How much money do Physicists make?

[twofish-quant]

It makes no sense that an engineer or physicist can learn all the complexities of their field and not understand the basic common sense issues of running a business.

I have to disagree with you here in that some very good engineers and physicists just can't. There are people that are for example extremely, extremely shy and they make wonderful mathematicians but lousy entrepreneurs.

A guy can work at a pizza place and make minimum wage, or he can own the pizza place (doing the same work) and become a millionaire.

Or he can apply to a big pizza chain and become regional manager

The issue of probability of failure is important of course, but ultimately he is making judgments by looking at those that of come through a filter and arrived on the successful side.

But my point is that there are a lot of ways of being successful. You can be successful in big business, you can be successful in small business, you can be successful in no business. The thing about entrepreneurs is that every person that I've seen start their own business is a little insane and irrational, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

At the end of the day, what is true with every one that has been successful with a startup is that deep down, they can say to themselves "I know the odds are against me, but I don't care." It turns out that the odds are against them. Most businesses blow up, a few succeed. Now if you are an entrepreneur, and you go in knowing that you probably will fail, but you don't care, that's great! We need crazy people or else nothing gets done.

The trouble is that if you are advising a bunch of undergraduates what to do with their lives, I think that it's a seriously, seriously bad and immoral thing for people to go and say to them "go start your own company and make a million bucks" and as far as economic policy goes, I think that it's unrealistic to think that everyone can or well start their own company. People need to be told that if they start their own company, they will probably fail. A lot of people won't care. A lot of people *will* care since they just want a job that pays the rent, and in that case they are better off working for someone else.

I sort of agree with you that you need to be a crazy insane optimist to success at a startup company, but there are millions of ways to succeed in business that don't involve working at a startup.

 

[twofish-quant]

that when taken out of context is clearly wrong. However, when taken in context, has meaning. I should have been clear that it is people who have a SUCCESSFUL business who OFTEN make more money than those that work for others.

But if you look at the statistics, it's pretty clear that if you main goal in life is to maximize income, you probably shouldn't start your own business. Now, I don't think that making money should be your main goal in life, and if you are willing to make less money for the thrill of starting your business, and you don't care about failure, then *GREAT*. I think it's just really important that people make informed choices.

His logic is flawed because there are hospital doctors making $150K per year and paying back school loans and paying malpractice insurance.

His logic is also flawed because there are physicists that make $200K/year on Wall Street. I know physics/math Ph.D.'s that have made managing director and are pulling in $1 million/year. James Simons made $1.5 billion in 2005. Last year was bad, so I'm guessing he only made tens of millions. Boo hoo.

You can make good money as a physicist. You can make good money as a doctor. You can make good money as an entrepreneur. Since you can make good money doing any of those things, your choices really don't have to be based on income levels. In fact your decisions on what you should be doing with your life probably *SHOULDN'T* be based on income levels. Personally I think your decisions should be based on what you think you can do best to help society.

Some even go into business. One needs to make a fair comparison. That is my point, very simply.

My point is that people tend to make really, really bad decisions if they just see the outliers.

 

[twofish-quant]

The success I had was the result of a hard fought (although enjoyable) battle. It is the type of battle that is never fought by a pessimist.

I don't think that's true. I'm pretty much a pessimist, but I fight for the sake of fighting. It's what is called the Stockdale paradox. When asked who didn't survive the POW's camps.

"Oh, that’s easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, 'We're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they'd say, 'We're going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."

"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

In the end, if you don't give up, you eventually succeed.

Sometimes success lies in fighting the battle, and not in the ultimate outcome. Also sometimes it helps in fighting to be a pessimist. I've been in situations where I've been able to fight really hard, because I had nothing to lose. If you are totally doomed anyway, then that's the time to at least go out in a blaze of glory.

In some sense, we are all doomed, since we are all going to die. Life consists of fighting the forces of entropy, and entropy is going to win. So what?

 

[elect_eng]

The trouble is that if you are advising a bunch of undergraduates what to do with their lives, I think that it's a seriously, seriously bad and immoral thing for people to go and say to them "go start your own company and make a million bucks" and as far as economic policy goes, I think that it's unrealistic to think that everyone can or well start their own company.

Honestly, I feel that is a completely unfair mischaracterization of what I was saying. I was responding to one person, - the OP. I'm not advising anyone to do anything. I simply am trying to help the OP establish a fair comparison between the professions of medical doctor and physicist.

