Comment by ericsoderstrom | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericsoderstrom | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I recently read The Idea Factory [1] which covers Bell Labs in its heyday. Many of the most brilliant human beings of that era worked for very modest salaries, and seemed content to do so. I wonder why it is that nowadays the "smartest" people tend to work in tech or finance and mostly pursue wealth. A few possibilities:

1. The rate of meaningful new discoveries in basic research has slowed significantly compared to the mid 1900s. Most important advances now involve enormous groups of researchers, and require decades of work. So the basic research route is less appealing overall.

2. Technology and finance provide clear avenues for outsized financial returns that simply weren't available in the past. Enrico Fermi, for example, was fairly enterprising. He wasn't an academic ascetic at least, and made some effort to amass wealth. But the best strategies he came up with were publishing textbooks and maybe some dabbling in the stock market (That is if I remember my details from The Last Man Who Knew Everything [2] correctly)

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11797471-the-idea-factor...

[2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34746094-the-last-man-wh...

> [...] Many of the most brilliant human beings of that era worked for very modest salaries, and seemed content to do so.

IMHO this is so obvious -- cost of living, especially housing, healthcare, and higher-education.

A modest salary back in the 80s was good enough to raise a family on. A modest salary these days rarely does. Let me present some actual numbers:

My father purchased a house for ~30k USD. His annual salary was ~30k USD. He was always insistent on working at non-profits and did that for decades as an accountant/auditor/comptroller.

Today, I cannot easily afford the same house even on a mid-high-end salary because the affordability ratio is enormous 2x or 3x. Forget about affording that house on a non-profit org salary.

Further, Bell Labs was a very safe job, you didnt have to worry about layoffs as much back then. So you could further afford things by making a bet on an affordable suburb. That is a harder bet today -- you move to some affordable suburb (which still isnt as affordable as it used to be) and suddenly you've lost your job. You better hope it is close to a commutable metro area.

Same thing with healthcare. Same thing with higher ed. I joined finance, and later tech, because I saw the writing on the wall -- not because I was "pursuing wealth" but because I was pursuing the same exact lifestyle my dad had as a default.

> [...] Many of the most brilliant human beings of that era worked for very modest salaries, and seemed content to do so. I wonder why it is that nowadays the "smartest" people tend to work in tech or finance and mostly pursue wealth. A few possibilities:

This is something in essence that some of us at MIT get told by faculty upon telling them that we want to go into industry. Behind it, though, there is often a fair bit of arrogance: many of them can not truthfully say that they would not do the same if they had to accept an academic position at a "tier 2" place, long postdoc, etc.

That said, the spirit of the point is perfectly fine. My own personal answer is that I have no personal issue with the compensation in academia; the associated "bureaucracy" which is far more severe today (paper/citation counts, and other things of even less significance) turns me away. It remains to be seen for myself how "industrial bureaucracy" compares with it. However, everyone I know has told me that in terms of personal happiness/fulfillment, people who leave are usually much better off.

I mention this as I had a conversation where someone essentially assumed point 1 or 2 rather than the distinct reason above.

On the other hand, why should brilliant people work for modest salaries, creating wealth for others?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in?

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs?

It is a very recent idea that the best society is created by everyone pursuing only their own self-interest.

>> From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs?

Honestly curious about which country you live in? I know some Nordic countries operate this way, but certainly not the US. Here in the US the above strategy would be a crushing losing one -- because the latter half of the "agreement" does not hold.

Suppose you do offer from your abilities and dedicate your live to research, non-profits, education, whatever. There is no social agreement on the other side "to each according to their needs." It is not as if dedicating your life to good social causes suddenly causes massive medical co-pays/co-insurance/deductibles to disappear. It is not as if dedicating your life to good social causes suddenly lands your children a good education (more likely, you'll end up in an impoverished school district with lots of problems.)

What you're proposing works well when both sides of the agreement are in place. Other than that, people have go into social good knowing full well they may pay the cost.

I have a relative who runs a non-profit community medical clinic for those without insurance. From what I can see, the family lives paycheck to paycheck. If the roof breaks or boiler goes bust I can see them being in a lot of trouble.

They accepted this fact and still do it. But that is a very personal and risky decision. One cannot browbeat others into taking such risky decisions.

The question was what people should do, not how viable that is. It is up to the voters and the legislature to establish a society where doing what should be done is possible.

I agree that people shouldn't be blamed for looking out for their own needs first (within limits - when billionaires use underhanded tactics to expand their empires, they certainly should be blamed). But I also think working only for your own self-interest shouldn't be idealized, as is more and more the case in the US.

As for which country I live in - one where people are taxed based on their income (from each according to their abilities), and that money is used mostly to fund things for the common good, such as medical care, education, and a social safety net (to each according to their needs). The degree of this transfer is greater than in the US, but that's just it - it's only a matter of degree.

No it's not a very recent idea. That's incredibly myopic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com