How much money do Physicists make?

[twofish-quant]

If you did that, you would be more famous than Aristotle, Newton and Einstein put together. You could make all the money you want as a professor, writing books, giving speeches and endorsements etc.

If you could figure out a way of sending information back in time, then just send back tomorrow's lottery ticket numbers, and you have all the money that you need. If you can even ***predict the future by five seconds***, it would be trivial to make a ton of money in the financial markets.

With regards to money, keep in mind that people who go into their own business make more money than people who work for others.

In fact, they don't...

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jan2008/sb20080123_809271_page_2.htm

Also I've known people who have successfully started their own company. One thing that they universally say is *do not start your company for the money*. It's not worth it, since you'll probably be making *less* money than working for someone else.

Hence, engineer's and physicists have the potential to build their own companies too (usually technology companies) and can make lot's of money.

Not really. The problem is that if you want to start a new technology company, you need skills in management, marketing, finance, and technology. A lot of physicists and engineers are simply incompetent at management, marketing, finance, and even those that aren't incompetent, just don't want to do it. I like crunching code.

I don't like making powerpoint presentations, writing business and marketing plans, filling out lone applications, talking with accountants, filling out tax forms, and generally being on the phone trying to figure out what happened to the shipment of network cables and cards that was supposed to arrive three days ago went off to. I mean there is this guy in the office right now all ready to install the network, and the UPS tracking says that they got delivered, but they are not... Oh, I know what must have happened, Frank must have signed for it, but oh no, he is heading for the airport on a sales call, and I need to get him on the cell before his flight leaves... Ring... Come on... Answer... OK, you wait right there, let me see if he put the cable in the supply closet. Found them... Now where are those damn cards...

That's your day in a small business...

However, if you work as a researcher or designer at a company, you may only make $90,000 per year.

If you start your own company and after three years, you are still alive, then break open the champagne because you are doing, really, really, really good.

 

[elect_eng]

If you start your own company and after three years, you are still alive, then break open the champagne because you are doing, really, really, really good.

You are clearly a pessimist. Pessimists never make it in business.

 

[TMFKAN64]

He's just being realistic. Most technology startups fail after a *lot* of hard work... that's just the way it is.

If you are successful, of course, you'll be doing much better than if you were working for someone else... but that's a big if.

More than that though, running a company is just completely different than being an engineer. Some engineers can do it, some can't.

 

[elect_eng]

More than that though, running a company is just completely different than being an engineer. Some engineers can do it, some can't.

True it is much different, but most any educated person can do it (and many uneducated people do it) if they are motivated. 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. Sure, it comes more naturally to some and many are not motivated to pursue that course. But, ultimately it's a choice.

In any event for those preferring to focus on the technology, an engineer can build a startup company on technical ideas and then bring in management help, via partners and investors as the company grows. Or, he can sell at an opportune time, and move on to building a new startup.

I'm talking from experience, and the first rule of business is never to quit, and if somehow you fail, you try again.

My main point, originally, was that the idea that a doctor or lawyer makes a lot of money is based on the assumption that he has a successful practice. In other words he has started, built and runs his own business. The same is true for someone in technology or science. The comment was made that his father makes $110K per year as a simple businessman, so he sees $90K as a physicist to somehow be inequitable. But, he's comparing apples and oranges. 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. The issue of probability of failure is important of course, but ultimately he is making judgements by looking at those that of come through a filter and arrived on the successful side. Try to understand my original point, and not nitpick on isolated statements taken out of context.

 

[davesface]

You are clearly a pessimist. Pessimists never make it in business.

A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist. Plus, the facts back twofish up.

"According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, roughly 50% of small businesses fail within the first five years." (http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/getready/SERV_SBPLANNER_ISENTFORU.html")

True it is much different, but most any educated person can do it (and many uneducated people do it) if they are motivated. 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.

