NY Times Article - "Very rich are leaving the merely rich behind"

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/business/27richer.html?hp&ex=1164690000&en=8ce83432e4bd8730&ei=5094&partner=homepage[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/business/27richer.html?hp&ex=1164690000&en=8ce83432e4bd8730&ei=5094&partner=homepage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Very interesting article about how talented people from diverse educational backgrounds are taking jobs which pay astronomical salaries (e.g. a doctor who originally intended to be a researcher now works in health care investment banking). </p>

<p>I was surprised to read that:</p>

<p>“One in every 825 households earned at least $2 million last year, nearly double the percentage in 1989, adjusted for inflation, Mr. Wolff found in an analysis of government data. When it comes to wealth, one in every 325 households had a net worth of $10 million or more in 2004, the latest year for which data is available, more than four times as many as in 1989.”</p>

<p>I myself have noticed that many very bright young people, including my own son, many of his college classmates, and some of my friends’ children, are going into high-paying finance-related fields instead of more technical fields such as science or engineering. </p>

<p>The media often runs stories in which government officials or corporate executives complain that more American students need to focus on science and math, that we are falling behind other parts of the world, etc., but where is the incentive when these other types of newly-available jobs pay astronomical salaries of a different order of magnitude than the salaries of more typical technical careers? </p>

<p>It seems to me that something is out of joint when the earnings gap is so vast between extremely bright and highly educated people in this type of work versus those pursuing more traditional careers in medicine, engineering, science, etc. </p>

<p>What do others think of this trend? Where is it leading us, and is it detrimental to our society as a whole?</p>

2

<p>I read that too, with some bemusement. I too was astounded by the numbers of people making that kind of money.</p>

<p>I disagree, though, with your assessment. A traditional career in medicine is hardly underpaid. The doctor in the article mentioned that his classmates who stayed in medicine made up to 400,000, hardly chump change.</p>

<p>Even my H, who was a pediatrician (traditionally lower paying field) in a community health clinic (lower paying venue) made far more than the average person. When is enough enough? Or isn’t it ever?</p>

3

<p>

Great point, garland. For some, it IS never enough & the pursuit of more income & status is ongoing. The challenge becomes more important than the material rewards. As long as nobody is harmed in that quest, I say knock yourself out. It is, after all, the super-wealthy who are able to endow all types of worthy causes.</p>

<p>I do think that the lure of $$$ will pull kids into financial fields when they would have been happier & better suited for other fields, though. But no career is permanent. They could make their fortune & then pursue a different dream.</p>

4

<p>I agree that it’s a choice, not bad in itself. What I disagree with in the OP is the idea that the problem is that the traditional technical fields do not pay enough, so it leads to the “problem” of people leaving them for the finance field. I don’t see how fields such as medicine and engineering can, or should, compete with those astronomical salaries, though on the whole they are certainly high paying fields. Therefore, there has to more intrinsic reasons for people to stay in those fields. Intellectual challenge, altruistic reasons, or sheer love of the work. If none of those are enough for some people (coupled with still more than adequate monetary compensation), perhaps their leaving for something different is not such a bad thing.</p>

5

<p>In corporate America, why would it surprise anyone that finance is the top career goal for young college grads? After all, why shouldn’t they grab a piece of the million dollar pie?</p>

<p>Peace Corps, pffftttt!
:p</p>

6

<p>

A legitmate question. I’ve been amazed at the number of alumni from my D’s college that hit Wall Street for a few years, make some megabucks, and then return to wherever to create new, interesting businesses that employ lots of people.</p>

7

<p>paying the national average for household income no doubt- what were median earnings for men anyway in 2004 ( the most recent census year) $40, 000?
That is USA median anyway- I will have to look up what is median in Bangalore</p>

8

<p>I agree with your points about physicians, Garland. I too think most physicians make enough money to live comfortably and worry-free. But the same may not be true for non-physician scientific researchers, engineers, programmers, etc. These fields are not high paying (relatively speaking), require a lot of education, and may be unstable due to outsourcing or lack of research funding. It seems that too few people may be entering these fields for the love of the work and the intellectual challenge, when these other career paths are so enticing.</p>

<p>Personally, both my husband (corporate engineer/mid-level manager) and I (government scientist) are in solid technical jobs which pay fine for our needs (although less than almost all physicians make). I am not jealous of the people in financial careers, enjoy my work, and have no interest in finance. Obviously, the salaries for these types of technical positions cannot compete with the finance-job salaries, and it would not be appropriate to even think that they should. But it seems that fewer young people are going into these types of traditional technical jobs than in the past. At least at my husband’s and my employers, very few young people are being hired and the average age in the technical jobs is quite high. Where is this going to leave our country in the future, if most of the talent is going into finance and little into actually doing the technical work?</p>

9

<p>

This is absolutely a great point. It’s going to work, lifestyle-wise, for a few more generations, but ultimately the technology piper must be paid if things are to be kept rolling.</p>

