4 ms·

One of my problems with it is the horrible and overloaded terminology. "I'll call them losers, but I don't mean they're losers". Fine, find a better and less pe

• vp8989 6y ago
  That isn't an actual quote from the article. The article series quite clearly explains that these people are economic losers because they trade their time (just like the clueless and some sociopaths) for a paycheck but have neither the higher floor of the clueless or the higher ceiling of the sociopaths.
• nytgop77 6y ago
  I liked that language. It does help paint "organization's" picture - underline defining traits of each position in scope of said "organization".
• lomereiter 6y ago
  Indeed, I find the alternative naming proposed on the DaedTech blog a lot better: opportunists/idealists/pragmatists. Giving up on financial ambition and simply enjoying life is a pragmatic choice for many if not most people.
• gota 6y ago
  Agreed. In fact, the 'minimum-effort Losers' at certain booming industries (i.e. tech) are, in my view and arguably somewhat objectively, absolute 'Winners' of capitalism. Health-preserving work, at least a bit intellectually stimulating, paying so well that you can amass wealth and/or retire early + limited responsibility and no serious legal/economical fallout due to failure "Losers" in tech have got a great deal. Edit: to add - _job mobility_ to a level that even the 'Sociopaths' envy