Things you have recently learnt
Comments
-
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world0 -
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world0 -
TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
It's about the opportunities to earn a lot, right? And that, as we know, is heavily stacked against vast swathes of society.TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world0 -
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.0 -
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.0 -
Of course opportunity is a factor. You have had far more than someone born in many other countries, and similarly, there will be people born in the UK who have better opportunities than you in that they have received a better education or know the right people. Nonetheless, no employer pays more than they need to, so the highly paid do tend to have some skills even if those skills include unparalleled ability to self-promote.rick_chasey said:TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
It's about the opportunities to earn a lot, right? And that, as we know, is heavily stacked against vast swathes of society.TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world0 -
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
0 -
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.
0 -
Spend some time in a deprived town and come back to me and tell me it’s not luck.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.
My wife’s friends in Doncaster are smarter and harder working than any of mine and none of them earn over £50k and all of my mine do.
It’s mainly who your parents are, and where you were born.0 -
I already mentioned that, but there are still plenty of people who make it from deprived towns, and you are telling them they are lucky.rick_chasey said:
Spend some time in a deprived town and come back to me and tell me it’s not luck.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.0 -
I wasn't refering to anyone earning that much, but then 300k is off the charts of my companies salary bands...TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
I mean, take the typical graduate going in to an engineering company, if you're lucky you get put on project a, if you're not, project b.
A is something easy, that has lots of value to the right people. B is the opposite.
If you're unlucky but particularly good, maybe you can make a success of b, or manage to move off B.
Either way you're not in as good a position as the other guy/gal.
0 -
Are you saying the ones who don't make it, are deserving?TheBigBean said:
I already mentioned that, but there are still plenty of people who make it from deprived towns, and you are telling them they are lucky.rick_chasey said:
Spend some time in a deprived town and come back to me and tell me it’s not luck.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.0 -
Having dealt with a small cross section of high earners, I would say that the main determinant of remuneration is how much money is washing around in that industry. Ability and merit have a secondary effect on where you end up within that industry, along with a big helping of luck and where you start from.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.
You are right that employers don't pay people a lot because they are clever but because they have the required skills to generate profit for the employer. It depends what is needed.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not sure I agree with the bold bit. Certainly not my experience (asking anyone and everyone what they’re paid and asking firms what they’ll pay people)TheBigBean said:
Of course opportunity is a factor. You have had far more than someone born in many other countries, and similarly, there will be people born in the UK who have better opportunities than you in that they have received a better education or know the right people. Nonetheless, no employer pays more than they need to, so the highly paid do tend to have some skills even if those skills include unparalleled ability to self-promote.rick_chasey said:TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
It's about the opportunities to earn a lot, right? And that, as we know, is heavily stacked against vast swathes of society.TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world0 -
This is just basic economics. An inefficiently run firm will struggle to compete and ultimately fail.rick_chasey said:
Not sure I agree with the bold bit. Certainly not my experience (asking anyone and everyone what they’re paid and asking firms what they’ll pay people)TheBigBean said:
Of course opportunity is a factor. You have had far more than someone born in many other countries, and similarly, there will be people born in the UK who have better opportunities than you in that they have received a better education or know the right people. Nonetheless, no employer pays more than they need to, so the highly paid do tend to have some skills even if those skills include unparalleled ability to self-promote.rick_chasey said:TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
It's about the opportunities to earn a lot, right? And that, as we know, is heavily stacked against vast swathes of society.TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world0 -
I understand the angle you are coming from and I was lucky to have some good years when some money was sloshing around, but in the end it all normalises as other people enter the market, and ability to compete becomes the main driver.rjsterry said:
Having dealt with a small cross section of high earners, I would say that the main determinant of remuneration is how much money is washing around in that industry. Ability and merit have a secondary effect on where you end up within that industry, along with a big helping of luck and where you start from.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.
