/sci/ - Science & Math

Lawyers

Math PhDs

professional athletes

>>4746356
That goes without saying

How about Engineers? I've heard there is a lot of money in Petroleum Engineering

My sister studied art, it's not at all as bad as people think. She got tons of joboffers when she graduaded. She finally settled on making her own comic series and is now scooping €3000+/month

>>4746344
Easiest route to money:

> Acquire Bachelors degree in Mathematics
> Pass some actuarial exams
> ?????
> Acquire bitches and Money

>>4746362
She's very, very lucky

Anything in finance and banking that requires a degree.

>>4746362
Nude modeling?

>>4746368
I was obviously kidding..

>She got tons of joboffers
learn2recognize a joke

If you're looking for income + job availability with just a bachelor's degree, you're looking for a BS in some form of engineering.

Top 10 past two years for average salary of a fresh hire are 9 forms of engineering + computer science (and if you have a job with just a BS in CS, it's engineering, too).

>>4746375
Nude taking the dick for a tenner.

Not OP, but what about jobs requiring master's/Ph.D/etc?

>>4746391
Lawyer

>>4746393
I've heard law is mind-numbingly awful. Goes without saying that it's not "court law" as it is often depicted.

Is this false?

>>4746391

MS in engineering/CS lets you do a bit better than a BS. PhD in them is only for academic work, and, really, you'll probably be paid less for a job that *requires* a PhD because of it. But those jobs are often god tier, even if they pay less.

Otherwise, at that level of education the medical fields start to make good money. In terms of net lifetime salary, it's hard to beat a MD in a specialty, but, realistically, counting the years spent in a residency and the greater expense of school, they're not *that* far ahead.

But, realistically, you should do what you're interested in. You'll be happier making mid-grade money doing something you like than high-end money doing something you hate.

>>4746393
good getting a job

>>4746413

Considering some form of engineering.

I've always considered myself an english person but really I enjoy all subjects, and don't really see what careers there are in english that I would enjoy.

I'm competent at math and have always enjoyed science classes.

Honestly my #1 dream would be entrepreneurship, but it seems like the only way I could do something innovative with that is if I went into computer science. I don't want to just start a restaurant or something, lucrative as it may be.

Your advice is helpful, and I would appreciate anything more you have to say.

bump

>>4746400
I can't tell you the validity of that, but law doesn't belong in this thread to begin with. Unless you have very good connections, you'll probably be making $40,000 a year to start and need some godly luck to start making six figures.

Law:

If you're from top 10 school and do well you'll likely land a biglaw position at 150k per year starting

If not at a top 10 school you'll be poor.

Only do law if you're cream of the crop

>>4746467
Broski, it's T14 (13? Does GULC even count anymore?), not top 10.

>>4746462

Related point: politics seems very interesting to me. Is this even a "career choice" or is this something that is almost entirely luck/connection/prestige based? I wouldn't go into law just for the off chance of going into politics, but that seems like it's supposed to be the progression.

>>4746344
Look into Pharmacy. At 6 years it fastest way to get a Doctorate and 100k+ starting salary.

>>4746469

True my bad

who cares about money other than retards srsly

>>4746489
It's all good.
I'm attending Cornell, and waiting on the Stttanford waitlist, so I'm just anxious as all fuck. Anything to make myself feel better.

>>4746491
This.

Good luck working a job you don't want to buy shit you don't need?

>inb4 anon is a poorfag. It's not even true

>>4746494
oh shit nig,n what you study?

This is not /sci/ so if you want to shit on me go ahead.

But how much money does one really need to live comfortably?

Let's say, suburban, nice house, northeast. Potentially a family.

Unless I get into making millions of dollars, being slighter higher class isn't worth self-destruction.

I feel financially retarded because I've never had to be financially independent and I don't know my parents' salaries.

>>4746499
Oh, I was an English undergrad at a small liberal arts college.
Now I'm heading to law school - I start in the fall.

bump in the hopes this will still be alive when I wake up.

>>4746439

Well, do you have any particular problem with computer science? I work at a flagship state university and consult part time while I wait for my graduate program to start. Our sub-3.0 GPA students leave here with multiple $60k+ offers. I make $90k part-time working at home (above and beyond what I get as a RA at the university) - while I've got a lot of experience, making a lot of money working your own hours at home is not an uncommon career path for CS folks, and it opens a lot of businesses opportunities.

The other beauty of CS is it is, these days, necessary to some extent in almost every field - there are a lot of things to do in widely varying fields with education in CS.

depends where you live..

but anywhere in the world a succesfull company makes shitload of money

>>4746506
This completely depends on where you live. Down here in Henderson (right south of Vegas), $60000-$70000 will give you a comfortable life.

