Math-Intensive Careers to Make $300K-$500K

[tylerfarzam]

I am not sure what I want to pursue as a career but I love math and I want to make a lot of money. I was wondering if there are any careers that are very math intensive from which I could make around 300-500k. Does anyone know of any jobs that mostly consist of doing advanced or at least intermediate math that could potentially offer that kind of salary?

 

[Vanadium 50]

500K? In US dollars? You realize this is nine times the average US family income?

 

[tylerfarzam]

500K? In US dollars? You realize this is nine times the average US family income?

Ml engineers DNA make this much. Lawyers can. Small business owners can. Doctors can many other professions can too so deont act like this is insane I was asking if any of the many professions that offer this salary are math intensive, not wether they exist. If you can tell me which of the multiple professions that offer salaries above 300k consist of doing a lot of math, than please go ahead. Otherwise, go answer someone else's question. Maybe you grew up in an environment that told you you can only be slightly above average, but following many around me, this is not at all improbable

 

[Dale]

Ml engineers DNA make this much.

What is “Ml engineers DNA”?

Lawyers can.

Median salary for a lawyer is less than $120k

If you can tell me which of the multiple professions that offer salaries above 300k consist of doing a lot of math, than please go ahead

It is unlikely that you will make this much working for anyone. The rare exception would be as a plastic surgeon or other highly compensated medical professional. You should be thinking of entrepreneurial endeavors to reach those kinds of salaries, particularly if you also want to do so with heavy math. Think Steve Wolfram or similar.

Basically, the amount you are looking at for doing math is so large that it is highly unlikely that anyone else will ever think you are worth that cost. Since you think you are worth that much, and probably nobody else will, that means that you will probably need to be your own boss.

 

[CWatters]

A friend of mine did a degree in maths with computing in the 1980s. Went into banking security. Retired early. Drives a new Porsche. That ok?

 

[Vanadium 50]

so deont act like this is insane

I don't think you are insane. I think that either (1) you don't have an appreciation for how much money $500K a year is (99% of American families do not make this much) or (2) you believe you have economic value to these companies an order of magnitude larger than that of the average employee. It's clear from your dismissal of (1) and your last sentence that you believe (2). In that case, it probably doesn't matter what you major in.

 

[Mark44]

I am not sure what I want to pursue as a career but I love math and I want to make a lot of money. I was wondering if there are any careers that are very math intensive from which I could make around 300-500k.

In what I believe is your first post at this site, you said you were a high school student in grade 12, and were asking about jobs in various subfields of physics. One member made this comment:

One thing I might add is that it sounds like you're getting too specific too early.

To which I agree. You have all of your college years ahead of you, and you will find that college/university is much more difficult than high school. It's good to have goals, but they're no good if they're not attainable.

Does anyone know of any jobs that mostly consist of doing advanced or at least intermediate math that could potentially offer that kind of salary?

Intermediate math -- pretty much zero.

 

[Locrian]

The kind of people who end up making $500k a year didn't learn how by asking about it on a forum.

 

[russ_watters]

The kind of people who end up making $500k a year didn't learn how by asking about it on a forum.

Especially not those who ask the exact same question twice!
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-money-can-you-make-in-physics.961843/

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am not sure what I want to pursue as a career but I love math and I want to make a lot of money. I was wondering if there are any careers that are very math intensive from which I could make around 300-500k. Does anyone know of any jobs that mostly consist of doing advanced or at least intermediate math that could potentially offer that kind of salary?

@tylerfarzam , keep in mind that there are a number of careers out there from which you could earn a salary of $300-500k eventually. As in, after you have gained years of experience.

Even the careers you've pointed out before (machine learning engineers, lawyers, doctors) don't start out making these salaries immediately. In the case of lawyers and doctors, you have to go to law school or medical school (respectively) for years and then start out as a junior level attorney in a law firm after you've passed your bar exam, or a resident in a hospital or medical clinic, for much lower salaries. For doctors, even once you've finished your residency, you still need to have to either set up your own medical practice or be employed at a hospital as a junior level physician for lower salaries. It takes years before they even begin to earn the $300-500k salary you talk about.

