I love physics, but I want more money and I'm considering a career change

I am at a huge crossroads in life and in need of some guidance.

I graduated two years ago with a B.S. in Physics from an R1 university, and am currently in my second year of a physics PhD program at a different R1 university. From the moment I had my first research experience in high school, I knew I wanted to get a PhD. I love the research I do, I enjoy the academic environment, and the process of it all; However, since high school, I knew I did not want to go into academia. I don't want teach, but I love doing computational research. I knew my eventual path was in some form of industry, but getting my PhD has been a valuable experience that I am very happy with doing.

Additionally, I love traveling and experiencing the world. I have expensive hobbies that I love and want to pursue throughout my life. I have been very limited to do both within my student budget. I realized the life I want to live and the life I am set to live are very different, with the biggest difference is the money I am expected to make.

I have also found that I could be doing any computational research in the physical science realm, and I will probably enjoy it, regardless of the topic. This is where I am considering becoming a quant, but I am still trying to learn what that is, my chances for actually becoming one, and looking for other potential career options for me. I have even considered a PhD in finance or some sort, but that seems overkill for those types of jobs.

Looking back on it now, I should have minored in economics, did a master in data analysis, etc. I am considering leaving my program, working in one of these sectors for a few years, and getting a masters in a different field. But in order to do that, or even consider it, I need to figure out what my new path should be. Basically, I have no idea what I want to do with my life, just some general ideas. My biggest mistake was I had a plan of "get the phd and worry about it after," but I realize I need to become more aware and active to shape the future I want to be. Some things I have considered is working in intelligence (government work, CIA etc.), becoming a quant, data analysis, or finance. I have also considered administration and management, but in the field of physics and technology. Basically, become someone who can handle business side but understands the science side of things.

What options do I have with a PhD in physics looking to make money? What industries can I go into where my degree will be advantageous? I feel like I don't know what I don't know, so it has been hard to look into topics and plan ahead.

How much money are we talking? $100K a year? $1M a year? How many years are you willing to wait until you make this much?

enderleero1 said:

I graduated two years ago with a B.S. in Physics from an R1 university, and am currently in my second year of a physics PhD program at a different R1 university.

What areas of Physics are your interests and specialties, and what is the subject of your PhD work now?

Vanadium 50 said:

How much money are we talking? $100K a year? $1M a year? How many years are you willing to wait until you make this much?

By the time I am in my late thirties, I would like to make at least 200k. Ideally, I would like to earn six figures straight out of grad school (don't we all) but if I'm switching into a new field I will probably be starting at the "bottom," and not making that much. $1M year would be great! But I am not sure what jobs I could get that would pay that much.

berkeman said:

What areas of Physics are your interests and specialties, and what is the subject of your PhD work now?

I want to be a bit anonymous since it is a niche field, but very computational and involves a lot of visual modeling. I combine data and code to create physical models and simulations.

enderleero1 said:

I want to be a bit anonymous since it is a niche field, but very computational and involves a lot of visual modeling. I combine data and code to create physical models and simulations.

Let me get this straight. You are an expert in a field with niche skills? But, you have no idea how much someone working in this field might earn? And, without telling us the field, you want us to tell you how much someone else might pay you to work for them?

PeroK said:

Let me get this straight. You are an expert in a field with niche skills? But, you have no idea how much someone working in this field might earn? And, without telling us the field, you want us to tell you how much someone else might pay you to work for them?

Sorry, by niche I mean the subfield of physics I am in, like plasma physics, stellar astrophysics, etc. My field is not huge and I want to stay anonymous in that sense. I am by no means an expert, I have only completed one year of this program and going onto my second. I am not at candidacy level, which is why I am considering leaving this year with a masters and switching to a new field.

