11–20 of 31 posts
One should do critical thinking and always get relevant feedback because hey, what you're doing is for others. Not for yourself.
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, s…
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).
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
------ http://u.ly/73I ------
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, s…
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.
I think eventually most people will be entrepreneurs. More and more things will be automated, decreasing the need for labor and making it easier to build value by combining the results. For example, once robotic transportation becomes a reality, virtual assembly lines will be possible, giving entrepreneurs new tools and lower costs. Something people previously moving things from point A to B could take advantage of t…
It seems great until you understand what economies of scale mean. A big group is likely to ultimately win over several groups collectively of same size. However, people with knowledge that computers can't yet automate; will be pretty valuable (Try online self-diagnosis..).
Which is to say, big doesn't alway win either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems great until you understand what economies of scale mean. A big group is likely to ultimately win over several groups collectively of same size. However, people with knowledge that computers can't yet automate; will be pretty valuable (Try online self-diagnosis..).
Large organizations can suffer from diseconomy of scale. Office politics, slow response time, and duplication of effort are some of the problems that decrease the efficency of large corporations. Which is to say, big doesn't alway win either.
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, s…
"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.
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, s…
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.
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.
That said, I'm not against entrepreneurship: it's a means to an end. If the best way to bring a particular product to the market is through going on my own (and I've felt that way at multiple points in my career), I'll do what it takes. However, I have no interest in entrepreneurship for money's, status' or its own sake.