3 ms·
To me one interesting thing about this article is that -- relating specifically to the question of whether you can get rich by picking a "safe" job -- it is act
by wmorein 17y ago
To me one interesting thing about this article is that -- relating specifically to the question of whether you can get rich by picking a "safe" job -- it is actually incorrect. The changes in corporate compensation practices are such that, particularly in financial industries, you can work in a everyday job and end up rich, even by the definitions he uses in this article. It will be interesting to see if that continues after the current crisis. I would have guessed no a few months ago, but now it is seeming more likely to continue.
- rjurney 17y agoIf you look, by his standards that would only make you comfortably poor, not truly rich :)
- sethb 17y agoHis main point was, the more responsibility you take on, the richer you can become. In the financial industries, only the best talents get the type compensation that would qualify them as "rich". It's basically like becoming a Major League Baseball player, so I wouldn't call it a "safe" job. At that level the rewards are high, but the leash is even shorter. I'd go as far as saying that the unreasonable amount of risk these institutions took on was mainly because of that short leash (much like MLB players taking steroids, and how that whole saga played out). The pressure to perform is astronomically higher. These guys handle quite a few more figures than your typical everyday banker, and thus fit the criteria.