What I don't understand is why it is expected that a doctor or dentist or lawyer is supposed to start his own practice, but the idea of an engineer or physicist starting a consulting practice (for example) is somehow crazy, or that this group of people is somehow handicapped with an epidemic of shyness, and other disabilities, which prevents them from competing in the marketplace.

 

[hellbike]

"i will win!"
"i may win, but i also may lose"
"i will lose!"

the first one have bigger chances of winning single battle, since he is more confident.
But the second one have bigger chances of winning war, because after lost battle, which eventually will happen to anyone, he will be secured.

Third one is just for contrast and clearness of my point:>

 

[Klockan3]

"i will win!"
"i may win, but i also may lose"
"i will lose!"

the first one have bigger chances of winning single battle, since he is more confident.
But the second one have bigger chances of winning war, because after lost battle, which eventually will happen to anyone, he will be secured.

Third one is just for contrast and clearness of my point:>

Third one is just a loser. Most females tend to lean towards that side for some reason, don't know why. Most males tend to lean too much towards the overconfident side.

This is probably what makes our "languages" hard to translate. Guys try to calm each others confidence down since that is the right thing to do, girls try to get each other to take more risks since that is also the right thing to do. But when a guy tries to restrain a girls confidence or when a girl tries to encourage a guy to take more risks it all goes wrong.

 

[twofish-quant]

What I don't understand is why it is expected that a doctor or dentist or lawyer is supposed to start his own practice, but the idea of an engineer or physicist starting a consulting practice (for example) is somehow crazy

There are quirks in business law that change the business setting. Doctors, dentists, and lawyers cannot legally form joint stock corporations, and so there are limits to the size of the corporation that you can form. Also doctors, dentists, and lawyers cannot use a joint stock corporation to limit their legal liability. This limits the size of the firms they can create. If you have a firm of 5000 doctors, then if one doctor gets sued for malpractice, then all of the other doctors can be personally liable, whereas this isn't true for physicists or engineers that are in joint-stock corporations.

If I am a licensed doctor, I can put out a shingle and start treating people. If I am a physicist and I want to teach "intro to astronomy", I can't practically speaking do that. The problem is that there is basically no demand for courses that don't offer college credit, so if I want to teach intro to astronomy, I have to go to University of Phoenix or a community college, sign up as an adjunct, have ten students pay UoP $1000 each, I get $1000 of that, and $4000 goes to put on commercials on TV, $1000 goes to overhead, and $4000 goes to shareholders of the Apollo Group.

It's modern day sharecropping. If you can think of an viable economic model in which physicists can start their own business being physicists, that would be really, really cool. But I've haven't quite been able to figure one better than "sell my brains to the highest bidder, save money, teach physics."

that this group of people is somehow handicapped with an epidemic of shyness, and other disabilities, which prevents them from competing in the marketplace.

Nope. It's the economic structure of the market. I'd like to teach "Intro to Astronomy" I'm probably perfectly competent to teach "Intro to Astronomy." It's just that without a way of turn that class into money, no one is going to take it.

 

[elect_eng]

If you can think of an viable economic model in which physicists can start their own business being physicists, that would be really, really cool. But I've haven't quite been able to figure one better than "sell my brains to the highest bidder, save money, teach physics."

Are you saying that physicist's can't and don't typically do consulting work? I'm surprised by that. I'm not a physicist (although I have studied physics extensively), so I can't comment of if that is true. I just assumed that they would have similar opportunities as engineers.

My question for the OP's benefit would be; why doesn't the engineering consultant model work for at least some physicists? The basic model is that companies sometimes need high level engineering expertise outside their main area of work. They can't justify hiring full time engineers that specialize in your field, and temporary workers may not have the necessary skills and knowledge that you possess. You then provide engineering services on an hourly or contract basis. You can do this as an individual, making much more than a typical engineer. Or, you can build a company in which you hire engineers to work for you and you contract them out. Your engineers make typical engineering salary, and you bill them out at a higher rate and keep the profits. Just to throw out approximate numbers. Contract billing can be in the $100 to $150 per hour range, while typical engineering salary works out to $40 or $50 per hour. There is company overhead of course, but profits in a successful company are very possible in the range of a medical doctor or law firm.

I would generally not think of teaching as a main line of consulting work, although I have taught short courses at companies on a few occasions. Somehow the "teaching intro to astronomy" does not seem a good example to use. Personally, I would not try to teach intro to circuit theory as a consultant. I would be thinking in terms of modeling, design work and building prototype systems in my areas of expertise. During any periods when I have done consulting, I've always provided services to companies, not individual people. Although, I do know of an engineer that developed a tutoring business. He makes much more than an engineer by tutoring the children of wealthy parents. These are typically high school students wanting to accelerate their learning in math and science.

