Ask any economist. They will tell you that if you have three people, Joe Sally and Fred, and if Sally pays Joe to do something, and Joe spends the dollar Sally gave him on having Fred do something, and Fred then employs Sally at her profession, that money has provided the abstraction over the value flow to enable all three to support each other. The money travels in the opposite directon as the value and gives the holder their turn to receive value.
There's a problem here. To simplify, lets say all services cost the same and there's only one dollar in the whole economy. Sally has it first. Fred and Joe are completely broke. Sally can get anything she wants because she's the richest person in the world and the highly skilled Fred and Joe are both unemployed and desperate. Sally decides to employ Joe, and he happily adopts Sally as his boss until Sally pays his salary at the very high sum of all of the wealth in the world (one buck). Now the table is turned and because Sally is bankrupt and Joe is rich, Joe quits and incorporates and looks for quality talent. Fred and Sally both apply and Joe picks Fred because hiring his old boss would be awkward. You can see where this is going. Someone is always rich until something happens that redistributes wealth and then someone else is rich. The rest of everybody occupy themselves trying to be noticed by someone rich. This is how the fiat currency economy works. It's why people commute to soul killing jobs on weekdays.
But why does it have to be this way? If Joe Sally and Fred all have valuable skills, why does one of them sit idle at every stage of the cycle? It's circumstantial. No one has money to pay them to work. How can we let all of them produce value simultaneously with the same security that their work will be repaid? Credit cards? Sure... but I have a better idea. Just tell people where the value comes from.
Imagine this time people don't ask for money in return for their services. Joe gives to Sally, Sally gives to Fred, Fred gives to Joe. That's a cycle. Sally publishes that Joe helped her, Fred publishes that Sally helped him, and Joe publishes that Fred helped him. Now we find Ed. Ed needs more support so he looks for a cycle to participate in. Fred needs something Ed can do so Ed helps Fred. Ed is now upstream from Fred by 0 degrees, Joe by 1 degree, and Sally by 2 degrees. By helping Fred, Ed is indirectly helping Joe and Sally. Because Fred published that Ed helped him, Joe and Sally may be motivated to support Ed because Ed supported someone who supported them.
Wealth in any economy is about having a strong upstream. If we can participate in a system that makes our upstream visible, we will become able to purposely support and strengthen that which supports and strengthens us. This will lead to greater wealth than grinding away at a thankless job. In fact, by definition there can be no thankless jobs in a semantic currency economy.