Impact

When you’re selling a product in the market it makes perfect sense to compete w others for customers’ attention (& for their business). That's how you attract clients, capital and talent for the product.

But when you’re in a company that's aligned around a mission, the last thing you want is for people in the company to spend their time competing for attention. Any time they compete for attention is time they’re not contributing their best toward the common mission.

What you want instead is for everyone to be laser-focused on maximizing their impact. And you want to make sure that everyone is rewarded based on that impact.

So while the feedback loop in a competitive market is to drive attention to your product, which brings in revenue and allows you to grow the business, inside a company the feedback loop is different. There you want to incentivize everyone to make the most impact toward the common mission, which means rewarding everyone based on the impact they make and not the attention they grab

How many times have you heard politicians and others saying that we need more funding going toward public infrastructure, education, housing, or other common goods? We take it for granted that the problem is merely not enough funding, but rarely do we think any deeper than that.

If more funding for these is valuable to society, why don’t we have structures that effectively capture that value? And if we have things that are clearly harmful to society why don’t we have effective structures to disincentivize that?

We don’t hear car manufacturers saying “we need more funding for seatbelts” and we don’t hear Big Tech leaders saying “we need more funding for ergonomic seats for our employees.” 

That’s because in the private sector we have structures that sustainably fund the common goods that benefit consumers and workers – these structures are called companies. Read more 👇

Working on /impact ||


Abundance Economy book: book.abundance.id

How many times have you heard politicians and others saying that we need more funding going toward public infrastructure, education, housing, or other common goods? We take it for granted that the problem is merely not enough funding, but rarely do we think any deeper than that.

If more funding for these is valuable to society, why don’t we have structures that effectively capture that value? And if we have things that are clearly harmful to society why don’t we have effective structures to disincentivize that?

We don’t hear car manufacturers saying “we need more funding for seatbelts” and we don’t hear Big Tech leaders saying “we need more funding for ergonomic seats for our employees.” 

That’s because in the private sector we have structures that sustainably fund the common goods that benefit consumers and workers – these structures are called companies. Read more 👇
https://paragraph.xyz/@abundance/structures-that-capture-value


I don’t think it’s the masses taking it for granted so much as just being under some weird like haze of “well that’s how life is better just mind my business seems too complicated for my tiny brain!” Vibes if that makes sense. 

Like we’ve got two proposals on CA’s election one being borrowing like IIRC $10 BILLION to “fight climate change” — which great whatever I feel we have bigger fish to fry atm but considering we’re California with “such a great economy” — these politicians are wanting to bury our future generations in hella debt so they can increase expenditures on lord knows what reality wise… 

The dominos will start falling at some point and I think a lot of them know we’re on borrowed time. So figure may as well go out with a bang :/ 

// rant 

Sorry lmao