You are right that employers don't pay people a lot because they are clever but because they have the required skills to generate profit for the employer. It depends what is needed.0 -
Sure but markets aren’t efficient, especially labour markets.TheBigBean said:
This is just basic economics. An inefficiently run firm will struggle to compete and ultimately fail.rick_chasey said:
Not sure I agree with the bold bit. Certainly not my experience (asking anyone and everyone what they’re paid and asking firms what they’ll pay people)TheBigBean said:
Of course opportunity is a factor. You have had far more than someone born in many other countries, and similarly, there will be people born in the UK who have better opportunities than you in that they have received a better education or know the right people. Nonetheless, no employer pays more than they need to, so the highly paid do tend to have some skills even if those skills include unparalleled ability to self-promote.rick_chasey said:TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
It's about the opportunities to earn a lot, right? And that, as we know, is heavily stacked against vast swathes of society.TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
Otherwise, amongst other things, we’d have much better diversity in the labour market, for starters.
0 -
I don't understand your question.Jezyboy said:
Are you saying the ones who don't make it, are deserving?TheBigBean said:
I already mentioned that, but there are still plenty of people who make it from deprived towns, and you are telling them they are lucky.rick_chasey said:
Spend some time in a deprived town and come back to me and tell me it’s not luck.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.0 -
This. Although that feedback loop can be quite slow to take effect.TheBigBean said:
This is just basic economics. An inefficiently run firm will struggle to compete and ultimately fail.rick_chasey said:
Not sure I agree with the bold bit. Certainly not my experience (asking anyone and everyone what they’re paid and asking firms what they’ll pay people)TheBigBean said:
Of course opportunity is a factor. You have had far more than someone born in many other countries, and similarly, there will be people born in the UK who have better opportunities than you in that they have received a better education or know the right people. Nonetheless, no employer pays more than they need to, so the highly paid do tend to have some skills even if those skills include unparalleled ability to self-promote.rick_chasey said:TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
It's about the opportunities to earn a lot, right? And that, as we know, is heavily stacked against vast swathes of society.TheBigBean said:
That's quite niche. They do have some skills just not the ones they think they have.rick_chasey said:
All the mediocre fund managers and IBers I speak to on a regular basis.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Honestly, labour markets are not efficient.
Nor are people actually paid their worth. Far far too many factors go into what they’re paid and what they’re worth is way way down the list.
It’s all luck. Where you’re born, what’s going on in the world, parents, timing, the lot.
Even the really successful entrepreneurs are lucky. They have to work hard to get that exposure to the luck but it’s luck nonetheless.0 -
As I see it, a possible conclusion from saying that luck played no part in people who made it from deprived towns, is that those who come from deprived towns and don't make it, just didn't work hard/smart enough.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand your question.Jezyboy said:
Are you saying the ones who don't make it, are deserving?TheBigBean said:
I already mentioned that, but there are still plenty of people who make it from deprived towns, and you are telling them they are lucky.rick_chasey said:
Spend some time in a deprived town and come back to me and tell me it’s not luck.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.
0 -
People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth. Employers can make an incorrect estimate of the value of that person to their business, if that's what you mean.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I’ve put forward candidates for the same role on £70k and £350k.rjsterry said:People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth.
They did roughly the same job and had roughly the same potential. One guy did it for a regional business, one guy for a big US business.
Labour markets are not efficient. At all.
0 -
If you can only say "roughly the same job", then that differential has to be explained by other factors. I can think of roles in my industry that on paper look very similar, but are working in different sectors with different margins and different clients. This comes back to how much money is involved. If the US guy is dealing with funds (?) an order of magnitude larger, then there's just more money available to pay him and greater responsibility than the regional guy. The lawyer dealing with celebrity divorces will be paid more than the high street solicitor because the sums involved are much greater.rick_chasey said:
I’ve put forward candidates for the same role on £70k and £350k.rjsterry said:People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth.
They did roughly the same job and had roughly the same potential. One guy did it for a regional business, one guy for a big US business.
