|
oliveoil posted:Very good question. I hadn't considered doing that. I just thought all the code schools were scams managed by idiots and it never occurred to me that I could make a better one. I'm not sure if I'd get rich as fast as I want that way but it could be very good. Maybe especially if I make it a self-taught class so I don't have to do any work. Or it's just really hard. Look, there are literally thousands of self-taught development courses on platforms like Udemy. Some people are actually getting pretty wealthy off of making them, but the ones that try to sell their courses as pathways to riches are absolutely scammers. The reason this doesn't work the way you want it to because there is drastically more luck involved in the road you're describing than you want to admit. If this wasn't true, then the path to wealth that you're talking about would very rapidly close up anyway.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Nah, you're greatly exaggerating the difficulty here. I'm working in Google's Munich office and hardly anyone has gone to top 10 or 20 CS schools. Even back in the bay area people who had gone to Stanford or wherever were, while not rare at all, not the norm. There were seemingly a shitton of people who had gone to UCSD though. That doesn't mean it's remotely plausible for the vast majority of programmers to get those jobs, though. There's a selection bias where you're mostly just seeing the people who got jobs and not the people who didn't. I referenced the finance guy because he has the same sort of distorted perception, due to his data set just consisting of "people who got those jobs." Also, you're kinda proving my point regarding the US (it's entirely possible that the employment situation is substantially different in Germany, so I won't speak to that). UCSD is very highly ranked even if it isn't absolutely "top tier" and most people won't have access to that kind of institution. When you're in an "elite" career like that you get a distorted sense of what's normal and lose track of the fact that schools in the top 40-50 are still pretty damned elite and inaccessible to most Americans. Cicero posted:This is dumb. We're talking about coding jobs, not jobs as political aides or as an actor or something that's hyper reliant on networking. I'm not denying that you need some baseline level of skill. Programming is probably actually better than most jobs when it comes to at least requiring some actual skill, and the couple people I've known who worked at Google were definitely very good programmers. Someone who is genuinely talented at programming can probably always get a very good job. I'm saying that "people employed at these companies have this level of skill/experience" does not imply that having that level of skill/experience makes it reasonably possible for anyone to get those jobs. I also think that more talent is required than is obvious to many people who have that talent (and this probably includes you - if you work at Google, you're probably a good programmer, so don't misinterpret this as me claiming that these companies are full of talentless nepotism cases). When I took an intro compsci course in college with a bunch of people who were generally pretty high achievers and probably better overall than your average student, like half the class did very poorly and I had an extremely easy time of it. I'm now 34 and have been working as a programmer for like 10 years now, and I can guarantee you that I am absolutely garbage and I'm not just being modest when I say that. Actual good programmers reach a level of skill higher than mine within the space of about a year. So I actually think that more talent is involved with the sort of programming job that pays really well than a lot of people do (though it's a very specialized sort of talent that doesn't really apply well to other disciplines), but that's also why I think the idea of the vast majority of people ever working that kind of job is deeply unrealistic. All of this being said, I think that making some attempt to learn programming (just to see if it "clicks" for you) is still good advice on an individual level, but this is a separate thing from thinking that the vast majority of people could access the sort of job that pays six figures at tech companies, etc. I think that the sort of abilities I have are probably within reach of quite a few people (and pretty much anyone if taught properly as a child) and, in the current job market, can fairly reliably get you a job making some mid-5-figure salary. There are quite a few jobs who just want people who can fix bugs or make changes to simple user interfaces or whatever. But I think that sort of thing is a fundamentally different job than the sort of thing people usually consider the "tech industry" and isn't the sort of thing the OP is referring to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
I'd argue that sheer, dumb luck is a much larger factor than nepotism when it comes to jobs at companies like Google and Facebook. Software development has less of a nepotism issue than a lot of other high-paying fields, but luck is always going to be there. It's like pretty much anything else: skill and hard work are the cost of buying the lottery ticket, but at some point it largely moves out of your hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
I would agree that luck has a lot to do with it, because hiring is extremely flawed across all industries, but especially in tech. To start, there's the (often subconscious) biases in place that ends up filtering candidates down to only people that look like the existing employees, even if just on paper. This includes inherent bias either for or against self-taught engineers, depending on the background of the hiring manager. After filtering, no one in tech knows how to correctly evaluate a candidates competency. There have been entire books written on Cracking the Coding Interview because the process at every tech company is so obtuse. There are numerous stories of small companies rejecting/firing people who couldn't complete a basic task later getting hired at Google because they memorized the book. As a candidate you'll get tested on your ability to memorize algorithms you'll never use outside of Computer Science classes. Or asked to totally unrelated riddles like how many ping pong balls can you fit on an airplane? Or be forced to write code on a whiteboard in front of an audience; like asking a carpenter to build a chair with his bare hands. Or be asked to spend hours of your own time completing a homework project (sadly probably the best way to evaluate competency).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
