My theory about becoming rich

I’ve been thinking about what money is, and have come to this conclusion…

There is no link between working hard and being rich.

This sounds like a crazy statement to say, but bear with me. I’ve known people that have worked hard all their life, and yet, still aren’t rich. So how do people get rich?

Well you need to look at what money represents. Money represents desire of the community. So if you have something that is highly desired by the community you’re in, then you’ll have a lot of money.

So let’s explore this. If you work for a fast food store hard, you’ll never be rich. Why? Because it doesn’t pay a lot. But why doesn’t it pay a lot? Because the work you’re doing isn’t unique, and doesn’t require highly innovative skills. And because anyone can do it, then you’re easily replaceable, and hence the community’s desire for you isn’t very high, and neither are your wages.

Now look at say an Internet Celebrity that is rich. Often they get rich because they featured in a meme, which is like something of interest in the internet, such as the Star Wars Kid. Memes reflect the desire of the community, which is people on the internet, who watch the video, and click on ads, and hence pay the people in the meme (sometimes). The people in the meme didn’t have to work hard all their life, they just had to have something highly desired to the community, which is their video for instance.

So if we take a peice of land and a house that’s worth $2 million dollars, then that’s something that has obvious value because it’s desired. People want land to live from, and a house to live in. And you can see the work (or effort) that went into that house.

But if the person who earned $2 million from a meme bought that house, you would have to ask, how is that fair? How does a person who made a video of themselves twirling around a stick equal all the hard work and effort that went into building a house, and purchasing the land?

Desire of the community.

So what does this all mean? If you want to be rich, you need to be dealing in things that are highly desired by the community you’re in. Diamonds are highly desired to wealthy people, and so if you have them you’re rich. Memes are highly desired in the Internet, so if you have them you’re rich. Food’s highly desired to people if they don’t have any, so if you have them you’re rich.

And so I’m focusing on creating software that’s highly desired to large enterprises. Software that will save them millions of dollars and man-hours. By focusing on this, I can sell that software for a large amount of money, regardless of the amount of hard work that went into the software.

The software is of course, Resourcer.

Are Managers Web 1.0?

I’ve been having a debate with a friend of mine about whether Managers are Web 1.0, holding on to their top down approach of planning, controlling, leading, and organising, but become less important over time.

His argument is yes, people only need leading and planning when they cannot do this for themselves, and control of people is dead. I mentioned the idea of people in the future coming together into temporary virtual tribes that temporarily work on a peice of temporary work, and then disband and recombinate into new tribes for a new peice of work. He thought that this was a good predictor of the future.

I’m sorry, I don’t fully agree with this. There seems to be this myth that people will get together in any way shape or form to achieve a certain body of work. This is clearly demonstrated with the success of linux, where multiple disparate groups of people come together to make software.

Unfortunately, without this management function, you generally get poor results. People have a tendency to focus on the itch that’s important to themselves, which may be coding a particular feature they need. But when it comes to doing things like write documentation, or add features that they personally don’t require, they really can’t be bothered. And hence, those people leave the group, and new people join the group. And new people are dissatisfied because the lack of documentation doesn’t show how descisions were made, and why certain features are the way they are, and how the program interacts with other programs, and eventually you get the falicy of choice, combined with poor software.

A manager is vitally important to look at the bigger picture. Do we really need 9 sub systems for Audio within Linux? Could we instead ditch the notion that we could make a better audio sub system than anyone else, and instead build off the work of others in a collaborative method? Are we looking at the bigger picture and thinking about why we’re doing all of this and for who? Do we really care about the customers, or do we just really care about our own desires and needs.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the open source model, but I still see the need for managers in a web 2.0 world.