We may have talked about this in the last episode, but it's so interesting, I just love it.

我們在上一集可能已經談過這個問題，但它太有趣了，我很喜歡。

Talk about the example of flying to Germany for Oktoberfest, and I've contracted out my private plane, and I've got a pilot coming, and he informs me the day before that he's gotten a better offer and he's going to do something else.

舉個例子，比如我飛往德國參加啤酒節，我把私人飛機承包出去了，有一個飛行員要來，但他在前一天通知我，他得到了一個更好的報價，他要去做別的事情。

Exactly, the reason we have employees, and that, again, I credit conversation with you, is not because an employee is cheaper, delivers things better, no.

沒錯，我們之所以有員工，我再次感謝與你的談話，並不是因為員工更便宜，能提供更好的服務，不是的。

It's because an employee has a lot more to lose.

這是因為員工的損失更大。

He has skin in the game.

他在遊戲中也有份。

In other words, he has something to lose more than that specific job.

換句話說，他要失去的不僅僅是那份工作。

And they've also have signaled to us employees, by being employees, someone who was an employee for 35 years, or for 25 years, in a large corporation, they signal to us that they're not free.

他們也向我們發出了僱員的信號，作為僱員，一個在大公司工作了 35 年或 25 年的僱員，他們向我們發出了他們不自由的信號。

And it's great, sort of like you're, so you have an employee, it's inefficient, but it's a good risk management tool because you know that they're not going to let you down when you need them the most.

這很好，就像你有一名員工，雖然效率不高，但這是一個很好的風險管理工具，因為你知道在你最需要他們的時候，他們不會讓你失望。

The reason we have corporations is to avoid having legal contracts.

我們之所以有公司，就是為了避免簽訂法律合同。

But that version, that the person, the employee is not someone, is someone who escapes that notion of contract, is, to me, quite central in why we have employees, because you want to own some people.

但是，在我看來，這種說法，即人、僱員不是某個人，是某個擺脫了契約概念的人，是我們擁有僱員的核心原因，因為你想擁有一些人。

And just like we have, a lot of people have country houses, and that they don't use, it's much more efficient to stay in a nice hotel.

就像我們一樣，很多人都有鄉間別墅，但他們不用，住在漂亮的酒店裡更有效率。

It's because they want to know that that place, they can go to it whenever they want to.

因為他們想知道，那個地方，他們想去就能去。

Either they woke up at midnight and decide to drive to the country house, they can do that.

要麼他們半夜醒來，決定開車去鄉間別墅，他們可以這麼做。

They won't do it, but they would like to know they can do it.

他們不會這麼做，但他們想知道自己能做到。

So they don't want to share.

所以他們不想分享。

And that's quite central, this idea of skin in the game.

這就是 "參與遊戲 "的核心理念。

And that was also a risk management tool that the Romans, the Romans practically have discovered so many things.

這也是羅馬人的一種風險管理工具，羅馬人實際上已經發現了很多東西。

I mean, I would say almost everything in one way or another.

我的意思是，我可以說幾乎所有的事情都以這樣或那樣的方式發生過。

So the Romans figured it out because they never let a free person be a steward in a big state.

所以羅馬人想通了，因為他們從不讓一個自由人成為大國的管家。

They wanted slaves.

他們想要奴隸。

And what's the reason?

原因是什麼？

Because you can punish a slave.

因為你可以懲罰奴隸。

You own a slave, you can punish a slave.

你擁有奴隸，你就可以懲罰奴隸。

So if the person is caught cheating, the punishment is much harsher for a slave.

是以，如果被發現作弊，對奴隸的懲罰要嚴厲得多。

So the steward was typically a slave.

是以，管家通常是奴隸。

And that was very deep.

這一點非常深刻。

I thought about Joseph in the book of Genesis when he's the steward of Potiphar's house.

我想到了《創世紀》中的約瑟夫，當時他是波提乏家的管家。

And you're thinking, why is this lowly person given this control?

你會想，為什麼這個卑微的人被賦予了這種控制權？

Well, he's really smart, was one answer, but it's not enough.

嗯，他真的很聰明，這是一個答案，但這還不夠。

It's that ability to punish downside.

這就是懲罰缺點的能力。

And of course, as a result of it, Joseph ends up in prison, really in what appears to be a life sentence, but manages to get out.

當然，約瑟夫也是以鋃鐺入獄，看似被判無期徒刑，但最終成功出獄。

But the point about having a slave versus a employee is a really interesting one.

不過，"奴隸 "與 "僱員 "這一點倒是很有意思。

And it highlights something.

這突出說明了一些問題。

And we talked about this in another one of our conversations.

我們在另一次談話中也談到了這一點。

And it's so trivial, but it's so deep because it's so easily misunderstood.

它是如此瑣碎，卻又如此深刻，因為它很容易被誤解。

And the way you phrase it is, probabilities aren't the same as expectation.

你的說法是，概率與期望值不同。

The odds of something being remote is not enough to mean you don't have to worry about it because it depends on the consequences of that remote thing happening, not just the probability.