I know how much those in my field earn, which even long term would be no more than 160k-ish. I am not trying to do physics or even research as a career. I would switch to anything as long as a decent amount of my current skills are transferable, it pays well, and I can enjoy the work. I just don't know what I don't know at this point, and am looking to get more advice on potential career paths I can go on. Basically, what industries/jobs can I go into with a physical science background and some programming and data analysis skills?

My understanding is that six figures straight out of grad school is not impossible if you work in the right field.
I know of a few people (from Europe) who just finished their PhDs working on topics related to quantum computing and have been recruited by some of the major US tech companies (Google, Honeywell, IBM etc); the ones who have ended up in California are very well paid; but they will also live in very expensive areas.

That said, the financial sector will obviously be a safer bet if your goal is to make lots of money, but do keep in mind that "having hobbies" and "working as a well paid quant" are not necessarily compatible demands.
I know quite few people who work for investment banks (and related sectors) here in London and most of them spent the first 10-15 years of their working life working ridiculously long hours (80+ hour weeks are not at all uncommon and forget about taking more than a week off during the summer). I don't believe any of them had time to pursue any hobbies.
Moreover, while they are well off none of them are "rich"; you need a surprising amount of money to maintain an "upper middle class" lifestyle (4 bedroom house in a nice area, a nice car, a couple of kids in private school etc) in a city like London.

enderleero1 said:

By the time I am in my late thirties, I would like to make at least 200k. Ideally, I would like to earn six figures straight out of grad school (don't we all) but if I'm switching into a new field I will probably be starting at the "bottom," and not making that much. $1M year would be great!

OK, we're talking about the top 3% of the US population at $200K, by late 30's and more like 0.05% to get to $1M regularly. A physics professor at a flagship state school might hit $200K just before retirement, but probably not.

It's true that the very first quants made a ton of money. That's less true today.
It's also true that the very first data scientists made a ton of money. That's less true today.
It's also true that the very first quantum computationalists made a ton of money. It remains to be seen how long this will last.
My advice is to pick a topic that will become important and lucrative a few years from now. Or as was once said "Buy a stock and sell it when it goes up. If it don't go up, don't buy it."

I do not understand why a person who wants career advice for finance is using a physics forum.

Doesn't he say why? He wants to get a PhD in physics and he also wants to be a gazillionaire. Further, he doesn't want to give up one for the other.

enderleero1 said:

By the time I am in my late thirties, I would like to make at least 200k.

Well, government/academia won't get you there. Govt tops out at 150k unless you make upper management/SES (late career), in which case, you might get to $200k at age 55-60.

If my goal were to have a salary in excess of $200k, I'd be looking for management tracks at medium to large private companies. A PhD in physics is a good way to get your foot in the door toward a senior scientist position at many places, which will generally land you a six-figure salary (maybe not right out of grad school, but probably within 5 years, depending on where you live). And if you find a good mentor and pursue the right career moves (and generally do well in your work), you can aim toward the managerial side of things, where positions usually have the title "Deputy Director" or "Director of xyz" or "VP of uvw." Those positions tend to have salaries+benefits in the multiple $100k's. Can you get there by age 40? It's possible; I have a few friends who have done it. It's probably realistic to say that this plan would lead to a salary of $150-200k by age 40. You certainly won't be doing physics at that point, though.

If you want to have a $1M salary, you might be better off starting your own business. It's the easiest/hardest way to get there.

gleem said:

I do not understand why a person who wants career advice for finance is using a physics forum.

It is not necessarily finance, could be anything where I have the decent potential to transfer in the field (e.g. software engineering). I have also mentioned my interest in going into a more administrative roll, but still within the field of science. I also read a ton of similar posts on this forum so I did not seem too far out there. Maybe there was a industry job IN physics that pays well that I did not know about. I figured that people in physics would have good advice on where other people in physics went for jobs outside academia.

f95toli said:

My understanding is that six figures straight out of grad school is not impossible if you work in the right field.
I know of a few people (from Europe) who just finished their PhDs working on topics related to quantum computing and have been recruited by some of the major US tech companies (Google, Honeywell, IBM etc); the ones who have ended up in California are very well paid; but they will also live in very expensive areas.