 

[TMFKAN64]

You can do this as an individual, making much more than a typical engineer. Or, you can build a company in which you hire engineers to work for you and you contract them out.

Again, *IF* you are successful, then you will do much better. However, both of these require spending much of your time organizing your business, finding and keeping in touch with clients, selling and marketing your services, etc. etc. The skill set required to make a successful consulting business is different from the skill set required to be a successful engineer.

Some people can do it. Some people cannot.

Anyone can start a business in the same sense that anyone can sing. But only a few can do either one well.

 

[twofish-quant]

Are you saying that physicist's can't and don't typically do consulting work? I'm surprised by that. I'm not a physicist (although I have studied physics extensively), so I can't comment of if that is true. I just assumed that they would have similar opportunities as engineers.

There are some physicists that do consulting work, but it's rather uncommon.

The basic model is that companies sometimes need high level engineering expertise outside their main area of work. They can't justify hiring full time engineers that specialize in your field, and temporary workers may not have the necessary skills and knowledge that you possess.

One difference is that there is a pool of highly skilled workers in the form of graduate students and post-docs, that are extremely cheap to hire. The other difference is that the funding for physics research comes either from undergraduate tuition which you can't get if you are not at a university, or from government grants, which are pretty much out of your reach if you are a standalone entity.

You have to remember that the ultimate funding for much of physics is the military-industrial complex, and no one really cared about funding physicists until after WWII when people were scared that the Russians would build better bombs. So what happens is that the structure of physics resembles the huge bureaucracies that you see in aerospace.

I would generally not think of teaching as a main line of consulting work, although I have taught short courses at companies on a few occasions. Somehow the "teaching intro to astronomy" does not seem a good example to use. Personally, I would not try to teach intro to circuit theory as a consultant.

The big money in education is in lower division classes. Intro to astronomy, intro to calculus, intro to physics. There isn't much profit made in advanced classes. If I wanted to teach a seminar on the radiation hydrodynamics of neutrino, I'd immediately run into two problems. The first is there are many people with the interest or background to take a course like that. The bigger problem is that the people that *do* have the interest and background to take this sort of class aren't going to pay me very much for it, since anyone that has the background to take a course, could probably teach themselves, and will do so if I charge them any non-trivial amount of money.

Although, I do know of an engineer that developed a tutoring business. He makes much more than an engineer by tutoring the children of wealthy parents. These are typically high school students wanting to accelerate their learning in math and science.

And professional physicists do make a lot of their money tutoring the children of wealthy parents (although there is a bit of a bait and switch since adjuncts and graduate students do most of the real work). That's basically the point of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. The trouble is that if you don't have a faculty position at Harvard, then it's hard to find rich college students to tutor.

 

[JobakasRadula]

Alright, I am seeing far too much emphasis on doing what you believe in, and condemning of the original post. For one, this person did not say that their only interest was money or even that it was their major motivator. Besides that, anyone who says they did not think about the money before picking a career is either lying or very irresponsible. Money alone may not buy happiness but it can help a lot. Physics, particularly theoretical, does not have the cheeriest financial prospects. Jobs are limited, many not all that well paying, and you will probably be following the reaper (an abundance of physicists, caused by the math and physics push in schools during the Cold War era, currently inhabit the jobs you might want. As theoretical physics is a field for the truly passionate, many have not opted for early retirement, and are quite well protected from layoffs due to age, most positions are filled until the geezers dies). You will probably not due as well in theoretical physics as you might in internal medicine or finance, and the monetary aspect should not be treated lightly. Only if you are sure the risk and trade-off are worth it, should you accept that career path over a better paying, more secure one. I had the same decision, and chose that theoretical physics was for me, but you better believe I gave thought to the financial aspects.
Concerning the idea of giving rise to new technology, and beginning a company around it, most of the "inventing" involving advanced physics is not done in your basement but more likely in an industrial lab or at least heavily financed by companies, in which case you would not be free to take this tech for your own to do as you will but must share everything with your corporate benefactors who will likely receive the greatest share in any potential wealth.
Also, the subjects of relativity in relation to the fourth dimension (time travel and wormholes) is not an immature subject matter in theoretical physics or something to be scoffed at. A broader interest in physics will be important but this subject matter is as serious as quantum mechanics, supersymmetry, or string theory.
If the author of the original post ever checks this thread again, you should get whatever degree you will now, and seeing as you waiting for politics, go back to school later on in life to get the education for that endeavor.