某些事情發生的機率很小，但這並不意味著你不必擔心，因為這取決於發生這種事情的後果，而不僅僅是概率。

So being wiped out by your slave or being able to punish your slave is really very powerful because it's the magnitude, not just the probability that matters.

是以，被你的奴隸消滅或能夠懲罰你的奴隸真的非常強大，因為重要的是程度，而不僅僅是概率。

And I think that's just an incredibly, it's incredibly obvious, but it's very deep.

我認為這一點非常明顯，但卻非常深刻。

People forget it all the time.

人們總是忘記這一點。

They say, oh, that's such a low probability event.

他們會說，哦，這種概率太低了。

Well, but if you die when it happens, it's more important than if you don't die.

好吧，但如果發生時你死了，這比你沒死更重要。

It's- Exactly.

沒錯

And here you can look at it.

在這裡，你可以看到它。

You need a slave because you need someone who can be punished by a mistake.

你需要一個奴隸，因為你需要一個犯了錯就能受到懲罰的人。

And an employee is never gonna be able to come back if he's developed a reputation, a bad reputation.

如果一個員工名聲不好，他就再也不會回來了。

Nobody would hire him or her, but a free person can always manage because- You can only fire an employee, but you can torture a slave.

沒有人會僱用他或她，但一個自由人總能管理好自己，因為-- 你只能解僱一個僱員，但你可以折磨一個奴隸。

I mean, that's not a very attractive thought, but that's the point.

我的意思是，這種想法並不吸引人，但這就是問題所在。

Yeah, yeah, that's true, but still an employee, by firing an employee, you're actually, you have more to lose than just the job.

是的，是的，這沒錯，但解僱一名員工，實際上，你失去的不僅僅是這份工作。

Whereas a contractor, when you fire a contractor, you find another client.

而承包商，當你解僱一個承包商時，你會找到另一個客戶。

Firing an employee has more downside.

解僱員工的弊端更多。

Oh, great.

哦，太好了。

And typically, these are people who wanna stay in the job for a long run.

一般來說，這些人都是想長期工作的人。

They trade their freedom for reliability.

他們用自由換取可靠。

No, it's the same argument I make.

不，我也是這麼說的。

The hierarchy you're suggesting is contractor employs slave and issue employee is getting close to slave because they have more at stake than contractor, but not as much as a slave.

你建議的等級制度是承包商僱傭奴隸，而問題僱員接近奴隸，因為他們比承包商有更多的利害關係，但不如奴隸。

But it reminds me of this argument I sometimes make about football coaches or general managers in sports.

但這讓我想起了我有時對足球教練或體育總經理提出的論點。

They are very risk-averse, and yet they're in this highly competitive business, and it's hard to understand why they're so risk-averse, but the answer is there's a decent chance that if they mess up, they'll never get that job again.

他們規避風險的能力很強，但他們從事的是競爭激烈的行業，很難理解他們為什麼如此規避風險，但答案是，如果他們搞砸了，就很有可能再也找不到那份工作了。

There are only 30 of them, say, or 32, depending on the sport, and as a result, they act very cautiously.

比如說，他們只有 30 人，或者 32 人，這取決於運動項目，是以，他們的行動非常謹慎。

You could say, well, but what's the worst thing that can happen?

你可以說，好吧，但最壞的情況又能怎樣呢？

It doesn't work out the strategy or the trade or the draft pick, but it matters because the outcome isn't just unlikely.

戰略、交易或選秀權都無法實現，但這很重要，因為結果並非只是不太可能。

It's unlikely with effectively a death sentence.

實際上，這不太可能被判死刑。

You may not come, as in employment, you may not be able to get that job ever again.

你可能不會來，因為在就業方面，你可能再也找不到那份工作了。

Yeah, that's, no, I mean, but in fact, I've observed somewhere that we have many more slaves today than we did in Roman times because in Roman times, slaves were actually sometimes freer.

是的，不，我的意思是，但事實上，我在某處觀察到，我們今天的奴隸比羅馬時代多得多，因為在羅馬時代，奴隸有時實際上更自由。

And why are we so slave-burdened today?

而我們今天又為何如此奴性十足？

Because we have a more complex system that need more reliable people, and an employee is practically a slave.

因為我們的系統更加複雜，需要更加可靠的人才，而員工實際上就是奴隸。

I mean, think about it in these terms, right?

我的意思是，從這個角度想想，對嗎？

He can't say what he thinks.

他不能說出自己的想法。

He gets fired.

他被解僱了。

He can go on Twitter and curse at someone else.

他可以在 Twitter 上罵別人。

There's a lot of things they can't do, but it's not there that they're a slave because they have to show up and give you their time, nine to five or nine to six or sometimes eight to 10 at night, okay?

他們有很多事情不能做，但並不是說他們是奴隸，因為他們必須出現在你面前，把時間交給你，晚上九點到五點、九點到六點，有時是八點到十點，好嗎？

So they have to give you so much, and they're scared.