>>4746506
just google "cost of living in x" wherever you plan on living

>>4746604
>>4746601

Appreciated, forgive my incompetence.

Most rich people have either started out with large funds to invest or got where they are due to connections. The average man starting his own business has nearly no chance of ever being wealthy.

Only one who has a small fortune already and friends on both government and high business has a good fighting chance at being filthy rich. Granted, there are exceptions like Facebook, Paypal and so, but they are only temporary. Companies in the steel, trade or energy business are in it forever, and those who own them and/or a great deal of infrastructure have it good enough to be rich and expect to be rich for generations.

tl;dr pull a Jay-Z. Become an artist, do some crap that everyone can relate to and is real simple yet different from everything, make an enormous amount of money and then turn it into business while still putting out your art for continuous funding.

And don't think it will be easy or fast. You'll need talent, hard work and dedication, and brains. Ever saw an interview with people like Lady Gaga, Jay-Z or Eminem? They are near fucking geniuses and work their balls off.

College will pay your bills, maybe give you a nice house and a car, maybe even 300k an year, but you will NEVER be rich working for someone.

so studying history wasn't a good idea?

>>4748455

>never be rich working for someone

I really, really beg to differ. I realise it's almost worthless to make a claim such as this on the internet - moreover in anonymity - but I went to Cambridge and got an MMath. I had multiple job offers and was targeted by many, many banks and hedge funds in my third and fourth years, for internships and permanent jobs respectively. As a note to anyone interested - if you're in the top 10% or so in [Cambridge/Oxford/Harvard/Princeton/Wharton] (and only these 5; bankers are suckers for prestige and tradition) doing any real quantitative subject, this will happen to you, too. The recruitment drive at least, if not the job.

Straight out of university (22 years old), I was making £120K/year base salary and my bonus was £810K. My second year, I netted over a million in salary and bonuses combined. I don't brag about this in real life; it's far too vulgar - even for a banker - but it completely falsifies your ridiculous claim.

Think; in my FIRST TWO YEARS, I netted almost £2m working for someone. I could very quickly either rise up and own a hedge fund to make ridiculous, useless amounts of money (think a billion or so over maybe 35 years of working), or quit after a while and go into academia - which is what I plan on doing - and live an exceedingly comfortable life whilst still doing something I enjoy that doesn't require 110 hours of work per week.

>>4748459
History, like psychology, philosophy, anthropology and other humanities are something you should pick up along your life as a hobby.

Go into something in business or engineering if you want to do something good with your life.

>Excluding:
>>CEOs or entrepreneurs, etc.
Most really lucrative career paths will involve either management or business ownership.

For instance, if you want to make a lot of money in computer programming, or even stay in the field into middle age, you generally need to become a consultant. Employees get much lower pay and companies are reluctant to hire older workers.

>>4748475

Finance is the only sector of work where it's possible to make huge sums of money without being at a management level.

In fact, in high finance, it's not unheard of that prop traders make more in a year than the CEO does, seeing as their earnings are based on comission of profits.

Finance really isn't for everyone though. Gruelling hours and very stressful work. Also, they can afford to hire whomever they wish, so only the best get jobs.

I'd recommend law except it's pretty much the same situation without the math and with less pay. You're pretty stuck without law/finance/medicine or management. Petroleum engineers might be in the top 10%. Other engineers too, depending on where you live. Petroleum, chemical and aerospace usually make the most, I think.

>>4748475
Granted, there are exceptions, but my main point is that you will make considerably less money than those above you and passive of being fired at any time. Also I must admit that I have a personal quarrel with working my ass off so someone else reaps the bigger rewards of it and I end up with something that isn't mine and/or has no social value.

I should note I'm a magician and this is my first serious year at it. If things progress as they already have in the previous six months I should make around 85k this year. I am only 21 years old.

Also, I will assume that your pay didn't come only from your study, but from your social skills and ability to relate with people. In my life I met a fuckload of people who were incredibly smart and capable but were unemployed or underpaid because they failed as human beings.

My main point is that you might be making a good deal of money, but someone is making an even larger amount off your back and laughing his ass off drinking champagne in Monaco, and as soon as you are not needed anymore, you are toast, and if you do give 35 years of your life into this, what will be left?

>>4748475
Granted, there are exceptions, but my main point is that you will make considerably less money than those above you and passive of being fired at any time. Also I must admit that I have a personal quarrel with working my ass off so someone else reaps the bigger rewards of it and I end up with something that isn't mine and/or has no social value.