For machine learning engineers, only the most experienced engineers (typically those with a PhD in computer science or statistics, plus >5 years of experience) would earn the salaries you describe, and typically this would be even be restricted to those who are managers or directors.

Now as far as math-intensive careers, according to a quick Google search, employers will often hire math, statistics or actuarial majors with starting salaries of around $45k to $50k per year, while paying for their employees to take actuarial exams and become actuaries. For non-actuarial jobs, in areas like statistics or data science, I've seen starting salaries range from $50k to $100k, depending on location (generally, the more expensive a city, the higher the starting salary), and a similar range would exist for software development.

 

[russ_watters]

Median salary for a lawyer is less than $120k

It is unlikely that you will make this much working for anyone. The rare exception would be as a plastic surgeon or other highly compensated medical professional.

I'm also of the impression that the OP is hoping to make that sort of money right out of college, with a bachelors degree. The "median" is the median for everyone in the profession, not the median starting salary. Google tells me the average starting salary is more like $70k, and that doubles with 20 years of experience. If that's a typical progression you can basically estimate the starting salary to be 60% of the median.

Jobs making $300k right off the bat just don't exist, and certainly nobody making $300k+ in any field with any amount of experience has the word "intermediate" in their job description!

 

[Dale]

Jobs making $300k right off the bat just don't exist, and certainly nobody making $300k+ in any field with any amount of experience has the word "intermediate" in their job description!

Yes, and that includes successful entrepreneurs.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The media has reported on the difference between what students expect to make and what they actually make. The study looks at 7000 student surveys and compares what they think they will make to what the actually salaries for recent graduates with 0-5 years of experience, a number 19% lower. Assuming 3% annual raises, the actual discrepancy is closer to 30%.

While the OP's expectations are an outlier (by a factor of around 7), it shows expectation/reality mismatches are common and large.

 

[Choppy]

The media has reported on the difference between what students expect to make and what they actually make. The study looks at 7000 student surveys and compares what they think they will make to what the actually salaries for recent graduates with 0-5 years of experience, a number 19% lower. Assuming 3% annual raises, the actual discrepancy is closer to 30%.

While the OP's expectations are an outlier (by a factor of around 7), it shows expectation/reality mismatches are common and large.

An interesting study. I suspect this is one of the major drivers of the student debt problem. At the time when students are making decisions about how much debt to take on for post secondary education, they are quite likely so enamoured with what's *possible* that calculations are not made based on what's *typical*.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Could well be. There's also the one-two punch of not only having taken out more debt based on unrealistic expectations, but in many cases one has set their lifestyle based on those same expectations, which makes the debt even harder to discharge.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The media has reported on the difference between what students expect to make and what they actually make. The study looks at 7000 student surveys and compares what they think they will make to what the actually salaries for recent graduates with 0-5 years of experience, a number 19% lower. Assuming 3% annual raises, the actual discrepancy is closer to 30%.

While the OP's expectations are an outlier (by a factor of around 7), it shows expectation/reality mismatches are common and large.

The results of the study seem to suggest the following:

1. College/university students, for whatever reason, have an unrealistic expectation of what salaries they would be earning upon graduation.

2. Recent college/university graduates are in fact poorly paid by employers, or not compensated in conjunction to their worth.

 

[russ_watters]

The media has reported on the difference between what students expect to make and what they actually make. The study looks at 7000 student surveys and compares what they think they will make to what the actually salaries for recent graduates with 0-5 years of experience, a number 19% lower. Assuming 3% annual raises, the actual discrepancy is closer to 30%.

It would be even worse if they included part time workers. An engineer who expects $60k but only makes $48k is going to be ok, but an art history major who expected $40k and is making $20k as a bartender-barrista is in a world of hurt.

 

[russ_watters]

2. Recent college/university graduates are in fact poorly paid by employers, or not compensated in conjunction to their worth.

That is an argument against capitalism. In capitalism, what the market says they are worth *is* what they are worth. It's tough to know where the comment is headed, but in a capitalistic society, it is largely moot.

It's also moot because an individual can't easily change it. People like to complain about broken systems hurting them, but the reality is that even if it's true that the system is sub-optimal it is still a lot easier to change oneself than to change the system. People who choose to complain instead of changing have made their choice.

