Lucrative careers?

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
new2bogle
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by new2bogle » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:47 am

daveydoo wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:36 am
triceratop wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:15 pm
US Senator Rand Paul graduated from the Duke allopathic program and does not have a bachelors degree. Probably doesn't hurt to have a father who is a congressman. Things have changed since but you already have the UVA program mentioned above.
This virtually never happens. I don't think one celebrity proves the point that a bachelor's degree is not "required" for med school. :D

UVA is a superb and highly competitive med school. They're all college graduates.

There are a handful of programs that will combine and/or overlap BS and MD education -- several people in my family have done this. But the BS is still awarded before the MD.
Your sentence fails logic.

User avatar
triceratop
Moderator
Posts: 5654
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
Location: la la land

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by triceratop » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:56 am

new2bogle wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:47 am
daveydoo wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:36 am
triceratop wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:15 pm
US Senator Rand Paul graduated from the Duke allopathic program and does not have a bachelors degree. Probably doesn't hurt to have a father who is a congressman. Things have changed since but you already have the UVA program mentioned above.
This virtually never happens. I don't think one celebrity proves the point that a bachelor's degree is not "required" for med school. :D

UVA is a superb and highly competitive med school. They're all college graduates.

There are a handful of programs that will combine and/or overlap BS and MD education -- several people in my family have done this. But the BS is still awarded before the MD.
Your sentence fails logic.
As Sherlock Holmes said: "I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule."

And yes, I'm very familiar with BS/MD programs and didn't consider that to be part of the discussion. I agree they're different -- typically (at least the ones I am familiar with through close friends completing the programs) the BS is required to continue into the MD program, it's just the MD application which is a formality.
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."

daveydoo
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:53 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by daveydoo » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:00 pm

triceratop wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:56 am

As Sherlock Holmes said: "I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule."

And yes, I'm very familiar with BS/MD programs and didn't consider that to be part of the discussion. I agree they're different -- typically (at least the ones I am familiar with through close friends completing the programs) the BS is required to continue into the MD program, it's just the MD application which is a formality.
Oh for Pete's sake. I was not crafting a syllogism. I simply meant in the colloquial sense that just because there are one or two humans who went to med school without a bachelors, that does not make this a viable trajectory for the OP (or pretty much any reader of this forum). Quoting the UVA website that a bachelors is "strongly encouraged" maybe just cracks the door for the next mega-donor or Rand scion. But not for the OP.

And no, there are a number of combined BS/MD programs that do not require completion of the BS prior to enrolling in med school. There was one that let you do it all in five calendar years (until fairly recently). We're very familiar with that one.
"I mean, it's one banana, Michael...what could it cost? Ten dollars?"

bling
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:49 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by bling » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:22 pm

adding some fuel to the fire :twisted:

https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/09/05/d ... alculator/

i plugged in various data points to https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/salary

for the most part, even in san francisco you can't cross the 200k threshold until you put in crazy numbers (e.g. masters, 20 years experience).

perhaps FANG really is in a tier of its own, and if that's the case, of course the "top of their field" will get compensated handsomely, regardless of profession.

Tamales
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:47 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by Tamales » Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:38 pm

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:34 pm
Some tech companies give out RSUs in terms of $, not # of shares. So you are guaranteed that amount of $ no matter what happens to the stock. Of course that also caps your upside.
Let's see if I can salvage something informative out of this thread.
I don't understand how RSUs, which are shares and tie directly to share price, can be given out in dollars. Can you explain?

For example, say you are given 1000 RSUs to equate to a $10,000 bonus when the share price was at $10 in 2018. And the RSU's vest 1/4 per year, which is common. The grant of 1000 RSUs has to be declared on the company taxes I believe.

Then in 2019 when the first 250 vest, the share price is $8 on the vest date, and you sell immediately. How is the $500 shortfall made up?
Then in 2020 when the next 250 vest, the share price is $12, sell immediately. What happens to the $500 surplus?
Then in 2021, the next 250 vest, share price at $7, sell immediately. How is the $750 shortfall made up?
Then in 2022, the final 250 vest, share price at $6, sell immediately. How is the $1000 shortfall made up?

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm

Tamales wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:38 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:34 pm
Some tech companies give out RSUs in terms of $, not # of shares. So you are guaranteed that amount of $ no matter what happens to the stock. Of course that also caps your upside.
Let's see if I can salvage something informative out of this thread.
I don't understand how RSUs, which are shares and tie directly to share price, can be given out in dollars. Can you explain?

For example, say you are given 1000 RSUs to equate to a $10,000 bonus when the share price was at $10 in 2018. And the RSU's vest 1/4 per year, which is common. The grant of 1000 RSUs has to be declared on the company taxes I believe.

Then in 2019 when the first 250 vest, the share price is $8 on the vest date, and you sell immediately. How is the $500 shortfall made up?
Then in 2020 when the next 250 vest, the share price is $12, sell immediately. What happens to the $500 surplus?
Then in 2021, the next 250 vest, share price at $7, sell immediately. How is the $750 shortfall made up?
Then in 2022, the final 250 vest, share price at $6, sell immediately. How is the $1000 shortfall made up?
The # of shares that are granted to you will vary depending on what the stock does. So your bonus letter will say "you will be paid $120,000 in RSUs, vesting over 4 years ($30,000/year)". If the stock price at the first vest is $10, you will be issued 3,000 shares. If the stock price at next vest is $20, you will be issued 1,500 shares, and so on...

EngineerEd
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:56 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by EngineerEd » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:33 pm

Tamales wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:38 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:34 pm
Some tech companies give out RSUs in terms of $, not # of shares. So you are guaranteed that amount of $ no matter what happens to the stock. Of course that also caps your upside.
Let's see if I can salvage something informative out of this thread.
I don't understand how RSUs, which are shares and tie directly to share price, can be given out in dollars. Can you explain?

