Some actors grew up poor but I wouldn't go around telling poor people they can all become world-famous actors.
I'm not at all saying all 'consultants' are great at this either - 'consultants' work for 'big 5' firms and are just sent out on engagements, which isn't quite the 'consultant' we're talking about here (the word means many things).
I've worked with people on projects who couldn't sense when the other people in the room were veering off topic and not understanding a response. Also worked with people who could not ever understand they themselves were going offtopic and/or not understanding what the clients were saying. Talking to hear yourself talk is a big one. Not being able to adjust yourself to the project is a project (if you're working with a small $2m company of 10 people, repeating anecdotes from your $100m engagements isn't impressive, it's ... annoying and/or off-topic).
Not delivering when you say you will. Not calling people back when you say you will. Blaming everyone else but yourself - these are all problems I've seen (and experienced) myself as an independent consultant. Easier to mask/hide when you're "just" doing development as an internal employee someplace.
Also... you posted this and have asked a lot of questions. If you want to talk more offline, email me.
Of course most are like that: How much effort did they put in to become skilled developers, and how much on the business savvy? I'm guessing years on the former, and perhaps hours on the latter?
It's not that people can't develop those skills. It's that few want to, or realize that they have to.
I sort of agree, but ... we all know the people who try to get in to programming/development, but just never get it. They can try, and maybe even land a jr role some place, but it never really clicks, regardless of how long they work at it. I think the non-tech skills are like that in some measure as well.
Also, while I'm probably switching examples a bit, I'm not sure how much experience you need practicing skills like showing up on time, or answering emails (and without being rude or condescending). There may be people who need to "practice" not insulting clients' employees in emails to the same client, but I'm not sure how much practice one should need to have basic empathic ability. If you don't have some of that, how many years do you need "practicing" those skills?
The difference is that to do very well in tech/programming, you have to be well above the average.
For a lot of non-tech skills, merely being a bit above the average will get you far. In the context of this discussion, the primary skill the consultant has is still his technical skills. He merely upped his non-tech skills enough to prevent it from being a barrier.
Not interested in / willing to spend the time to do it? Marketing yourself is a full time job.
The $4k/week thing isn't since pretty much any decent consultant can command $100/hr which is what that weekly billing works out to.
But I learned over time to develop a abundance mentality -- rather than say 'it can't be done' -- to change my mode of thinking to say 'how did they do it, and is there anything for me to learn.'
A consultant making 5 figures a week is not a unicorn, it's not even that uncommon. But it's not just coding -- there's other steps that are also necessary but not sufficient. Building a reputation, building a following (a blog or email newsletter is a good way to get started), meeting people who open doors, etc.
> I used to have a similar scarcity mentality --- thinking that because other people were successful, it was like the lottery -- based purely on chance.
> But I learned over time to develop a abundance mentality -- rather than say 'it can't be done' -- to change my mode of thinking to say 'how did they do it, and is there anything for me to learn.'
You probably should look up 'reliably' and 'repeatable' and the definition of those words. You really should not attack a straw man.
I just understand the probability of X event is Y and I'm not naive enough to try to talk myself into wasting energy on low probability paths.
The 5 figures a week consultancy path is exactly such a low probability path.
But are you saying there is NO way to improve one's position in life and income? That, if a path can't be shown repeatedly and reliably in a double-blind clinical study, there is no value in attempting to improve oneself?
Do you believe income is fixed, and that if you can't hit a five figure mark, well -- you might as well not try?
I never stated that was the case.
> That, if a path can't be shown repeatedly and reliably in a double-blind clinical study, there is no value in attempting to improve oneself?
Money, beyond a basic level of ~$1k/week is mostly useless other than speeding up retirement.
> Do you believe income is fixed, and that if you can't hit a five figure mark, well -- you might as well not try?
You seem to think money = improving yourself = important.
I'm honestly more worried about you as a fellow human being and the misalignment of your goals than I am about whether I make $10k a week or $1k a week.
Consultants with relatively high rates are not unicorns, any more than lawyers or doctors with high rates are. This is not just repeatable, this is a fairly reasonable career path, much like “work at AppAmaGooBookSoft” is a lucrative but well-trod career path. (Which, btw, have in-the-door offers for mid-career professionals which are reasonably competitive with running a full-time consultancy at $30k/week.)
