Why don't more engineers/scientists go into finance

[koab1mjr]

I think for some of the banking jobs need to factor in the quality of life

A) you work a ton of hours
B) forced scalability of expenses if you are making 500K you need to look it which cost quite a bit
C) going with the flow is joining the problem
D) Because of A you are a one dimensional human being

this is my gripe with the country is that environment for scientist is so poor and is beginning to show in numerious aspects

and fiannce work is souless. Making money, just to make money is the definition of souless. The concept of Wall Street and the finance industry has been perverted to a shell game, where banks play hot potato and swindle out transaction fees and the Market burdens companies with an insatiable demand for profits.

shame

 

[Mr.Fermion]

A) you work a ton of hours
shame

How much do you think a physics ph.d works...? I am finishing up my ph.d and have worked 60-80 hours consistently I have had to work almost every weekend for the last 7 years. Furthermore, if I wanted to go on and be a post doc, I would likely have to work the same amount of time, and then work even more if I somehow manage to get a tenure track position.

C) going with the flow is joining the problem
shame

What would you have the physics ph.d do ? There are more physics ph.d's than there are academic jobs for them, I mean I guess you could be a career post doc, but what about having a family? Saving money for retirement ? Being able to afford more than a 1 bedroom apartment? Its very difficult to attain these things and experience different aspects of life if you have to constantly be moving from place to place.

D) Because of A you are a one dimensional human being
shame

I would argue that if you dedicate your life to science while ignoring all other aspects of life, that it makes you more one dimensional than going into a "soul less" job. Because in the end all you will know is how to be a scientist and nothing else. For me personally that's not enough, for some people it is.

 

[koab1mjr]

How much do you think a physics ph.d works...? I am finishing up my ph.d and have worked 60-80 hours consistently I have had to work almost every weekend for the last 7 years. Furthermore, if I wanted to go on and be a post doc, I would likely have to work the same amount of time, and then work even more if I somehow manage to get a tenure track position. .

I was speaking more from the engineering standpoint. Where I am 60hrs represents more of an upperbound. I have sat in labs with post docs I am well aware of their plight and its BS.

What would you have the physics ph.d do ? There are more physics ph.d's than there are academic jobs for them, I mean I guess you could be a career post doc, but what about having a family? Saving money for retirement ? Being able to afford more than a 1 bedroom apartment? Its very difficult to attain these things and experience different aspects of life if you have to constantly be moving from place to place. .

Again see above, but is doing something completely unreleated for money really an answer? Again this is a systemic problem. We do not need more people on wall street. Money won't make you happy any. I know many people in the field some of the most unbalanced individuals you will ever see. Life of extremes though I cannot speak for traders and quants etc.. speaking about sell side IBD which is subset of the industry as a whole. You are switch one set of problems for another.

I would argue that if you dedicate your life to science while ignoring all other aspects of life, that it makes you more one dimensional than going into a "soul less" job. Because in the end all you will know is how to be a scientist and nothing else. For me personally that's not enough, for some people it is.

Not advocating going to the mountains and setting up a lab, but comparing a person 100% dedicated to science vs a person 100% dedicated to making this piece of paper with ink on it is a no brainer. I just find many people cling to this framework of a massing wealth. Try to find happiness intrinsically and you will find you do not need all that much.

I guess I am not materilistic. I came from finance hated it so I have a biased viewpoint I guess

 

[Shaun_W]

Why I didn't want to go into investment banking, which I assume that the OP means by "finance" given the salaries listed, as a mechanical engineering student from the UK:

1) I'd need to move to London. I hate that place.

2) I'd need to work long hours. I have other interests and would hate for my work to have to completely dominate my life. I'd probably burn out after the first year to be honest...

3) It is of absolutely no interest to me.

4) And even if the first three points were to not apply, I would never get into investment banking anyway since it is the most competitive career to enter and my university is not nearly prestigious enough. My high school grades also are not likely high enough to pass through the autofilters either. So it's a closed door to me anyway.

 

[Rika]

This thread is funny. Phd won't help much as you are blind even if you do science.

It's funny because those who do science think they are smarter than other people (and physicists are smarter than engineers!) but this thread shows well that in fact they are no smarter than any other human being.

Um, do you really believe that by working in academia or science industry you aren't "part of the system"?

Finance knowledge is one of the most powerful tools that human can attain. Because you ignore that saying "it's just making money for money" you struggle to get a job and become code monkey or grant money slave for people who actually know how to get and what to do with money. Ignorance is always painful.