For example, say you are given 1000 RSUs to equate to a $10,000 bonus when the share price was at $10 in 2018. And the RSU's vest 1/4 per year, which is common. The grant of 1000 RSUs has to be declared on the company taxes I believe.

Then in 2019 when the first 250 vest, the share price is $8 on the vest date, and you sell immediately. How is the $500 shortfall made up?
Then in 2020 when the next 250 vest, the share price is $12, sell immediately. What happens to the $500 surplus?
Then in 2021, the next 250 vest, share price at $7, sell immediately. How is the $750 shortfall made up?
Then in 2022, the final 250 vest, share price at $6, sell immediately. How is the $1000 shortfall made up?
You collect the surplus and suffer the shortfall. That's part of the point, that you theoretically are incentivized to work hard to push up that share price so it is worth more when it vests, also so that if the company is falling on hard times, their non-salary payouts will decrease in line with company share price.
The # of shares that are granted to you will vary depending on what the stock does. So your bonus letter will say "you will be paid $120,000 in RSUs, vesting over 4 years ($30,000/year)". If the stock price at the first vest is $10, you will be issued 3,000 shares. If the stock price at next vest is $20, you will be issued 1,500 shares, and so on...
This is not my experience with RSUs. Usually your strike price is the stock share price the day you sign the offer. Then the total granted shares is the $ figure promised divided by strike price per share.

For example if it's 120k over 4 years, and the company share price is at $100 at time of signing, you are signing on to be issued 300 shares of company stock per year. If the company stock price goes up, your 300 shares per year go up in value (yay), if the company stock price goes down your 300 shares per year go down in value (boo).

Tamales
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:47 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by Tamales » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:13 pm

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm
The # of shares that are granted to you will vary depending on what the stock does. So your bonus letter will say "you will be paid $120,000 in RSUs, vesting over 4 years ($30,000/year)". If the stock price at the first vest is $10, you will be issued 3,000 shares. If the stock price at next vest is $20, you will be issued 1,500 shares, and so on...
I asked about the very process you describe a couple years ago, and was told that the tax laws governing RSUs don't allow the grant and vest to be simultaneous. In other words, the risk during the period from grant to vest is baked into the RSU rules. So I have to ask, do you know with absolute certainty that a company implements their RSUs this way?

I would very much prefer to have an RSU program that worked that way, regardless of what company it was. Then you have the option of selling on the day of the conversion from restricted to regular, and investing the proceeds in company stock if you want, or anywhere else.
Last edited by Tamales on Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:19 pm

Tamales wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:13 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm
The # of shares that are granted to you will vary depending on what the stock does. So your bonus letter will say "you will be paid $120,000 in RSUs, vesting over 4 years ($30,000/year)". If the stock price at the first vest is $10, you will be issued 3,000 shares. If the stock price at next vest is $20, you will be issued 1,500 shares, and so on...
I asked about the very process you describe a couple years ago, and was told that the tax laws governing RSUs don't allow the grant and vest to be simultaneous. In other words, the risk during the period from grant to vest is baked into the RSU rules. So I have to ask, do you know with absolute certainty that a company implements their RSUs this way?
Yes there is at least one. It didn’t seem that unusual to me at the time, it’s basically converting cash salary into equity form.

EngineerEd
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:56 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by EngineerEd » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:41 pm

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:19 pm
Tamales wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:13 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm
The # of shares that are granted to you will vary depending on what the stock does. So your bonus letter will say "you will be paid $120,000 in RSUs, vesting over 4 years ($30,000/year)". If the stock price at the first vest is $10, you will be issued 3,000 shares. If the stock price at next vest is $20, you will be issued 1,500 shares, and so on...
I asked about the very process you describe a couple years ago, and was told that the tax laws governing RSUs don't allow the grant and vest to be simultaneous. In other words, the risk during the period from grant to vest is baked into the RSU rules. So I have to ask, do you know with absolute certainty that a company implements their RSUs this way?
Yes there is at least one. It didn’t seem that unusual to me at the time, it’s basically converting cash salary into equity form.
I don't doubt that something like this exists, but everyone I know working at the major tech companies (FAANG + Microsoft) has the risk baked in to their RSUs at signing.

For most of them (who signed 2-3 years ago upon graduating college) this has turned out to be very fortuitous.

golfCaddy
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by golfCaddy » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:38 pm

Kuratz wrote:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:42 pm
I am a long time lurker but made an account just for this: For the love of God do not go to medical school for the money.

You will spend a minimum of 7 years, once (and if) you get in, working hard and paying roughly $300k to do so. If you want to make more than $200s you can make that 10 years to subspecialize. Thats an insane opportunity cost for anyone but especially someone who is already 26. Additionally the income of physicians is largely dependent on what bureaucrats on the CMS say what our time is worth and will likely decline over the next several decades. If you make inordinate sacrifices you can reasonably make what apparently many tech guys make, but you'll have a minimum quarter-million in student loans and a much shorter career. There are much easier and direct paths to good money for someone with ambition and aptitude. I suggest anything with computers.

However I will say medicine is a great career for those who find it interesting (myself included). Best of luck OP
Computers aren't that lucrative. This is the best source of information on salaries:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/c ... ege_major/. It shows earnings by college major and years of experience. It is based on government data, so it avoids the self-reporting problems inherent in other sources. At the peak of their career, the typical CS major will have a base salary of $100k. If we're generous, they might get another target $50k in bonus and stock options. The average CS major will never break into the 200s, much less make more than that, even after 20 years of experience.

