3 ms·
People can interpret a data set in so many ways. I don't know which people you put into the "technology" and "finance" categories. I just went with the people t
by hooande 16y ago
People can interpret a data set in so many ways. I don't know which people you put into the "technology" and "finance" categories. I just went with the people that Forbes put into the categories of "Finance" or "Investment" vs the people that they put into the categories of "Internet" or "Software". I ran some numbers on the data they provided and here's what I found:
Finance/Investments:
Total People: 81
Avg Net Worth: 181.77
Avg Age: 62.32
Internet/Software:
Total People: 48
Avg Net Worth: 321.47
Avg Age: 45.43
The net worth is in millions I guess, but the numbers don't seem to jive (Bill Gates is worth $85B??)
It seems that technology > finance, in terms of net worth and number of years required to achieve that worth. While a financier may be more likely to make the list, the expected value for a tech entrepreneur seems to be much higher.
- apsec112 16y agoDid you look at just the new rich (the people who have gotten rich over the past ten years), or all the rich? If the latter, you're including a lot of dot-com people who wouldn't have gotten nearly as rich if it weren't for the bubble.
- hooande 16y agoI'd have to normalize the data for all kinds of bubbles in a variety of markets, not just the dotcom bubble. Plus, I couldn't see how to determine who was new rich based on the data. In the light of morning, I'd like to amend my statement to "the expected value for a tech entrepreneur seems to be slightly higher", based on the definition of an expected value: 81 / 400 x 181.77 = 36.80 48 / 400 x 321.47 = 38.57 Given that the odds of making the list in finance are higher, it's still a better bet to start a technology startup.