Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a high level programmer in a successful IT company. The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them.
This paragraph ruffled my feathers quite a bit. It's overreaching to say that a programmer who managed to make out like a bandit when their company hit it big is just "diverting value from the US economy". That scenario is quite a bit different than, say, profiting off of elaborate financial engineering.
And of course large amounts of money have "ties" to the financial industry. What the heck else are you going to do with the money? Equating a programmer who happened to strike it rich during an IPO (presumably) with an investment banker as both being tied to the financial services industry is ridiculous.
To unruffle your feathers a bit -
I read this article earlier this week on a finance blog. To an extent, the language and profession influence here is slanted towards people following the financial readers.
His larger thread is about how the lower 5% are different from the top 1%. That the top 1% is made up primarily of finance types, but that he has clients who have reached the top 1% from different entry points.
Programmers who get acquired are being acquired (i.e. paid) mostly by people in the financial industry. IPOs are largely driven by large investment houses which are managed by people in the financial industry.
The financial industry itself is really just a word that describes people who decide where to direct vast sums of money. As soon as you are directing vast sums of money you get labeled as part of the financial industry.
This paragraph ruffled my feathers quite a bit. It's overreaching to say that a programmer who managed to make out like a bandit when their company hit it big is just "diverting value from the US economy". That scenario is quite a bit different than, say, profiting off of elaborate financial engineering.
And of course large amounts of money have "ties" to the financial industry. What the heck else are you going to do with the money? Equating a programmer who happened to strike it rich during an IPO (presumably) with an investment banker as both being tied to the financial services industry is ridiculous.