The problem is that smart people are the ones being employed, not the ones getting rich.

I am pretty sure anyone who sticks around Jane Street for a while is getting “rich” by any popularly accepted measure.

I'm pretty sure the parent is implying that there is quite a disproportionate distribution.

Sorry, implying what? That Jane Street quants aren’t getting rich enough?

Read the comment again

  > The problem is that smart people are the ones being employed, not the ones getting rich.

Employed is a key word. Generalize the point beyond Jane Street if you're still having difficulties. Such general understanding will be necessary if you want to work somewhere like Jane Street.

Sam Bankman-Fried and Caroline Ellison did for a while…

I would prefer good people get rich and bad people don't.

I’m not sure that’s true either.

See for example “effective altruism”, which turns out to have been neither, but more of a self-deluded justification for insane greed, coupled with a god complex.

Ridiculous, uninformed comment. There is no question that Effective Altruism has done tremendous good overall by saving many, many lives. I say this as someone who disagrees with important aspects, such as valuing distant lives equally to local ones. They have also been more correct than anyone else about AI, pandemics, etc.

It’s also been used as a self-justification by the likes of Sam Bankman-Fried, who exemplifies the qualities I mentioned above.

It’s clearly a very flexible philosophy that “smart people” can use to justify pretty much whatever, and given the presence of such people as SBF and cronies, certainly doesn’t support the notion that it’s a great thing for “smart people” to get rich, or really that we should expect that to be any more than neutral.

“Smart People” can be scumbags, and some prominent EA folks were, all the while shouting about how good they were.