That said, the financial sector will obviously be a safer bet if your goal is to make lots of money, but do keep in mind that "having hobbies" and "working as a well paid quant" are not necessarily compatible demands.
I know quite few people who work for investment banks (and related sectors) here in London and most of them spent the first 10-15 years of their working life working ridiculously long hours (80+ hour weeks are not at all uncommon and forget about taking more than a week off during the summer). I don't believe any of them had time to pursue any hobbies.
Moreover, while they are well off none of them are "rich"; you need a surprising amount of money to maintain an "upper middle class" lifestyle (4 bedroom house in a nice area, a nice car, a couple of kids in private school etc) in a city like London.

I would agree with this. I think if I go that route, I would have to deeply consider the sacrifice I will have to make to accumulate and save my money for a decade or so just to then be able to settle into my hobbies and other life, but much later on. To be fair, unless I am an Elon Musk or get a lucky lotto ticket, this would be the case for any job that is considered 'high paying.'

I was given a great idea yesterday by someone I know that I could combine physics and computer science to work on physics engines or 3D rendering software, which is something that sounds really interesting.

Vanadium 50 said:

OK, we're talking about the top 3% of the US population at $200K, by late 30's and more like 0.05% to get to $1M regularly. A physics professor at a flagship state school might hit $200K just before retirement, but probably not.

It's true that the very first quants made a ton of money. That's less true today.
It's also true that the very first data scientists made a ton of money. That's less true today.
It's also true that the very first quantum computationalists made a ton of money. It remains to be seen how long this will last.
My advice is to pick a topic that will become important and lucrative a few years from now. Or as was once said "Buy a stock and sell it when it goes up. If it don't go up, don't buy it."

Yes, that's true. I think that is what AI and machine learning is becoming the new hot topic now and I am seeing much more jobs open in that area. I am wondering how long that will last and if it will still be hot 8-10 years from now. There is a ton of machine learning happening in my field of physics now, which might be a really lucrative option as it is not as competitive as the machine learning computer science programs, but will give me the same general skillset to be hired.

My monetary concerns are also not totally having money to spend, but having it to save for retirement and emergencies. Putting bare minimum into my Roth every year has been stressing me out a bit, but I am probably not as far off from my monetary goals as I thought.

So some thoughts:

1) Finishing your PhD is probably a wise choice if you can manage it in 2 years. The work you're doing builds skills that have applications lots of places, and having that PhD on your resume will have value.

2) Bailing out with a Masters is not a terrible idea if you could do so immediately. The NPV of your total income with a PhD 2 years from now and a Masters now are probably pretty close. I'd think the Masters would be higher, but it's probably by an amount that isn't life changing.

3) Making $100k two years from now - whether by grabbing a masters and getting 2 years exp or by finishing PhD - is imminently doable, if you look in the right places. $140k 5 years from now should be doable, too. $200k by your late 30's is tougher, but doable. In my experience, and given the people I've talked to, there comes a point somewhere between $125k and $200k where if you want to go higher you pay a price. Given that taxes start taking a solid chunk of your earnings, and that last $50k may not be worth it. Make sure you know what you really want. So for instance, the 80hr work weeks mentioned above are a price some fail to value properly. Or, alternatively, moving into management pays more, but can be super un-fun.

4) An important note about machine learning/ai/data science/etc: about 90% of the time it doesn't work nearly as well as sold, but 10% of the time it does at least as good or better*. Most large projects fail. For every happy news story you read, there's a pile of corpses. Sometimes that happy news story is actually a corpse. The good news from that is that there's real value there, and folks will be working for at least a quarter century trying to extract it (meaning those of us who work in that space have jobs). The bad news is that it means that you end up being a part of lots of failures. It can be demoralizing.

