I've done a bit of thread title correction to put it on the direction that nrf seems to be indicating
At 10:07 PM +0000 1/4/03, nrf wrote: >""Geoff Zinderdine"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > Uh, sounds curiously like a case of sour grapes. Guys who are at the >top >> of > > > the business world make more money in a week than we make in a year. So? Oprah Winfrey does even better. Indeed, some of the wealthiest in the business world are not particularly corporate leaders, but arbitrageurs and the like. Boesky and his ilk aside, financial manipulation can be legal. >More >> > to the point, in my experience, it's always better to be the one giving >> > orders than to be the one taking them. Why do you think the comic strip >> > Dilbert is so popular? Sure, the pointy-haired boss might not know >> > anything, but at the end of the day, he's still the one giving orders. >> >> You seem to suffer from that curious American disease of equating money >with >> career fulfilment and happiness. There is no sour grapes at all, and >> throughout my various career paths I have chosen what made me happy over >> what made me rich. This is not to say that I want to work for free, but I >> am quite happy making what I do in a year. I have no desire to do a job I >> loathe to make more money. I couldn't care less who gives orders. There >is >> far more nobility in serving well than in managing poorly. > >Hey, if you're cool with that, then that's cool. That's always been my >point - if you're happy being the technical guy who's taking orders from >other people, then God bless you, everything that I say doesn't apply to >you. There are lots of technical people that give orders as well -- to other technical people. There are also lots of technical people that may not give orders per se, but act as leaders and mentors in directing development and support. I think an agenda is emerging here, nrf. This thread seemed, at least to me, to deal with the merits of academia, certification, or combinations to move into technical jobs. In your last few posts, however, I'm only confused whether the thrust of your arguments is to maximize monetary return, or to reach the top ranks of general corporate management. Now, if you had a screen name of NFL, I'd suggest you have more monetary potential than most corporate executives. If you can give a creditable impression of Christina Aguilara, that also offers significant potential. The latter, however, might require an unacceptable level of surgery. Not that I have met you personally, but I know several people in the business that have much better genetics for that mission, including, indeed, at least one top executive that has been mentioned. But to my mind, your utopia has relatively little to do with networking. Personally, I don't agonize about not making a seven-figure plus income when I can make six figures doing things I love. Now, yes. I want enough product management authority, including P&L justification, that I can see my best ideas come to fruition -- and those are not one-person projects. I still believe, for example, I have an architecture in mind that could give orders of magnitude improvement in certain aspects of router performance. Perhaps some day I will land a slot as technology VP of a startup, make that happen, cash out, and mix my interests in network research and medicine. There is no question, however, I could be making much more right now in the networking industry had I chosen to go into sales. I'm an excellent verbal and written communicator, can make business cases, etc., but I don't like playing corporate politics. That, incidentally, is quite different than participating in general politics -- throughout my adult life, I've been involved in issue lobbying. > >But on the other hand, even you agree that there are a lot of people (not >just Americans, but a lot of people in the world) who want money. For some >of these people, it is precisely money that brings them happiness. And >who's to say that you can't have a happy career that also happens to produce >a lot of money? I don't see it as an either-or choice. Sure, some rich >people are unhappy. But go to the bad, poverty-stricken part of town, and >you'll see some REALLY unhappy people. I volunteer for various charities, >and I spent the holidays providing toys for needy people who couldn't afford >to buy simple gifts for their children. I was happy to help out, but >that's some real misery I was looking at. > > >Like I said, if you're happy with your lot, then God bless you. But again, >I don't see that business success and ethics is necessarily an either-or >choice. You can be successful and ethical. I can't help but interpret the above as an appeal to get out of technology as soon as possible. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60315&t=60315 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
