There is only one answer wrote:
Realtors.
Agreed. Last time I bought I house, I found it online myself. The realtor met us there and opened the door, then facilitated a bunch of DocuSign paperwork. Surely there was some other stuff, but most of them don't do the same job realtors did 20 years ago.
well, wrote:
zizek wrote:
Mine. Data Scientist in corporate America. I get paid well into the six-figures to do made-up math, which is presented as 'evidence' in support of decisions that would have been made anyways.
The whole thing is pointless and ritualistic.
Very curious to hear more! I am interested in data science, and have been playing around on pet projects.
I really like messing around with the programming and the math. It's just that the business world has a way of taking really smart and dynamic people and sticking them in a dead-end like you describe, where their creativity and passion is worthless.
Is there any slice of the data science profession that allows people to feel like more than a cog in some business machine? I am just looking for some hope that there might be a path forward for me.
Your best bets are academia, Wall Street, or an early stage (but well-funded) start-up. The issue in corporate America is that the decision-makers are not data scientists - they are typically bankers or MBAs. Really the answer to most business questions is to cut costs and increase productivity, there are only so many ways to repackage that answer with data.
If you need to enter corporate America enter a non-revenue team (think UX, UI, or HR) less interaction with revenue leaders and can build some interesting models.
To the other poster start with R and SQL first. Do them every day for half-an-hour and you'll be more qualified than 90% of data scientists.
hutz wrote:
setrwtws wrote:
By far public school teachers. Make them "at will" employees (fired for most any cause) then we can give them a raise, if they get real results.
Cops would fit this better than teachers.
It's getting harder for bad teachers to get hired (and for them to get certified in the first place). I recently (within the past 2 years) started working as a teacher. I make under 40k/year. If I'm underpaid then I guess I'll take a pay cut and just go on food stamps whenever I decide to start a family.
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
Anyone saying NBA players, or famous people, or anything like that are clueless. Do you know how few NBA players there are on the planet? And do you know how many NBA fans there are on the planet?
If you want to see how valuable professional athletes are, look at the flop of every attempt to startup another professional football league. You don't have the best athletes, and the business is a total joke.
The question really comes down to whose wages are protected by a non-competitive system. There have been some good answers in this area. CEOs probably qualify. Realtors qualify. Pretty much every government job.
Although, I would argue with a government job, there is competition for job openings, and there is a service they provide. If your schools suck, you really don't have much choice but to increase pay for teachers and hope you attract better teachers.
And let's also separate this idea that compensation should be linked to how hard you work. No one is saying roofers should be the highest paid people on the planet.
I agree on the professional athletes. If I'm willing to pay $100s, not to mention $15 for a beer, to watch Lebron dunk a basketball then he deserves everything he makes. I don't want to hear athletes talk about social issues because nothing about being athletic makes you more qualified to comment on those things. But pro athletes deserve their pay. Remember the team owners are raking in hundreds of millions off the athletes each year. The athletes deserve their cut.
Allen53 wrote:
People commonly misunderstand the wealthy as creators of wealth rather than appropriators of wealth. People desire to serve those whom they see as the the source of wealth for a share of the wealth, misunderstanding that in serving the wealthy they are serving the distributors of wealth, those who are also the appropriators of wealth, but not the producers of wealth.
The wealthy accumulate wealth by appropriating the wealth created by those who sell their wealth creating power to the wealthy. Everyone who receives a paycheck enhances the wealth of the wealthy by being paid less than the amount of wealth they produce. If you do not produce excess wealth for the wealthy, or otherwise contribute to the profit of the wealthy, your employment will be terminated.
The wealthy distribute that which they appropriate in a manner that in their judgment best insures their continued accumulation of wealth. Those who best serve the wealthy are best compensated for their successful efforts at accumulation of wealth from the producers of wealth for appropriation by the wealthy.
Wealth production, appropriation, and distribution: this is the means by which the people are incentivized to serve the boards of directors, whether of capitalist enterprises or capitalist governments.