 

[Dale]

That is an argument against capitalism. In capitalism, what the market says they are worth *is* what they are worth.

The corollary to that is that the high cost of a college education is also what it is worth. However, if a college education in a free market is, by definition, worth the market price, and if that college education does not produce the expected economic returns, then a college education is at least partially a consumer good rather than purely a capital good. I.e. people place an economic value on the personal benefits of having an education that goes beyond the value of a pure economic investment.

 

[russ_watters]

The corollary to that is that the high cost of a college education is also what it is worth. However, if a college education in a free market is, by definition, worth the market price, and if that college education does not produce the expected economic returns, then a college education is at least partially a consumer good rather than purely a capital good. I.e. people place an economic value on the personal benefits of having an education that goes beyond the value of a pure economic investment.

Agreed!

...but do they really? And by that I mean consciously? Often, the conscious choice is, "wouldn't it be cool to spend 4 years learning art history[physics]", but in my perception, many don't truly grasp the cost of that choice and why the alternative way of looking at it (as an investment), would be better for most people.

 

[Dale]

many don't truly grasp the cost of that choice and why the alternative way of looking at it (as an investment), would be better for most people.

I agree with that, but the evidence clearly indicates that line of thinking is not used by the average participants in the educational free market.

However, there is a possible empirical rebuttal to the capitalist claim that market price = value. That is the occurrence of market bubbles. It could be that we are heading for a bit of an education bubble if people start treating education as a true investment.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with that, but the evidence clearly indicates that line of thinking is not used by the average participants in the educational free market.

Agreed; I'm aware most are doing it 'wrong'.

However, there is a possible empirical rebuttal to the capitalist claim that market price = value. That is the occurrence of market bubbles. It could be that we are heading for a bit of an education bubble if people start treating education as a true investment.

I can see this one both ways. Ignoring the boom/bust and focusing on the long term average/trend works best for long term investing in the stock market, but most people only have one shot at college, so if the current market is a bubble, it doesn't help current students if it bursts in 5 years. I suppose it would make them "right" that their college costs were overvalued, but I don't think they win anything by being right.

 

[symbolipoint]

Agreed; I'm aware most are doing it 'wrong'.

I can see this one both ways. Ignoring the boom/bust and focusing on the long term average/trend works best for long term investing in the stock market, but most people only have one shot at college, so if the current market is a bubble, it doesn't help current students if it bursts in 5 years. I suppose it would make them "right" that their college costs were overvalued, but I don't think they win anything by being right.

You have noticed the reasoning which supports "life-long learning", which should include going back to school, at least sometime or at any time one chooses or has the opportunity/or makes the opportunity.

 

[Dale]

You have noticed the reasoning which supports "life-long learning", which should include going back to school, at least sometime or at any time one chooses or has the opportunity/or makes the opportunity.

Of course, it makes a difference if "life-long learning" is life-long consumerism or life-long investment. Right now it is consumerism, which is probably why it is not common to see life-long learners in traditional free-market academic settings.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course, it makes a difference if "life-long learning" is life-long consumerism or life-long investment. Right now it is consumerism, which is probably why it is not common to see life-long learners in traditional free-market academic settings.

Agreed. I recently made a choice between going back to school for an MBA (for career enhancement) or flying lessons (for fun). I made the "wrong" choice and I don't regret it.

Of course, this choice costs me a whole lot less than an art history degree would have at age 22.

 

[Dale]

I made the "wrong" choice and I don't regret it.

I assume the “wrong” choice was the flying lessons. I don’t think it was wrong because it was honest. You recognized that there was no net investment benefit to the MBA but great consumer value to the flying lessons. Honest decisions are rarely wrong.

 

[StatGuy2000]

At the risk of getting far off-topic, from the threads I've read thus far, @russ_watters and @Dale all operate under the assumption -- an American (and Canadian) bias -- that a post-secondary education should be treated as a consumer good like a car or a TV, and thus people individually should pay into this. However, that is not how post-secondary education operate in other countries. For example, in Denmark post-secondary education is free (i.e. no tuition) for all students pursuing a Bachelor's or Master's degree for all EU citizens. The cost of the operation of post-secondary institutions are shared broadly across the entire society through taxation. So post-secondary education is a public good, in much the same way as health care, policing, emergency services, etc.

