“I do not think higher education (PhD) gets you higher pay.”
I think this depends. I was just talking to several MIT engineering PhDs this week. They are in very high demand from top Silicon Valley companies and will make quite a bit more than with a BA. Though they still might have been earning more if they’d worked for 5 years instead of staying in academia. And achieving more rapid future salary progress will mean transitioning away from a research focus.
But I think there are certainly cases where a tippy top PhD is a good signaling qualification for certain employers and will provide a financial benefit (especially if you went from undergrad at a less well known university to MIT for your PhD). Definitely the case for me too, and I’m glad I did a PhD rather than an MBA, because I had much more fun.
We have certain friends who are money obsessed. They talk about money all the time with friends and family. Know incomes, investments, amounts spent on home improvement projects, weddings, etc. Seems crazy to me. They often mention money in some context to me presumably expecting me to provide some money amount in return for me but I pass. Its none of their business. And I don’t care what they make or spend.
I onky know thousands of non family info. We never discuss at home or with others.
I’ve literally have seen income figures and post transaction balance sheets for more than literally (I did a rough count of per year times number of years lol) 10k executives pe execs Vc teams hedge fund principals entrepreneurs lawyers docs scientists senior sales and some academics over the years. It just becomes a bit of collective knowledge.
All top income earners in their respective fields for this group are leaders. Not just hierarchical .org chart. Thought leaders. Many individual contributors for the most part. Hedgies and pe don’t care about management structures related to comp. deal makers and deal closers in all fields are top incomes for the most part. Business Owners and post funding or ipo for any early shareholders of successful startup too. But that’s a one time thing. I’ve seen plenty of people with 70k salaries get a post liquidity event share in the low millions range too. They all seem to keep chugging along and salary doesn’t change. But their attitude does -from have to work to want to work. Lol.
Lots of fields can lead to 300k.
I am discussing fields where that would be for the lower end and you don’t have to be the absolute best ever or number one in your field to get there.
Academics do really well too. Many full professors avg 230 to 260k plus a great lifestyle and flexibility. Also if they write books speaking tours or corporate events or join corporate boards that can go up. Patents too on occasion if not owned by company or university. Entertainers of note and athletes but I don’t work with them at all.
“Patents too on occasion if not owned by company or university.”
Many Us encourage researchers to generate revenue for the school through invention licensing. The patents are owned by the U but the inventors typically get a cut of the royalties. But again, this is not “base salary.”
You do not value the writing of the computer software that is in the chemical instruments and other devices that help people discover new drugs or design concert hall quality speakers or allows cars to run more efficiently, powerfully, and cleanly than in the 1970s?
Base salary actually is the “pocket change” for high earners in finance. In finance, you don’t have to have MBA, but a undergraduate degree in a good business school then getting CFA while on the job would do.
Also, cost of living has a huge impact on income. An earner with 300k+ In Bay Area or NYC is a lot “poorer” than someone living in charlotte NC or St. Louis MO.
UCB - let’s not derail the thread, but let me put this on the record. Yes, coding is required, but coding is just a part of instrument development which I do know something about. Besides, what I was talking about is generating ad revenue through a website which the poster referred to.
Engineering degree itself generally has good entry level salaries, but the earning potential 10-20 years down the road is much smaller compared with people in finance, which is a sad reality. Our society “favors” people who use money to make money, not people who produce things. Tax system also heavily favors capital over income. Quite twisted imho.
Here are a few other people I know:
Guy with PhD in physical therapy owns several PT centers around the state.
Someone with a BA in business who resells computers.
Woman with a BA in sociology who is a consultant in internet advertising.
In 10-20 years from now, things are likely to change. Most of the money in finance is made via intermediation and advisory. These are areas that are ripe for disruption. Technologies are likely to chip away, and eventually disintermediate, the roles played by financial intermediaries. Machines are also replacing more and more investment managers. The trends are unmistakable. The only question is whether the financial firms can reinvent and transform themselves quickly enough in a world that’s increasingly dominated by technologies.
“Base salary actually is the “pocket change” for high earners in finance. In finance, you don’t have to have MBA, but a undergraduate degree in a good business school then getting CFA while on the job would do.”
First off, you don’t need an undergrad in business.
But, I do agree that the focus should be on more than base salary and on base salary +. It’s the + that gets one financially independent. Bonuses and payouts are an excellent way to build wealth to develop a passive income stream or as @ucbalumnus often likes to write about, to become part of the “capitalist class”. If you live on your base salary and stash away and invest a good chunk of that yearly bonus which can be equal to or multiples of your base pay, accumulating wealth becomes fairly easy and that money makes you more money. Rinse and repeat every year = $$$$.
DH has over time made very good money. But he has no base salary at all. Either he brokers deals and gets commissions or he invests/develops and makes profit on sales or on rent from commercial properties. It’s feast or famine, and we’ve been through both in 30 years of industry ups and downs. The important thing is to be aware of the fact that you don’t “make x salary,” you make what you make in any particular month/year. You can count on nothing, even with commercial rentals, because your tenant could go bust and there goes your mailbox money. So you save prolifically, do massive amounts of research so that you invest intelligently and without emotion, and be ready for a downturn. Oh, and have negotiation nerves of steel.
DH has it down. I always find it amusing that he has been so well “compensated” with his BS in finance from Beer Keg University. He is very intelligent, though, has an amazing work ethic, and a tenacity that is so foreign to my personality. I think that those qualities determine financial success just as much if not more than the particular major, degree, or university attended.
As others have said, generally speaking you can earn a lot more (than 300k) by taking as little a guarantee as possible. Guarantees (salaries, benefits, etc.) are basically viewed as the cost of doing business and decided by the leaders of organizations that are tied to performance. “What do we want to pay employee X for doing their job? How much is the job worth? What impact to the company would there be if there was no job Y or employee X”.
Hard to get a salary as high as 300k without being in a revenue producing or strategic position. And most senior folks who have that salary earn way more than that with incentives.
Whether you work for a firm or own your own business; rainmakers, deal makers and closers do quite well. Executive sales rep do quite well (again they are in revenue producing positions). Within the corporate, most of these people go way beyond the technical aspect of their business and are primarily in leadership / relationship based roles. That’s where the money is unless you are an inventor or early investor in a company that goes off the charts.
Ironically, most people who dream of or wish for cushy jobs paying 300k are really looking for security and the jobs that provide that type of security don’t pay anywhere near 300k.
The person requiring the base salary is not the rainmaker or deal closer. That person wants to be paid on what they kill and drag home. And honestly, is not typically going to be working for a big business m.
A lot of commentary on so called “BIg Law” partners. Here is the reality. (And I am one of them). There is literally no way to simply make a lot of money without selling. The partners who make money, well in excess of $300,000 a year, devote countless hours to developing a client base and, if they are lucky enough to develop a client base, they earn based upon what they bring into the firm. Some of the firms have institutional clients that you can inherit, but that involves countless hours of wining and dining and getting to know those clients, and persuading the firm to allocate those clients to you. My point is that law is no different than venture capital, medicine, automobile dealers, and accountants—you cap out on income unless you can generate revenue from something other than your own hourly labor. Why I am making this point? I am reinforcing what has been put up on CC many times, the school you attend is not destiny. Clients hire attorneys they like, who care, who are fun to be around, in addition to being skilled. If you have led an interesting life, care about people, and are willing to take business risks, you can earn well in excess of $300,000 a year as an attorney. Kids who care and lead interesting lives, who have emotional intelligence, who can hold a conversation and are likable, who are willing to work hard, can succeed financially in the legal profession. People who believe they are entitled due to a school they attended typically do not.