所以他們必須給你很多，他們很害怕。

With the slaves in Roman times, of course they have downsides.

羅馬時代的奴隸當然也有缺點。

They could be beaten, they could be crucified.

他們可能被毆打，可能被釘死在十字架上。

I mean, the owner could do whatever.

我的意思是，業主可以做任何事情。

So two negative things.

所以，有兩點是負面的。

If you want it, yeah.

如果你想要，當然可以。

But a slave at a time, you know, if you damage a slave, you can't sell them, so you lose market value.

但是，每次一個奴隸，你知道，如果你損壞了一個奴隸，你就不能賣掉他們，所以你就失去了市場價值。

And with an employee, it's not the same.

而對於員工，情況就不一樣了。

So it's quite, I mean, I haven't written much about it in Skin in the Game, of course, so many other topics, but I'm certain that we have more people who are dependent today than we did in Roman times.

是以，我的意思是，我在《遊戲中的皮膚》一書中沒怎麼寫過這方面的內容，當然，還有很多其他話題，但我可以肯定的是，與羅馬時代相比，我們今天有更多的人依賴他人。

It's an interesting argument.

這是一個有趣的論點。

You do bear some cost if you fire your employees all the time.

如果你總是解僱員工，確實要承擔一定的成本。

People are less accessible.

人們不那麼容易接近。

That's true, that's true.

沒錯，沒錯。

But an employee is, okay, someone who sold you his work unconditionally.

但是，僱員就是無條件地把工作賣給你的人。

So he's saying, okay, you gotta report by 9 a.m. and come back.

所以他說，好吧，你得在早上9點前報到，然後回來。

So why, or sometimes if there's nothing to do, they still have to show up.

那麼，為什麼，或者有時如果沒有什麼事情可做，他們還是要出現呢？

So, or maybe you may have employees, of course, who are freer, but that's the typical standard.

當然，也可能有一些員工比較自由，但這是典型的標準。

Why is that so?

為什麼會這樣呢？

Well, because you want people who are not free.

因為你要的是不自由的人。

And this is why we have a school system to basically teach people to not be free between 8 and 4 p.m.

這就是為什麼我們有一個學校系統，基本上是教人們在晚上 8 點到 4 點之間不要閒著。

That's how it works.

事情就是這樣。

Yeah, it's practice.

是的，這是練習。

Yeah, so they're broken and young, and they learn.

是啊，他們殘缺而年輕，他們會學習。

And so you have employees.

於是，你就有了員工。

Reflections.

反思。

There's a story in Nassim's book, Skin in the Game, which I think captures perfectly the essence of this idea.

納西姆的《遊戲中的皮膚》一書中有一個故事，我認為它完美地抓住了這一理念的精髓。

So I will now leave you with this story.

所以，我現在要把這個故事留給你們。

In the famous tale of Ahikar, later picked up by Aesop and then again by La Fontaine, the dog boasts to the wolf all the contraptions of comfort and luxury he has, almost prompting the wolf to enlist, until the wolf asks the dog about his collar and is terrified when he understands its use.

在著名的《阿希卡爾》故事中，狗向狼誇耀自己擁有的所有舒適和奢華的裝置，幾乎促使狼入伍，直到狼向狗打聽它的項圈，當它明白項圈的用途時，嚇得魂飛魄散。

Of all your meals, I want nothing.

你做的所有飯菜，我都不想吃。

He ran away and is still running.

他跑了，現在還在跑。

Another aspect of the dog versus wolf dilemma, the feeling of false stability.

狗與狼困境的另一個方面，是虛假的穩定感。

A dog's life may appear smooth and secure, but in the absence of an owner, a dog does not survive.

狗的生活看似平順安穩，但如果沒有主人，狗就無法生存。

Most people prefer to adopt puppies, not grown-up dogs.

大多數人喜歡收養小狗，而不是成年狗。

In many countries, unwanted dogs are euthanized.

在許多國家，沒人要的狗都會被安樂死。

A wolf is trained to survive.

狼是為了生存而訓練出來的。

So the question is, what would you like to be, a dog or a wolf?

那麼問題來了，你想做什麼，狗還是狼？

Thanks for watching.

感謝觀看。

And if you want to expand on these ideas, I highly recommend you checking out Nathim's book, Skinning the Game, as well as the guide on Shortform, which compiles all the key nuggets.

如果你想進一步瞭解這些想法，我強烈建議你看看納西姆的《剝皮遊戲》一書，以及 Shortform 上的指南，其中彙集了所有的關鍵要點。

I've been using Shortform for the past two years and it has boosted my learning with its vast library of over a thousand book guides.

在過去的兩年裡，我一直在使用 Shortform，它擁有一個包含一千多本圖書指南的龐大圖書館，極大地促進了我的學習。

They're not sponsoring this video, but there's an affiliate link in the video description and you can get a five-day free trial and a 20% discount.

他們沒有贊助本視頻，但在視頻描述中有一個聯盟鏈接，您可以獲得五天免費試用和八折優惠。