*Those percentages come from my personal experience, but there's solid evidence out there that will put you at 60% - 80%, and failures are under reported.

You could probably get a six figure salary as an entry-level RF engineer with a bachelors degree and there is a lot of overlap with physics.

The starting salary for a quant at a hedge fund can be in the $300,000-$400,000 range not including the bonus. With bonus, you can often make over one million a year within a few years. Many of these hedge funds (DE Shaw for example) have summer internship programs that you can do during the end of your PhD.

enderleero1 said:

By the time I am in my late thirties, I would like to make at least 200k. Ideally, I would like to earn six figures straight out of grad school (don't we all) but if I'm switching into a new field I will probably be starting at the "bottom," and not making that much. $1M year would be great! But I am not sure what jobs I could get that would pay that much.

Really? Six figures out of grad school?? I work in industry, we don't hire people without significant experience in the 6 figure range, high 5, but not 6 at all. and 200K in your late 30's, go into quant if you want money and get out of physics.

f95toli said:

My understanding is that six figures straight out of grad school is not impossible if you work in the right field.
I know of a few people (from Europe) who just finished their PhDs working on topics related to quantum computing and have been recruited by some of the major US tech companies (Google, Honeywell, IBM etc); the ones who have ended up in California are very well paid; but they will also live in very expensive areas.

That said, the financial sector will obviously be a safer bet if your goal is to make lots of money, but do keep in mind that "having hobbies" and "working as a well paid quant" are not necessarily compatible demands.
I know quite few people who work for investment banks (and related sectors) here in London and most of them spent the first 10-15 years of their working life working ridiculously long hours (80+ hour weeks are not at all uncommon and forget about taking more than a week off during the summer). I don't believe any of them had time to pursue any hobbies.
Moreover, while they are well off none of them are "rich"; you need a surprising amount of money to maintain an "upper middle class" lifestyle (4 bedroom house in a nice area, a nice car, a couple of kids in private school etc) in a city like London.

Their job is part of their "hobbies".

But I believe it's hazardous if they don't have a physical exercise a few days in the week... for the heart! :-)

enderleero1 said:

By the time I am in my late thirties, I would like to make at least 200k. Ideally, I would like to earn six figures straight out of grad school (don't we all) but if I'm switching into a new field I will probably be starting at the "bottom," and not making that much. $1M year would be great! But I am not sure what jobs I could get that would pay that much.

Where do you want to live? If you don't specify a location, then these salaries aren't telling us much about the standard of living that you desire. And if you don't think you particularly care where you live, then specifying dollar amounts doesn't make much sense. 200k in Manhattan supports a different lifestyle than 200k in Richland WA (site of Pacific Northwest National Lab).

From personal experience, if something is important to you (hobbies, people), then the plan to delay spending time on those in order to accumulate wealth first is a kind of gamble. I have a friend who was working crazy hours with the goal of retiring early so he and his wife could pursue other dreams. Just a few years before retirement he died unexpectedly. In my mind, it isn't worth it. I can respect other choices, but you should at least think a little about what your priorities are and what risks you are willing to take.

Jason

My very good friend from grad school got his PhD Astronomy (because he loved it and had a good tutor to get him through E & M !). He founded four companies because he loved that. The last one did well and he was on the Forbes 400 at one point, He will never worry about money...

I think you need to think about things other than starting salaries.

You should look into working at a hedge fund if you want to make 200k per year. They get paid a good salary plus a lot of bonuses. Some skills I see for hedge funds is C++, Python, web development, analytics, machine learning, trading experience, finance knowledge, mathematics and either a PhD or an advanced degree. It seems like these sort of "data scientist" or quantitative analyst jobs are looking for renaissance men, so the bar is pretty high. Yet, I only have experience with Python and managed to get an interview to work for a hedge fund once. A PhD in physics may actually help you get there, but it would depend on what you studied and worked on.