Now I remember that twofish-quant said sth about academia being good (similar to army) at brainwashing people's mind. Now I see what he meant.

 

[koab1mjr]

Finance knowledge is one of the most powerful tools that human can attain.

I think you are truly blind.

The only power finance has is the power is what stock people vest in it. We are one nuke bomb fest from your precious finance tools meaning nothing


I am not saying science people are smarter but to pursue a career for money sake is such a waste. Why spend so much time collect and hoarding what you can't take with you.

The rationale of pausing life to live it up when you are old and gray is just dumb.

There are people putting there best years down for a check. I think it is a poor use of ones time. Life is too short

You work to live not live to work

 

[alan2]

Odd thread. I studied physics and applied math but had a horrible time finding a permanent job. Finance is way more than investment banking. It is a mix of financial math, actuarial math, risk management, etc., and the math can be very challenging and interesting. It doesn't have to be materialistic, it doesn't have to be about making money at all, and it doesn't have to be boring. I work for a large university and my job is very important and has a great deal of value to all who depend on someone to safeguard precious assets so that education and research can continue efficiently. I feel very good about myself every night when my head hits the pillow. I learned from graduate school that physicists tend to be snobs. They aren't at all smarter than anyone else, they just choose to do something different. Be open.

 

[chill_factor]

this thread assumes that finance is easy to get into. but it isn't. if it was, everyone would be hauling in carts of cash as a quant. seriously, every 3rd question on here is "can I become a quant", do you think this is an under-demand field?

unless everyone here is just the top of their class gods of math and programming (and I doubt there's this many top of classes here, and what of the experimental scientists and engineers?) you don't choose finance, finance chooses you.

 

[Locrian]

I chose finance.

 

[twofish-quant]

I was speaking more from the engineering standpoint. Where I am 60hrs represents more of an upperbound.

Also it varies from group to group. Where I work, 60 hours is an upper bound, and I work a lot less than I did at the startup that I worked before. YMMV.

Supply and demand matters. Physics Ph.D.'s get treated a lot better than rookie MBA's, because physics Ph.D's would rather do something else, and if you treat them badly they will.

Again this is a systemic problem. We do not need more people on wall street.

Not sure about that. We do need more risk managers and compliance people.

In any case, at some point it doesn't matter. I can't put my life on hold while the economy gets restructured. If we conclude that there are too many people in Wall Street, and too few theoretical astrophysicists, the answer is simple. Offer me a job doing something else, and I'll take it.

Now if society concludes that there are too many people on Wall Street, and the solution involves me getting unemployed, then I'm going to fight that.

Money won't make you happy any.

It's part of the equation.

Not advocating going to the mountains and setting up a lab, but comparing a person 100% dedicated to science vs a person 100% dedicated to making this piece of paper with ink on it is a no brainer.

If you are 100% dedicated to science, you are going to be exploited by people dedicated to money. Also doing science is all about money. One thing that was good about my graduate education is that I got exposed to the money side of science.

 

[twofish-quant]

this thread assumes that finance is easy to get into. but it isn't. if it was, everyone would be hauling in carts of cash as a quant. seriously, every 3rd question on here is "can I become a quant", do you think this is an under-demand field?

It's not too hard to get into if you have a Ph.D. in physics. There are few quant positions, but there are even fewer Ph.D. physicists.

unless everyone here is just the top of their class gods of math and programming (and I doubt there's this many top of classes here, and what of the experimental scientists and engineers?) you don't choose finance, finance chooses you.

Still a dozen times easier than academia. Also, finance likes to portray itself as "masters of the universe" when sometimes the reality is different.

On the average, the quality of programmers in financial firms is the same as other high tech firms, and one weird thing is that a lot of banks would rather hire programmers from Microsoft and Google because they don't like the quality of Wall Street programming.

The other thing about finance is that it's a place where an "average Ph.D." can find a job.

One reason I got out of academia is that it was pretty obvious that I was "merely average" and if I had to go through resumes for faculty candidates in a research university, I wouldn't hire me.

 

[NegativeDept]

I don't know of anyone who went into physics to have a career in finance.

Fair point - I don't either. But I do know people (including myself) who went into physics to have a career finding practical uses for mathematics. Many of us consider quant finance to be a proper subset of that career goal. In my case, it even intersects my thesis, which borrows some theorems about SDEs and martingales from financial-modeling theory.