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:50 pm

EngineerEd wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:41 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:19 pm
Tamales wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:13 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm
The # of shares that are granted to you will vary depending on what the stock does. So your bonus letter will say "you will be paid $120,000 in RSUs, vesting over 4 years ($30,000/year)". If the stock price at the first vest is $10, you will be issued 3,000 shares. If the stock price at next vest is $20, you will be issued 1,500 shares, and so on...
I asked about the very process you describe a couple years ago, and was told that the tax laws governing RSUs don't allow the grant and vest to be simultaneous. In other words, the risk during the period from grant to vest is baked into the RSU rules. So I have to ask, do you know with absolute certainty that a company implements their RSUs this way?
Yes there is at least one. It didn’t seem that unusual to me at the time, it’s basically converting cash salary into equity form.
I don't doubt that something like this exists, but everyone I know working at the major tech companies (FAANG + Microsoft) has the risk baked in to their RSUs at signing.

For most of them (who signed 2-3 years ago upon graduating college) this has turned out to be very fortuitous.
UPDATE: I have been informed via PM that I misinterpreted the offer letter I received last year, it does vest according to the industry standard of a set number of shares over 4 years, not a set amount of $.

So, just to add another data point to this thread, a "lucrative career" can be had with a top tier MBA followed by a corporate finance role in Bay Area tech (not FAANG), first year out of MBA total comp is $220k (75% cash, 25% stock).
Last edited by HEDGEFUNDIE on Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

michaeljc70
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by michaeljc70 » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:38 pm

Working for a FAANG is not a "career". Those are particular companies and outliers. Those are not easy to get jobs in HCOL areas (typically).

IngognitoUSA
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:54 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by IngognitoUSA » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:40 pm

In software you only make money if you are a revenue generator, otherwise you are a cost center and will be replaced with the lowest salary the company can get away with. That confines it to tech companies while most back office is relatively underpaid.

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:04 pm

IngognitoUSA wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:40 pm
In software you only make money if you are a revenue generator, otherwise you are a cost center and will be replaced with the lowest salary the company can get away with. That confines it to tech companies while most back office is relatively underpaid.
Not true, see my post above.

jhg885
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:53 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by jhg885 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:13 am

bling wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:22 pm
adding some fuel to the fire :twisted:

https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/09/05/d ... alculator/

i plugged in various data points to https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/salary

for the most part, even in san francisco you can't cross the 200k threshold until you put in crazy numbers (e.g. masters, 20 years experience).

perhaps FANG really is in a tier of its own, and if that's the case, of course the "top of their field" will get compensated handsomely, regardless of profession.
The stack overflow data specifically excludes bonuses and equity compensation:

"No, we decided not include stock bonuses or to estimate them this year. Based on past years’ experience, it is rare for developers to accurately and consistently estimate the value of stock options or bonuses. We focused on gross salary, before taxes and deductions. This is a value that more developers across more geographical regions can estimate more accurately. However, it *is* a measure that doesn’t capture all developer compensation in all cases."

Which basically makes the data pretty much useless, considering the portions deliberately left out accounts for the majority of most software engineers' compensation. As an extreme example, Jeff bezos has a salary of $80k and Larry page a salary of $1 and would register as such in this survey.

HornedToad
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:36 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HornedToad » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:10 am

Tamales wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:38 pm
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:34 pm
Some tech companies give out RSUs in terms of $, not # of shares. So you are guaranteed that amount of $ no matter what happens to the stock. Of course that also caps your upside.
Let's see if I can salvage something informative out of this thread.
I don't understand how RSUs, which are shares and tie directly to share price, can be given out in dollars. Can you explain?

For example, say you are given 1000 RSUs to equate to a $10,000 bonus when the share price was at $10 in 2018. And the RSU's vest 1/4 per year, which is common. The grant of 1000 RSUs has to be declared on the company taxes I believe.

Then in 2019 when the first 250 vest, the share price is $8 on the vest date, and you sell immediately. How is the $500 shortfall made up?
Then in 2020 when the next 250 vest, the share price is $12, sell immediately. What happens to the $500 surplus?
Then in 2021, the next 250 vest, share price at $7, sell immediately. How is the $750 shortfall made up?
Then in 2022, the final 250 vest, share price at $6, sell immediately. How is the $1000 shortfall made up?
What actually can happen is that if the stock price goes down you get a larger grant next year or as a spot award to make up the difference. Google and Facebook do monthly vesting with no cliff so if the price is down 30% and you are well below target comp then you would have a bigger grant next year to help make up for it.

Amazon is famous for this (mostly in the wrong direction) where they give 0-1% raises and no new stock refreshers because employees are over their target compensation because the stock price has went up so much. I'm assuming they are who Hedgefundie is referring to as they are the only company I know of that as directly 'guarantees' compensation via stock with dollar amounts since they have a company wide cap of $165k/$185k bay area on base salary.

Edit to clarify: However, most offer letters are in dollar amounts and will convert to shares upon stock price at start date or board approval date when the RSUs are granted

jhg885
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:53 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by jhg885 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:29 am

golfCaddy wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:38 pm
Kuratz wrote:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:42 pm
I am a long time lurker but made an account just for this: For the love of God do not go to medical school for the money.

You will spend a minimum of 7 years, once (and if) you get in, working hard and paying roughly $300k to do so. If you want to make more than $200s you can make that 10 years to subspecialize. Thats an insane opportunity cost for anyone but especially someone who is already 26. Additionally the income of physicians is largely dependent on what bureaucrats on the CMS say what our time is worth and will likely decline over the next several decades. If you make inordinate sacrifices you can reasonably make what apparently many tech guys make, but you'll have a minimum quarter-million in student loans and a much shorter career. There are much easier and direct paths to good money for someone with ambition and aptitude. I suggest anything with computers.