You are seriously going to engage me with the argument that $600k+ (20 weeks of paid engagements @ $30k/week) a year in income + benefits is common?
I think you have a greatly inflated opinion of what the top 25% of software developers get paid let alone what is reasonable and repeatable.
There are at least some people making $250/hr+ as a technical consultant. Is it 0.01%, 0.1% or 1%? Who knows.
But it's possible, and it's possible to get there if you're strategic about it.
I said it wasn't common which you are acknowledging. Simply because less some small percentage of people can mange it doesn't make it repeatable.
Similarly with sports, there is a huge range of player incomes and assuming the sport becomes more interesting to watch and thus profitable their would be room for more highly compensated players.
You also mentioned movies, but a lack of competent actors is far from the biggest reason there aren't more movies being produced.
In terms of movies, studios look a lot like a VC firm with a term sheet from hell. However, plenty of studios died over time and would be making moves today if their past movies where more profitable. Sure, you needs a direct / script / special effects etc, but low budget movies with simple scripts and great actors also work without X00 million dollar budgets. So, their is clearly some wiggle room in terms of number of movies produced per year.
Plenty of people are in a move, it takes something else to have the kind of run of a Robert De Niro or Anthony Hopkins. And generally people that have those kind of long runs are significantly more talented that many others.
They also often have family in the business, who presumably pass on more than just a foot in the door.
Extend that across all actors and you presumably get more profit without higher costs anywhere which should result in more movies. But, even without more movies higher profits mean actors are simply worth more and collectively would get paid more pushing up compensation for the full range.
So, again it need not be 1:1, but a significant increase in overall sales including for home entertainment can happen because people have options outside of moves like video games.
PS: Major 6 put out 128 movies in 2006, but only 78 in 2013.
So yes there is diminishing returns and actor quality would eventually stop being a meaningful constraint. But, again all I am saying is it's currently a meaningful constraint; not that it's always going to be one.
And the consequence for failure are huge: 90 players start the pre-season, and after training & a few pre-season games, teams have to drop that to 53. 10 extra can be part of a training squad, which represents a 75% pay cut compared to the league minimum for the 53.
Some players make 50x+ what other players are making. Having linemen make 10 million per year does not involve adding linemen it involves linemen that are worth being paid 10 million / year.
At the same time football has added new teams over time and increased both the number of players and minimum salary significantly from inception.
The whole point of the 1% is the remaining 99%. The axiom of this game is there are filters enough to filter out the 99%.
I can say that not only would I never get anywhere with math at that level, but some of the related mathematical pages on Wikipedia surpass my ability to even tell if they are real or the work of cranks.
For any random person, there are things they can't do or learn because of the way they're made, any more than a cow can do calculus.
What's deceptive is that people constantly tell you that you must believe in yourself. But the reason isn't that believing in yourself is sufficient for success - the reason is believing in yourself is necessary to succeed so everyone who is successful attributes their success to that.
It may take them 20 years to learn math from the ground up, but they can do it. Saying someone can't do something is bullshit. That's sheep mentality.
I've met Marines that were assholes so I'm guessing that 'join the Marine Corps' isn't as great advice as it first appears. Recently a Marine drill instructor was implicated in the abuse of Muslim recruits. That isn't a good leadership skill for the corporate environment. Your notion is too simplistic. It doesn't apply to everyone. It applies to some people but not all.
People lie on a spectrum in terms of abilities and personality. Not everyone can be molded to have the requisite knowledge/personality type to command high pay. It's simply not possible. Just take extreme examples and one can easily see this.
A Drill Instructor being a dickhead is also a choice. It doesn't make him any less able to be a leader. My point was, joining the Marine Corps turns weak individuals into respectable men that can command dignity and respect into people. What they choose to do with that transformation is up to them.
Peoples' personalities are also not always so malleable. My wife is a psychiatrist and she deals regularly with people who simply do not have the choice to change. Forces inside their brain are beyond their conscious control.
The Marine Corps sometimes turns weak individuals into respectable men. And sometimes it pumps out assholes. It doesn't work for everyone. This is obvious.
There's a substantial body of research suggesting otherwise.