Labour markets are not efficient. At all.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lol not 7x. One is a US business and likes paying a lot and one isn’t.rjsterry said:
If you can only say "roughly the same job", then that differential has to be explained by other factors. I can think of roles in my industry that on paper look very similar, but are working in different sectors with different margins and different clients.rick_chasey said:
I’ve put forward candidates for the same role on £70k and £350k.rjsterry said:People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth.
They did roughly the same job and had roughly the same potential. One guy did it for a regional business, one guy for a big US business.
Labour markets are not efficient. At all.
The US people there aren’t all adding 7x the value.
Honestly, it’s my job to know what they do for a living; it’s the same job with different logos on the business cards.
It’s all luck and taking advantage of the luck.
I hear a dozen careers every day. It’s all the same story. “Just so happened” this, luckily that.
I count myself in this too. Even if iso get this thing off the ground, it’s all luck I even get to do it at all.0 -
I said that some people have more opportunity than others and that luck can play a part, but someone who earns more than a peer quite often has simply worked harder, cared about it more, been gifted with skills (also lucky) etc. rather than won a lottery ticket.Jezyboy said:
As I see it, a possible conclusion from saying that luck played no part in people who made it from deprived towns, is that those who come from deprived towns and don't make it, just didn't work hard/smart enough.TheBigBean said:
I don't understand your question.Jezyboy said:
Are you saying the ones who don't make it, are deserving?TheBigBean said:
I already mentioned that, but there are still plenty of people who make it from deprived towns, and you are telling them they are lucky.rick_chasey said:
Spend some time in a deprived town and come back to me and tell me it’s not luck.TheBigBean said:
I find this view really weird. I'm not for a second arguing that they are all super intelligent, but they are good at what they need to do. That said, fund managers main skill is persuading people they have a skill and that they manage the money well even if there is strong evidence to contrary.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it’s mainly luck and a bit of taking the opportunity.TheBigBean said:
Yes although that is more of a one off bit of luck that makes someone wealthy through their shareholding. The brother of someone I know made lots of money selling an internet company during the dot com boom. It didn't even work. I liken that to making loads through inheritance, lottery etc. Complete luck, but he is not going to get a large salary from another company.Jezyboy said:
Some senior managers at youngish large companies that grew at the right points in their careers.TheBigBean said:
Give me an example of a lucky high earner.rick_chasey said:
I think the opposite.TheBigBean said:
I don't think high earners are lucky. Some clearly are, but not the majority.rick_chasey said:
Luck, mainly.TheBigBean said:
You've missed the point. It is not that someone who is intelligent has low social skills, but that you can't earn a fortune unless you have good social skills. Therefore the correlation between earnings and intelligence breaks down because other skills become important.rick_chasey said:
massively object to the assumption very smart = low social skills.TheBigBean said:
That's consistent with my expectations. If you take the example of someone who is extremely intelligent, but has limited social skills, there aren't many ways for them to beyond very wealthy. Hedge funds and an ingenious invention would be the ones I could think of.rick_chasey said:Obvious but now with evidence:
https://www.ft.com/content/f716bea0-21eb-4ac5-923e-e268d307f3e6The one per cent are not as clever as they think
his man was suffering from the Davos Fallacy: the notion that very high earners are also very clever. But at the top end of incomes this isn’t true, according to a new study of 59,000 Swedish men. The highest-earning 1 per cent and the brainiest 1 per cent seem to be two largely separate groups, with little overlap. If that’s so, how should we treat each elite?Up to wages of about €60,000, cognitive ability did predict income: the cleverer you were, the more you earned. But above €60,000, the relationship broke down. In fact, the top 1 per cent of earners had slightly lower cognitive ability than the men two percentiles below them, despite being paid more than twice as much.
IMO low correlation unless we start talking neurodiversity - autistic etc.
Not least the basic social mobility problems across the world
As ever, it's not just luck. But I think it can be the defining difference between often more or less equally qualified colleagues.
I was more referring to someone earning £300k+ pa. Someone else is paying them that and I don't think it is just luck involved.