However I will say medicine is a great career for those who find it interesting (myself included). Best of luck OP
Computers aren't that lucrative. This is the best source of information on salaries:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/c ... ege_major/. It shows earnings by college major and years of experience. It is based on government data, so it avoids the self-reporting problems inherent in other sources. At the peak of their career, the typical CS major will have a base salary of $100k. If we're generous, they might get another target $50k in bonus and stock options. The average CS major will never break into the 200s, much less make more than that, even after 20 years of experience.
Seriously? That source specifically states that it is based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which is *by definition* self reported. Not saying the data isn't accurate but it's not any more accurate than any other self reported source of similar methodology.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6723
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by KyleAAA » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:21 pm

bling wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:22 pm
adding some fuel to the fire :twisted:

https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/09/05/d ... alculator/

i plugged in various data points to https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/salary

for the most part, even in san francisco you can't cross the 200k threshold until you put in crazy numbers (e.g. masters, 20 years experience).

perhaps FANG really is in a tier of its own, and if that's the case, of course the "top of their field" will get compensated handsomely, regardless of profession.
That tool predicts my pay at non-fang was over $80k lower than it actually was, even 4 years ago. I've run engineering groups at multiple companies in multiple cities, both at big tech and at no-name tech and know PRECISELY what the market rate is right now in those markets. These are not close. Even the 75th percentile in Seattle significantly lower than the actual 50th percentile, for instance. Even if these numbers are meant to capture ONLY base salary, they are still a bit low in the Seattle and SF.
Last edited by KyleAAA on Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

bling
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:49 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by bling » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:23 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:21 pm
bling wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:22 pm
adding some fuel to the fire :twisted:

https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/09/05/d ... alculator/

i plugged in various data points to https://stackoverflow.com/jobs/salary

for the most part, even in san francisco you can't cross the 200k threshold until you put in crazy numbers (e.g. masters, 20 years experience).

perhaps FANG really is in a tier of its own, and if that's the case, of course the "top of their field" will get compensated handsomely, regardless of profession.
That tool predicts my pay at non-fang was over $80k lower than it actually was, even 4 years ago. I've run engineering groups at multiple companies in multiple cities, both at big tech and at no-name tech and know PRECISELY what the market rate is right now in those markets. These are not close.
as someone else has noted already, these numbers are base salary only. so yea, pretty useless.

AlphaLess
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by AlphaLess » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:48 pm

I will chime in my usual 0.02. The most lucrative careers, in this order, are:
- multi-billionaires,
- billionaires,
- multimillionaires,
- millionaires.

If you are doing anything else, you are wasting your time.

golfCaddy
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by golfCaddy » Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:23 pm

jhg885 wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:13 am
considering the portions deliberately left out accounts for the majority of most software engineers' compensation. As an extreme example, Jeff bezos has a salary of $80k and Larry page a salary of $1 and would register as such in this survey.
Wrong, stock options and RSUs do not account for the majority of most software developer's compensation.

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18559
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by VictoriaF » Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:43 pm

AlphaLess wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:48 pm
I will chime in my usual 0.02. The most lucrative careers, in this order, are:
- multi-billionaires,
- billionaires,
- multimillionaires,
- millionaires.

If you are doing anything else, you are wasting your time.
You are confusing assets with income.

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

AlphaLess
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by AlphaLess » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:29 pm

VictoriaF wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:43 pm
AlphaLess wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:48 pm
I will chime in my usual 0.02. The most lucrative careers, in this order, are:
- multi-billionaires,
- billionaires,
- multimillionaires,
- millionaires.

If you are doing anything else, you are wasting your time.
You are confusing assets with income.

Victoria
No, I am not.

I think the CORRECT way to answer the OPs question (even though he or she has disappeared) is exactly looking at the angle that I am proposing.

You don't setup a poll asking a bunch of people what is lucrative. You obtain the data and examine it carefully.

Let's say you want to become a billionaire. What do you do? Well, the best chance of becoming a billionaire is to look at the distribution of current billionaires and how they got there.

TheFishGuy99
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by TheFishGuy99 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:09 am

OP here! Im back!

I haven't been on bogleheads in quite a while. Im very surprised to see all the replies I got! thank you for that!

When I logged back on and seen this thread i got a bit of a chuckle. At the time I made this thread I was deciding to go back to college and complete my bachelors but I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life. I think the title lucrative careers is hilarious because ive realized over the past few months that yes I want to be successful and make money for my family but I also want to do something with my life that is meaningful to me and not just "lucrative".


In the past few months while ive been absent from this thread ive looked into lots of careers. Ive basically came to the conclusion that if i want to be succesful there isn't really any way to have my cake and eat it too. What i mean is there arent many careers with good employment prospects, high salaries, and good work/life balance. It really seems if you want to make 6 figures or higher youre probably going to work 60 to 80 hours unless you have seniority or land at a good employer. Im prepared to work that hard and its going to have to start now in college.

Ive been reading lots of stock market books and ive really fallen in love with investing and business. Im looking into careers in that industry such as business analyst, portfolio manager, marketing, money manager, cfo, etc. my plan is to complete my bachelors degree and go on to get my mba or cfa or both. i like the idea that in business you work your way up the ladder. Maybe some of you folks who work in this sector can give me some advice on which jobs are good and which arent so good. Im planning on majoring in either finance, business, or economics. Id also obviously consider law school if I get good enough grades and can get into a t14. I know job prospects are crap even for top law graduates, but ive always liked law. But for now, that is all hooplah until i get my bachelors completed with competitive grades.

Also, I know that I said in my original post that math isn't my strongest subject. However something im learning is that if I cant conquer math how can I ever truly be successful. I think you have to become good at your weaknesses, or atleast not give up so easily. If I need to learn math to get a career I want then so be it. That's just part of earning it.

Ive came to the realization that the real way to be lucrative is to acquire wealth, then live off the dividends.
"Interest on interest accumulating to widows idiot sons" - Gordon gekko ;)

Thanks for all the replies folks and hope you have been making some money in this bull market!

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:29 am

Two thoughts for the OP:

1. It is simply not true that most six-figure jobs require 60-80 hours/week. Think about it, that’s 12 hours a day for five days straight. What kind of “normal” job requires this much work? Most people who work at a MegaCorp are able to attain six-figures by 10 years in, they are probably getting to the office at 9 and leaving at 5. Maybe with a few more hours of work at home spread across the week. Nowhere close to 60 hours.

