Information asymmetry is the fastest way to get started, the more asymmetric, the more money.
Ancient news lag, business travelers rely on A place to buy, B place to sell the difference in price can earn a huge fortune, this is because the "what is where the scarcity of information is the key to the difference in price, once mastered, stand to the upper reaches of the value chain.
As far as I can see, many senior workers, because initially there is no capital, can only start from the bottom of the work, but once the high level, master a large number of information resources, almost all of them will be switched from doing business to do information brokers,
Rainmaker, rely on the aggregation of transactions within the industry to make money.
This kind of transaction only needs to matchmaking, even the principal is not required, as long as made a single, the rest of the year can be rested, this kind of money to earn up, can be more cost-effective than their own hands, when the old bull.
Monopolizing the information exchange node, often in the system has the greatest bargaining power, nothing need to do themselves, just rely on the development of the game rules can make money.
My side of a small head of the management company, the team of 10 people, the project in 2015 divided into 10 million, he took 8.5 million, 9 people under the remaining 1.5 million, the work are under the work of their own easy. Under the hands of those people because in the downstream of the information chain, so the soup is there, meat is not.
More low point example there? There is also the real estate agent who is often ridiculed by white-collar workers.
Despite the fact that agents in cheap suits have been regarded as a class apart from the wash-and-sniffers for more than a decade, this wave of real estate transactions has really made the industry a fortune, and many losers have succeeded in making a comeback as a result.
That said, now a very common set of city center houses in North China and Shenzhen, which is not a ten million dollar jump, which the brokerage fee at 2% is 200,000, as long as you can make a few single a year, the cost-effective far more than daily overtime until late at night, white-collar workers.
And in contrast, now a new three board companies on the board before the legal review, the law firm charges a mere 150,000, the lawyer received money but also bear the responsibility of the legal opinion. And real estate agents have no responsibility at all, neither need a diploma, nor see them do too many things, hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of intermediary fees easily into the pocket.
Earning money from selling information is inherently easier than earning money from selling time. In addition to business brokers, there are also power brokers, even more costless.
The most cost-effective way to make money is to sell other people's attention
The so-called attention economy, the business model can be summarized by a very old saying: "If everyone in China gives me a dollar, I'm a billionaire".
This phrase was around 20 years ago, and it fooled a lot of U.S. investors during the first Internet bubble in the late '90s, but then it turned out to be mostly bullshit.
Now that 20 years have passed, and technology has made it possible for a person in a remote county to pay someone in a Shanghai office building in less than a second, this 20-year old big lie is finally coming true.
The scale of this attention economy thing is actually very good to calculate, assuming that a person 24 hours a day, in addition to 8 hours of work 8 hours of sleep 8 hours, there are still 8 hours of leisure time, then the attention business is to grab these 8 hours.
And a person is willing to pay for the leisure time of the overhead is fixed, then a simple calculation will be able to come up with an average of how much money per minute of attention to stay time is worth, and then multiplied by the number of attention to papi sauce and other network celebrities can begin to pricing called for sale.
The so-called loser gets the world, in the sale of attention to this line of work embodied in the most, a computer a network cable, millions of millions of dollars a year to money, no capital Wanli, to play is the cluster effect and the loser economy. The status quo of these new economies will sometimes make many traditional, the rules and regulations of the good study and work of the people's heart is not balanced.
For example, in the case of webcasting, I know that on platforms such as Stranger Live, it is not a problem for a pretty girl with a good face to earn 100,000 dollars a month, based on what?
There are enough male losers, and male losers have a payment function on their cell phones to satisfy these two points.
The first condition has always been there before, and the second condition has only been reached in the last few years, so for these girls, this magical era that they never dared to think about or imagine before has just arrived.
(People who play Stranger know that this starlight value of 100 is equal to one yuan, how much you earn can be seen at a glance)
Webcasting provides losers with the possibility of obtaining a virtual experience of interacting with a beautiful woman at a minimal cost, and you can't say that this is meaningless.
The most uneconomical thing is to sell your time to make money
Most people, with no capital, no connections, and no time to spare, can only sell their time to make a little money, commonly known as begging for a living.
I am a professional myself, so I understand the confusion of those who rely on selling their time.
The average person who goes to the hospital with a cold and tens of dollars for treatment must have a Bachelor's degree or higher, take the physician's qualification, intern for 1-3 years, and obtain the doctor's qualification to be able to bill. But the people of a lifetime 90% of the income to buy a house, on a group of washing and cutting and blowing agent in the operation and then out of thin air to collect more than 100,000 yuan.
Ordinary girls from childhood study hard, work after the stars, overtime to whiplash problems but also just so a month a few thousand ten thousand, Netflix live broadcasts to spread, sing a song on a year of millions of income.
Thinking about it like this, it's really hard to get people to accept a lifetime of conformity.
Selling time is the toughest way to make money because there are billions of competitors, and those who sell time have little bargaining power over the buyer, and can only be slaughtered at the bottom of the food chain.
The smarter ones among them can earn a little more by forcing themselves to study, further their education, and get promoted to increase their labor efficiency. And most of the people whose intelligence can't support increased labor efficiency will have to increase their income by increasing the length of their labor time.
There is no qualitative difference between a couple who get up at 3 a.m. to set up a stall in Chongqing, and the working elite who work overtime until dawn -- their income is tied to the length of their labor time.
The key to jumping out of the quagmire of selling out your time is to reduce the marginal cost of labor, or to find areas where it can be reduced.
Some people have discussed why top hedge funds earn an order of magnitude more than top investment banks, and I'm afraid that's exactly why -- a 10-fold increase in the size of funds under management equals a 10-fold increase in revenues, and the hours of work don't linearly increase by 10-fold, but rather by just twice as much, or even about the same as before. It may only take twice as long, or even about the same. And those who increase their income by 10x, and their workload follows suit, are stuck with a continued reliance on selling their time.
There are only 24 hours in a day, which means that there is a capacity ceiling for selling time to make money. This is the key to why you can't make a lot of money selling time.
The easiest thing to do is to make money with money
Property appreciation, rent, interest, and equity earnings are all considered making money with money.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is not as good as a demolition house.
For the average person, in this day and age, the only major vehicle for personal wealth growth is property appreciation. Nothing is as good as buying a house is the social **** knowledge in China in the past decade. But many people do not think any deeper? Why is anything better than buying a house?
The answer is that we have entered an era where the rate of return on capital is growing faster than the rate of return on labor.
A major sign of class solidification is that the return on capital is starting to be higher than the return on labor: as soon as housing prices go up a little, the average white-collar worker's hard-earned income of several years will instantly go down the drain, and even more will not be able to catch up with the speed of asset appreciation.
You see those elite investment bankers, a bunch of sellside people to jump to buyside as the goal of the shore, reflecting the return on labor and the return on capital of the difference.
Nowadays, only very few industries (such as the Internet) have a rate of return on labor that may be higher than the rate of return on capital, so this can actually be used as a yardstick for judging whether an industry is a sunrise industry or not.
Hong Kong people call buying a house "getting on the train", and the first set of properties purchased by the working class is called "getting on the train", which is in fact a very good image - imagine a group of people running after a car, and as long as you can jump on the car, you will be able to get on the train. As long as you can jump on the car, you are sitting in the car lying down, but also than those who run after the outside to move faster.
This, then, is the magic of making money on money.
When the money and the information monopoly combination, the power is even greater, someone in a domestic attraction outside the contracted a temple, a little renovation, a year of pure income is 4 million, and then lie down to count the money on the good.