One of my colleagues said: "I try to predict how numbers change in time. I don't really care if they're electron momenta or stock prices, just as long as someone does something useful with the results." He was modeling protein folding and I'm modeling qubits, but I think we'd be just fine modeling things for Google or Boeing or Credit Suisse.

Not every physics PhD thinks this way, nor should they. Most of my colleagues would be totally miserable debugging Monte Carlo simulations of credit default swaps. Personally, I'd consider that a fair trade for a six-figure job in NYC. But that's obviously a subjective judgment.

 

[gravenewworld]

Instead of finance on Wall St., we need more scientists and engineers to take the initiative and start more companies to create more jobs in order to combat the constant off shoring. We've been relying on the business types for too long that are running the companies many of us work for. It's no surprise many tech companies get driven into the ground when they off shore all of their work (which just trains your competition) and companies invest very little of their funds in R and D (compared to other things like marketing). Then when the pipeline runs dry and the prototypes fail that the company has placed all of their bets on, they wonder why the company has failed.

 

[twofish-quant]

Instead of finance on Wall St., we need more scientists and engineers to take the initiative and start more companies to create more jobs in order to combat the constant off shoring.

The trouble with that is that the most important thing in starting a new company is financing which gets you back into the money thing.

We've been relying on the business types for too long that are running the companies many of us work for.

There's a reason for that.

I can do some sales/marketing/finance stuff. However, I don't particularly *like* to do sales/marketing/finance stuff, and I'm not particularly good at it. If someone *likes* to do that sort of stuff, it's great if they do that work and just let me do the science. If someone wants to do that stuff and ***take most of the money***, I'm cool with that.

The other thing is that you really don't need that many scientists even in a high tech company. One scientist invents something and then you just need to copy it. You need a ton of sales people, because you can't call two people at once. Then you need managers to manage the sales people, and managers to manage the managers.

And then there are the lawyers. In Shenzhen, you have lots of entrepreneurs that open "mom-and-pop" cell phone factories. One curious thing about cell phones is that you don't need a big company to make cell phones, and you really don't need a big company to do something *interesting* with a cell phone (i.e. make it pink with a Hello Kitty bow). You can (and people in Shenzhen do) start their own companies building cell phones.

In the US, you try that and you'll get killed with lawsuits.

It's no surprise many tech companies get driven into the ground when they off shore all of their work (which just trains your competition) and companies invest very little of their funds in R and D (compared to other things like marketing).

On the other hand if you invest most of your funds in R/D, then no one buys your product.

I'm starting to think that it's not economically feasible to have R/D be done in small profit driven companies selling to markets, and that in order to do something like that you need either a large company which can absorb capital costs, a government entity like a national lab, or a company with government funding (i.e. SpaceX or defense contractors).

The other thing to remember is that we live in a global world. One person's offshoring is someone else's onshoring. Something about multinationals is that they are multinational, so when someone talks about moving jobs from the United States to India and China, the Chinese and Indians in the room aren't going to be upset about it.

Then when the pipeline runs dry and the prototypes fail that the company has placed all of their bets on, they wonder why the company has failed.

But that gives a few good years while you milk the cow. If you put your money in R/D, then you run out of money before the product gets to market, and the company fails before it starts.

The point I'm making is that there are systemic reasons why things are what they are, and there is nothing obvious that I can see that one person can do to change things (if there were I'd be doing them).

 

[chill_factor]

so basically you are saying:

all real (risky) technical research is done at universities, giant multinationals, or government labs. it's almost impossible to get a high tech startup actually started up because you run out of money before the product is ready, or you get squished by a multinational that beats you in price wars or with lawsuits.

seems reasonable.

 

[StatGuy2000]

so basically you are saying:

all real (risky) technical research is done at universities, giant multinationals, or government labs. it's almost impossible to get a high tech startup actually started up because you run out of money before the product is ready, or you get squished by a multinational that beats you in price wars or with lawsuits.

seems reasonable.

There needs to be distinction made between conducting technical research versus founding a high-tech startup company, as the two are very different.

Technical research is highly capital intensive, as it would involve money to fund scientists and research engineers and expensive equipment to actually conduct the research. These tend to be conducted at universities, large companies that can dedicate a budget towards R&D, or government labs. Smaller companies that receive significant funding from the government or are affiliated with universities can also conduct technical research as well.