sim posted:I would agree that luck has a lot to do with it, because hiring is extremely flawed across all industries, but especially in tech. To start, there's the (often subconscious) biases in place that ends up filtering candidates down to only people that look like the existing employees, even if just on paper. This includes inherent bias either for or against self-taught engineers, depending on the background of the hiring manager. the final thing is that you're likely to have a very severe "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" problem that will make people who are prestigious on paper have a much bigger advantage than that prestige warrants, because when you hire the harvard grad it's not your fault when it doesn't work out, but when you hire the state university guy, it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:That doesn't mean it's remotely plausible for the vast majority of programmers to get those jobs, though. There's a selection bias where you're mostly just seeing the people who got jobs and not the people who didn't. I referenced the finance guy because he has the same sort of distorted perception, due to his data set just consisting of "people who got those jobs." Of course, as someone else noted earlier, a lot of programmers who could simply don't want to, for a variety of reasons, which is totally fine. quote:Also, you're kinda proving my point regarding the US (it's entirely possible that the employment situation is substantially different in Germany, so I won't speak to that). UCSD is very highly ranked even if it isn't absolutely "top tier" and most people won't have access to that kind of institution. When you're in an "elite" career like that you get a distorted sense of what's normal and lose track of the fact that schools in the top 40-50 are still pretty damned elite and inaccessible to most Americans. Also, it's hard to disentangle the usefulness of the school itself just on your resume from the things a top tier school is associated with, like the other benefits being affluent gives you, or that people who go to those types of schools are generally more ambitious. quote:I'm not denying that you need some baseline level of skill. Programming is probably actually better than most jobs when it comes to at least requiring some actual skill, and the couple people I've known who worked at Google were definitely very good programmers. Someone who is genuinely talented at programming can probably always get a very good job. I'm saying that "people employed at these companies have this level of skill/experience" does not imply that having that level of skill/experience makes it reasonably possible for anyone to get those jobs. quote:I also think that more talent is required than is obvious to many people who have that talent (and this probably includes you - if you work at Google, you're probably a good programmer, so don't misinterpret this as me claiming that these companies are full of talentless nepotism cases). When I took an intro compsci course in college with a bunch of people who were generally pretty high achievers and probably better overall than your average student, like half the class did very poorly and I had an extremely easy time of it. I'm now 34 and have been working as a programmer for like 10 years now, and I can guarantee you that I am absolutely garbage and I'm not just being modest when I say that. Actual good programmers reach a level of skill higher than mine within the space of about a year. So I actually think that more talent is involved with the sort of programming job that pays really well than a lot of people do (though it's a very specialized sort of talent that doesn't really apply well to other disciplines), but that's also why I think the idea of the vast majority of people ever working that kind of job is deeply unrealistic. If you wanted to, you could probably get a job at Amazon or MS if you dove into leetcode problems. Remember, they can't actually evaluate your real programming skill, they use the experience on your resume to start and then use whiteboarding problems to make sure you're intelligent in a programming context and didn't just make everything up on your resume (which some people absolutely do). I'm guessing you're not interested though. quote:All of this being said, I think that making some attempt to learn programming (just to see if it "clicks" for you) is still good advice on an individual level, but this is a separate thing from thinking that the vast majority of people could access the sort of job that pays six figures at tech companies, etc. I think that the sort of abilities I have are probably within reach of quite a few people (and pretty much anyone if taught properly as a child) and, in the current job market, can fairly reliably get you a job making some mid-5-figure salary. There are quite a few jobs who just want people who can fix bugs or make changes to simple user interfaces or whatever. But I think that sort of thing is a fundamentally different job than the sort of thing people usually consider the "tech industry" and isn't the sort of thing the OP is referring to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah I more or less agree. I just disagree with the notion that these jobs -- as a group -- are that elite. They're, like, moderately elite, from the perspective of a person who's already gainfully employed as a programmer, anyway. These companies often start out very selective, I have no doubt that early on, having