2. You are interested in “business” jobs. You’re going to have a get a lot more specific than that. I suggest narrowing down your functional interest at least:

Product / Engineering
Services / Customer Support / Customer Success
Sales / Marketing
Operations / Supply Chain / Manufacturing
Finance
HR
Legal / Government Affairs
IT
Strategy

There are “business” jobs in each of these categories. You should do some research on each.

TheNightsToCome
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by TheNightsToCome » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:06 am

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:29 am
Two thoughts for the OP:

1. It is simply not true that most six-figure jobs require 60-80 hours/week. Think about it, that’s 12 hours a day for five days straight. What kind of “normal” job requires this much work? Most people who work at a MegaCorp are able to attain six-figures by 10 years in, they are probably getting to the office at 9 and leaving at 5. Maybe with a few more hours of work at home spread across the week. Nowhere close to 60 hours.

2. You are interested in “business” jobs. You’re going to have a get a lot more specific than that. I suggest narrowing down your functional interest at least:

Product / Engineering
Services / Customer Support / Customer Success
Sales / Marketing
Operations / Supply Chain / Manufacturing
Finance
HR
Legal / Government Affairs
IT
Strategy

There are “business” jobs in each of these categories. You should do some research on each.
"It is simply not true that most six-figure jobs require 60-80 hours/week."

This might be true, but the OP is in the proper ballpark if he is considering BigLaw, "Big" consulting, investment banking, or medicine.

My father, two brothers, and one SIL work (or worked) in mgmt positions for MegaCorp and they all put in at least 50 hours/week. At least one brother and my SIL work 60.

In general, if you want to earn a high salary you should plan to work hard. If you ultimately find a sinecure, congratulations!

dontmindthegaap
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:19 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by dontmindthegaap » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:33 pm

TheFishGuy99 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:09 am
OP here! Im back!

I haven't been on bogleheads in quite a while. Im very surprised to see all the replies I got! thank you for that!

When I logged back on and seen this thread i got a bit of a chuckle. At the time I made this thread I was deciding to go back to college and complete my bachelors but I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life. I think the title lucrative careers is hilarious because ive realized over the past few months that yes I want to be successful and make money for my family but I also want to do something with my life that is meaningful to me and not just "lucrative".


In the past few months while ive been absent from this thread ive looked into lots of careers. Ive basically came to the conclusion that if i want to be succesful there isn't really any way to have my cake and eat it too. What i mean is there arent many careers with good employment prospects, high salaries, and good work/life balance. It really seems if you want to make 6 figures or higher youre probably going to work 60 to 80 hours unless you have seniority or land at a good employer. Im prepared to work that hard and its going to have to start now in college.

Ive been reading lots of stock market books and ive really fallen in love with investing and business. Im looking into careers in that industry such as business analyst, portfolio manager, marketing, money manager, cfo, etc. my plan is to complete my bachelors degree and go on to get my mba or cfa or both. i like the idea that in business you work your way up the ladder. Maybe some of you folks who work in this sector can give me some advice on which jobs are good and which arent so good. Im planning on majoring in either finance, business, or economics. Id also obviously consider law school if I get good enough grades and can get into a t14. I know job prospects are crap even for top law graduates, but ive always liked law. But for now, that is all hooplah until i get my bachelors completed with competitive grades.

Also, I know that I said in my original post that math isn't my strongest subject. However something im learning is that if I cant conquer math how can I ever truly be successful. I think you have to become good at your weaknesses, or atleast not give up so easily. If I need to learn math to get a career I want then so be it. That's just part of earning it.

Ive came to the realization that the real way to be lucrative is to acquire wealth, then live off the dividends.
"Interest on interest accumulating to widows idiot sons" - Gordon gekko ;)

Thanks for all the replies folks and hope you have been making some money in this bull market!
OP, IMHO don't take the CFA. It is extremely time consuming, you basically won't have a life for 6 mo during 3yrs if you pass all levels in the first try. That on top of 40/50 hrs of work a week is pretty brutal (I work in asset management and I would say that's average hrs (not NYC) for jobs in finance albeit IB). I am a level 2 candidate and really wished I had gone the MBA route. I will take level 2 and then study for the GMAT and look into top MBAs. My suggestion would be get undergrad in business, finance, or econ. Work in finance related field for ~3 yrs. Go to top 10 MBA. Boom. Done. High paying job. And if you enjoy finance it will be fun too. Then later you can take the CFA (the material is fun if you enjoy investment/finance/accounting) for bragging rights.

Momus
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by Momus » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:46 am

If you want to make 300-500k/yr, go be a MD specialists or aim to join faamng + any high end tech companies in the bay area, try to get promoted 2-3x, you will be in that range. End of story.

Arguing back and forth that silicon valley software engineers don't make that much is a moot point when they say they do and there are multiples websites that collect salary data to prove it.

If you want to make millions, climb the ladder and try to be in executive management position. Or a small successful business will do.
If you want to be a billionaire, start a business like FB, Google, or build anything that people can't live without :annoyed

michaeljc70
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by michaeljc70 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am

Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am

michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.

28fe6
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:01 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by 28fe6 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:01 am

Markets are efficient.

$200k sounds good if you can live in an RV or stay in a converted closet wither young people who have similar stars in their eyes.

For everyone else, $200k still isn't enough.

michaeljc70
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by michaeljc70 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:03 am

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
Well, I am probably repeating myself, but a company is not a career. An industry is not a career. The COL is very high. Not adjusting for the very high COL is not comparing apples to apples. The link is to THE highest paid company in Silicon Valley. Again, there are a lot of anecdotes. Thinking you will work at a FAANG is like thinking you will go to an Ivy League school. Sure, people do get in and succeed, but I don't know that it is good general advice.

huai
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:11 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by huai » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:06 am

Splunk is most certainly NOT a no-name company. They are one of the darlings of silicon valley - well past startup mode and are one of the hottest names in log monitoring.