High-tech startups are often started (as other startups) by people with both strong technical capabilities (as scientists or engineers, or knows many scientists or engineers) and a strong entrepreneurial bent, and usually have a dedicated product available or an idea that could lend itself to a product or service. These companies receive their funding through venture capitalists willing to invest in the company, and focus their energy on making & selling their products or services.

It's worth noting as well that many high-tech startups often start out in universities, quite often as part of a research group or lab (Google is one prominent example -- both Sergey Brin and Larry Page were graduate students in computer science at Stanford prior to founding the company).

 

[twofish-quant]

There needs to be distinction made between conducting technical research versus founding a high-tech startup company, as the two are very different.

Yup. And there is also a difference between founding a high-tech startup and just founding a company. Most startups and most small businesses aren't high technology.

These companies receive their funding through venture capitalists willing to invest in the company, and focus their energy on making & selling their products or services.

Yup. And what often happens is that high tech startups make their money by commercializing a field that was opened up by either large businesses or governments. The government and large companies come up with microchips and the internet, and then once it gets to a certain point, then it's time for the VC people to seed start up companies.

What worries me is that without large amounts of funding of universities, the pipeline will go dry (at least in the US).

It's worth noting as well that many high-tech startups often start out in universities, quite often as part of a research group or lab (Google is one prominent example -- both Sergey Brin and Larry Page were graduate students in computer science at Stanford prior to founding the company).

Yup.

 

[TMFKAN64]

so basically you are saying:

all real (risky) technical research is done at universities, giant multinationals, or government labs. it's almost impossible to get a high tech startup actually started up because you run out of money before the product is ready, or you get squished by a multinational that beats you in price wars or with lawsuits.

seems reasonable.

I'm showing my geographical bias again, but it seems to me that it still isn't *that* hard to get a high-tech startup running. If you have a good idea, the funding follows quickly enough... and often the multinational will find it a lot easier to just *buy* you than try to squish you.

It's very hard for a new startup to grow into a market leader, that's certainly true. But you don't have to found the next Facebook to do quite well for yourself.

(Other than that, I have to agree about the supremacy of marketing and sales over engineering, although it galls me to say that. A product is necessary, and it needs to function, but OK is really good enough. To be a successful company, though, you absolutely need a team of people who can sell the **** out of it.)

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm showing my geographical bias again, but it seems to me that it still isn't *that* hard to get a high-tech startup running. If you have a good idea, the funding follows quickly enough...

I'm pretty sure that it's a geographical thing. Silicon Valley is what it is.

One funny thing is that being a CEO in Silicon Valley or in Austin isn't a big deal. Lots of people are CEO's. CEO's don't have a huge amount of power. Now being a VC funder...

Often the multinational will find it a lot easier to just *buy* you than try to squish you.

Outside of California, one problem you will run into is non-compete agreements. If you start your own company, your former employer will bring out the contracts that you signed and try to squish you. If you move from megacorp A to megacorp B, megacorp B's lawyers will tell megacorp A to buzz off. However, if you worked for megacorp A and try to compete against megacorp A, then A will try and squish you.

California is special because non-compete agreements are unenforceable.

Universities are also important, because universities don't mind if you have an outside side-job. If you do university research, and then you come up with something, the university will actually *help* you start a company to commercialize it. Most employers will get annoyed if you do something like that.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Outside of California, one problem you will run into is non-compete agreements. If you start your own company, your former employer will bring out the contracts that you signed and try to squish you. If you move from megacorp A to megacorp B, megacorp B's lawyers will tell megacorp A to buzz off. However, if you worked for megacorp A and try to compete against megacorp A, then A will try and squish you.

California is special because non-compete agreements are unenforceable.

Universities are also important, because universities don't mind if you have an outside side-job. If you do university research, and then you come up with something, the university will actually *help* you start a company to commercialize it. Most employers will get annoyed if you do something like that.

Is the unenforceability of non-compete agreements unique to California? Or are there similar situations in other US states?

 

[rolledoats]

Montana and Oklahoma also prohibit non-compete agreements.
(Source)

 

[TMFKAN64]

I'm pretty sure that it's a geographical thing. Silicon Valley is what it is.

California is special because non-compete agreements are unenforceable.

Yep, that's certainly a lot of it. You can jump ship and start a new company tomorrow, and as long as you don't directly steal any IP of your old employer in the process, you are free and clear.

Aside from that, Silicon Valley is just very startup-friendly. There are many companies that specifically service new tech startups, and provide them with office space, furniture, computer and network infrastructure, etc.