My personal view is that the system that exists in Denmark is superior in terms of outcomes for students, and should be embraced or at least looked into in other countries.

 

[Mark44]

At the risk of getting far off-topic, from the threads I've read thus far, @russ_watters and @Dale all operate under the assumption -- an American (and Canadian) bias -- that a post-secondary education should be treated as a consumer good like a car or a TV, and thus people individually should pay into this. However, that is not how post-secondary education operate in other countries. For example, in Denmark post-secondary education is free (i.e. no tuition) for all students pursuing a Bachelor's or Master's degree for all EU citizens. The cost of the operation of post-secondary institutions are shared broadly across the entire society through taxation. So post-secondary education is a public good, in much the same way as health care, policing, emergency services, etc.

My personal view is that the system that exists in Denmark is superior in terms of outcomes for students, and should be embraced or at least looked into in other countries.

I doubt that this is a good idea, and hope it never comes to the US. The welfare state, as envisaged in Denmark, is very expensive to taxpayers.
Income tax rate: 55.8%
Sales tax rate: 25%
Social security rate: 8%
https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/personal-income-tax-rate
So almost 64% of your paycheck is taken out right off the top. Even medieval serfs had to pay only half of their earnings/produce. I would think that such a large chunk taken out would stifle entrepeneurship tremendously.

Denmark is a small country of about 5.7 million people (https://countrymeters.info/en/Denmark), more or less homogeneous (at least before all of the refugees from the middle east and northern Africa of the past few years. It's much easier to get a relatively small number of people on the same page, than it is for a much larger country like the US, with nearly 60 times a much more diverse population.

 

[russ_watters]

At the risk of getting far off-topic, from the threads I've read thus far, @russ_watters and @Dale all operate under the assumption -- an American (and Canadian) bias -- that a post-secondary education should be treated as a consumer good like a car or a TV...

Yikes, no! We said it should be treated as an investment and that too many (most) kids treating it as a consumer good is a huge problem right now!

...and thus people individually should pay into this. However, that is not how post-secondary education operate in other countries. For example, in Denmark post-secondary education is free (i.e. no tuition) for all students pursuing a Bachelor's or Master's degree for all EU citizens. The cost of the operation of post-secondary institutions are shared broadly across the entire society through taxation. So post-secondary education is a public good, in much the same way as health care, policing, emergency services, etc.

My personal view is that the system that exists in Denmark is superior in terms of outcomes for students, and should be embraced or at least looked into in other countries.
[emphasis added]

It is *not* free.

What scares me most about the future is that I'll work my productive job for 30 years, save up enough to retire and then when I get to retirement age, a group of kids will decide "meh, I want to study art history and you should pay for it. And don't worry about it being a useless degree -- you can pay for my groceries when I graduate and can't find a good paying job too!"

Because kids don't think of college as an investment, they don't value it properly and they don't get the most out of it they should. Do you really think that hiding the cost by pretending it is free will encourage kids to take better advantage of it? Or since it has less value, will they be more likely to waste it? And since supply and demand have been removed completely, do you think it will make college get cheaper or more expensive?

Further, such a plan is a regressive wealth transfer: the poor pay the rich to go to college.

 

[russ_watters]

I doubt that this is a good idea, and hope it never comes to the US. The welfare state, as envisaged in Denmark, is very expensive to taxpayers.
Income tax rate: 55.8%
Sales tax rate: 25%
Social security rate: 8%
https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/personal-income-tax-rate
So almost 64% of your paycheck is taken out right off the top.

My impression is that most Americans who support the idea of such a system have no idea what you are really saying. They think they won't have to pay those taxes; we can just tax the rich to pay for all these programs. They are very, very wrong.

Denmark is a small country of about 5.7 million people (https://countrymeters.info/en/Denmark), more or less homogeneous...

I also don't think people realize how important homogeneity is. Socialism only works if people are trying equally hard and contributing equally. The US doesn't have that sort of culture. People who work productive jobs (me) resent having to support those who choose not to.