39 ms·

The conflation of job types in this piece undercuts its thesis, which I think it pretty good advice. Seeking out a career in a kitchen, the entertainment busin

The conflation of job types in this piece undercuts its thesis, which I think it pretty good advice. Seeking out a career in a kitchen, the entertainment business or any other "tournament profession" is high-risk and likely to leave you with few skills the market will reward. On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by pharma companies. The other examples are a bit weirder. The people who love to fly recreationally typically aren't the ones manning the red-eye, or ferrying air freight from Shenzen. In most cases, they're "Post-economic" if they can afford to learn. Likewise, I'm not sure anyone goes into the forest service for money. Anyway, the author makes a good point, but muddles it with poor examples.

abnry 9y ago
An example I was waiting for him to list was graphic designer/artist. It's a sort of meme to be asked to do things "for exposure". The reason that is a thing is because many people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic. That's part of it. But a lot of people (on both sides) are also just naive about the value of said exposure. When I was a consultant I was asked for freebies all the time. Sometimes speaking at a conference was legitimate for the "portfolio" but it was mostly just asking me to work for free.
bjterry 9y ago
I think if I were writing this piece from whole cloth, I would use different examples. It was mostly a response to the reddit post so I was hoping to resolve confusion for my friends who had read that. There is a lot more that could be said on this topic, particularly markets with winner-take-most dynamics or positional elements, markets that are outside equilibrium, and markets with rent-seeking behaviors.
drpgq 9y ago
"On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by pharma companies." I don't think that's true anymore.
- shubb 9y ago
  Definitely too many phds for stable academic vacancies. Employable lifescience specialists are still very employable in industry though.
  - RealityVoid 9y ago
    I just want to segway a little bit here, but when I though about doing a Phd I not for once thought I want to stay in academia. I think it's silly the fact that people associate phds with a career in academia, I always thought of it like a means to become a deep expert in a certain field of study and the opportunity to do innovative work in it, mostly by transitioning to private industry. The way the Phd=career in academia became entrenched beats me honestly.

abnry 9y ago

An example I was waiting for him to list was graphic designer/artist. It's a sort of meme to be asked to do things "for exposure". The reason that is a thing is because many people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic.

ghaff 9y ago
>people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic. That's part of it. But a lot of people (on both sides) are also just naive about the value of said exposure. When I was a consultant I was asked for freebies all the time. Sometimes speaking at a conference was legitimate for the "portfolio" but it was mostly just asking me to work for free.

bjterry 9y ago

I think if I were writing this piece from whole cloth, I would use different examples. It was mostly a response to the reddit post so I was hoping to resolve confusion for my friends who had read that. There is a lot more that could be said on this topic, particularly markets with winner-take-most dynamics or positional elements, markets that are outside equilibrium, and markets with rent-seeking behaviors.

drpgq 9y ago

"On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by pharma companies." I don't think that's true anymore.

shubb 9y ago
Definitely too many phds for stable academic vacancies. Employable lifescience specialists are still very employable in industry though.
- RealityVoid 9y ago
  I just want to segway a little bit here, but when I though about doing a Phd I not for once thought I want to stay in academia. I think it's silly the fact that people associate phds with a career in academia, I always thought of it like a means to become a deep expert in a certain field of study and the opportunity to do innovative work in it, mostly by transitioning to private industry. The way the Phd=career in academia became entrenched beats me honestly.