gone to Stanford was a massive benefit to getting into Google. But Google and Amazon etc. are loving huge now, that level of selectiveness is long dead. this is the complete opposite of how this process actually works. as you become larger, and your talent pool to pull from becomes larger, credentialism becomes MUCH more pronounced. sure, back when they were little, there was one hiring manager who knew Stanford was legit, and so would let people in a little easier. but now? now everybody and their brother who thinks they can make it chucks an application their way. and so, an HR department that has to separate the wheat from a never-ending avalanche of chaff needs to develop SOME kind of way to even start doing their jobs. there is no grand conspiracy. there is just the realization that hiring enough people to give every resume that comes in a pair of human eyes to assess it would be a tremendous expense. out of sheer necessity, someone writes a series of filters so humans will only have to see the resumes that ~might~ fit criteria, and from there it's a question of which surviving resumes pop. and only then is it that you actually get to try making your case to your wise and unbiased overlords. later on someone trying to further automate the process has a machine learning algorithm take a look at who gets interviews, and it turns out what it learned from watching you was the only things that matter are if your name is Jared and if you played lacrosse. so, OP, have you considered changing your name?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
No, you're horribly off. At first Google can afford to mostly just pick people from Stanford & co., they don't need that many engineers and they're hot as poo poo, growing like crazy. Getting into Google means a decent chance of getting filthy rich off an IPO. In 2019 their demand for engineers to fill seats is vastly higher and, while still prestigious, they're not nearly as hot poo poo as they once were. Getting into Google now gets you very generous compensation, but it's not going to suddenly make you wildly rich. People who want that are going to take their chances with some hot startup, or maybe a boutique hedge fund. Look at the data posted earlier. I don't actually trust the absolute percentages, but the trend I definitely trust, and you can see that Facebook had twice the percentage of employees from top tier universities compared to Google. Is it that Facebook pays that much better and can afford to be much more selective, or whatever it is you're suggesting? No, it's that they're younger and smaller (especially when that article was written). You can just look at which universities Google has actively recruited at to confirm this, which has greatly broadened over time. edit: I suspect what you're saying is probably more true for other industries, which don't have the same startup phenomenon that's become common in tech, where a long history of established success can actually work against you. And I don't dispute that having a top university on your resume remains a large advantage to getting past the resume filter stage. But the demand for these huge companies for devs is simply too high to be satisfied with just pulling from those demographics, the numbers just aren't there. Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Nov 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, you're horribly off. At first Google can afford to mostly just pick people from Stanford & co., they don't need that many engineers and they're hot as poo poo, growing like crazy. Getting into Google means a decent chance of getting filthy rich off an IPO. earlier, there was explicit credentialism. later on, you build systems to seek out the Best Culture Fit (tm) and Our Kind Of People (tm). there is no grand conspiracy to limit access to tech jobs! this must be reiterated, because if there was, that would make this problem SO much easier to address. what there is is FAR more insidious: a bunch of HR people tasked with finding needles in haystacks, armed only with the vaguest idea of what a needle actually is, and so in the name of making their jobs a little more manageable they start looking for shorthand signifiers for "this candidate is not a waste of our time." and it just so happens that the shorthand signifiers for a candidate being worthwhile have nothing to do with experience, have nothing to do with courseload, have nothing to do with interview skill, and, in short, have nothing to do with programming. the filters can't pick any of those up, and as any good statistician can tell you, "hard to quantify" rhymes with "does not exist." and the machine learning algorithm they do not realize they are being used to train observes everything quantifiable about who the gatekeepers let in, tracks every variable, runs every correlation, and discovers GetsInterview=1 has its two strongest correlations with Extracurricular=*Lacrosse* and FirstName=Jared. welcome to systemic bias, friend programmer. it turns out discrimination not being an active choice doesn't make it stop being discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:there is no grand conspiracy to limit access to tech jobs! this must be reiterated, because if there was, that would make this problem SO much easier to address. what there is is FAR more insidious: a bunch of HR people tasked with finding needles in haystacks, armed only with the vaguest idea of what a needle actually is, and so in the name of making their jobs a little more manageable they start looking for shorthand signifiers for "this candidate is not a waste of our time." Right I have no experience at all with Google or Facebook or any other gigantic tech company's hiring methods so they may be the exceptions, but I spent close to a year doing consulting work on hiring systems for several mid-tier companies. Any job that is even remotely desirable will have more potential candidates that any human or group of humans can reasonably deal with, and that's after you've filtered away the vast majority. "Fair" hiring is essentially an unsolvable problem, and I'm honestly skeptical that even the best systems can give legitimately good candidates a 1 in 20 chance of having their resume viewed by an actual human.