Peoples movements will always be secondary when the first choice available is to serve the wealthy masters. The masters have the power to distribute wealth to those who serve them best; and those who do not sufficiently demonstrate loyalty to the wealthy are cast out of the system and exposed to risks and insecurity of poverty.
Behind all great wealth lie great social crimes.
This is such a pile of socialist BS. Some people in the world inherit wealth, but many wealthy individuals get there by taking risks. Neither my wife nor I inherited wealth, and we paid for most of our educations ourselves (most of our undergrad expenses and all of her dental school expenses). We have taken out more than a million dollars in loans to pay for an education, buy a business, buy a building, etc. We pay our employees well compared to the local labor market, but at the end of the day, we take home more money because we put our asses on the line. We have always lived modestly and have the resources we do because we didn't party a lot when we were younger, we worked hard (I worked the same crappy fast food jobs from 15-21 as many people that never figured out how to make money), we didn't waste money on crap like booze, drugs, cell phones, pay TV or Starbucks coffee, we never drove new or fancy cars (heck, I didn't have a car until I was 23 and paid for it with $1,800 in cash I earned on my first real job, and always put money into places where they would make more money for us and our kids. Just because you went to college, focused on running and majored in philosophy doesn't mean we all did.
facts and reason wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA
Ben Stein is a genius, and if you want to learn how to get on the path to making money, I highly recommend reading the book "The Capitalist Code". I read it with my young daughters to start them on their financial education. I highly recommend teaching kids about finance and stocks. You can even give your kids a list of stocks / funds to invest in and have them research different metrics like P/E ratios, P/B ratios, etc. just so they learn the vocabulary and let them pick which stocks / funds to invest some of their 529 plans or IRA accounts in. They can do surprisingly well.
Hospital Administrators
CaptainPhillips wrote:
There is only one answer wrote:
Realtors.
Agreed. Last time I bought I house, I found it online myself. The realtor met us there and opened the door, then facilitated a bunch of DocuSign paperwork. Surely there was some other stuff, but most of them don't do the same job realtors did 20 years ago.
+1 Double agree.
When I was passively looking for a place to buy I met multiple realtors that did nothing more than plug in the same search parameters I do to the common real estate websites, yet they claimed that they were providing some value. I have never found a realtor to provide any value. If you're lazy and don't want to do your own research, then I could see where a realtor would have the opportunity to provide value, but I've seen the utmost of lazy friends blindly follow (they're not good enough friends that they wouldn't feel insulted or be open to my dumb@ss advice were I to give it) into crap deals and massively overpay for a house. Due diligence.
Swaglord_the_real_one wrote:
facts and reason wrote:
A doctor has more stress than a teacher. You're dealing with blood and the possibility of death. A surgery can last 8 hours with just a 15-minute break.
People are overrating the teacher's job. If a student misbehaves, then he or she can be sent to the principal's office and then get suspended. A parent gets called. The police can get involved in serious cases.
Just think about your own experiences in school. The teacher will have her back turned while writing on the chalkboard. Students can fool around on their phones. How hard is this kind of job?
Doctor might seem high stress but I think they are trained so well and have their decision pathways thought out ahead of time, so they are like a highly trained robot. Might be completely wrong.
Teacher you have to be engaged with these little kids all day long. Takes a special person. For me, I couldn't get caught up in their pedantic stuff. It would be such a distraction.
Eh when you have time to sit down, get data, and think, sure, doctors rely on their vast fund of knowledge to act algorithmically without much effort. But emergencies happen all the time in medicine, and when they do, sh*t can really hit the fan fast. I've seen a surgeon knick the left atrial appendage on a lung transplant and not be able to control the bleeding, a lady with bronchospasm after a surgery who went in about 1 minute from totally normal to oxygen saturation in the 30s and the code button getting hit, normal labor to crash c-section in about 4 minutes... Even things like sudden, unexplained desaturating patients or a patient developing neuro symptoms can get real intense, real fast.
DOCTORS
Mort McMurray wrote:
Tom Connors wrote:
NBA players that sit on the bench.
Average salary of an NBA player is seven million dollars for one season.
I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect unless you are intentionally trying to misrepresent NBA salaries by taking a very liberal approach to your calculation of the "average."