In contrast, a friend's hedge fund is easily one of the highest concentrations of clever people I have come across.0 -
Ok, why do you think they like to pay a lot (or is it actually the other firm that is in trouble and can't afford more?). It definitely isn't because they are nice guys. As TBB said that just leads to failure.rick_chasey said:
Lol not 7x. One is a US business and likes paying a lot and one isn’t.rjsterry said:
If you can only say "roughly the same job", then that differential has to be explained by other factors. I can think of roles in my industry that on paper look very similar, but are working in different sectors with different margins and different clients.rick_chasey said:
I’ve put forward candidates for the same role on £70k and £350k.rjsterry said:People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth.
They did roughly the same job and had roughly the same potential. One guy did it for a regional business, one guy for a big US business.
Labour markets are not efficient. At all.
The US people there aren’t all adding 7x the value.
Honestly, it’s my job to know what they do for a living; it’s the same job with different logos on the business cards.
It’s all luck and taking advantage of the luck.
I hear a dozen careers every day. It’s all the same story. “Just so happened” this, luckily that.
I count myself in this too. Even if iso get this thing off the ground, it’s all luck I even get to do it at all.
They must be hoping offering more achieves something.
And they may have made a mistake and they can't actually sustain that level of pay.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think you are ignoring the motivation to earn big bucks. You could chose to get get a similar job locally for a better work life balance and you would earn far less money.rick_chasey said:
Lol not 7x. One is a US business and likes paying a lot and one isn’t.rjsterry said:
If you can only say "roughly the same job", then that differential has to be explained by other factors. I can think of roles in my industry that on paper look very similar, but are working in different sectors with different margins and different clients.rick_chasey said:
I’ve put forward candidates for the same role on £70k and £350k.rjsterry said:People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth.
They did roughly the same job and had roughly the same potential. One guy did it for a regional business, one guy for a big US business.
Labour markets are not efficient. At all.
The US people there aren’t all adding 7x the value.
Honestly, it’s my job to know what they do for a living; it’s the same job with different logos on the business cards.
It’s all luck and taking advantage of the luck.
I hear a dozen careers every day. It’s all the same story. “Just so happened” this, luckily that.
I count myself in this too. Even if iso get this thing off the ground, it’s all luck I even get to do it at all.
The people you know in Doncaster have chosen not to chase the potential big bucks in one of the world’s premier commercial cities. Their reasons are neither right nor wrong but it is not luck that they earn less. Anyway if they earn £40k in Doncaster they are probably far wealthier than somebody earning £60k in London.0 -
Can we start a thread about a utopia where people all get equal pay and similar housing?
Ummm, nah forget that.
0 -
If you’re born in posh London you don’t have to give up where you grew up to chase the money.surrey_commuter said:
I think you are ignoring the motivation to earn big bucks. You could chose to get get a similar job locally for a better work life balance and you would earn far less money.rick_chasey said:
Lol not 7x. One is a US business and likes paying a lot and one isn’t.rjsterry said:
If you can only say "roughly the same job", then that differential has to be explained by other factors. I can think of roles in my industry that on paper look very similar, but are working in different sectors with different margins and different clients.rick_chasey said:
I’ve put forward candidates for the same role on £70k and £350k.rjsterry said:People don't have a fixed value, so I can't see how you can determine whether they are paid what they are worth.
They did roughly the same job and had roughly the same potential. One guy did it for a regional business, one guy for a big US business.
Labour markets are not efficient. At all.
The US people there aren’t all adding 7x the value.
Honestly, it’s my job to know what they do for a living; it’s the same job with different logos on the business cards.
It’s all luck and taking advantage of the luck.
I hear a dozen careers every day. It’s all the same story. “Just so happened” this, luckily that.
I count myself in this too. Even if iso get this thing off the ground, it’s all luck I even get to do it at all.
The people you know in Doncaster have chosen not to chase the potential big bucks in one of the world’s premier commercial cities. Their reasons are neither right nor wrong but it is not luck that they earn less. Anyway if they earn £40k in Doncaster they are probably far wealthier than somebody earning £60k in London.
It’s mainly luck.
0