P.S. If I saw a someone running for political office had an education in advanced physics, I'd vote for them immediately regardless of any party affiliations whether Democrat, Republican, or National Socialist. Best of luck.

 

[SpaceCowboy57]

90K is pretty good pay. keep in mind that doctors pay obscene ammounts for insurance purposes. Not to metion it takes many years of some of the most expensive schooling you can get. As a physicist you can also have a backup job as a professor. Most professors in science-engineering departments spend about half their time in research and the other teaching. it adds variety and $. Either way you can easily make enough to support yourself, and the important thing is that you enjoy what you are doing.

 

[andyroo]

My parents are pressuring me to become a medical doctor but I don't really want to. I mean, I rather become a medical doctor more than a lawyer or business man but I still rather be a scientist, to be more particular a Theoretical Physicist. I am very interested in Time Travel, wormholes, and the natural wonders of the universe and would want to research those topics.

There is a problem though.

Well there is actually an advantage in being a medical doctor. They make more money than physicists...or at least I am told that by my parents. I do want to go into politics later in life so I need to make major money. As a heart surgeon for example I can make $540,000 an year or as a lower doctor I can make at least $200,000 an year.

How much money do Physicists make yearly? To be more specific, how much do Theoretical Physicists make yearly? I heard it was $90,000, but my parents told me that so they could be lying to get me in a medical profession. $90,000 dollars an year is kind of low, so I would want that.

$90,000 is not 'low,' especially when you consider what the average salary in the U.S. is (it's less than 90k, I promise you that). I've considered going to grad school for mathematics, but I'm not sure yet since I'm also considering med school as I am taking chemistry and physics (next year) as well. I've got a few years to figure it out though. You should take as much math as the physics program you go into wants you to take, 1 year of general chemistry in college plus labs (also known as AP chemistry in high school), 1 year of organic chemistry plus labs, 1 year of foundations of biology (not general biology) plus labs (if labs are offered), and 1 year of general physics plus labs (but you'll probably major in physics anyways, soooo...). Basically you can prepare to be an astrophysicist and for medical school AT THE SAME TIME, so it's all good. You need to take most of the same classes for both kinds of grad schools anyways (although physics doesn't require o-chem or biology).

 

[Academic]

I agree ^^. 90k is not low at all, not by any reasonable metric or stretch of the imagination. 90k will make you one of the richest humans that has ever lived and will likley ever live.

 

[Academic]

No? I think so. 90k will give get you more food, more land and more energy then I am guessing 97% of the 100 billion humans who have lived. You think that number is lower? I am open to ideas and supporting evidence.

 

[andyroo]

No? I think so. 90k will give get you more food, more land and more energy then I am guessing 97% of the 100 billion humans who have lived. You think that number is lower? I am open to ideas and supporting evidence.

I assume you got a private message that said "No" from someone else. I agree (with Academic), even if the average salary goes above 90k, that'd most likely only be because of inflation. At least, the average salary increasing is the first dilemma that comes to mind.

 

[Academic]

I replied to someone who disagreed with me, but not its gone. I am not crazy!

 

[twofish-quant]

Physics, particularly theoretical, does not have the cheeriest financial prospects. Jobs are limited, many not all that well paying, and you will probably be following the reaper (an abundance of physicists, caused by the math and physics push in schools during the Cold War era, currently inhabit the jobs you might want.

This is totally and utterly false. The job market for academic theoretical physics is limited, but the job market for theoretical physicists is huge. I don't know of any physics Ph.D. that has tried to get a job on Wall Street, that didn't end up with something paying $130K+.

You will probably not due as well in theoretical physics as you might in internal medicine or finance, and the monetary aspect should not be treated lightly.

Theoretical physics is a great gateway into medical and finance. There are jobs in both medicine and finance that *require* someone with theoretical physics skills.

P.S. If I saw a someone running for political office had an education in advanced physics, I'd vote for them immediately regardless of any party affiliations whether Democrat, Republican, or National Socialist. Best of luck.

I wouldn't. Theoretical physics gives you some skills, but part of the fun thing about working in finance is that you learn how ignorant you really are.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also at $100K you are making enough money so that your primary concern doesn't have to be how much money you make. The starting salary for a physics Ph.D. on Wall Street is $120K salary + $30 bonus. With three to five years of experience, you are looking at a total comp of $250K and if you make managing director, you could make $1M/year.