I should note I'm a magician and this is my first serious year at it. If things progress as they already have in the previous six months I should make around 85k this year. I am only 21 years old.

Also, I will assume that your pay didn't come only from your study, but from your social skills and ability to relate with people. In my life I met a fuckload of people who were incredibly smart and capable but were unemployed or underpaid because they failed as human beings.

My main point is that you might be making a good deal of money, but someone is making an even larger amount off your back and laughing his ass off drinking champagne in Monaco, and as soon as you are not needed anymore, you are toast, and if you do give 35 years of your life into this, what will be left?

Also, I do not mean to reduce what you did or seem superior, but overall it seems to me that the path to monies is simply finding something a lot of people need, doing it better than everyone before you and putting your heart into it.

Faggots today think all they need is a diploma and they will buy Ferrarris everyday working 40hrs a week.

>>4748475
And this is what is wrong with the monetary structure as of now. A random anonymous earns more money than some do in their entire life, in two years, doing nothing productive at all.

>>4748511
>supply
>demand
What is wrong is the financial market itself, making enormous amounts of non existing money while adding or producing nothing and risking the entire world's economy, causing catastrophic crashes every two decades or so.

That anon was smart as fuck in riding it for riches, getting enough and bailing out.

>>4748507
see
>>4748496

Finance isn't like other job sectors. The people in management positions oftentimes are less qualified and make less money than the people they manage. They come into finance through consultancy rather than as an analyst or a trader - the former requiring an economics/finance degree and the latter requiring something like maths/physics. They also have to work for many many years before they get any kind of good job. Their job is also far more boring; it's much like any other management job in any other sector of work. They don't get to create and use advanced mathematical models nor take any thrilling billion-dollar risks.

Also, getting fired in high finance isn't like getting fired from other jobs. In finance people get fired all the time. Whenever a bank hits a huge loss (losses are only temporary; almost every bank makes a profit over a long enough period of time) which is inevitable, seeing as though finance is based on the fickle nature of humans, they restructure and fire half their staff. If you get fired from one bank/hedge fund, you can find another job in a different bank the very next day if you so wish. The concept of job loyalty is alien.

>>4748502
this, hedge funds are a joke
brb, barely beat inflation/S&P 500, give 10 million bonus
practically making money from your future trustafarian kids that will be too stupid to invest your fortune themselves, cycle repeats.

>>4748528
Don't act like he doesn't share in the guilt. Joining in legitimizes the whole thing.

They hire various sorts of stock-pickers, none of whom significantly outperform dart-throwing monkeys, and whenever they win, they hand out big bonuses and take big bonuses for themselves, drawing attention to it as proof that skill is involved. Whenever they lose, they brush it under the carpet as unfortunate happenstance.

You're casually absolving one of the people who worked to justify the absurd financial gambles that cause disaster after disaster, and got generously rewarded for it.

My brother is a lawyer. He literally had ~300k starting, and he fucking hates it. Money isn't everything.

>>4748543

I don't know which post that was directed at, but yes, hedge funds are a joke. If you think investment banks are useless and contribute nothing to society, you're in for a shock when you see what a hedge fund does. Working for one really opened up my eyes. Hedge funds exist purely to make the obscenely rich even richer. We place country-GDP-sized bets on the market and reap the rewards; contributing nothing.

It sickens me slightly to think that I work for one and I am pretty much a worthless citizen that doesn't contribute to society, let alone science. I'm in the "golden handcuffs", as it were.

Hello, reader. If you started reading this, don't stop or else. I hate people who post these kind of comments but.... Post this to 2 threads in 10 minutes and promise your self to never listen to these kind of comments or make one up. But this one is real.If you don't post this, a boy with no head or legs will show up in ur room at midnight kill you. Everyone will forget u. start posting. the timer will start as soon as you finish reading this. yes I do hate these coments

HeIIo, reader. If you started reading this, don't stop or else. I hate people who post these kind of comments but.... Post this to 2 threads in 10 minutes and promise your self to never listen to these kind of comments or make one up. But this one is real.If you don't post this, a boy with no head or legs wiIl show up in ur room at midnight kill you. Everyone will forget u. start posting. the timer will start as soon as you finish reading this. yes I do hate these coments

>>4748554

What's funny is that when a bank loses money, no one really can pinpoint who actually loses the money. We certainly don't; we may get a marginally smaller bonus, but that means nothing. The bank may report a loss, but that again means nothing. We still have exactly the same spending power and potential capital as we did before.

I think this proves that banks really do make money out of nothing.

>>4748532
>Whenever a bank hits a huge loss (losses are only temporary; almost every bank makes a profit over a long enough period of time)
Nope. Every few decades, the whole banking system loses more than all of the money it earned.