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Leverage what you've got and find someone smarter or (ideally and) more charismatic than you. It helps if you are good at <specific thing> they need but really you just need to be *better* at that specific thing and work with them. If you can't do that, at least figure out what the next biggest thing is in your sector and tie yourself to that. Start-ups have high turnover and/or grow quickly so you can at least get some real "king of poo poo mountain" stuff on your resume but you are equally likely to just have a nice loving payday. Wash/rinse/repeat until you hit a level that works for you. You gotta be willing to take a risk: there will be misses. Save your money when you make it, that will help you survive the lean times (unemployment should be able to mostly cover your rent, I live in Oakland and that was how I survived. Oakland is hella expensive so avoid falling into traps. Don't rent a place where max unemployment won't cover the rent). Given your skill set, it's about deciding where to settle. Take risks and don't live beyond your means until they pay out. Then live within them (I seen people who are still living lean in their 40s and that's dumb. At that point, coast it out).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:
I think that's also one thing people like OP don't think about. Yeah a decent programmer can make 120-150k/yr in the Bay Area, but honestly you'd have a higher quality of life living in like, Houston, making 70-80k/yr. Of course this depends on what your priorities are and where you come from in the first place, but moving to the bay area to take a job at $120k when you're making $70k in New Orleans where you were born and raised or went to college or whatever seems incredibly stupid to me unless you're younger than like 25. Not only is PPP massively different even across the US, but some jobs could be done literally anywhere and you can move to Thailand or Cambodia and work as a remote programmer for 40k/yr (although you'll have to be established first; I can't imagine almost anyone successfully doing this completely on their own at age 23). There are relatively few things that have relatively-static costs globally -- pretty much just electronics, luxury items, and plane tickets, which will indeed be way "cheaper" to someone earning in California. The stuff that takes a larger percentage of most people's paychecks (rent, food, going out) is going to vary by a factor of 2-4 across just the USA, or even more if you are someone who wants to own their own home. I knew a lot of people that have moved to California "for the weather and outdoors" and then they worked like 70 hours a week at Google or wherever and didn't do jack-poo poo else in their lives. Yeah I bet the weather's lovely, too bad you were always in an office and only went to the beach twice a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
Cicero posted:
Given that over 90% of Google's technical workforce is either white or Asian, and over 70% are men, it sure does seem like they're selective enough to exclude skilled programmers based on arbitrary measures unrelated to coding abilities. The "hiring is purely skill-based, everyone can do it if they try" narrative is a nice one, and it's easy to look at the hiring processes and the technical culture and conclude that it's a meritocracy. But pull your head away from the paperwork and you'll see a sea of white and Asian faces. The idea that tech is a pure meritocracy, open to everyone, has some serious credibility problems. And while the tech companies are quite eager to place the blame for that elsewhere, I don't see any credible reason to think that the "pipeline problem" is any less fake than the "programmer shortage" is. Cicero posted:Look at the data posted earlier. I don't actually trust the absolute percentages, but the trend I definitely trust, and you can see that Facebook had twice the percentage of employees from top tier universities compared to Google. Is it that Facebook pays that much better and can afford to be much more selective, or whatever it is you're suggesting? No, it's that they're younger and smaller (especially when that article was written). Sure, if by "top tier" you mean "top 10". If you draw the line for "top tier" elsewhere, the divide is a lot smaller, with Google hiring only 70% of their workforce from top 100 universities (as opposed to Facebook's 90%). I don't think the absolute numbers are super reliable either, but the sheer general magnitude is enough to throw water on the idea that it's offering plenty o opportunities to self-taught programmers with no degree or credentials besides maybe an online code camp! Especially when you compare it to the more engineering-focused companies in that data, which appear to place substantially less weight on which school you went to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
Saladman posted:I think that's also one thing people like OP don't think about. Yeah a decent programmer can make 120-150k/yr in the Bay Area, but honestly you'd have a higher quality of life living in like, Houston, making 70-80k/yr. Of course this depends on what your priorities are and where you come from in the first place, but moving to the bay area to take a job at $120k when you're making $70k in New Orleans where you were born and raised or went to college or whatever seems incredibly stupid to me unless you're younger than like 25. Yeah but a lot of those poo poo holes dont have jobs in a meaningful sense and your career will dead end incredibly quickly. A good piece of advice is to move to NYC. Thag place is a crucible and you will figure out what you are good at quickly. If tech, the Bay but it's not the same and a tech company in NYC is still probably better for you. Then move to a hotspot for your area (Bay if tech). Once you are established you can move to somewhere like Houston or Cambodia and live "large". I'd recommend staying in a civilized place, so cambodia before Texas but ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Saladman posted:I think that's also one thing people like OP don't think about. Yeah a decent programmer can make 120-150k/yr in the Bay Area, but honestly you'd have a higher quality of life living in like, Houston, making 70-80k/yr. only if part of your calculation of "quality of life" ignores "having to live in houston"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
