local adaptation is not global scalability

There’s a saying: “If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere.”

It sounds empowering, but it’s actually deceptive.

If you can make it in New York, you might not make it in Sri Lanka — or anywhere structurally different — because the underlying economic architecture isn’t the same. What succeeds in one system can fail in another simply because the gradients of liquidity, consequence, and optionality are different.

The real benchmark of adaptability isn’t success within a single ecosystem; it’s Maximum Adverse Excursion relative to the economy itself — your ability to remain in the top percentile wherever you go. That’s the true test of structural supremacy.

Take, for example, the proliferation of English teachers across Asia. Many do well enough to sustain a lifestyle, but few sit within the top percentile of those societies. Meanwhile, the expats who do reach the top percentile locally often couldn’t replicate that standing in other major markets — their success remains geographically bound.

Conversely, many who migrate from Sri Lanka to New York never crack the top percentile there either. Both cases illustrate the same thing: local adaptation, not global scalability.

The objective is to be peak and global — to exist at the top of the distribution regardless of environment. That’s what gives lines like “Put me anywhere on Earth and I’ll triple my worth” their meaning. It’s not bravado; it’s a statement of transferability — proof that your edge isn’t confined to a place, but built on principles that transcend them.