Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How rich kids already won the career game

michaelochurch.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 275 posts

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#191

Post by johngalt »

apsec112 wrote: post #183
pg wrote: post #170

The career game is not nearly as important now as it was a couple decades ago, though. Now you can easily opt to be judged directly by market, by starting your own company. Customers don't know or care what your social origins are.

Wow , that's a slanted view of the world! Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have t…

Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop. If you're really better than the boss you hate people will flock to you. Make sure the clients see you as a go-getter.

That investment shop will have every banker arguing that they deserve a gigantic compensation package. Add's a lot of overhead that you won't have starting out.

Accounting: Like most professional services the web has revolutionized accounting. You can now trivially have your accounting done anywhere in the world. How about you start your own shop by hiring and managing overseas workers? Or how about a cadre of accountants based in a low cost area of the US? Since 1995 other industries have been transformed by technology MORE than the tech sector. Netflix/iPod/Kindle anyone?

You've got me on pharmaceuticals, but it seems that regulation is the key here. I doubt communism would help with that.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#192

Post by jbooth »

johngalt wrote: post #191
apsec112 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow , that's a slanted view of the world! Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have t…

Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop. If you're really better than the boss you hate people will flock to you. Make sure the clients see you as a go-getter. That investment shop will have every banker arguing that they deserve a gigantic compensation package. Add's a lot of overhead that you won't have starting out. Accounting: Like most professional se…

"Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop."

That's actually the one action where a non-compete is universally and trivially enforceable in all 50 states. As I understand it, IANAL. Additionally, it's unethical if you believe in that sort of thing. So, bad idea.

Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#193

Post by johngalt »

jbooth wrote: post #180
pg wrote: post #170

The career game is not nearly as important now as it was a couple decades ago, though. Now you can easily opt to be judged directly by market, by starting your own company. Customers don't know or care what your social origins are.

That's definitely true (to an extent) in tech, but other fields aren't so lucky. A few months ago, a friend of mine who's a lawyer with 5 years experience told me that where he went to school for undergrad is still one of the most important things on his resume. Blew my mind. Other tech industries that are more capital intensive (bio, mechanical) are a lot harder to just start a business in, and for softer skills the…

There are things that a small group can't accomplish (building an oil pipeline for example). However, a little expertise and the right scope could attack the industry obliquely. Rather than try to build the whole system perhaps you have a small part of it that you make. You can't build the pipeline, but maybe you can build a better O-ring seal.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#194

Post by Tycho »

grammaton wrote: post #80

"The difference is that children of wealth traverse it at a height of one meter over a mattress, while the middle-class and poor traverse it at a height of 20 meters over a lava pit." I notice no one is commenting on this part. Namely, that for children of financial privilege, the risk/reward ratio for a career is markedly skewed compared to their middle class peers.

To comment: is he saying that the things you need to do to advance your career inside a large institution are actually risky? I don't think so, it's more like he's saying the non rich live in constant fear of getting sacked for stepping out of line, and this fear itself stops them advancing their career, rather than the inherent risk of any career gambit. As such, his point is somewhat tenuous.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#195

Post by chegra »

ok... I think the problems lies in trying to control something out of our locus of control. We can't control the rich having an advantage, so much thoughts shouldn't be given to such matters[as related to personal advancement, not social]. What's within our control[concern] we have the quality of our work, how much we take initiate, building a social network etc.

I find the author built a prison for himself by attacking the problem through an avenue he has no control over.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#196

Post by pg »

apsec112 wrote: post #183
pg wrote: post #170

The career game is not nearly as important now as it was a couple decades ago, though. Now you can easily opt to be judged directly by market, by starting your own company. Customers don't know or care what your social origins are.

Wow , that's a slanted view of the world! Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have t…

The technology business may only be one component of the economy, but attracts a disproportionate share of ambitious people.

If you want to avoid social logjams, all you need is one domain where people aren't judged by their origins, and the people who want to get ahead will find it. History is full of examples of that. The world of startups is certainly a large and conspicuous enough target.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#197

Post by bmcleod »

varjag wrote: post #184
neilk wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying if any trend reaches an asymptote, technology is dead? Did you expect planes to be the size of skyscrapers by now? In any case the limiting factors there are economics, not technology. We could build a flying skyscraper, if we really wanted to. In any case the standards of technology are always the thing that's changing the fastest. In the early 20th century, it was transport and chemistry. Today it'…

In 1900, noone could predict jumbo jets of 1960s. In 1960s, noone could predict we would still be flying same jumbo jets of 1960s in 2010. I mean, it's 60 years. Imagine yourself transported to 2070 only to find people still using Twitter from their Android phones.

People would probably be shocked by how cheap airfares are now though. Aviation technology has favoured seat cost over speed and that does show.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#198

Post by HelloBeautiful »

endtime wrote: post #147
HelloBeautiful wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he is surprised that young, smart, poor ppl are capitalists.

Well, that still doesn't make sense. Poor people can be capitalists. Capitalism is actually a legitimate philosophy, not just an excuse rich people use for exploiting the proles.

>>Poor people can be capitalists.

Black ppl can be racist, and many are.

Capitalism without democratic control, combined with modern technology to silence any opposition (like the one employed by US in Iraq) can mean that smart, poor ppl cannot compete with not so smart, rich ppl.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#199

Post by billybob »

jacoblyles wrote: post #186
run4yourlives wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the hell do you live, Singapore? That law is draconian.

Welcome to America. We were founded by Puritans.

How much do you actually know about Puritans? Most of what I learned about them in high school came from works of fiction. It was a pretty unfair picture, in retrospect.

Re: How rich kids already won the career game

#200

Post by apsec112 »

pg wrote: post #196
apsec112 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow , that's a slanted view of the world! Outside of the software industry, which is a tiny (~1%) portion of the economy, what has changed since 1995? Suppose you're an investment banker, and you hate your boss, as most investment bankers do. Want to start your own investment bank? How? You need to have connections to upper management at lots and lots of companies, so you can arrange deals. And very few people have t…

The technology business may only be one component of the economy, but attracts a disproportionate share of ambitious people. If you want to avoid social logjams, all you need is one domain where people aren't judged by their origins, and the people who want to get ahead will find it. History is full of examples of that. The world of startups is certainly a large and conspicuous enough target.

Sure, but the post appears to be addressing everyone, or at least everyone who has a job and wants to be paid well, not just super-ambitious people. He says:

"For the individual, I can offer no personal solution to this deep sociological problem. As far as I know, there’s none. I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business. Beyond that, I know of no solution."

ie, this is true for everyone outside of technology, not just the ambitious.

Post reply on HN