Now there are trade offs here. You have to move to NYC, and you have to learn a lot of management/finance/political skills, but you aren't dooming yourself to poverty with theoretical physics.

 

[Karashmash]

A friend once told me taht there is nothing worse that going to an office 365 days in a year (maybe less if you consider vacations, holidays and weekends) to do something you have no interest in. It is like, self-inflicted torture, so to say. My advice would be, think about it and do what you think is right. If you can handle cutting peoples brains open for a living, lol don't be afraid to do so, as long as it is what you would like to do. Money can't buy happiness.

 

[Skrew]

Also at $100K you are making enough money so that your primary concern doesn't have to be how much money you make. The starting salary for a physics Ph.D. on Wall Street is $120K salary + $30 bonus. With three to five years of experience, you are looking at a total comp of $250K and if you make managing director, you could make $1M/year.

Now there are trade offs here. You have to move to NYC, and you have to learn a lot of management/finance/political skills, but you aren't dooming yourself to poverty with theoretical physics.

What exactly do you do?

I find it odd that theoretical physicists would be employed in large number in the finance sector.

 

[essecks]

What exactly do you do?

I find it odd that theoretical physicists would be employed in large number in the finance sector.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=376191

Pretty interesting thread.

(Not sure if I got the right thread, there's heaps of them. But you get the idea.)

 

[Saladsamurai]

<snip> ... The starting salary for a physics Ph.D. on Wall Street is $120K salary + $30 bonus.

Wait wait wait...are you trying to tell me that I could make $120K PLUS a thirty dollar bonus?!

 

[twofish-quant]

What exactly do you do?

Quantitative developer at a large financial firm.

I find it odd that theoretical physicists would be employed in large number in the finance sector.

It's numerical modeling. Your typical investment bank has about a hundred or so Ph.D. physicists on staff. It's really a tiny fraction of people in the bank, but considering that there aren't that many Ph.D. physicists...

 

[epicurean]

If I am a physicist and I want to teach "intro to astronomy", I can't practically speaking do that. The problem is that there is basically no demand for courses that don't offer college credit, so if I want to teach intro to astronomy, I have to go to University of Phoenix or a community college, sign up as an adjunct, have ten students pay UoP $1000 each, I get $1000 of that, and $4000 goes to put on commercials on TV, $1000 goes to overhead, and $4000 goes to shareholders of the Apollo Group.

It's modern day sharecropping. If you can think of an viable economic model in which physicists can start their own business being physicists, that would be really, really cool. But I've haven't quite been able to figure one better than "sell my brains to the highest bidder, save money, teach physics."

Nope. It's the economic structure of the market. I'd like to teach "Intro to Astronomy" I'm probably perfectly competent to teach "Intro to Astronomy." It's just that without a way of turn that class into money, no one is going to take it.

Start your own university. It's really not that hard, and with the prices like UoP charges, it's not like you are required to keep your profit margins at Walmart levels. There's plenty of room for competition in the market. Do you have your masters or PhD? If so, talk to me about this possibility.

 

[Majorlowe]

Also at $100K you are making enough money so that your primary concern doesn't have to be how much money you make. The starting salary for a physics Ph.D. on Wall Street is $120K salary + $30 bonus. With three to five years of experience, you are looking at a total comp of $250K and if you make managing director, you could make $1M/year.

Now there are trade offs here. You have to move to NYC, and you have to learn a lot of management/finance/political skills, but you aren't dooming yourself to poverty with theoretical physics.

My father who works as a physicist in NASA'S JPL lab makes about $220,000 a year. He's been working there for 20 years, he said when he started off he made about $108,000 per year. I myself have a bachelors in physics and currently work for the U.S Government my start off pay is $65,000 a year and I'm just a Lab Tech really cause I don't have a Phd. When I get my masters though it will jump to about $75,000 and with a Phd it will jump to about $90-$100,000 a year cause I work as a civilian physicist for the U.S Department of Defense. If I scored a job with NASA I may start off a bit more than my fathers was, cause his was 20 years ago. He thinks I may start off at around $115,000 a year. So it can depend where you work, the Census says though that an avg physicist makes around $110,000-$130,000 a year starting off with a Phd. Government jobs seem to pay better then working for private companies though. And sometimes if you start your own research the government will fund you hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions if you're on to something.

 

[Majorlowe]

And sorry I didn't mean to quote you twofish-quant hehe. I was going to say I agreed with what you were saying, you have it right but then it turned into me having a whole paragraph.