If any of us knew of a guaranteed way to wild riches with zero effort why the gently caress would we tell you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
I'm glad you cracked the code OP that able-bodied, healthy people with good intelligence that don't have unnecessary distractions like children or a sick spouse, can get a well paying job. Now go out there and keep teaching those unicorns, they need your help!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
There is no single path to riches in a capitalist system. At best there are established routes to moderate wealth. This is because once one person or organisation figures out how to exploit a niche for massive profit and does so - - woops, if you try the same thing, you're in competition with them. And they have the first mover advantage. You would be best off studying strategic thinking and leadership related stuff (or an MBA) if you want to be in charge of organisations that generate massive wealth, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:There is no single path to riches in a capitalist system. At best there are established routes to moderate wealth. This is because once one person or organisation figures out how to exploit a niche for massive profit and does so - - woops, if you try the same thing, you're in competition with them. And they have the first mover advantage. as a random aside, first-mover advantage is dramatically overstated and may in fact be somewhat of a negative (you get to spend all the money figuring poo poo out and a competitor can just copy you for free)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
I think when most people (insofar as "most" people talk about a marketing term at all) talk about FMA, they're using it in a kind of colloquial way to mean that it's hard to displace companies with a strong market position and a ton of money. They aren't considering small companies that are first to market with something and just end up getting trounced by a big player later on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Get a great idea people want then build a community (business) to give it to them in exchange for money and expand as fast as you can to be primary and get a great legal to team to protect and fight for it by manipulating government and buying politicians to keep them out, retain ownership and hire others to run it while retaining title/position that is ceremonial so you can come in every now and then. Win the lottery. Be born into wealth either from parents or in a class/society that allows you to flourish. Play with other people’s money to set yourself up until you can play with your own. Like Buffett. All of these depend on other people to help or contribute along the way. Even the lottery as it builds up the more people buy tickets and don’t win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
The real way to leverage FMA is to work for a big company that doesn't know what it has. Steal their tech and use it in a novel way that will make huge sums of money. Once you reach a certain level of success you WILL get sued, but settle out of court and you will still be way ahead. If you can't do that, latch onto someone who can and be part of their initial team.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:as a random aside, first-mover advantage is dramatically overstated and may in fact be somewhat of a negative (you get to spend all the money figuring poo poo out and a competitor can just copy you for free) What are some good recent examples of this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What are some good recent examples of this? Apple is the most obvious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What are some good recent examples of this? Facebook and Snapchat is, right now, becoming one - Facebook is basically relentlessly plagiarizing everything that Snapchat does. The new hotness in multiple-access point wifi - I believe eero was first or one of the first to have consumer units, they got knocked off by everyone, and basically got bought for a song because they were going to go under. Android is also a good example: apple developed the whole ios, android knocked it off, and android now dominates the market (though Apple's hilarious phone profits make it work out fine for Apple). It's a big reason buyouts are so common in the tech space - if Amazon/Facebook/Google/Apple want to buy you out, you've got to think long and hard about rejecting the offer because if you do, they may just knock you off and use their massive war chest to crush you (though this is also an antitrust issue).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
You're not rich if you "go to work" to make your money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Start a religion. Worked for trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
If 1 = [your plan] If 2= [your invite to me] 1+2= [yes but 3] If 3= [after you sucessfully launch company then invite me with guarantee of sucess] 1+2=3 There I coded. It is called my code to sucess with promise of not throwing it all away. 4= [whatever floats your boat good luck I give you moral support] 1+2=3 Yes=4
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You're not rich if you "go to work" to make your money. Some notable not-rich people: - Heart surgeons - Investment bankers - Tim Cook
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 09:32