User avatar
XtremeSki2001
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by XtremeSki2001 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:23 am

huai wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:06 am
Splunk is most certainly NOT a no-name company. They are one of the darlings of silicon valley - well past startup mode and are one of the hottest names in log monitoring.
Agreed, but the poster's assertion that Splunk is 'a company the average person has never heard of' is true.
A box of rain will ease the pain and love will see you through

KyleAAA
Posts: 6723
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:32 pm

28fe6 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:01 am
Markets are efficient.

$200k sounds good if you can live in an RV or stay in a converted closet wither young people who have similar stars in their eyes.

For everyone else, $200k still isn't enough.
Hahaha stock markets are efficient. Most markets absolutely are NOT efficient, least of all the labor market. There is no data whatsoever to suggest that markets in general are efficient.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6723
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:34 pm

michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:03 am
Well, I am probably repeating myself, but a company is not a career. An industry is not a career. The COL is very high. Not adjusting for the very high COL is not comparing apples to apples. The link is to THE highest paid company in Silicon Valley. Again, there are a lot of anecdotes. Thinking you will work at a FAANG is like thinking you will go to an Ivy League school. Sure, people do get in and succeed, but I don't know that it is good general advice.
I think you are missing the point. The point is that these high salaries aren't limited to FAANG and just a few other companies like them. And they aren't just limited to SF and Seattle, either. People are making $150-200k at companies you've never heard of in Atlanta, for example.
Last edited by KyleAAA on Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WanderingDoc
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:21 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by WanderingDoc » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:18 pm

Rifampin wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:54 pm
masonstone wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:05 pm
munemaker wrote:
Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:09 pm
masonstone wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:39 am
munemaker wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:19 am

I think they are RNs with additional certifications. Can you be a CRNA without being a RN first? I kind of doubt it.
You need several years of additional schooling, in a program that's hard to get accepted to by RNs. It's like saying a PhD and a Bachelors are the same, just one needs additional years of training. You can doubt it all you want, You are wrong.
CRNAs are RNs:
Before becoming a nurse anesthetist, candidates typically work in acute care settings (e.g., emergency rooms or intensive care units) as registered nurses (RNs) for at least a year. The AANA reports that in order for an RN to become certified in administering aesthetics, they must first complete an accredited program.
Reference: https://www.nursepractitionerschools.co ... nesthetist

Actually, CRNA stands for "Certified REGISTERED NURSE Anethesist."

CRNAs are RNs. All RNs are not CRNAs.

The Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) I know is a RN.
All MDs have Bachelors degrees too. But they can't make a doctor's salary with their Bachelor degree, just as a CRNA can't make their salary with an RN degree.
You are wrong masonstone. Actually there are still some MD programs that will accept applicants without a bachelors degree. Also all CRNAs are RNs with additional schooling. As munemaker pointed out the RN in CRNA does represent a registered nurse with a masters level degree as a nurse anesthetist.
Out of the thousands (tens of?) accepted medical school applicants per year, I believe the number without Bachelor's degrees is in the single digits. Its been a while since I followed this, but some years it was 0 or 1 accepted applicants in the U.S. without a Bachelor's degree. Just because a medical school SAYS they will consider applicants w/o a B.A., doesn't mean they take them seriously. Probably very special circumstances only.
Don't wait to buy real estate. Buy real estate, and wait. | Rent where you live, buy where others pay your mortgage for you.

michaeljc70
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by michaeljc70 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:34 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:03 am
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
Ehh... I don’t think getting a job at FAANG is comparable to becoming a professional athlete. The odds of success are much higher with the former.

For one thing, it’s not just FAANG, check out this article on how much Splunk pays (a company the average person has never heard of):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... c.amp.html

There are dozens of companies in the Bay Area that are in the same range, because they have to compete for the same talent. And it’s not just software engineers, it’s all the business support people too. Just yesterday I was talking to a Uber recruiter who said a mid-level Business Ops manager role pays $200k. For a role that only requires a minimum of 5 years work experience.

If you are young and ambitious I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to move to Silicon Valley right now.
Well, I am probably repeating myself, but a company is not a career. An industry is not a career. The COL is very high. Not adjusting for the very high COL is not comparing apples to apples. The link is to THE highest paid company in Silicon Valley. Again, there are a lot of anecdotes. Thinking you will work at a FAANG is like thinking you will go to an Ivy League school. Sure, people do get in and succeed, but I don't know that it is good general advice.
I think you are missing the point. The point is that these high salaries aren't limited to FAANG and just a few other companies like them. And they aren't just limited to SF and Seattle, either.
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.

moehoward
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:16 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by moehoward » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm

Ditch Digger.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6723
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm

michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.
I, too, have worked in tech for a long time.

Two problems with that:

1.) The median never captures equity, which is a large part of tech compensation at many companies. Looking at the median will ALWAYS underestimate actual compensation.
2.) The median software developer is very low-skilled. Practically everyone who is a software engineer that would even consider applying to one of these jobs is already in the top 20%. That's because there's a wiiiiiiide range of skillsets and no standardization in job titles. Two people with the title "software developer" at two different companies may have completely different jobs with literally no skill overlap. They both show up in the BLS data as doing the same job, but they aren't actually doing the same job.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.

michaeljc70
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by michaeljc70 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:30 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.
I, too, have worked in tech for a long time.

