Hacker News Reader

The technology business may only be one component of the economy, but attracts a disproportionate share of ambitious people.

If you want to avoid social logjams, all you need is one domain where people aren't judged by their origins, and the people who want to get ahead will find it. History is full of examples of that. The world of startups is certainly a large and conspicuous enough target.

Sure, but the post appears to be addressing everyone, or at least everyone who has a job and wants to be paid well, not just super-ambitious people. He says:

"For the individual, I can offer no personal solution to this deep sociological problem. As far as I know, there’s none. I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business. Beyond that, I know of no solution."

ie, this is true for everyone outside of technology, not just the ambitious.

Don't forget the barriers to entry for technology. You have to have some combination of math, computer skills, and design knowledge, either a balance or amazing proficiency at one of them, so that rules out anyone who has been told they're "not a tech guy." On top of all that you practically have to be _over-confident_ in your skills and take a huge risk doing a startup.

You might say ambitious people wouldn't be subject to those restraints, but if we could do away with cognitive tendencies we wouldn't be dealing with these class barriers anyway.

Or, even, suppose that you're in another, non-software tech industry, like pharmaceuticals. That's way harder than it was 15 years ago, because of tighter FDA regulation. Just try getting a drug to market with less than $100,000,000 in capital, and very few people can raise that kind of capital.

Hell, even IN the tech industry... I'm extremely interested in VLSI, and I'm told most commercial available processing units cost in excess of $1,000,000,000 just to reach the first actual chip!

I know lots of people who started their own companies in fields that have nothing to do with technology, investment banking, etc. Most of them are doing well. Look around you - there are businesses everywhere. All started by someone. Heck, the woman down the street started a barber shop in an empty slot in a local strip mall.

With twitter, and social media, and all these email addresses all over web, if you have absolute merit then you can make those connections. It's a matter of persistence.

Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop. If you're really better than the boss you hate people will flock to you. Make sure the clients see you as a go-getter.

That investment shop will have every banker arguing that they deserve a gigantic compensation package. Add's a lot of overhead that you won't have starting out.

Accounting: Like most professional services the web has revolutionized accounting. You can now trivially have your accounting done anywhere in the world. How about you start your own shop by hiring and managing overseas workers? Or how about a cadre of accountants based in a low cost area of the US? Since 1995 other industries have been transformed by technology MORE than the tech sector. Netflix/iPod/Kindle anyone?

You've got me on pharmaceuticals, but it seems that regulation is the key here. I doubt communism would help with that.

"Investment banker: Work hard where you're at and then steal the client list to go start your own shop."

That's actually the one action where a non-compete is universally and trivially enforceable in all 50 states. As I understand it, IANAL. Additionally, it's unethical if you believe in that sort of thing. So, bad idea.

Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all.

If you sign a non-compete, are you surprised that it's difficult to go out and found a competing organization? If you can't manage starting your own investment firm, then you apply what you've learned as a banker to a different slice of the pie. Fundamentally you're looking at ways it won't work rather than looking at ways it can work.

"Not sure what communism has to do with anything. At all." The article? Specifically mentioned communism as the solution to these problems? If you're pointing to regulation as a barrier to entry then what the article recommends wouldn't help.

EDIT: Excuse me it advocates the universal solidarity of social justice to promote the overthrow of capitalism in the name of socialism whew, good thing I caught that. Someone could have confused socialism with communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago

Or if your dad is super rich, he can just give you enough enough money to start your own hedge fund at 25. Connections beat skill more often than we'd like to admit.

Sadly, this is not a hypothetical. I belong to a yacht club with more than 25-30 y/o living this exact dream.

Ok, so build your connections working as a banker?

People will like or dislike you for a number of reasons/bias. I once had a high dollar investment customer that would only deal with me because of my attitude. Others that refused to deal with me because of my attitude. Trying to say that there is one "right" way to act and it only comes with money just isn't accurate. One of the first things you realize with banking is how varied or even normal rich people are.

There is no one shibboleth used to filter out the people that don't belong. Judgementally approaching them, and acting like they are all elitist exclusionary cronies will make them happily oblige your fantasy.

An analyst/associate is not going to be able to go off and start his own boutique if he can't even make it to MD in an existing firm(s).

One reason you don't see bankers doing that is that their comp is already set to about 1/2 the revenue they bring in. (Banks target to have 50% of their banking revenue go to salaries.) Plus, you get reduced income volatility by pooling risk with the other bankers. So maybe they give up 10% of your income of $1MM plus, but they also don't have years when you make zero (and I've seen Managing Directors at a bank go a full year without closing a deal that generates revenue - it can take years to close an M&A or equity deal depending on the client.)

It's such a good deal that while you see bankers jumping from one big bank to another to improve their deal, you rarely see them starting a new bank.