In the past, banks would just go under, and their debtors and depositors would simply lose their money.

Now, they get bailed out by governments. It's not unreasonable to say that every bonus in the past three decades has actually been paid for by the most recent bail-out. Your tax dollars, direct to their pockets.

Banks consistently lose money in the long term. BankERS, on the other hand, have this racket where they gamble with other people's money, keep a share of any temporary winnings, and dodge responsibility when they inevitably lose it all.

>math major
>any job i want
>$300k starting

>>4748581
>In the past, banks would just go under, and their debtors and depositors would simply lose their money.
Of course I mean "creditors". Sorry about that.

>>4748572
Do people still fucking fall for this bullshit?
>gud evening, microsoft ceo here, send emil to everyone in contect list for free monee

>>4748587
A little late there. Read the 2nd reply.

>>4748581

Enlighten me as to why you think this. You realise an $800bn bailout is, firstly, a vastly inflated figure and secondly, only bails out the potential capital of maybe 4 or 5 large banks, at the most. Most banks make a profit long term.

The figures reported and presented to the public are often wildly inaccurate and are very much aimed at demonising bankers. Whilst we bankers are deserving of this, it still stands that the figures are simply wrong. It's more the reaction to a banking crisis that causes an economic collapse than the actual crisis.

>>4748616
cause those are the banks that were holding the hot potato at the time, could have been any of them, net loss is still greater

So crazy idea: in the long run the best way to make money is to manufacture weapons and be neutral.

>>4748623

I don't mean this in a bad way, really, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Billions in losses mean very little in the grand scheme of things in finance. Somewhere between 5 and 6 trillion dollars worth of currency, assets, everything is traded every single day. In my medium-large sized hedge fund I've seen losses and near-losses of unimaginable numbers. We have an actual capital of something around $40bn. We have almost (single-handedly, mind you) caused losses of maybe 10 times that. All finance is based on leverage. Every cog turns a bigger cog in the machine. This is where the idea of "making money out of nothing" comes from.

The (inflated) losses are still less than net profit.

>>4748643
So how would I go about opening a bank like that?

>>4748607
You should see what's going on at /x/ at the moment.
>>>/x/

HeIIo, reader. If you started reading this, don't stop or else. I hate people who post these kind of comments but.... Post this to 2 threads in 10 minutes and promise your self to never listen to these kind of comments or make one up. But this one is real.If you don't post this, a boy with no head or legs wiIl show up in ur room at midnight kiII you. Everyone will forget u. start posting. the timer will start as soon as you finish reading this. yes I do hate these coments

>>4748645

Expand on this. A bank like what? And clarify "opening".

>>4748616
>an $800bn bailout is, firstly, a vastly inflated figure
Uh... the actual bailout was more like $2 trillion, and the banks lost more than that.

In fact, they lost more than all investment profits ever made in banking in the history of the world. This happened in the 80s and again in the 90s, too.

>>4748657

Where do you get these figures from? They're just not true. You realise a loss of $2 trillion would make the depression of the '30s look like a prosperous time? The banks that went under didn't have $2 trillion to lose in the first place. The knock-on losses are, as I said, vastly exaggerated.

This is a related question: what career would let me see the most underage vaginas per week? Bonus points if it's in person, but I will accept video or photographic careers.

>>4748666

I would presume pediatrician. Gynaecologists don't deal with underage girls.

If you want money you need to be a capitalist who doesn't give a shit about anyone.

In short; you have to be a money manager. Start a fund, get some people to trust you. If your results are good the money will follow.

>>4748616
>only bails out the potential capital of maybe 4 or 5 large banks
>potential capital
>not the banks' own money, which they could hand out to investors
The capital banks have to work with is not their money. Some of it is money they borrowed, some of it is money they're allowed to magic up out of nothing.

To paint a simplified picture:

If person A deposits $1 million in the bank, and person B borrows $1 million and pays it to people who deposit it in the same bank, the bank still has $1 million to lend to Person C, who is likely to have it end up in the same bank to be lent to Person D. This is "inflation": a seed of $1 million has become $4 million on deposit, like a balloon being blown up.

Banks can make a lot of money drawing interest on the inflationary currency they've created, but they can also lose tremendous amounts of money. They may only have a net debt of $1 million to the initial depositor A, but if B, C, and D can default on their loans, and the bank is still on the hook for the other $3 million owed to depositors.

None of this is the bank's money. They don't own the $4 million, or even $1 million. Their actual money is only what they have accumulated from the difference between interest they get and the interest they must pay their depositors.