Two problems with that:

1.) The median never captures equity, which is a large part of tech compensation at many companies. Looking at the median will ALWAYS underestimate actual compensation.
2.) The median software developer is very low-skilled. Practically everyone who is a software engineer that would even consider applying to one of these jobs is already in the top 20%. That's because there's a wiiiiiiide range of skillsets and no standardization in job titles. Two people with the title "software developer" at two different companies may have completely different jobs with literally no skill overlap. They both show up in the BLS data as doing the same job, but they aren't actually doing the same job.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
Most software developers don't get equity.

stoptothink
Posts: 4403
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by stoptothink » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:35 pm

michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:45 am
Some of these things are not "careers". That is like saying I am going to play basketball for the Chicago Bulls and be a starter. Saying you are going to get a degree in X and go work for Google as Y is not far behind saying you are going to have a career as an actor or sports figure. You cannot talk about it like it is a normal career. These are VERY competitive positions not attainable by the average (or even above average) person.
I don't think that is necessarily true. My employer has recently (within the past year) hired a few people from FAANGs and none of them are super high-performers. In fact, 3 of the 4 that I know quite well have been average (at best) at their jobs. Another anecdote, but a former neighbor who was a mid-level manager at my wife's employer (smaller data security firm), and a bad one at that (had just been told he was being demoted and in my extensive experience with him, he is definitely not some superstar), was just hired by a FAANG. His compensation, as middle management at a small tech firm, was already c-level at my employer, and I work for the single largest company in my industry. I heard he got a significant raise from FAANG. These are massive companies, hiring a lot of people, and with a lot of competition; not all their employees are the best of the best.

Anything in tech right now pays a lot in comparison to other industries, even more if it is the Bay Area.

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:53 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.
I, too, have worked in tech for a long time.

Two problems with that:

1.) The median never captures equity, which is a large part of tech compensation at many companies. Looking at the median will ALWAYS underestimate actual compensation.
2.) The median software developer is very low-skilled. Practically everyone who is a software engineer that would even consider applying to one of these jobs is already in the top 20%. That's because there's a wiiiiiiide range of skillsets and no standardization in job titles. Two people with the title "software developer" at two different companies may have completely different jobs with literally no skill overlap. They both show up in the BLS data as doing the same job, but they aren't actually doing the same job.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
I think this is the key point. People not in tech don’t realize that there are at least two “tiers” of software development. There are the internal-facing SW developers who write extensions for on-premise data infrastructure like ERP systems. These roles have been around for decades, pay high five figure incomes, and are not growing as a field.

And then there is the wave of mobile, web, and cloud-led software developers who use new frameworks to build customer-facing applications that can be scaled to millions or billions of users. These are the FAANG jobs that you hear about that pay $200k starting salaries to 22 year old college grads. And these jobs are not limited to FAANG or the Bay Area.

So when we talk about SW development let’s be specific about whom we are talking about.
Last edited by HEDGEFUNDIE on Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pejp
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:12 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by pejp » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:11 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.
I, too, have worked in tech for a long time.

Two problems with that:

1.) The median never captures equity, which is a large part of tech compensation at many companies. Looking at the median will ALWAYS underestimate actual compensation.
2.) The median software developer is very low-skilled. Practically everyone who is a software engineer that would even consider applying to one of these jobs is already in the top 20%. That's because there's a wiiiiiiide range of skillsets and no standardization in job titles. Two people with the title "software developer" at two different companies may have completely different jobs with literally no skill overlap. They both show up in the BLS data as doing the same job, but they aren't actually doing the same job.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
You don't even need to be a software engineer or work for a tech company to make a lot of money in 'tech'. I'm in the $250+ cash comp bucket, and I'm not a dev and never have been. I've done some shell scripting and python, and a lot of sql, but I've spent my entire career working in the tech departments of financial firms(production support, working with trading and risk systems, technical business analysis etc). I was at a major hedge fund for a long time, and our desktop/prod support people would have been on $130k+. Working for one of the FAANG's is still a relatively small part of the total number of 'tech' jobs out there.

KyleAAA
Posts: 6723
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:13 pm

michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:30 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.
I, too, have worked in tech for a long time.

Two problems with that:

1.) The median never captures equity, which is a large part of tech compensation at many companies. Looking at the median will ALWAYS underestimate actual compensation.
2.) The median software developer is very low-skilled. Practically everyone who is a software engineer that would even consider applying to one of these jobs is already in the top 20%. That's because there's a wiiiiiiide range of skillsets and no standardization in job titles. Two people with the title "software developer" at two different companies may have completely different jobs with literally no skill overlap. They both show up in the BLS data as doing the same job, but they aren't actually doing the same job.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
Most software developers don't get equity.
Which isn't at all relevant. Enough do that to ignore it significantly underestimates the median. But even if I grant you that, which I don't, my second point still stands.

michaeljc70
Posts: 3595
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by michaeljc70 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:23 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:13 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:30 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
michaeljc70 wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:20 pm
I've worked in tech for 25 years. I suggest looking at the MEDIAN salaries for a particular job role. There is no doubt good paying jobs in tech, but you need to be realistic.
I, too, have worked in tech for a long time.

Two problems with that:

1.) The median never captures equity, which is a large part of tech compensation at many companies. Looking at the median will ALWAYS underestimate actual compensation.
2.) The median software developer is very low-skilled. Practically everyone who is a software engineer that would even consider applying to one of these jobs is already in the top 20%. That's because there's a wiiiiiiide range of skillsets and no standardization in job titles. Two people with the title "software developer" at two different companies may have completely different jobs with literally no skill overlap. They both show up in the BLS data as doing the same job, but they aren't actually doing the same job.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
Most software developers don't get equity.
Which isn't at all relevant. Enough do that to ignore it significantly underestimates the median. But even if I grant you that, which I don't, my second point still stands.
Your second point is inferring that OP will be much above average in this prospective job. This whole topic has gotten way too much into the weeds. Looking at the very top salaries is not what I would do when giving someone looking for a career. I wouldn't say become an actor....some make $50 million a year. Many work as waiters. You need to take into account the distribution of income and take into account any indicators of where the person you are making a recommendation to may fall. Things like engineering tend attract people that have certain aptitudes that not everyone may have.