If 9 guys each earn $50k per year and one guy earns $1 billion per year, does the average guy earn $100 million per year in your mind?
You win the most ignorant post of the week prize. Below are the league minimums for the NBA..
Years of Experience Salary
0 $898,310
1 $1,445,697
2 $1,620,564
3 $1,678,854
4 $1,737,145
facts and reason wrote:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/sa/cefavgsalaries.aspStifler wrote:
teachers in California.
"The average salary of public school teachers in 2017 - 18 for the State of California was $80,680."
A teacher who gets winter vacation, spring vacation, summer vacation, "free" healthcare, and still doesn't do a good job is being overpaid.
I'd say the 19-year-old basketball player who sits on the bench and makes $1 million because of "potential" instead of talent is more overpaid.
They would make at least 2.6 million as that’s the minimum for that tenure .
Sociologists- Value =0
Gender, diversity and inclusivity admins- Value =0
Gender, diversity and inclusivity counselors- Value =0
These professions have absolutely ZERO value to humanity. It is a crime that these disciplines and professions even exist.
Sure, they 'earned' that money. They also provided 'value' for the economy too,NOT. Financiers and market guys are blood sucking vampires, drinking from the stream of production that is an economy.
Giles Corey wrote:
Here are a few of the managers who made Institutional Investor’s list and what they earned in 2019:
Christopher John, TCI Fund Management — $1.8 billion
James Simons, Renaissance Technologies — $1.8 billion
Ken Griffin, Citadel — $1.5 billion
Israel Englander, Millennium Management — $1.5 billion
Chase Coleman, Tiger Global Management — $1.4 billion
Giles Corey wrote:
Uhh wrote:
Who is the last owner in the NBA who did not make a ton of money of his ownership?
You really think owners put their own money into buying a team?
You think money invested is more important than talented labor?
You are a naive one
All the sports have become very profitable over the past 20-30 yrs.
Victor Kiam lost money on the New England Patriots and had to sell in 1992 when he was facing bankruptcy. Bum Bright wasn't doing well he sold the Cowboys to Jerry Jones in 1989 for $140m.
Gee.
Only had to go back 30 years to find an owner that you say lost money on the team they owned.
let's fact check.
Kiam paid $83 million for the Pats in 1988 and sold it a few years later for $174 million.
So even your 30 year old example does not hold water
this-if you have lost money owning an NFL team, I want to see who it was--Leonard Tose in 1969 bought the Eagles for a then-record 16 million an NFL franchise, it almost quadrupled in value to $65 million when he sold the team in 1985-only problem was his gambling debts of $25 million ate into the profits of the sale! anyone who has had an NFL franchise in the Super Bowl era has gained value almost exponentially due to the monster TV contracts...
They are not losing money. Most of them have made billions in unrealized capital gains, and continue to do so; there are more buyers than sellers right now for NBA teams.
I generally agree with your points here Joe. Classifying the wealthy as some monolithic class is absurd. People arrive at wealth in different ways. Some are net contributors to society and others are leaches or neutral. I also agree with your perspective on childhood financial education. I had to teach myself all this $hit in my 20s.
But seriously, Ben Stein is a genius? That is comical. What a charlatan.
Anything in finance - IBanking, Hedge fund, etc. It's all BS Little value added to the society. Just away for a bunch of rich people to get richer, which is certainly their perogative, ubt don't act like your job is half as meaningful as a kindergarten teacher's or even a garbage collector.
+1000, but not strongly worded enough. Those working in finance are blood sucking vampires who sit atop the economy and skim from it. The only way we restore balance to this economy is to go after finance and wealth. Wealth taxes and aggressive taxes on market transactional activity and capital gains. You want to slurp from the greater stream without adding value, we're all going to take a big fat slice of your pie every year and spread it around.
honest day's pay wrote:
Anything in finance - IBanking, Hedge fund, etc. It's all BS Little value added to the society. Just away for a bunch of rich people to get richer, which is certainly their perogative, ubt don't act like your job is half as meaningful as a kindergarten teacher's or even a garbage collector.