yes it can be an asset to deviate from the norm, it's like experimenting to find what works... as to sacrificing your reputation, to gain monetarily... I think that is just poor business practice as well as being morally wrong. Once you lose your reputation, (providing it is good) you are going to work a hell of a lot more and harder to gain it back.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The question is, if in order to get something you must lose something in return or at least put something at risk, what else does a person starting in poverty have that they can risk besides reputation? The second question is, do you think it is possible for someone at the very bottom say the homeless person, to become a millionaire while also keeping a good reputation in the process?
to your first question, what the poor person gives up is time and energy, that is their only risk. I can't see why a homeless person can't keep a good reputation while working their way up... not every person who is homeless is a drug addict, a drunk, or a thief. Sometimes circumstance beyond peoples control make them homeless, as in the case of a plant shut down. for instance. So they may have had a great reputation before that.It doesn't mean they have to lower their moral standards.
Well, I would say "time" and "energy" assume opportunity is everywhere. How do you create an opportunity for yourself to invest your time and energy in the first place if you don't sacrifice or risk something?
Where do you get the opportunity to grind if no path is set for you and you must create a new path? Is it possible to create a new path and keep a good reputation or will the disruption you cause create a bad reputation inherently?
Rather than say is it possible, is it likely that a person can create a completely new path (often very disruptive) while maintaining a good reputation?
you have to look for opportunities, everyone does! Some are better than others. We all have to go out in this world to look for opportunities, I did when I was 16.
We all have to create our paths, I think it all comes down to the individual.
And that is the dilemma. The necessity of having to create opportunities (or find them). If it's an advantage to be unscrupulous then wouldn't it favor those who have less behavioral restrictions?
There is ultimately the choice between conformity and "true to self" mentality vs goal oriented success at any cost mentality. Some may in fact subconsciously be choosing to be less financially successful in exchange for feeling better about themselves.
In that case it is a chosen path. I think someone like Buffet has the privilege even if he earned it to have an ability to say he puts reputation first. In his case he has enough money for 100 lifetimes so more of it makes no rational sense if reputation is lost.
But someone who doesn't even have enough money for 1 lifetime has a lot less to lose with a lot more to gain.
I'm not supporting buffet in the slightest, just pointing this out..
Personal integrity doesn't no have to be sacrificed for financial gain (again, not using buffet as an example, just saying...)
What I guess I'm getting at is, is it possible that high moral standards can lead directly to poverty? Could those same moral standards lock an entire demographic in a state of poverty due to limits to what they are willing to risk or try in order to escape?
Someone willing to try anything you would think has better opportunities and odds.
I'd find it hard to believe that high moral standards would or could lead to poverty... but stranger things have happened.
If you restrict your search you reduce your avenue of opportunities. So for example if for moral reasons you ignore lots of opportunities then you just have less opportunities in your life. Another person who doesn't restrict their search will increase their chances.
Do you not see how the numbers could favor an unrestricted search strategy?
I see what you mean, but you have made it sound like in order to get a "better" or more of an opportunity, you have to find something that is black hat... and I don't agree. Isn't it worth limiting yourself to keep your values,reputation, and risk everything by not doing so?
So you believe opportunities are not scarce? If opportunities aren't scarce how do we explain why some are in poverty for life yet stick to their moral standards while others rise out?
This is a very subjective question. It really depends on what you value more. Do you value whatever those values are more than another set of values? It could matter for example if you have kids and feel a sense of responsibility to protect them. It's also possible you don't have kids but just don't have any values which are fixed in stone.
Reputation can be lost while in poverty or while rich. The question is whether or not risking or sacrificing reputation to get rich is the only way to get rich. I would say maybe not the only way but it appears willingness to sacrifice more will give people an edge.
So a person who cannot deviate or escape from the restrictions of their moral standards could be trapped by those standards. At least that is a hypothesis. Say if Alice for example believes in maintaining high moral standards and would rather stay poor than to get rich in that way? But then Beth is not restricted by any moral standards so she'll take the opportunities Alice will not take.
Could the key to success for Beth be merely that she's more willing to deviate? If it's all about values could we say in this instance that Alice chose to remain poor rather than "sell her soul"?