Plus it's a good thing to know that if you have an good idea and an excellent powerpoint presentation, there are plenty of people willing to listen to you and throw money in your direction to get you started.

Sometimes I am forced to admit... capitalism can be a good thing!

 

[Pkruse]

I've been watching this thread and am amazed that it has continued for so long. I see a bunch of posts that pretty well express my views.

Some of my classmates who went into business or finance make more than me, but most make less. I went into science and engineering because I wanted to do something useful and practical with my life, something to make this world a better place to live. I never cared about the money, but I've always had more than I needed.

Now I'm at the age when many are considering retirement, but I keep working because it is so much fun. For the last year, I've been paid well to do nothing more than to learn and train so that I can be productive developing new technology that has the potential of solving some of our most serious problems that finance majors can only complain and worry about.

 

[chiro]

Sometimes I am forced to admit... capitalism can be a good thing!

Capitalism is great when it operates under a sound and agreeably (among merchants and consumers) fair environment where the credit systems are solid, the monetary system is solid, and when business, trade practice, economic, legal, and other appropriate regulatory/otherwise laws/legislation are created to aid this.

Capitalism rewards businesses that serve people: socialism/fascism/communism does not allow people to rise and fall on their own genuine merits.

Proper capitalism allows people to take risks and suffer the consequences if they screw up while rewarding people that get it right to do more of what they already do best.

But capitalism needs some solid foundations that come in the form of economic, monetary/fiscal, trade, business, IP, other associated policies, regulations, and laws to make it a true capitalistic framework.

You can't have real capitalism with monopolies, or with any kind of centralized system that discourages competition because capitalism requires this.

What we have today though is not capitalism, and it will never be when any of the underlying systems mentioned above are monopolies themselves.

 

[mSSM]

[snip]

What we have today though is not capitalism, and it will never be when any of the underlying systems mentioned above are monopolies themselves.

This goes a little too far in this thread, but: what you describe there is not capitalism, but a (genuine) free market, which is kept free and open. Often they go together, but are not the same thing. If you put your emphasis on free markets and personal freedom - and here you have to especially mention negative freedom (freedom from something, e.g. hunger, illness) - then you actually arrive at social democracy.

Looking at the discourse in the US, the discourse is massively skewed into the direction of positive freedom (freedom to do something), and there everyone is focused mainly on a supposedly "free" economy. Unfortunately, both types of freedom are two sides of the same medal. If you don't have one, you can't geuinely have the other.

Interestingly, that system smells much more of corporatism than anything else.

I much more prefer the Swedish system to be honest, rather than that stone-age "capitalism" practiced in the US (does not seem so different from China anymore).

Hope people at some point realize, that the sixties were not so bad after all (in terms of average prosperity).

 

[chiro]

This goes a little too far in this thread, but: what you describe there is not capitalism, but a (genuine) free market, which is kept free and open. Often they go together, but are not the same thing. If you put your emphasis on free markets and personal freedom - and here you have to especially mention negative freedom (freedom from something, e.g. hunger, illness) - then you actually arrive at social democracy.

Looking at the discourse in the US, the discourse is massively skewed into the direction of positive freedom (freedom to do something), and there everyone is focused mainly on a supposedly "free" economy. Unfortunately, both types of freedom are two sides of the same medal. If you don't have one, you can't geuinely have the other.

Interestingly, that system smells much more of corporatism than anything else.

I much more prefer the Swedish system to be honest, rather than that stone-age "capitalism" practiced in the US (does not seem so different from China anymore).

Hope people at some point realize, that the sixties were not so bad after all (in terms of average prosperity).

Fairness does not correspond with absolute freedom.

The system I (intended to) describe(d) is one that intends to be fair to all parties. This fairness imposes fundamental limits on things like the monetary system, business and trade practices, credit and banking limits, liquidation policies, and regulation amongst other things.

It does not mean absolute freedom to do whatever. Absolute freedom is a misnomer and I agree with your analysis thereof.

We actually already have some of these things in, but funnily enough (but not the least bit surprising) some of the new regulations get wiped out down the line.

We have anti-trust laws for example. We used to have corporation charter laws that were meant to give the public some kind of protection but they have gone. We implemented Glass-Steagal after the depression but that is gone. We had money pegged to gold for a reason and now that is gone (at least for now).