Engineering/Physics and Management require very different skill sets. You wouldn't expect James Watson to understand the "basic common sense issues" of painting an exact replica of the Mona Lisa just because he is a Nobel laureate.

 

[elect_eng]

A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist. Plus, the facts back him up.

"According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, roughly 50% of small businesses fail within the first five years." (http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/getready/SERV_SBPLANNER_ISENTFORU.html")

Do you think I'm not aware that many businesses fail? You all need to read between the lines. You take things much too literally.

 

[davesface]

It's hard to tell what is supposed to be sarcasm.

 

[elect_eng]

It's hard to tell what is supposed to be sarcasm.

I didn't intend any sarcasm at any point. I basically made a statement

"With regards to money, keep in mind that people who go into their own business make more money than people who work for others."

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. However, I did give examples that should have clarified my meaning. The OP is assuming that he could be a successful doctor, build his own practice and make lots of money, and that if he becomes a physicist he will only make $90K per year. His logic is flawed because there are hospital doctors making $150K per year and paying back school loans and paying malpractice insurance. There are also doctors who go into research and make a physicist level salary. There are also physicists that are so good that they can make money as professors, speakers, consultants and authors simultaneously. Some even go into business. One needs to make a fair comparison. That is my point, very simply.

 

[twofish-quant]

You are clearly a pessimist. Pessimists never make it in business.

Question: What's your business experience? I've worked in big companies and small startup companies.

A healthy degree of pessimism is essential in any sort of business. I've found that it takes a certain mindset to do well. On the one hand, you have to have enough self-confidence to think that you'll make it through somehow. On the other, you have to be willing to face hard realities and think of every possible thing that can go wrong to make sure that you are able to deal with all of that.

You have to be very, very hard nosed about numbers. When you do a business plan, especially for a small startup, you have to make sure that you have enough capital so that if things get bad, you can survive and fight another day. The big mistake that small businesses tend to make is not enough preparation and not enough capital.

 

[elect_eng]

Question: What's your business experience? I've worked in big companies and small startup companies.

A healthy degree of pessimism is essential in any sort of business. ...

Well this thread is not about me and my comments were originally directed to help the OP in answering his question. However, since you asked and since it might give some insight to the OP, I can give some basic information.

I'm not a business minded person in the strict sense. I've always focused on learning and technology and I'm basically best described as a researcher. I was able to take my Ph.D. work and use it as the basis to launch a start-up technology company. Over 8 years, with investors and managers, brought in at opportune times, the company was successful and was sold to a large corporation with myself, partners and some investors doing very well in the end.

I've seen all of the issues (you've described above) first hand. Also, when I began, many friends and family members questioned my choice, sounding very negative about the prospects of being successful in business, as you did. 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.

Of course the question then becomes. "What if you had lost the battle?". My answer would be that the education, experience and the adventure is priceless; hence, it is a no-lose situation. And, I would have been more prepared for the next attempt, with a much higher chance of success. In the end, if you don't give up, you eventually succeed.

Note that even with success, more is possible. I currently work as a research scientist, in industry, in a field unrelated to my previous work. I chose this new field (renewable energy) because it is interesting to me and it will become an explosive market in the future. Once my expertise is developed enough and once I have the right critical mass of innovative ideas and once the timing is right with the economy and the targeted markets, I'll do it again. I will then have two advantages that I didn't have before - (1) a track record of success to help convince investors to put money in, and (2) no need for investors.

I want to be clear that I'm not claiming to be Bill Gates or anything like that, but I'm basically an engineer that has made about as much as a well established medical doctor with a successful practice. This is my basic point. I'm asking the OP to not compare a physicist working at a university or in industry to a medical doctor with his own successful practice. The comparison should more accurately (even if imprecise, or even crude) be made as follows:

doctor doing research in industry => physicist doing research in industry

doctor working at a hospital => physics professor at a university

doctor owning his own practice => physicist owning a consulting firm or a technology company

Hopefully, this will help get this thread back on track.

 

[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.