I work in Chicago and almost no one in software development makes $200k+ a year unless they are consulting on short term projects or has their own business.

User avatar
jharkin
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:14 am
Location: Boston suburbs

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by jharkin » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:50 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
I still have no idea where you get this idea that these numbers are common. Just because a bunch of anonymouse uses on Blind say it doesn make it true. The BLS statistical data is out there and easy to find....

I work with developers with advanced degrees from MIT, Cornell, etc..most folks I know here in New England are only in the low-mid 100s base (mid 100s to low 200s with equity and bonuses) And Im talking mid 40s/mid career folks. Mostly in mid level management. The folks I know who do make well over 200 all in are either in upper management, or they work in downtown Boston at one of the really big names - Google, Amazon, Fidelity, etc.

The folks who really seem to make a killing now and are buying up all the new McMansion developments are people in biotech...

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:53 pm

I think this is the key point. People not in tech don’t realize that there are at least two “tiers” of software development. There are the internal-facing SW developers who write extensions for on-premise data infrastructure like ERP systems. These roles have been around for decades, pay high five figure incomes, and are not growing as a field.

And then there is the wave of mobile, web, and cloud-led software developers who use new frameworks to build customer-facing applications that can be scaled to millions or billions of users. These are the FAANG jobs that you hear about that pay $200k starting salaries to 22 year old college grads. And these jobs are not limited to FAANG or the Bay Area.

So when we talk about SW development let’s be specific about whom we are talking about.
You two convenient 'ters' leave out people developing:
operating systems
databases
cloud storage and virtualization
office apps
desktop content creation software
engineering, science and math software
in house customization on top of commercial ERP/PLM/CRM/ALM/etc systems
financial systems
health care record systems, quality management, etc.

.... and on and on and on. There are LOT more professional paths in software than some of the narrow slices being discussed here.


pejp wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:11 pm

You don't even need to be a software engineer or work for a tech company to make a lot of money in 'tech'. I'm in the $250+ cash comp bucket, and I'm not a dev and never have been. I've done some shell scripting and python, and a lot of sql, but I've spent my entire career working in the tech departments of financial firms(production support, working with trading and risk systems, technical business analysis etc). I was at a major hedge fund for a long time, and our desktop/prod support people would have been on $130k+. Working for one of the FAANG's is still a relatively small part of the total number of 'tech' jobs out there.
All you proved is that financial firms pay well. I have a friend who is a Quant analyst at a wealth management firm. He spends most of his day writing high speed trading algorithms in python and R. He made over $1 million in cash compensation last year.

Does that prove its easy to make 7 figures as a tech person? No. it proves you can make a million in the financial services industry....

pejp
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:12 pm

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by pejp » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:41 pm

jharkin wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:50 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:24 pm
People seem to be under the mistaken belief that you have to live in SF and work at FAANG to make $200k+ per year in tech, and that's not even remotely the case. We're not talking about the 1% of software engineers or only the best of the best, here. We're talking about C students at state universities.
I still have no idea where you get this idea that these numbers are common. Just because a bunch of anonymouse uses on Blind say it doesn make it true. The BLS statistical data is out there and easy to find....

I work with developers with advanced degrees from MIT, Cornell, etc..most folks I know here in New England are only in the low-mid 100s base (mid 100s to low 200s with equity and bonuses) And Im talking mid 40s/mid career folks. Mostly in mid level management. The folks I know who do make well over 200 all in are either in upper management, or they work in downtown Boston at one of the really big names - Google, Amazon, Fidelity, etc.

The folks who really seem to make a killing now and are buying up all the new McMansion developments are people in biotech...

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:53 pm

I think this is the key point. People not in tech don’t realize that there are at least two “tiers” of software development. There are the internal-facing SW developers who write extensions for on-premise data infrastructure like ERP systems. These roles have been around for decades, pay high five figure incomes, and are not growing as a field.

And then there is the wave of mobile, web, and cloud-led software developers who use new frameworks to build customer-facing applications that can be scaled to millions or billions of users. These are the FAANG jobs that you hear about that pay $200k starting salaries to 22 year old college grads. And these jobs are not limited to FAANG or the Bay Area.

So when we talk about SW development let’s be specific about whom we are talking about.
You two convenient 'ters' leave out people developing:
operating systems
databases
cloud storage and virtualization
office apps
desktop content creation software
engineering, science and math software
in house customization on top of commercial ERP/PLM/CRM/ALM/etc systems
financial systems
health care record systems, quality management, etc.

.... and on and on and on. There are LOT more professional paths in software than some of the narrow slices being discussed here.


pejp wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:11 pm

You don't even need to be a software engineer or work for a tech company to make a lot of money in 'tech'. I'm in the $250+ cash comp bucket, and I'm not a dev and never have been. I've done some shell scripting and python, and a lot of sql, but I've spent my entire career working in the tech departments of financial firms(production support, working with trading and risk systems, technical business analysis etc). I was at a major hedge fund for a long time, and our desktop/prod support people would have been on $130k+. Working for one of the FAANG's is still a relatively small part of the total number of 'tech' jobs out there.
All you proved is that financial firms pay well. I have a friend who is a Quant analyst at a wealth management firm. He spends most of his day writing high speed trading algorithms in python and R. He made over $1 million in cash compensation last year.

Does that prove its easy to make 7 figures as a tech person? No. it proves you can make a million in the financial services industry....
Well your anecdotal evidence certainly trumps my anecdotal evidence. You win! :sharebeer

TheFishGuy99
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Lucrative careers?

Post by TheFishGuy99 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:01 pm

What are some good careers to pursue in the business and investment world that is attainable if you work hard?

I’d like to work with companies portfolios and things like that or marketing seems like an interesting career. I just don’t know how job prospects and promotional ladders are for these careers. Corporate law seems interesting too

Post Reply