This is where I am considering becoming a quant... I have even considered a PhD in finance or some sort

I don't think I've ever encountered a quant with a PhD in finance. Most of us have backgrounds in physics, economics, CS or mathematics.

Looking back on it now, I should have minored in economics, did a master in data analysis, etc.

In any case, it seems a significant part of your post is rooted in the assumption that your degree choice has predetermined how much you can earn, which I disagree strongly with. As far as I've seen, one's choice of degree option only provides strong explanation for the first $100k in annual income, thereafter most of it is determined by other factors - cross-disciplinary skills, soft skills, personality traits, job choices, personal relationships etc. - and of course, luck.

I've seen peers with physics and math degrees make $200k per year working for Burger King, consulting for mining companies, running a bakery, organizing talks, making YouTube videos, managing a gaming team, modeling and so on. A physics degree does not preclude you from any of these career paths.

I love traveling and experiencing the world.

Basically, what industries/jobs can I go into with a physical science background and some programming and data analysis skills?

Basically, become someone who can handle business side but understands the science side of things.

Maybe a consulting firm like Palantir? There's also similar roles in McKinsey/BCG/Bain where you basically work as a software contractor at upcharge. There's also consulting parts of large firms like E&Y that hire physics PhDs. You'll most likely get better travel opportunities through these than finance, though it really depends what types of projects you're posted to.

I think people don't point out that there's also a tail in finance jobs. Sure, you can nab $300k in your first years out of a physics program working for a respectable firm like Rentec, Citadel, GSA etc. But like anything that pays $300k, these roles are highly competitive and selective. For every one of these roles, there's many more pedestrian roles at lower tier firms that pay at significant discount to finance/business departments of tech firms and startups and will probably continue to underpay for the next few years with the current trend.

You can also go through an investment banking track starting with a physics PhD and breach $300k when you hit VP level or switch to a private equity firm before that. But this comes with significant opportunity cost because the hours are long and the skills are less transferable.

I have expensive hobbies I want to pursue .. $1M/year would be great

It's good that you are aiming high.

Some people say of this successful person or that "Oh, but they were
lucky because of X." Consider a worm that evolved to have a sensor
and primitive brain network for perceiving and computing how to approach
the best sources of sugar crystals to eat. Over many instances of the
advanced worm, competed against many instances of a more primitive worm,
the advanced worm's DNA will out propagate the inferior. Some copies of this advanced worm
will be smashed by boots or will be born into a sugar-less desert, while
some dumb worms will be dropped into a field of Plenty and make baby worms
like mad. Or, a smart worm and a dumb worm will be born into the same
environment but over a month the smart worm's correcter sensings of where
the sugar will be and his more intelligent movings toward such sources
will through the law of large numbers overpower random chance effects.

The human brain is the quintessence of improved computation and perception
ability. The brain is defined by Plasticness. Of Nature's inventions the
brain is the Least specifically adapted to some particular environment.
So there's even less room for luck. Over a 30 year adult lifespan of a
human in the modern age, with the reductions in unpredictable and
uncontrollable deaths and enslavings, the more motivated and more
intelligent human is going to out-surpass the less motivated and intelligent.

The reason a smarter (smart meaning not just left-brain intelligence but
also "Emotional Intelligence", the skill and ability to navigate and
manipulate people) person does not always overcome the dumber is motivation.
Due to the stress-filled state of modern life, many are quelled into
low-grade depression, drifting through their days with a litany of "you cant
do much, you can't do much" drumming through their subconscious.*

*Perhaps more fair to say that they never were traumatized into thinking
that if they didn't solve X problem, they would die.

My goal (current stepping-stone) is to get a job at Neuralink or similar.
Neuralink at the moment is the most productive team / environment to advance
the creation of brain-computer interface, though I wouldn't be surprised if
Google skunk works has a better team on it. In 3 years I apparently have
made no real progress: I've gotten a degree in biology and completed a
1 year internship. (The internship wasn't even working on brain computer
interfaces.) And the 3 years before that were even more ill spent, if you
ask my wife. Yet I have the same confidence that I will attain my goals
that I had 6 years ago: I'm headed there, as quickly as possible given my
situation. I will update in the next few years when I've attained the job.

