<p>Should not be in investment banking and instead in science and math jobs, helping society instead being part of the system that wrecked the economy and is trying to make so they can still do it for their own personal benefit. Not saying the financial sector should be eliminated, just that your talents can be better spent somewhere other than Goldman Sachs.</p>
<p>I don't get it. Are you seriously just for the money?</p>
<p>Would you rather have dumber people handling the nation’s finances and wealth?</p>
<p>Have you taken economics at all? Compensation is the measure of how valuable your efforts are to society. It is patriotic to go out, work hard, and make money.</p>
<p>Not saying you shouldn’t make money, I’m saying you should make money using your brains in a field other than IB.</p>
<p>maxellis brought out a good point. A person’s compensation usually correlates with his/her productivity/contribution to the society (though not always the case). Bankers are in it to contribute to the world. Why shouldn’t the smartest people on earth aim to use their talent to contribute as much as they can to the world? They should, and that’s why they pursue high paying jobs in finance, medicine, and law, because these jobs typically enables them to contribute more than jobs in other fields.
If the smartest people didn’t go into finance, then it’s likely that most if not all products and services in this world would be produced much less efficiently, lowering everyone’s standards of living overall.
If you are suggesting that a person taking on a math job would generally contribute more to society than an investment banker, then please back it up with evidence.</p>
<p>Finance/Medicine/Law pretty much in no way influence the median income of a country. </p>
<p>Patent and technology generation (on a per capita measure) are far more important to the median income of a country than anything related to finance. The vast majority of wealth creation on a global scale comes from technology generation. Finance professionals are good at siphoning off little bits of this to themselves and get paid very well for it. The only solution (if one thinks this is a problem) is government regulation.</p>
<p>In an ideal society, pure technology and innovation would directly add wealth to society. But, in our system financiers are very important in creating that wealth. Big time financiers can help move entire industries, and the value of that industry will grow if they grow. It’s very hard for people to invent technology and transition their ideas into society without the help of financiers. Do you think that Google and other large technological companies would have made it so far if it wasn’t for the help of investors and series of mergers and acquisitions?</p>
<p>
Yeah, I do, actually.</p>
<p>well then you are a moron.</p>
<p>look around the room, everything you see was at one point funded by a bank or investor. it was all made possible by the geniuses taking financial risks to help start-ups which ultimately provide the country with more benefit than anything else.</p>
<p>Google had initial 100,000 funding from the co-founder of Sun and also 25 million from venture capital firms the next year. Without this funding Google would be nothing. Not all companies can be started in the garage with a college student’s life savings, it simply isn’t possible. </p>
<p>Funding is a huge part of EVERY corporation, big or small.</p>
<p>That’s right. Bechtolsheim wrote a cheque for $100,000 even before Google was formally created. Later they got additional funding from Moritz and Doerr. Without it they would not be able to really get the whole thing running. Regardless of how good the idea is you need to have some capital to begin with.</p>
<p>Demand for something does not necessarily indicate that it is useful.</p>
<p>Clearly the majority of people posting on this thread is full of self-serving republicans with wealthy parents who indulge in a materialistic culture. They go to desperate measures to justify their actions with false arguments and carefully contrived rationale, but i digress…</p>
<p>New York and Connecticut are blue states.</p>
<p>… Wall Street?</p>
<p>Massachusetts? Blue? Where are the rich republicans?</p>
<p>Haha… because the other 99 percent of people that live their aren’t working for goldman sachs…duh</p>
<p>
Your grammar is atrocious and I doubt most kids of extremely wealthy parents would go into IB, but I digress.</p>
<p>Ah, so Gov. Corzine was a Republican?</p>
<ul>
<li>Former GS Chief and a Democrat.</li>
</ul>
<p>Actually my grammar is quite flawless, but thank you for proving my point about “false arguments” Mr. 2400.</p>
<p>
Yeah, no. Try reading your first sentence a little slower.
And yes, your point about “false arguments” is definitely correct, seeing as my post was a satirization of yours in using stupid ad hominem attacks and irrelevant arguments.</p>
<p>“Yeah, no” - that’s the best you can come up with. I figured someone who scored a 2400 would have a better argument than that. I guess all that studying you did for the SAT effaced your personality. And so much arrogance. You’ll fit in perfectly at Princeton! High test scores and no personality to boot!!!</p>