Re:Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
by dpapathanasiou on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:35PM
(#240396)
If you know you can quit and -- within a few months -- be earning a great living writing trading algorithms in C++ or reporting systems in Java, a startup is a much saner risk.
That cuts both ways, though: it's too easy to bail at the first hint of trouble at a startup, which is why there are relatively few great startup stories out of NY.
Re:Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
by benjamincanfly on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @07:26PM
(#241802)
It's easy for a programmer to cover higher living expenses in NYC because tech jobs pay well here. If you quit your job to make a go of it with a startup, you had better start making money quickly, or your reserves will be depleted before you know it. This has happened to me twice in two years.
It doesn't work in quite the same way for physicists/quants though. Once you leave physics and go into finance it's extremely hard to make the jump back -- a few years in finance puts you way behind your peers in the race for publications, and you're pretty much stuck there forever. The startup scene is far more forgiving to its apostates than the physics scene is.
I personally wish it were easier for physicists to spend just a few years in finance to find out whether they like it, and/or to save up some money.
Re:Why Paul Graham is wrong about New York City
by byrneseyeview on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:30PM
(#240572)
This gentleman managed: www.ams.sunysb.edu/~frey/Biographical/Resume_RJFrey_20060907_11.pdf
If you know you can quit and -- within a few months -- be earning a great living writing trading algorithms in C++ or reporting systems in Java, a startup is a much saner risk. This also applies to quants and physics majors: many smart folks are lured into the private sector, but many many more smart people can consider a Physics PhD because of the money they can make (if they need it).