All these things and more, help create a situation of fairness. It does not mean freedom in an absolute sense: there is always a price to way for freedom, and unfortunately it always ends badly like putting a live hand grenade in a chimps hand.

With regards to free markets, my definition of free is free in the way that there the conditions for entry, for growth, and for operating are ones that operate more or less in ways that every entity agrees in fair.

Whenever you end up with having to implement a body or some system which is highly integrated with society (like the financial system), then the result is that the amount of protection and regulation that matches the potential abuse that this does to the rest of the system. We already have this 'kind' of thing, but it is clearly not what it should be.

The best way though is to create systems that are decentralized if possible, and ones that everyone can agree on. The reason is that decentralized systems have no point of failure and are a lot easier for everyone to agree on.

In practical terms, this means more localization to get rid of things like systemic risk which can be realized in terms of currencies, credit systems, trade systems, and so on.

There are a lot of different realizations of what is fair, but the idea is that if you want systems that are highly intricately linked like our financial system is today, then you need to add in a lot more protection so that it takes care of the worst (because it will probably happen, and it does in the form of hundred year floods). If you localize, you won't need this kind of thing, but you will have other issues to face.

IMO, the best solution would involve decentralization of currency, credit, and other systems that everyone can agree on (the most important thing) in a systemwide fashion. Having systems where people don't agree will always end badly. The agreement when reached translates into law for exchange and acceptance of credit, and the rest of it follows from there.

 

[mSSM]

IMO, the best solution would involve decentralization of currency, credit, and other systems that everyone can agree on (the most important thing) in a systemwide fashion. Having systems where people don't agree will always end badly. The agreement when reached translates into law for exchange and acceptance of credit, and the rest of it follows from there.

Well, that's the funny thing - what does it mean that "everyone can agree"? If you look at the situation after the 2008 crisis, the Europeans wanted to enact much stricter rules on the financial markets (well, except the British, but since they are economically completely incompetent, that's to be expected). The reason those rules were not put into place was that the US government interfered; but on behalf of whom? Certainly not on behalf of the American people, but on behalf of a minority of Wall Street players.

And that's where the crux of the current situation lies: the problem is not even that we need to make something that "everybody can agree on", but rather that we have a system where a few very influential small groups dominate the entire discourse and impose their needs on others.

(Funny enough, now the US government tells the Europeans to fix their financial system...)


In regards to the thread: I once read a number that about 20% of current Physics and Math graduates end up in the financial sector. From my point of view, that number should be several orders of magnitude smaller. So I wonder - how many more people do you want to go into finance?

I have no problem with finance as such, as it is a very important mechanism of allocating a limited number of ressources (which in the end comes down to money). But one needs to ask the question whether an economy is sustainable when a significant part of the populace is involved in trading _non_physical_ goods of some sort (be it services or financial products doesn't matter much), when less and less people are actually there to come up and produce anything substantial.

 

[Nano-Passion]

I've been watching this thread and am amazed that it has continued for so long. I see a bunch of posts that pretty well express my views.

Some of my classmates who went into business or finance make more than me, but most make less. I went into science and engineering because I wanted to do something useful and practical with my life, something to make this world a better place to live. I never cared about the money, but I've always had more than I needed.

Now I'm at the age when many are considering retirement, but I keep working because it is so much fun. For the last year, I've been paid well to do nothing more than to learn and train so that I can be productive developing new technology that has the potential of solving some of our most serious problems that finance majors can only complain and worry about.

Very curious, can you tell me about your work?

 

[Pkruse]

Nano-passion: I work with a group of 150 engineers who do consulting for various companies who need help developing their ideas, or whose own engineering staff is overwhelmed with work. I'm humbled to be working with such awesome talent.

 

[twofish-quant]

If you look at the situation after the 2008 crisis, the Europeans wanted to enact much stricter rules on the financial markets (well, except the British, but since they are economically completely incompetent, that's to be expected).

That's not quite true. France and Germany have different financial systems than UK/US, and it's not a matter of stricter rules but different ones. For example, French and German banks can own stock in industrial companies, and they are much freer at issuing derivatives than US banks.

The reason those rules were not put into place was that the US government interfered; but on behalf of whom? Certainly not on behalf of the American people, but on behalf of a minority of Wall Street players.

In fact there were lots of rules that were put in place after the 2008 crisis. One problem is that the people who care a lot about what the rules are happen to be industry insiders. If you want better financial regulation, GREAT! However, if it becomes a "kill the bankers" lynch mob, then I'm going not going to sign up.

but rather that we have a system where a few very influential small groups dominate the entire discourse and impose their needs on others.

