[johnnyanmac]

>He should teach more, and take it seriously.

if only we compensated that knowledge properly. Youtube seems to come the closest, but Youtube educators also show how much time you have to spend attracting views instead of teaching expertise.

> It makes you a target for offers and opportunities because of your name/influence, but not necessarily because of your underlying "best fit"

That's unfortunately life in a nutshell. The best fits rarely end up getting any given position. May be overqualified, filtered out in the HR steps, or rejected for some ephemeral reason (making them RTO, not accepting their counteroffer, potentially illegal factors behind closed doors, etc).

it's a crappy game so I don't blame anyone for using whatever cards they are dealt.

[samspenc]

> Youtube seems to come the closest, but Youtube educators also show how much time you have to spend attracting views instead of teaching expertise.

Actually for all the attention that the top Youtubers get (in terms of revenue), the reality is that it's going to be impossible to replace teaching income with popular Youtube videos alone.

Based on what I've seen, 1 million video views on Youtube gets you something like $5-10K. And that's with a primarily US audience that has the higher CPM / RPM. So your channel(s) would need to get to about 6 million views per year, primarily US driven, in order to get to earning a median US wage.

[SCM-Enthusiast]

If you made video a week and the average is 115k views, you replace your median salary[0]. But the logic on ppc ends up being alot more complicated than you assume.

to get 6m views you need to make one video a week that gets 114k views 6000000/52 = 115,384.61.

[godelski]

> if only we compensated that knowledge properly.

Something I've been thinking a lot about is the transition into post scarcity and how we need to dramatically alter the incentive structures and payment allocations.

I've been asking this question for about a decade and still have no good solutions: "What do you do when x% of your workforce is unemployable?" (being that x% of jobs are removed without replacement. Imagine sophisticated and cheap robots. Or if needed, magic)

This is a thought experiment, so your answer can't be "there'll be new jobs." Even if you believe that's what'll happen in real life, it's not in bounds of the thought experiment. It is best to consider multiple values of x because it is likely to change and that would more reflect a post scarcity transition. It is not outside the realms of possibility that in the future you can obtain food, shelter, and medical care for free or at practically no cost. "Too cheap to meter" if you will.

I'll give you two answers that I've gotten that I find interesting. I do not think either are great and they each have issues. 1) jobs programs. Have people do unnecessary jobs simply so they create work wherein we can compensate them. 2) Entertainment. People are, on average, far more interested in watching people play chess against one another than computers, despite the computer being better. So reasons that this ,,might,, not go away.

[fuzzfactor]

>The best fits rarely end up getting any given position.

This can be self-fulfilling.

In an organization beyond a certain size, there will be more almost-adequate-fits than there are leadership positions. This could be about like a recognized baseline which seems like it really needs to be scrutinized closely to see exactly who might be slightly above or below the line.

Or in a small company where there is not any almost-fit whatsoever, imagination can result in an ideal that is equally recognizable, but also might not be fully attainable.

Either way it could be OK but not exactly the best-fit.

If good fortune smiles and the rare more-than-adequate-fit appears anywhere on the horizon though, it's so unfamiliar they fly right over the radar.

[sharadov]

I don't think he needs the money. I googled around and he's worth 50 million.

[jejeyyy77]

I would pay for a course from him