I am not very certain about the markets. I've seen people jumping professions, as most of the times, companies will educate their employees on the topics they need/want. If they don't provide this education, they are probably small companies and you won't expect to get money from them. It is the same everywhere, each company has its own codes, clients and so on (you are not expected to know anything when you enter).

My input however is that 2nd or 3rd masters (or master degrees) are useless in general and you should avoid them. You will only lose your time and in the end you will be no different to just anyone who got a master in economics (if anything you will be at a worse position). I believe a phd is preferred to 2-3 masters. Nobody outside academia will really care about your research, but they do care about the soft skills you obtain from doing research. The fact that in PhD you learn to start a project, build it on your own, document it somehow and (in some cases) you lead people/other students is better than learning to read 3 books and answering a few exam questions in some university.

I don't see why you couldn't focus your PhD research into areas that you want to transition into and which will provide you with experience using or learning the skills you feel as though you currently lack.

During my master's degree, I realized that I wasn't confined to the physics department. I could have joined a research team in the computer science department working with AI and data science; I could have joined a team in the biology department; I could have gone into the business school and gotten involved; I could have gone to any department and gotten involved in whatever research that was going on at the university I was attending. You will probably not receive immediate research funding with this approach, but it is something you could do.

I had attended several lab meetings in several departments and could have gotten involved if I wanted to, but I had done this during my last year as a grad student. I ended up going back to my initial research out of fear of losing funding and not being able to complete a thesis, but I ended up losing my funding and not completing a thesis anyway. I had a lot of flexibility at my school. Don't know if this is commonplace.

I graduated with a PhD in "physics" and went straight to a six figure job doing actual experimental work. I'm currently job hunting again and am getting familiar with what's available in my area so I'll give my perspective.

1. First tip - start going through job boards now (indeed, linkedin) and see what's out there. Start networking now and do informational interviews because right now you aren't even quite sure what you want or what you're doing.

2. Why are you snubbing careers where you will be making $200k/yr at the age of 35-40? You're not earning $1M a year unless you're a CEO or own your own business. Do you have any intention of sacrificing all of your free time and taking a lower salary for 5+ years to start a business? It doesn't sound like it. However, why do you need more than $250k per year? Do you want to be able to travel internationally whenever you want and own a big house with a pool and its own exercise room? You don't even need $250k/yr to do that. It's not yacht money, but it's more than Burberry money.

3. There are a LOT of listings for positions that list PhD in the qualifications and only pay $65-80k. Ignore those, no matter what your PhD field is, you are worth more than that.

4. Here's a summary of jobs in my area that employ physicist PhDs and don't pay crap. If you want to do technical/experimental work, there's a lot of options in photonics, telecom, materials, the semiconductor industry, chemicals, and pharamaceuticals. Those generally pay $85-$110k if you've just finished your PhD, and if you stay in a technical role your salary is probably going to cap at $140-$160k. If you move from technical into management, you can make $250k EVENTUALLY, or maybe even $400k, but it's not common and you have to work at it. For every highly paid manager, there's a dozen PhDs below him making an introductory salary.

Software based jobs will pay more. Hot right now is "AI/Machine Learning" but actually many of those ML jobs are just regular old statistical analysis. Also data science, which is a set of techniques for crunching big data sets. If you go that route it may mean crunching user data to maximize ad performance and user engagement. Sounds gross to me but you may like it, and they readily hire physics phds with a software/statistics background. There's a lot of niche jobs that are closer to the technical side such as algorithm dev for medical imaging, commercial molecular dynamics software, speech processing, or some other thing where you are hired for your PhD knowledge but you also need software skills.