10

<p>Could be, Driver.</p>

<p>It just seems that “making a ton of money” (as some soon to be grads have told me) is an odd career goal.</p>

<p>Helping people is apparently so old fashioned. Not to say everyone has to be altruistic, but I’d be distressed if making money were my kids’ only goals, even in the short term.</p>

<p>BTW, physicians no longer make a great deal of money. When I was growing up, having a dad as a doc meant you were doing purty well. Nowadays, there are loads and loads of professionals who make much more money than doctors, with a tenth of the headaches. It is not a profession for the feint of heart.</p>

11

<p>I read an article a few years ago (in the “Scientist”? maybe) the gist of which was that you find so many more immigrants in fields like engineering and scientific research than native born because the work, relative to the pay, is harder than in other fields more open to natives. Science and engineering tolerate the limitations, mostly culture and language, of immigrants more than other fields like sales and management. </p>

<p>So the dearth of native in technical fields appears to be rational economically driven labor markets in action. </p>

<p>Rather than worry about having enough technical talent, let’s applaud an economy that is so efficient that it allows us to invest such sums in finance.</p>

<p>Many of us feel uncomfortable with having so few people in the US “making things.” After all, if everyone is providing services, who makes the goods we consume. But the answer is interesting. We have so few people making things because we don’t need more. Manufacturing (and trade!) have become so efficient that we don’t need people to do that work. They do other things instead (like telemarketing… :slight_smile: ).</p>

<p>I’m sure there were people 120 years ago who wondered who would grow our food when people fled the farms for the cities. But they fled the farms because they were no longer needed on the farm, not because things were so much better in the cities. An ag revolution enabled the industrial revolution. Just like a manufacturing revolution has enabled the service economy.</p>

12

<p><em>We</em> don’t make things, not because we don’t need them, but because the Chinese make it all so cheaply for us…for cheap labor too.</p>

<p>Talk about a win-win! Or a win-lose! (depending on to whom you speak! ;))</p>

13

<p>worldwide- I expect it is a good thing
but locally can be very painful, because service sector jobs, pay less and have fewer benefits than the manufacturing jobs that for generations have supported families</p>

14

<p>

MomofTwo, I have just the opposite perception. Friends approaching 50 are feeling quite pressed by the influx of youngsters in IT. Some have been offered packages to make room, so it’s more than a perception. H has a steady flow of interested young engineers in his biomed field, as well.

Agree.</p>

15

<p>

Helping people and enjoying a rewarding, challenging career are not mutually exclusive. Throughout our history, the greatest philanthropists were the movers & shakers who made great fortunes. One need not be an underpaid social worker to help people. Simply providing worthwhile goods and services to the public for profit helps people, regardless of whether or not a single penny of that profit is donated to charity.</p>

16

<p>The article is another one of those that grab you and then don’t end up telling you much (and I seriously doubt the stat that 1 of every 325 households had a net worth of over $10 million in 2004).</p>

<p>Take it as one of those “If you’re a smart fellow and work hard, and have other talents, and if making a lot of $ appeals to you, there may be other ways of doing it than those you’ve heard of”. A lot of this is simply news to reporters, who are stunned to find those they regard as inferiors making tons of money.</p>

<p>The doctor angle is a bit interesting. In our community, doctors’ status is separate from their income, because they are far from the highest earners. Its something that particular profession isn’t used to. </p>

<p>Doctors do have one terrific advantage over those big earners, which is that they have a much broader choice of where to live, and they are usually home with their families more often, even if they are on call.</p>

17

<p>^Wow, was that last not true!!! Beyond the “on-call” which frequently meant midnight trips to the hospital, most doctors have to be the covering doctor at the hospital they are affiliated with a certain number of times a year, each time a week of very early mornings and very late nights. Plus trips in on the weekend. i could list all day the Christmases, birthdays, concerts, etc, missed or threatened to be missed, despite my H’s desperate attempts to be part of things at home.</p>

<p>Time is not a good reason to be a doctor!</p>

18

<p>Call me old-fashioned, but I deeply resent the telemarketers when I’m abusing the staff at Le Bec Fin.</p>

19

<p>Agree garland! My oldest son when he was about 4 or so told people he didn’t want to be a doctor when he grew up because he wanted to be a “real daddy”. Lots and lots of childhood moments missed, holidays missed, and no personal sick time! Son went into finance ;).</p>

20

<p>Re: Doc hours. My son was born at 7:01AM & the pediatrician was there to check him out. Later that day, about midnight, I saw the pediatrician in the hall heading over to the nursery. That’s what I call a long day. He’d also come in to the office on Sundays if you had an emergency because he’d rather triage your child himself, knowing the ER would be an unpleasant and nerve-racking wait. And I believe pediatricians are one of the lowest paid specialties in the medical profession. They earn their pay.</p>