Live data from Hacker News

Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

news.ycombinator.com

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#131
post #62

You said: > 211 new people entered the Forbes 400 list during this ten-year period. > Of these, 59 were from finance. > 17 were from technology. He said: 'that list (of deltas) would be dominated by Finance' So how exactly was he wrong wrong?

"that list (of deltas) would be dominated by Finance" was said by startingup.

pg said, in response to "the expected value (in money) of going to Wall Street is still quite a bit higher than that of a startup.", "in the Forbes 400 [...] at least that is not the case."

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#132
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth pointing out that this is really only a viable career option if you are a straight, white, anglo-saxon male ready to work long hours, drink hard, and put up with a machismo-dominated culture. The financial sector and investment banking in particular, even in their tech departments, have the kind of corporate culture that sends me running.

I disagree somewhat although I am a contractor not a permanent employee seeking promotion so that might be the reason for the difference. I am straight and white but otherwise I don't fit what you describe. I arrive at 08:00 and leave at 16:30 sharp unless exceptional circumstances arise. I make it clear from the first day that I'm not there to socialise and I won't routinely work outside my contracted hours. My theo…

So by "better female representation" you mean "less than 100% male". And the team is 50% white, and 100% straight (I assume you'd have mentioned otherwise). And you admit they pressure you to drink with them. So it sounds like you agree with almost everything I said about the makeup of the workforce at these places.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online poker is a consentual exchange. Inflating the money supply and taking taxpayer bailouts is akin to coercive theft.

That's pretty much it. Any penny I won at gambling did nothing to harm the broader economy. It might harm some other guy who gambled it, but he knew what he was buying into. My problem with Goldman and their peers isn't that they won money gambling from other people. It's that in so doing they knowingly destabilized the global economy. The actions of investment bankers have harmed every American, most of whom couldn'…

Thanks for the response.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but I still don't understand your specific objecton(s). As I read it, I think it comes down to "a difference in degree is a difference in kind."

I would argue that you can't really know that your winnings never caused a lay-off, for example. Perhaps you beat Frank, the owner of an RV dealership in Eau Claire, so badly that he had to let one of his salesmen go to keep his company alive.

You can raise all sorts of objections at this point about the personal responsibility of Frank. He shouldn't be gambling with money he can't afford to lose! He should understand all of the rules before he sits down! He should have a firmer grasp of the probabilities! He shouldn't be playing with his heart instead of his head!

And those are all objections that market participants can (I believe in good conscience) make about their activities. So, I'm not sure exactly where your objection lies.

Is finance too important to be left to the market? (Let's ignore, for now, the moral hazard of current government interventions... unless that's your objection.) If not, should the markets be limited to qualified investors who have demonstrated some level of knowledge? Should market participants be required to diversify their holdings? Perhaps only a certain percentage of one's net worth can be in play?

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online poker is a consentual exchange. Inflating the money supply and taking taxpayer bailouts is akin to coercive theft.

That's pretty much it. Any penny I won at gambling did nothing to harm the broader economy. It might harm some other guy who gambled it, but he knew what he was buying into. My problem with Goldman and their peers isn't that they won money gambling from other people. It's that in so doing they knowingly destabilized the global economy. The actions of investment bankers have harmed every American, most of whom couldn'…

Like many people, Goldman went long on housing. This did harm the economy. But I take issue with your use of the word "knowingly" - why would Goldman knowingly lose billions of dollars?

Also, many of the people being laid off (e.g., construction workers, realtors) are also complicit in harming the economy.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#135
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're joking, but I don't see the moral concern about investment banking. You may not be making the world a better place (although that is very debatable), but you're not making it worse, either.

Are you kidding? It's been what, 2 years since the market crash they caused? http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/27/business/la-fi-goldm... Investment bankers created and sold the toxic assets (which they knew to be toxic) that caused the financial meltdown. The top commenter explained a few more terribly evil things they do as well. For more examples, read any book ever written about Wall Street.

If the IB's knew the assets were toxic, why did they take long positions on them? Did they want to lose billions of dollars?