Many of these software jobs will pay $120-$130k to start; it could be more if you have specific domain knowledge that they need. If you're hired to do software dev and 0% for your PhD domain knowledge, you will struggle to be paid more than $70k unless you get into FB/Google. Your PhD work is important for your career. But even these software jobs won't surpass $200k unless you move into management. My lab mate went into data science and is now making $180k as a manager of a small data science team for a huge consumer products corporation, 8 years post-PhD. This is not typical, she's badass for getting that position. Her first job was for a consultancy, barely making six figures.

5. It probably won't be before 40, but you can start in a technical role and eventually move up management into C-suite, making $300-$500k, EVENTUALLY. That is the life story of the CEO of the company I work for. I think his salary might be more than that, but definitely not $1M.

6. You want big money, be willing to move a long distance, and apply nationally.

7. If you want to stay doing technical work, the big dollars come when you have deep domain knowledge. This means picking a field and sticking with it for decades.

I just looked up my CEO's salary. It's $600k base plus $3.2M in stock. I did not know he made that much. Holy cow. His career was PhD Mechanical Engineering, 6 years as an engineer, then changed to engineering manager. Then two decades of slowly climbing to higher management positions.

Sorry for bumping this old post and it's not mine, but I have a comment above about my plans for a grand career change 3 years ago and wanted to provide an update.

I have been naive - everyone in this thread knew more about career changes than me. I didn't know how much time it takes to make advances in career. I've been working at an engineering job unrelated to my desired job because I needed to improve my resume accomplishments. I tried my hardest but achieved maybe 30% of the progress necessary to achieve my dream job after these 3 years.

I apologize to the people who read my somewhat arrogant post 3 years ago.

If I could advise my younger self, I'd say aim for small progress (but keep the long-term goal for your life). Breaking down mental barriers is worthwhile, but the crucial thing is to as quickly as possible set a seen-in-the-external-world goal - maybe a year out - and get cracking on it. This would have helped align my vision to reality sooner.

The big update is that I am giving up on my career dream! (For reference, I'm mid-40s) Classic mid-life crisis stage. I see what I accomplished in ~45 years of life, am now more familiar with my own energy and (in some respects) the working of the world, and can better estimate what I can achieve in the next 10-15 years. I'm more or less an average guy, expectations are according.

With a little money accrued and the observation that most people die with a good amount in the bank, it seems sensible to use what financial freedom I have to do the top item of the bucket list.

I don't want to say exactly what my mid-life crisis goal is because it's a bit compromising, but like most it is purely a way to enjoy the remainder of my life. I'm thinking about what to do up til about 60, and not worry so much about money - let the Future Me take care of that little problem. Let Future-Me be servant to the Present-Me for once. That's my current thinking at least, and all this only relates to those lucky enough to have this choice.

If you want to become a millionaire, you should start teaching. But starting as a billionaire.

aa said:

I don't want to say exactly what my mid-life crisis goal is because it's a bit compromising, but like most it is purely a way to enjoy the remainder of my life. I'm thinking about what to do up til about 60, and not worry so much about money - let the Future Me take care of that little problem. Let Future-Me be servant to the Present-Me for once. That's my current thinking at least, and all this only relates to those lucky enough to have this choice.

As with many things in life, striking the right balance is key. On the one hand, you don't want to put off some activities until after retirement, just to find out that you are no longer physically capable of doing them. On the other hand, if Present-You burns through too much savings, then Future-You might face an intractable scenario (not be able to take care of the big problem that Present-You saddled him with), and not be able to enjoy a retirement at all.

Thou cannot serve both mammon and physics simultaneously.

haushofer said:

If you want to become a millionaire, you should start teaching. But starting as a billionaire.

When I started my college-teaching career (at a definitely non-elite institution) 40 years ago this fall, if someone had told me that I would have the amount of money I ended up with when I retired (six years ago), I would have thought he was crazy. However, the cumulative inflation factor since then (in the US) has been about 3x.