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You're not rich if you need to "go to work" to make your money. Fixed that for you, and for the snarky poster above. Some heart surgeons and investment bankers are broke af by the standards of how much financial freedom they have though: it doesn't matter how glossy your life is when you're half a million in debt and have to work crazy hours to maintain your lifestyle and debts. See also, the perennial "daddy's business failed and now we're broke" category of (actual) temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Investment bankers seem to be particularly prone to this what with being people who enjoy taking risks. E: And to develop the theme in line with thread title - being rich means having enough to cover your needs and those of your dependents in perpetuity. If you want the bonus points make this "so that none of my descendents are ever in a position of poverty" either. What that means is being rich in a real sense can be quite humble, and certainly not living in ridiculous luxury. £5m in net worth in the UK might do it. In other parts of the world less than £1m would make you rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Wealth can be as much about adjusting your desires and needs to reality as actually being absurdly wealthy. Beyond this level of wealth you're pursuing something other than quality of life and security, and then it becomes about values - why do you want £10m? £100m? To be Jeff Bezos? The answer seems to be in most cases that billionaires are deeply unhappy and pathological personalities who use money to fulfil a psychological need. Douglas Rushkoff wrote a good article on this a while back and it's bourne out by many wannabe billionaires I know. "What use is the whole world if it cost a man his immortal soul? " E2: It also means wealth can come from sources other than personal net worth. If you have a lot of support from a big community, that is a form of capital that you can't register in a ledger. Probably the happiest people are those who have both a decent amount of net worth but also, and more importantly, who are integrated into their communities and have a clear purpose for doing what they do. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Nov 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:What does it take? ok and what am i going to do to pay my rent for those 2-3 years where i'm learning to do this full time
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Being young is pretty cheap, Joseph Campbell talks about it. I have a friend who went from working at a nail salon to working in cybersecurity because they signed up for a bootcamp. The real trick with those bootcamps is to be a self taught programmer beforehand. That way you look like a wunderkid and get the sweet internships that turn into lucrative careers. Still not rich. But then you start looking for people to latch on to so you can geow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Some notable not-rich people: Tim Cook: Wikipedia says: Salary US$ 15.7 million (2018)[1] Net worth US$ 1.3 billion (2015)[2] He's worked at apple for 21 years. That means that even if he made 15 million dollars every one of those years he would have only made 1/5th of his fortune through wages. Edit: When I made these posts this thread was in GBS. As a cspam poster I would never post in D&D. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:imagine if there was a system of money that was for attention, a renewable resource we all have access to For God's sake, no don't summon the threads of Eripsas past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
Tim Cook is mega rich because of his ability to model and manage supply chains. A number of the richest people on the plant are exceptionally good at that. But it is an open question as to if one can really be taught to do that, and they all seem to come up with radically different models. In broad sense creating a business is that, creating a little supply chain model that repeats and shits out money as it cycles. The new problem is that they don't poo poo out money for very long anymore, and the model must near constantly be revised and recreated, or it poofs into nothing. It is a soul sucking tread mill, and most people get off well before they get mega rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
It also creates precious little value for the rest of us and they should be guillotined and their assets distri I mean wow I wish I had those skills
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I mean wow I wish I had those skills I've got mouths to feed. I've got bills to pay. Ain't nothing in this world for free. And I've decided I'm socialist and loving all that up. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
Being on $150k is not being rich, even if you work at that level of salary for decades you still won't be rich. If you're lucky and invest well, you will likely become financially independent, and be able to retire at 60 and be able to sustain a ~$40k lifestyle without needing to work, own a house, but that's about it (this already is massive for like 99% of the human population though). Hardly "building Star Trek replicators" level. The one weird trick to being rich is being born rich, OP
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
On a logical note all the financially stable people (because rich is a gimmick word), that I know and have talked to, tossed me some solid tips. May as well share a few. 1. Invest now and dont try to play the markets. The younger you invest, the more money you have later on. Its a long game but pays out. 2. Assets and liabilities. A. Assets are things you buy, that make you money. A work car, college, IRAs, Hedge Funds. B. Liabilities are everything else that cost money and do not make you a return to your investment, like Netflix (unless you only use it to learn), hookers, and cocaine. (Although some will argue that cocaine *can* be an investment, it is just a risky one.). Finding that balance changes lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
I dunno, just raise yourself up by the bootstraps and work a factory job until you’re 50 and qualify for pension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 13:40
|
|