If you can't beat them, join them... One thing that is interesting is to see how legislative lobbying works on the inside. In the US political system, you are nothing if you are not part of an organization. The good news is that it's not that hard to become part of an organization.

It's not a few influential small groups dominating discourse. It's a lot of different groups each with their agendas. For example, you have the small banks versus the large banks versus the hedge funds versus mutual funds and that's just in the financial industry.

In regards to the thread: I once read a number that about 20% of current Physics and Math graduates end up in the financial sector. From my point of view, that number should be several orders of magnitude smaller. So I wonder - how many more people do you want to go into finance?

Look. If you come up with an alternative job to what I'm doing then I'll do something else. If you decide to "kill the bankers" and leave me in the street, then I'll fight you on this. It's not that I don't care about society but given a world in which society is screwed up and I'm employed and one in which society is screwed up and I'm unemployed, guess which one I'll choose.

Maybe there are too many people in finance, but would anyone be better off, if I didn't take the money?

But one needs to ask the question whether an economy is sustainable when a significant part of the populace is involved in trading _non_physical_ goods of some sort (be it services or financial products doesn't matter much), when less and less people are actually there to come up and produce anything substantial.

Let me ask another question. Suppose we end up in a world in which machines become hyperefficient and you can produce anything instantly by just thinking about it. That would put everyone out of work? So how would that economy work?

 

[twofish-quant]

IMO, the best solution would involve decentralization of currency, credit, and other systems that everyone can agree on (the most important thing) in a systemwide fashion. Having systems where people don't agree will always end badly. The agreement when reached translates into law for exchange and acceptance of credit, and the rest of it follows from there.

You will *never* get the nations of the world to agree on currency, credit, and other systems. There are some things that the US and Canada will *never* agree on, and if you can't get the US and Canada to agree, good luck on signing on China, Germany, India, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. You have to realize that in some places in the world, big government, centralization, and socialism are considered good things.

The big question is what are the "bare minimum rules" you can get people to agree to in order to prevent another disaster.

The other thing is that things will naturally centralize in finance, and law tends to centralize things. One thing about finance is that people will want to do the deal where they can find fast, efficient, and predictable courts. So if you have a complex securities transaction, you want it done in the Southern District of NY, or in London, or in HK, because if something goes wrong, it goes before a judge that has heard a million of these cases before.

There's also the "Las Vegas" effect. If you outlaw something everywhere except for one place, that one place will make a ton of money. There are several small islands in the Caribbean (BVI, Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands) that have entire economies based on being able to do stuff there that you can't anywhere else.

 

[mSSM]

[snip]

Maybe there are too many people in finance, but would anyone be better off, if I didn't take the money?

You misunderstand me. I am myself considering going into the financial industry if my plans for landing a spot in academia fails.

I am also not as ignorant as to believe that the financial system as such is the root of all evil.

However, I very strongly believe that the current system is not sustainable, and that 10, 15 years from now in countries like the US or Britain the financial sector simply cannot be as big (as percentage of GDP) as it is now. So I am asking myself if it still makes sense to start a career in finance (for me, that would be in about 5 years time).

Let me ask another question. Suppose we end up in a world in which machines become hyperefficient and you can produce anything instantly by just thinking about it. That would put everyone out of work? So how would that economy work?

Aren't you the one who is fond of mentioning Marx? That problem is developing already. Look at the major electronics manufacturers in China (e.g., Foxconn). They are already having dreams about replacing all of their manual work force by robots (Foxconn's CEO is not getting tired mentioning that).

Considering that all means of production will then indeed be in the hands of a very small number of people with the vast majority of the population cut out of the loop, one would indeed need to wonder how our society is going to look like then.

 

[twofish-quant]

However, I very strongly believe that the current system is not sustainable, and that 10, 15 years from now in countries like the US or Britain the financial sector simply cannot be as big (as percentage of GDP) as it is now. So I am asking myself if it still makes sense to start a career in finance (for me, that would be in about 5 years time).

I'm not so sure that it's not sustainable. If your manufacturing is efficient enough then you can have most of your population doing things that are socially useless without the system falling apart. You have 3% of the population grow food, 17% of the population make stuff, and then have everyone else play useless games.

One thing is that just because it's a bad system, doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. I can imagine a society in which 20% of the people do "useful stuff" and the remaining 80% end up as lawyers that just sue each other.

