`Author:` [[Nassim Nicholas Taleb]] `Availability:` Yes > [!info] > ## Summary ## Key Takeaways ## Quotes - ## Notes Skin in The Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life by [[Nassim Nicholas Taleb]] explores the concept that real risk-sharing—having “skin in the game”—is essential for fairness, competence, and accountability in [[Society]]. Taleb argues that many modern institutions, from [[Corporations]] to governments, suffer from asymmetric risk structures where decision-makers are not exposed to the consequences of their actions, creating perverse incentives and fragility. The Modern Employee as Modern [[Slavery]]. One of Taleb’s more provocative arguments is that modern salaried employees, particularly those in corporate environments, are akin to “modern slaves.” His reasoning is that while traditional [[Slavery]] was an overt form of coercion, modern employment subtly entraps individuals through financial dependence, [[Bureaucracy]], and psychological conditioning. • Loss of Agency: Employees exchange stability for obedience. Unlike entrepreneurs or freelancers who bear direct responsibility for their success or failure, salaried workers have limited [[Control]] over their destiny. Their income depends on pleasing superiors rather than on their actual contribution to [[Society]]. • The Illusion of Security: The salary creates a psychological prison, where people fear losing their jobs and, by extension, their lifestyles. This discourages risk-taking and independence, keeping people subservient. • [[Bureaucracy]] as a Control Mechanism: Taleb argues that large corporations and institutions impose rigid structures that reward compliance over competence, further entrenching dependency. • Comparison to Traditional Slavery: While obviously different in legal and moral terms, Taleb provocatively suggests that salaried workers, like slaves, have little direct skin in the game. They work for someone else’s gain, bear the downside of failure (losing their job), but do not share meaningfully in the upside. Implications of This View Taleb’s critique suggests that true freedom comes from risk-bearing. Entrepreneurs, artisans, small business owners, and freelancers—those who have true “skin in the game”—are freer than high-paid employees trapped in corporate ladders. He sees independence, not stability, as the real measure of personal agency. While some find his comparison exaggerated, the core idea resonates with broader critiques of corporate life and the dangers of [[Comfort]]-based dependency. Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect of his argument? `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`