation, and commonly accepted. When the exploitation gets large enough, workers sometimes revolt.

Nasrudith 6y ago
That concept of exploitation makes zero sense on a microeconomic or macroeconomic level. If there is any money available to expand that is charging more money than they need to survive. A company could always pay their workers more unless it brought them to precarity - even the actual workers wouldn't want that and they are the direct beneficaries of said excess! That would be like your drug dealer staging an intervention.
- adamredwoods 6y ago
  I don't understand your argument. I don't think a business would succeed if it was pushed to precarity, so this is not dealing with exploitation. Exploitation needs to present in many aspects to create business success, it supports the definition of profit. The money made exceeds what it took to make the product or service. To profit is to exploit. I'm not trying to cast the act of exploitation in business in a judgmental way, but rather to show it exists, because it is universally accepted. It's the other side of the same coin. Yes, it's a weird interpretation of Marxian economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour

inv13 6y ago

Those are the kind of people that are not going to reach out to this guy to get help. Its a hard step to make as the author mentioned it too.

fedreserved 6y ago

A slight wrinkle I have found is contractors that discover how profitable you are, can often "feel" screwed over after the deal is struck and the project is on motion despite their position being profitable and exactly what they bargained for.