I have a degree in physics and don't work in physics because I wanted to make money. The fact is, to get paid well someone bigger than you has got to want what you do bad enough to pay up. There are 1.3 billion people in China, 1 billion in India, and 300 million in the U.S. Do you offer something so unique that people want to pay you more? Or are you easily replaced?
My fellow physics graduates that wanted to stay in physics wanted to do research. First, the physics that man understands is far beyond what we have been able to utilize, so we don't necessarily need new ground breaking research as much as uses for what we already know. Second, what you do eventually has to be monetized. If your employer can't make money off you, he doesn't need you.
Lastly, define "high paying". The average income in the U.S. is somewhere in the $35,000 range. Then there are the financial wizards, namely CEOs and money managers. All of the top 100 hedge fund managers/ traders made at least $150 million last year, with the top 5 or so making around $800,000,000 (traderdaily.com for info). Basically, if you think making $60,000 or $80,000 or even $100,000 is a lot of money, you aren't even close to getting rich. If you want to be a scientist, you have to want to do the science regardless of the pay. That wasn't me.
Excuse me??? If it wasn't for wall street Google would not have the billions of dollars that they have to spend. Let me explain to you how wall street works since obviously you have a one sided and narrow view of the world. If a company with significant potential but lack of funds wants to grow, they can sell a stake in the company in exchange for cash money to spend on growing the business. Google has done this twice, both with the IPO and with a secondary offering. To say that Google doesn't play the wall street game is simply stupid. They are already playing it because they agreed to let other people take an ownership stake in the company. Now other people have a say in how Google is run but the management at Google (programmer entrepreneurs with a lack of business sense) don't like being told what to do... ever. If you look through Google's financial statements for the past couple years, you will see that they have poor spending restraint. Their assets only grew in the last year because wall street gave them another 1.2B dollars. Also, with the number of options they are giving out to employees what is essentially happening is that they are taking shareholder money from the open market and giving it to employees, which I have no problem with when taken to a certain degree, but Google is handing out options like candy and therefore affecting the ownership stake of all other shareholders of the company. Additionally, they are showing the same spending irrationality that is attributed to the average American consumer without the corresponding increased return on investment. Most recently, the stock price is beginning to reflect how juvenile the company's operations are.
Not exactly. They missed for several reasons, some of them relating to how well their business is run. While revenues were up, so were costs, both from spending more on acquisitions and hiring, and from expensing stock options. And there were a lot of stock options.
Also, it is up to the CFO to know inside and out the financials of the company, so when he expects a 30% rate and it turns out to be a 40% tax rate, you have to wonder what he didn't know. Lots of CXXs have been fired for less.
You can argue that maybe if they didn't have to pay so many taxes they would have made more money, but then I can argue the same thing... but it won't change the fact that I have to pay them.
I browsed through the whole damn blog trying to figure out why each of the two guys that write the blog quit. One said
"I guess the #1 FAQ for people who have left Google is why did you leave. My main reason for leaving was that I was commuting from Los Angeles. I'd fly up on Southwest early Monday morning, fly back on Thursday evening, and telecommute on Fridays and weekends. That regimen was pretty stressful even under the best of circumstances, but when 9/11 happened it became completely untenable. I had already given my notice before 9/11, but I don't think I could have stayed on after that even if I had wanted to. But I'm getting ahead of myself."
From what I could tell, the other one, "Doug", made a decent chunk of change in stock options and doesn't have to work anymore. Probably the same is true for the first guy also.
This is simply a question of whether you want to pay a company for broadband support or be taxed by the government for it. America supports free markets, and government broadband would be poorly funded and poorly run. Just look at social security, medicare, welfare, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And they can't all have an average IQ of 150. A 100 IQ is, by definition, the average.
11% of the population is evil doers. If we don't get the number down to 0%, the terrorists win.
I have a degree in physics and don't work in physics because I wanted to make money. The fact is, to get paid well someone bigger than you has got to want what you do bad enough to pay up. There are 1.3 billion people in China, 1 billion in India, and 300 million in the U.S. Do you offer something so unique that people want to pay you more? Or are you easily replaced?
My fellow physics graduates that wanted to stay in physics wanted to do research. First, the physics that man understands is far beyond what we have been able to utilize, so we don't necessarily need new ground breaking research as much as uses for what we already know. Second, what you do eventually has to be monetized. If your employer can't make money off you, he doesn't need you.
Lastly, define "high paying". The average income in the U.S. is somewhere in the $35,000 range. Then there are the financial wizards, namely CEOs and money managers. All of the top 100 hedge fund managers/ traders made at least $150 million last year, with the top 5 or so making around $800,000,000 (traderdaily.com for info). Basically, if you think making $60,000 or $80,000 or even $100,000 is a lot of money, you aren't even close to getting rich. If you want to be a scientist, you have to want to do the science regardless of the pay. That wasn't me.
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/ Someone beat them to it.
Excuse me??? If it wasn't for wall street Google would not have the billions of dollars that they have to spend. Let me explain to you how wall street works since obviously you have a one sided and narrow view of the world. If a company with significant potential but lack of funds wants to grow, they can sell a stake in the company in exchange for cash money to spend on growing the business. Google has done this twice, both with the IPO and with a secondary offering. To say that Google doesn't play the wall street game is simply stupid. They are already playing it because they agreed to let other people take an ownership stake in the company. Now other people have a say in how Google is run but the management at Google (programmer entrepreneurs with a lack of business sense) don't like being told what to do... ever. If you look through Google's financial statements for the past couple years, you will see that they have poor spending restraint. Their assets only grew in the last year because wall street gave them another 1.2B dollars. Also, with the number of options they are giving out to employees what is essentially happening is that they are taking shareholder money from the open market and giving it to employees, which I have no problem with when taken to a certain degree, but Google is handing out options like candy and therefore affecting the ownership stake of all other shareholders of the company. Additionally, they are showing the same spending irrationality that is attributed to the average American consumer without the corresponding increased return on investment. Most recently, the stock price is beginning to reflect how juvenile the company's operations are.
Not exactly. They missed for several reasons, some of them relating to how well their business is run. While revenues were up, so were costs, both from spending more on acquisitions and hiring, and from expensing stock options. And there were a lot of stock options. Also, it is up to the CFO to know inside and out the financials of the company, so when he expects a 30% rate and it turns out to be a 40% tax rate, you have to wonder what he didn't know. Lots of CXXs have been fired for less. You can argue that maybe if they didn't have to pay so many taxes they would have made more money, but then I can argue the same thing... but it won't change the fact that I have to pay them.
Google already came out and denied any involvement with napster, according to this
I browsed through the whole damn blog trying to figure out why each of the two guys that write the blog quit. One said "I guess the #1 FAQ for people who have left Google is why did you leave. My main reason for leaving was that I was commuting from Los Angeles. I'd fly up on Southwest early Monday morning, fly back on Thursday evening, and telecommute on Fridays and weekends. That regimen was pretty stressful even under the best of circumstances, but when 9/11 happened it became completely untenable. I had already given my notice before 9/11, but I don't think I could have stayed on after that even if I had wanted to. But I'm getting ahead of myself." From what I could tell, the other one, "Doug", made a decent chunk of change in stock options and doesn't have to work anymore. Probably the same is true for the first guy also.
This is simply a question of whether you want to pay a company for broadband support or be taxed by the government for it. America supports free markets, and government broadband would be poorly funded and poorly run. Just look at social security, medicare, welfare, etc.