40 ms·

Really, the highest earning "occupations" (or most prestigious) change as time goes: - in the 1800s many smart people became authors or poets. - in the 1950 man

Really, the highest earning "occupations" (or most prestigious) change as time goes: - in the 1800s many smart people became authors or poets. - in the 1950 many became physicists - around 2000, many became entrepreneurs (or even venture capitalists) Purely macro-economic reasons can dictate, that sometimes it is best to be an entrepreneur (say, in times of "under-investment"), sometimes a consultant and yet again, sometimes an employee (in times of "over-investment" in a sector)

anateus 16y ago
I'm not certain that's an apples to apples comparison. Entrepreneurship is more about how you do something rather than what you do. Your second paragraph makes more sense: to use one of your examples one can be a Physics consultant, employee, OR an entrepreneur (while still being a Physicist).
jarek 16y ago
Around 2000, highest earning occupations are by far in finance. Some entrepreneurs will make more, but when comparing 10 smart people in finance and 10 entrepreneurs, the average earnings aren't even close. Prestigious depends very heavily on who you ask. I don't think you can come up with one answer even 50% of a population would agree on today.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Controlling for ability? Entrepreneurship has no barrier to entry the way finance does; there's no job application to say "You didn't go to an Ivy League college, so no job for you". So if you take ten random entrepreneurs and compare them to 10 smart people in finance, of course the average earnings won't be close. I suspect that if you limited your applicant pool - say, "10 people who could get into YC" or "10 people who scored perfects on the SATs", the returns for entrepreneurship vs. finance would be much more even. I'm not sure entrepreneurs would come out ahead, but you're far more likely to catch the Herokus and Reddits and less likely to catch the folks who start a restaurant or a RoR CRUDscreen with no plan for monetization.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Sorry - that should have read "10 smart people in finance and 10 smart entrepreneurs". I was being careful to stay gender-impartial and left a crucial word out as a result... I must admit being a bit out of my depth regarding U.S. finance hiring. In Canada, Ivy or equivalent is not required, though of course it's not going to hurt. As far as I can see, it's one of the better fields when it comes to recognizing and rewarding hard work and ability and motivation (provided a baseline social/IQ ability). The luck component is still pretty important, but nevertheless much less so than in entrepreneurship. Unfortunately neither of us have data here. I can't go digging for mine right now, which is a bit of a shame as I would like to continue this discussion. Some other time?
tsotha 16y ago
>Really, the highest earning "occupations" (or most prestigious) change as time goes: - in the 1800s many smart people became authors or poets.- in the 1950 many became physicists - around 2000, many became entrepreneurs (or even venture capitalists) "Many" smart people become just about everything in every time period. I doubt we have the data to justify the assertion the ratios have changed over the years.

anateus 16y ago

I'm not certain that's an apples to apples comparison. Entrepreneurship is more about how you do something rather than what you do. Your second paragraph makes more sense: to use one of your examples one can be a Physics consultant, employee, OR an entrepreneur (while still being a Physicist).

jarek 16y ago

Around 2000, highest earning occupations are by far in finance. Some entrepreneurs will make more, but when comparing 10 smart people in finance and 10 entrepreneurs, the average earnings aren't even close. Prestigious depends very heavily on who you ask. I don't think you can come up with one answer even 50% of a population would agree on today.

nostrademons 16y ago
Controlling for ability? Entrepreneurship has no barrier to entry the way finance does; there's no job application to say "You didn't go to an Ivy League college, so no job for you". So if you take ten random entrepreneurs and compare them to 10 smart people in finance, of course the average earnings won't be close. I suspect that if you limited your applicant pool - say, "10 people who could get into YC" or "10 people who scored perfects on the SATs", the returns for entrepreneurship vs. finance would be much more even. I'm not sure entrepreneurs would come out ahead, but you're far more likely to catch the Herokus and Reddits and less likely to catch the folks who start a restaurant or a RoR CRUDscreen with no plan for monetization.
- jarek 16y ago
  Sorry - that should have read "10 smart people in finance and 10 smart entrepreneurs". I was being careful to stay gender-impartial and left a crucial word out as a result... I must admit being a bit out of my depth regarding U.S. finance hiring. In Canada, Ivy or equivalent is not required, though of course it's not going to hurt. As far as I can see, it's one of the better fields when it comes to recognizing and rewarding hard work and ability and motivation (provided a baseline social/IQ ability). The luck component is still pretty important, but nevertheless much less so than in entrepreneurship. Unfortunately neither of us have data here. I can't go digging for mine right now, which is a bit of a shame as I would like to continue this discussion. Some other time?

tsotha 16y ago

>Really, the highest earning "occupations" (or most prestigious) change as time goes: - in the 1800s many smart people became authors or poets.- in the 1950 many became physicists - around 2000, many became entrepreneurs (or even venture capitalists) "Many" smart people become just about everything in every time period. I doubt we have the data to justify the assertion the ratios have changed over the years.