The New York Times had an article on the young turks populating the two room offices in Greenwich, CT. I’m both disgusted and jealous after reading the article. Quotes like this, “If you look at the really successful hedge fund managers — the Eddie Lamperts,” he says, “they’re all in their 40s now. They were probably making only low single-digit millions in their 20s.” (Mr. Hammond of Alperian), makes me want to puke. Anyone who says “only low single-digit millions,” I find absurdly out of touch with the rest of the world.
Aside from “the low single-digit millions”, the article in many ways is particularly pertinent to myself. I’m one of those “young turks: who chose not to go to business school. However, I’m just poorer, scruffier looking and badly dressed. I’m not on Wall Street or in Greenwich, but I do work in trading. In my own calculation a few years back, it just didn’t make sense for me to go. I’m not making the kind of money the people profiled in the article are making, but I’ve been lucky, and have managed to do well. My relative success is as much a function of luck (being at the right place at the right time) as much as some level of competence and an aptitude for my work. One doesn’t need to be making million of dollars to think that an MBA is unnecessary. One just needs to realize that doors might already be open, regardless of current income levels. Not everybody works just to make more and more money.
Still, MBA’s do make sense for some people, and Flexo at Consumerist Commentary covers well those points. Personally, I believe if you want a change in industry or area of work, a grad degree like an MBA makes sense. If it’s just advancement that’s not coming at the current job, then change is also necessary. That change doesn’t have to be school, it can be sometimes mean simply going to a competitor.
The NYT article is not about grad school in general, it’s about the riches that freshly minted MBAs chase, and that now new minted hedge fund worker bees receive. I won’t lie. There’s a part of me that’s fascinated by the fast life and jet set ways of the hedge fund set (we get Trader Monthly here at the office, but mostly just to laugh at), but a bigger part of me is repulsed by the rampant materialism and never ending chase for greater wealth and power. I like to think my values are a bit better than that (I hope). Still, when you look at the numbers, it’s hard not to feel some kind of pull. While the New York Times article is sensationalistic in its profile of the rich, talking about how they like to join the ranks of the uber rich, there is a deeper story.
Lost in the pomp and flash, is a story about being able to choose what we do. Many of those surveyed were quoted as wanting to do “less lucrative things like running a charity, working for the government, spending time with their families, or inventing new technologies” later in life. And when they say later in life, these individuals are talking about the ripe old age of 35 or so. Making millions of dollars before the age of 35 is not the only way we can choose what we do. Few of us have that kind of choice. However, most of us of have the choice and ability to instill simplicity into our lives, allowing for the freedom of spirit that we really crave. We might be able to get out of the rat race at the age 35, but achieving such as goal at the age 45 is reachable for many of us.
Subscribe