Their profits are quite small compared to their exposure if the whole house of cards falls down, which is a regular occurrence. It's not hard for the bank to end up owing depositors or creditors many times more than all the profits they've made over decades, especially if they've been paying lavish salaries and bonuses to the people setting up the whole mess.

>>4748664
>Where do you get these figures from?
From the IMF.

>>4748664
>Where do you get these figures from? They're just not true.

They are, as ridiculously huge as they are they are still true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#Amounts
>The Fed's revised goal became to keep holdings at the $2.054 trillion level.
And that's just the US, the EU is at the same level or worse off.

>>4748684

I know this. Why are you telling me this? It neither adds nor detracts from anything I've said.

>>4748688

They're sensationalist numbers. At least they're not saying it's $20bn, like some newspapers did. The IMF is accounting for losses of potential capital and potential gain; i.e. money that wasn't there in the first place. The real loss was much less. The effect, unfortunately, is still the same. So I suppose I agree with you in a sense, but banks themselves still usually profit.

>>4748695
see
>>4748706

It's not real loss.

>>4748708
I guess the people dead in war is not real deaths either.

Go suck goverment dick apologist faggot.

>>4748708
>>4748706
same banker-guy here

I realise this may seem like a cop-out on a technicality and, in a sense, it is, but the original point which I was trying to make - that banks profit over time - stands.

>>4748706
>banks themselves still usually profit.
If not for the bailout, their losses would have wiped out everything they earned since the last time they needed to be bailed out, just like what happened that time, and the time before.

In the long run, banks only make profit in one of two ways:
1) plundering their deposits, or
2) government handouts.

There's no net profit, there's only managing to distribute cash to owners which can't be clawed back to satisfy creditors and depositors when the inevitable failure comes.

So I'm retarded: I chose a liberal arts degree and realized too late that it was bullshit. I have a math minor and a shit GPA because I rushed into math after not doing it for years. I'm aiming to take an online program in quantitative finance from LSE and then transition to a) law school, b) government work, or c) finance. Anyone know if masters GPA somewhere like that (maybe plus a masters from a real school) will cancel out a >3.00 undergrad GPA? I'm much smarter now than I was, and I'm doing internships in government to get some real work experience under my belt (for no money since I suck). Thought I might ask if anyone knows what my chances are like here as well as elsewhere.

>>4748729

>their losses would have wiped out everything they earned since the last time they needed to be bailed out

I really don't see how or why you think this. Is there some magical source that I and no one else in finance has heard of? It just isn't true. One banks losses may have wiped out its entire previous profits, but it doesn't hold true for every bank.

Banks make profit when something else - be it a country, another bank, companies, whatever - loses. This may be why you think that banks make no net profit, but they do - for themselves. They don't add money to the economy. They manipulate it.

>>4748744
Well, not every bank individually lost more than their total previous profits, but on the whole, those that did lost more than enough to make up for the others.

You keep talking about "losses of potential capital and potential gain" but the bottom line is that many huge banks found themselves deep underwater: legally obligated to pay out, on demand, amounts far larger than others are legally obligated to pay to them.

They ended up with negative net worth larger than their total historical profits.

You can go on about how this is all imaginary money and none of it really matters, but the bottom line is: banks don't make money in the long run. Their whole thing is set up so they are exposed to vastly greater potential losses than potential profits, and sooner or later it always goes wrong.

>>4748769

That "sooner or later" can negate any argument. Sooner or later a car will break down. Does it mean the car was bad? No. Will it render the car useless from there on out? Yes. Within a reasonable timeframe, large banks still make a profit. The fact that some medium sized banks (looking at you, Northern Rock) lost more than their enitre previous profit and lost enough that the government had to bail them out for much more than they were actually worth has no bearing on the matter. Let's agree to disagree because we've both been saying the same thing for about an hour.

>>4748786
It wasn't "some medium banks" it was "most of the large banks" and "the banks, collectively".

>That "sooner or later" can negate any argument. Sooner or later a car will break down. Does it mean the car was bad? No. Will it render the car useless from there on out? Yes. Within a reasonable timeframe, large banks still make a profit.

What is this now? "Sometimes banks lose money in the short term, and eventually they lose all the money they ever made and then some, but for some medium timescales, between the bad years and the inevitable disaster, they appear temporarily profitable."?

Banks can make money by being humble, by handling transactions and not taking risks. Maybe some banks do, but not the big ones. And big banking crises come along about once a decade.

What you're saying is exactly what the banks pay so much for: respectable-looking, reasonable-sounding bullshit to justify why they should be allowed to have everyone's money.