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#136

I used to work for CSFB (now Credit Suisse) in London's Canary Wharf. It's the most I've earned in my entire career. Unless you've worked for an investment bank you have no idea how much money they have. It's like a giant gulf-of-mexico-style money gusher that doesn't quit. How do they make it? CSFB flies on the bleeding edge of what's legal and always have. I was there when Frank Quattrone was involved in the IPO of…

I don't think if I could live with myself if I worked at an investment bank. Most of what they do provides no benefit to humanity, in fact on the whole they're probably parasitic. Shuffling money around senselessly while taking a cut might be extremely profitable if you do enough of it, but it's just a drain on modern capitalism.

"Mafia Boss" provides benefit to humanity?

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#137
post #31
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which leads to another big point about financiers...too many preppies heading to college for a quick buck on Wall St.

I don't blame the college kids. At least right now, our capitalist society deems their brains are better spent finding the next good $10M trade as opposed to helping ship Office 2010 or becoming grad students in math / physics / CS.

Well a lot of those math, physics and CS grad students end up in finance anyway.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? It's been what, 2 years since the market crash they caused? http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/27/business/la-fi-goldm... Investment bankers created and sold the toxic assets (which they knew to be toxic) that caused the financial meltdown. The top commenter explained a few more terribly evil things they do as well. For more examples, read any book ever written about Wall Street.

If the IB's knew the assets were toxic, why did they take long positions on them? Did they want to lose billions of dollars?

I thought they didn't so much take long positions as ended up with being long as a result of everyone stopping buying them. Were they buying from other IBs or was it just a case that they couldn't sell some of the toxic packages they'd created?

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#139

This is a false dichotomy. The financiers who made this list were all entrepreneurs. James Simons, John Paulson, Steve Schwarzman, David E. Shaw, etc all successfully founded companies. Their companies just happen to be investment firms. The fact that more founders of financial startups have made this list in past decade than founders of tech startups speaks to the dominance of the investment industry in recent years…

One could argue that Renaissance (Jim Simons) and D. E. Shaw and Co (David Shaw) are actually technology firms, and only incidentally financial firms. The majority of their competitive advantage emerges from software design and implementation, and systems integration.

With Renaissance, it's even in their name - the full name of the company is Renaissance Technologies, not Renaissance Capital.

Re: Forbes 400 Data Shows Paul Graham Is Wrong

#140
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting salary for typical IT roles (dev, etc) are about £35-45k p.a. in London depending on how well you negotiate. That's straight out of uni. It goes up rapidly as you go up the ladder. Within a couple of years, if you do well, you should be up to £65k or so, and probably start getting a bonus on top of it too (probably about £10-20k or so in IT). It's not that unusual for the salary to go up by about £10k per ye…

> It's cheap to get that salary, too. All you have to give up is your dreams. Don't forget the effect of compound interest: they want your soul as well, and you burn out more every year for as long as you stay. In my early career, a headhunter came after me to interview with his London bank client. I did a few quick sums at that point, and it's not nearly as attractive a package as it looks. I'm in Cambridge, UK, so…

Nah, cost of living isn't that high (as ig1 says). I've been living in London for the last 7 years, much of it on a rather limited salary. You can live very comfortably near central London (zone 1-2) in a nice area on £35k. You won't save much money, but once your salary goes up, of course, you will be able to (depending on how you adjust your lifestyle, of course).

As for hourly rate, that can be computed easily. My friend works about 12 hours a day, 5 days a week (no weekends, since her work is linked to the markets being opened). She gets 4 weeks of holiday a year, and there's about a week's worth of bank holidays. So that's 47 weeks * 60 hours = 2820 hours a year, on the upper end (assuming no sick days or other unplanned absences).

That works just above £53 an hour.

You could drive that down by counting her (30 minute or so) commute in, but you won't make much difference. The fact is, she earns very good money no matter which way you cut it. And that's not even counting the (very significant) bonus.

I'll grant you that living in Cambridge and working in London is daft, but that's why they have, ya'know, houses and stuff in London. So you can move there rather than spend hours on the train every day.

Post reply on HN