Personally, I'd prefer "planting flags on other planets" useless rather than "make work suing each other" useless.

Aren't you the one who is fond of mentioning Marx? That problem is developing already. Look at the major electronics manufacturers in China (e.g., Foxconn). They are already having dreams about replacing all of their manual work force by robots (Foxconn's CEO is not getting tired mentioning that).

One interesting thing about the Chinese economy is that the number of people that are employed in manufacturing has stayed roughly constant over the last thirty years. The number of people in agriculture has gone down, and services are going up. The other thing about China is that the country is about to get very old, very quickly which means that you end up with robots.

Considering that all means of production will then indeed be in the hands of a very small number of people with the vast majority of the population cut out of the loop, one would indeed need to wonder how our society is going to look like then.

What worries me is that people will just "get used to it" and consider it "normal." People get fed a steady diet of Youtube so that they won't revolt, because "revolution is for losers" and the system just goes on. And we don't ever get back to the moon or end up on Mars.

 

[mSSM]

What worries me is that people will just "get used to it" and consider it "normal." People get fed a steady diet of Youtube so that they won't revolt, because "revolution is for losers" and the system just goes on. And we don't ever get back to the moon or end up on Mars.

Somebody is going to patent "the moon" or "mars" (or rather something like "travelling to an extraterrestrial astronomical formation by rocket-propelled means), and then going to sue the hell out of you because they thought of that first. :-D

As regards the sustainability: your are absolutely right. If productivity goes up, then more people can live happy lives doing less work. Now, in an ideal world, this would indeed be the case. In the real world, this isn't so (given our current system). Since the 70s, increases in productivity have not benefitted the average worker. This is even more blatantly obvious in the US than it is in Europe. And somebody did benefit from that increase in productivity, considering GDP went through the roof but median wages grew a lot less than that.

And now even in Europe people start worrying what is going to happen to the welfare state. Not in the next couple of years, mind you, but in ~20 years, when the baby boomers exit the work force, such that one worker has to pay for three pensioners.

You would think that that is not a problem given our increase in productivity. But indeed it is, since a large amount of capital is not benefitting society.

 

[chiro]

You will *never* get the nations of the world to agree on currency, credit, and other systems. There are some things that the US and Canada will *never* agree on, and if you can't get the US and Canada to agree, good luck on signing on China, Germany, India, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. You have to realize that in some places in the world, big government, centralization, and socialism are considered good things.

The big question is what are the "bare minimum rules" you can get people to agree to in order to prevent another disaster.

The other thing is that things will naturally centralize in finance, and law tends to centralize things. One thing about finance is that people will want to do the deal where they can find fast, efficient, and predictable courts. So if you have a complex securities transaction, you want it done in the Southern District of NY, or in London, or in HK, because if something goes wrong, it goes before a judge that has heard a million of these cases before.

There's also the "Las Vegas" effect. If you outlaw something everywhere except for one place, that one place will make a ton of money. There are several small islands in the Caribbean (BVI, Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands) that have entire economies based on being able to do stuff there that you can't anywhere else.

It doesn't have to happen at all at once and it doesn't mean that absolute agreeability will happen: it's more of what you are alluding to: creating some bare minimum ruleset and then taking it from there.

I didn't mention the systems of governance and society: I mentioned currency and credit.

Although I definitely agree that currency and credit paradigms are linked to many things including governance, economic models of nation states, idealogies of societies/leaders/citizens and so on, the point of the decentralization is to create the scenario where you don't get a monopoly on currency or credit creation in a way that facilitates "real" trust and not just trust.

Trust is a term that comes and goes every empire and generation. Real trust is an entirely different manner: real trust is based on something that is not infallible by the actions of man.

The thing that history should have told us not the first time or the fifth or even the tenth time, is that trusting people only on their faith always ends badly.

There are actually a lot of good ideas both new and old for having "real" trust. Some are based on precious metals (like gold and silver), some are based on technology and mathematics (like Bitcoin). Gold can't be 'printed' and mathematics doesn't 'lie' if the definitions and behaviour match the description.

With regards to financial transactions and business, this is another issue that needs to be tackled however solving the credit and currency problems in terms of 'trust' is really the critical problem that a lot of people would really like solved with real trust as opposed to trust because a fair trading environment between nation-states that everyone can undeniably agree on (one based on elements not related to human fallibility).