 

[Norman]

My father who works as a physicist in NASA'S JPL lab makes about $220,000 a year. He's been working there for 20 years, he said when he started off he made about $108,000 per year. I myself have a bachelors in physics and currently work for the U.S Government my start off pay is $65,000 a year and I'm just a Lab Tech really cause I don't have a Phd. When I get my masters though it will jump to about $75,000 and with a Phd it will jump to about $90-$100,000 a year cause I work as a civilian physicist for the U.S Department of Defense. If I scored a job with NASA I may start off a bit more than my fathers was, cause his was 20 years ago. He thinks I may start off at around $115,000 a year. So it can depend where you work, the Census says though that an avg physicist makes around $110,000-$130,000 a year starting off with a Phd. Government jobs seem to pay better then working for private companies though. And sometimes if you start your own research the government will fund you hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions if you're on to something.

Just remember your numbers for JPL are about 20% higher than average due to cost of living. Still not bad, but it is a bit misleading.

Also, research grant values are not equivalent to salary. Not even close.

 

[Ryker]

Source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ge-student-or-grad-or-professor/?ref=economy"

I thought this was an interesting look at the salaries professors in various fields have.

 

[AlexES16]

Hello from El Salvador. I am in electrical engineering but what i like is physics. I am gona change to physics. But living in a 3rd world country I am kinda afraid of dying by starvation.
With our socilist universitie i will pay very little for the education. Any have any experience as a 3rd world country?

 

[twofish-quant]

Money alone may not buy happiness but it can help a lot.

It can help. It can hurt. One way money hurts you is that once you make money, you find yourself in a social group that makes even more money, and you feel miserable that all of your friends make more money than you do.

One thing that I warn people that want to work in Wall Street, is prepare to feel more poor than you've ever felt before.

Physics, particularly theoretical, does not have the cheeriest financial prospects.

Utter rubbish. The career prospects for someone with a physics Ph.D. are as good as someone with an MBA or a Law degree.

You will probably not due as well in theoretical physics as you might in internal medicine or finance, and the monetary aspect should not be treated lightly.

You do realize that physics Ph.D.'s are a pretty good way into finance.

P.S. If I saw a someone running for political office had an education in advanced physics, I'd vote for them immediately regardless of any party affiliations whether Democrat, Republican, or National Socialist. Best of luck.

I wouldn't. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean that they can't be a total idiot.

 

[clope023]

One way money hurts you is that once you make money, you find yourself in a social group that makes even more money, and you feel miserable that all of your friends make more money than you do.

There's a little something called humility that such a person would do well to accept. If I could make a comfortable living I honestly wouldn't give a damn if my neighbor made 5K or whatever more than I did.

 

[twofish-quant]

If I could make a comfortable living I honestly wouldn't give a damn if my neighbor made 5K or whatever more than I did.

It's more like 500K. Also, it's not one person. If everyone on your block except for you made 500K more than you did, and displayed it in obvious ways, then you are going to feel poor. One problem is that if you are around people that are a LOT richer than you are, your definition of comfortable starts go change.

This happens a lot in NYC and the other major financial centers. If you want down Fifth Avenue, you'll see shops and services that are intended for people that make over $20M. People can and do get into their private jet, fly to NYC, spend $500 a meal, blow $50K on a shopping trip and then fly home to their estate in Barbados. Once you *see* people do that, then your definition of comfortable changes.

Also if you actually talk to people like this, they aren't going to be your neighbor or your friend. Something that you have to realize about investment bankers is that most of them are merely extremely highly paid bank tellers. If you are an investment banker that makes $200K, then a hyper-rich oil baron will look at and treat you like a waiter or a bank teller, because you are.

You might deal with it by being "proud to be poor", but it's something that you can't ignore. Personally, I deal with this by laughing at the absurdity of the hyper-rich and getting a little angry that people can make that much money (which is where Karl Marx comes in).

Something that I did when I was a grad student that helps a lot was that I wrote down a number. I figured that if I got $XXX, I'd declare victory, and I'd see myself as filthy rich. It turns out that I passed that number a long time ago, but that number keeps me sort of anchored.

 

[General_Sax]

This happens a lot in NYC and the other major financial centers. If you want down Fifth Avenue, you'll see shops and services that are intended for people that make over $20M. People can and do get into their private jet, fly to NYC, spend $500 a meal, blow $50K on a shopping trip and then fly home to their estate in Barbados. Once you *see* people do that, then your definition of comfortable changes.

lol, that's ridiculous.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Being ridiculous doesn't make it any less true.