If you want to get rich, stop being a fucking joker

"there's no task management"

Maybe that's why things are now weeks behind?

You are right, it is not in that post alone but reading through the comments, some of his replies and (especially) some of his others posts linked in here just all added up to this personal impression. I don't know the guy and from what I read I do not want to know him but that's just my personal gut feeling. I don't like those hyperactive, over-psyched, narcissistic, ADHD over-over-achiever types, I find them repulsive. I cannot help it.

In my own experience the people you can actually learn something valuable from are the more quiet ones, especially the ones who have actually achieved something. They can share something much more valuable than mere thoughts and ideas on strategy - they can share experience because they have done it. There is a saying that all strategies and battle plans hold up well until first enemy contact. I can relate to this - so in this understanding, if he had done and achieved something worthy of that "1%" mantra with his ideas and theories then it would be extremely interesting and valuable to read about it.

All I see now on his blog are personal thoughts, meandering, theoretical ideas and a TON of self-applauding and getting psyched on success which is all fine for a personal blog and probably has great therapeutic value for him but in a lot of those posts he does take the position of teaching, educating or even preaching. And he does not just present it as "hey I have an idea" and then follows up with "and that's how it worked in the end". He just presents ideas and how awesome they are and how right he is. And then it takes but 2 minutes to find an incredible amount of contradictions - he is contradicting himself and his own ideas, guidelines and mantras from one post to the next.

These two facts plus the personal impression and gut feeling together are more than enough for me to seriously question his legitimacy. He doesn't feel very authentic, honest and driven by "positive energy"... he feels very driven, fragmented and unfocused, however.

And the question for references or actual success is not only for me, as you pointed out it doesn't make that much sense. It is actually a question directed at him and I honestly think he should apply some critical thought, take a step back and look at what he is doing and saying. Asking him to compare his words, writings and theories to actual outcome and hard facts should provide one way of taking a shot at that. And regarding this specific post, it is very clear to me he deserve all the flak because he seriously needs to reflect on his attitude and how he deals with projects and sharing responsibilities.

But I doubt he will take that step back and honestly reflect and instead go all nuts about how the 99% of lazy people are just trying to hold him back.

Maybe it is just me, I generally don't feel too crazy about the whole "blogosphere" so drenched and drowning in exactly this sensationalist lower-than-mediocrity and low-value noise-floor postings, so maybe I am biased.

To give you the other extreme: I cannot help but shake my head at (a lot of) things that PG has written and while I might disagree with the ideas, I can see and understand that they have obviously provided him with at least the right state of mind (paired with lots of luck) to accomplish something. And he can and does share experiences and lessons learned, not just personal theories and road maps like 1. Collect underpants. 2. ... 3. success!

How is that relevant in a discussion about publicly shaming people working for you.

If you're overpaying people for their level of talent, that actually is a problem.

Firstly you're wasting money for no extra value return. And it will leave you with the reputation of "that guy who pays stupid amounts of money" rather than "that guy who hires the best".

Secondly it gives you the expectation of "I am paying them loads more, so they should have more devotion to the project". In reality this doesn't always work out - better to get them enthused in the project and offer rewards in the context of the success of the project (this is why big companies don't pay higher and higher rates to get the best talent - but instead use bonuses and other incentives).

Thirdly it gets the business into the culture of overpaying; I've seen several companies do this, and at some point in the future you will run into the point where it is not possible to keep paying that rate. Reducing a super-high salary to baseline is de-motivating - you'll get employees just losing engagement and thinking "hey, I could just get a 'normal' job". Empirically; I've seen a number of companies fail purely through this factor.

I want top paid people, comprehensive benefits, complete healthcare, and serious investments in quality training.

This, however, is a good way to approach it. Pay the standard levels of salary and shift the rest of the money into value for the employee. If they are getting a couple of weeks training and conference attendance, new equipment, top notch business support etc. from you then they will be much more inclined to stick around.

It is a much more effective way to buy loyalty/support.

He just posted an email, with ctrl+f replace of names. So probably not too long :)