OC Reddit Mentions | ChartExchange

Don't worry, this is asynchronous communication, just don't reply a month later and we're good because I'll be shocked and confused. I'm old.
>It doesn't take 20 years for a person to make those kinds of salaries though doctors do take the longest with undergrad (4) + med school (4) + residency (4). In tech you can make 200-300k out of undergrad directly with large recruiting pools so it's not just a couple people. They quickly make mid 6 figures if they're strong performers within 3-5 years. However, that isn't the point I'm just talking about general fields that are known with high salaries as an example.
Just as a note I don't think we're talking median starting wages and it's the median that matters most in this kind of analysis. We're also not factoring in things like compensation packages and non-cash items but I think we're going to sidestep that entirely (tech).
>When I'm referring to success, I am talking only in the scope of risk adjusted returns with opportunity cost included.
A part of me wants to stop you here because I sense you don't really know how to choose a benchmark. The benchmark you choose to propose for the risk adjusted returns matters a lot and it isn't always appropriate or even reasonable to choose a popular index. So when you say "risk adjusted return" it cools me a little bit not because it's a bad idea but because this isn't something you can imply and have it be simply accepted as a sound idea to even employ. It may not even make sense to do.
Same with Opportunity Cost because again, given your prior paragraph, I'm not certain you know how to really set a realistic bar. Your OC might be so insane that you conclude that the only thing you can do in life is be an anesthesiologist or neurosurgeon. Of course, if you can do those things, please do, the money being nice but it's a great service to society.
>You trade to make money, and it should compensate you for the risk taken and the other opportunities that you gave up for it to be worth it. The constraints are not narrow in that sense because the whole point to active trading is to make money and "beat" the market given the time you spend. **For example, Elon Musk could make millions trading, but that would be a waste of time for him when he makes billions running his business in terms of just pure money - him spending even 1 day on trading probably loses him more money than it makes him even if he makes a million dollars.** It doesn't make sense to trade in that example. When people decide to trade, they should think about whether this will be worth it. Trading is all about making decisions under uncertainty and deciding whether or not to take this path with trading is a decision that I believe most people take too lightly because they think they're going to be the 1% with no basis in reality.
Ah, opportunity cost is the most easily stated and heavily misunderstood idea in pretty much all of beginners level economics. OC is a state dependent function, often a projection, but it can be a state that is of any given size. The reason that matters is because we can say that overall Elon Musk should work on his businesses but if Elon Musk is sitting down and has the option to trade for 1M dollars or watch Real Housewives he should probably take the trading.
Then we have a problem I know you won't like: Concurrence. You can do multiple things at the same time. In fact, in general, doing multiple things at the same time tends to galvanize all activities. For example Elon Musk's trading in secondary capital markets buying his own companies and then improving his own companies yields him more money than if he did it one or the other. This is so true that it's ... illegal. This is pretty much what insider trading is. He works on his business, has a big announcement, buys a bunch of his stock which he has about a month to disclose, and then makes the announcement and cashes out. In order to do this legally he has to go through a lot of hoops and an entire board of people have to approve his compensation package and he pretty much can't do much outside of it relative to trading his own companies.
So you're thinking is not bad but it's too low level. If for example you chose an appropriate benchmark, chose an appropriate measurement of opportunity cost and then chose to take the real amount of time it takes to trade effectively you might find that they fit together very well. I myself don't take many trades per day and don't spend time staring constantly at the screen and I most certainly have money coming in from the practice. I enjoy my career but I make more most days trading than I do working after reducing the value to a daily/monthly state.
>However, for the risk taken, that return may not be sufficient. If as an example 90% of businesses fail and the avg business invests 300k, is it worth it for a 10% chance of success to be making 200k for the next 10 years after quitting a 100k job for the opportunity? To answer that question, you need to think about it right? Obviously, the numbers here aren't important or even "correct", but you should understand my point that it isn't straightforward to make such a decision, and we don't KNOW if the business making 6-figures or whatever is actually doing "well" given the risk that was taken and what the person could be doing instead.
The problem with this being our assessment however is that businesses don't *randomly* fail. Think of this like a census, if you chose a random citizen and 70% are A, 10% are B, 15% are C and 5% are D the person you chose is likely an A however no citizen is *random*l*y* an A. The state of being A is deterministic. You don't *randomly* become a mathematician.
The numbers here are not only important, they're misleading, because the odds that you will fail are not equivalent to the odds of the aggregate and also are not divorced from various key factors including financial backing and support and social connectivity. If you were to be honest with yourself and do a deep analysis you'd really figure out exactly what it is you want to do relative to the space and then what exactly is the primary driver of success. The lemonade stand out at the top of the frozen mountain no one climbs isn't going to do too well, no?
>If a neurosurgeon quits their day job when they're making 600k to run a business that only makes 200k with not much upside, we know it's not a good decision in terms of the $ amount only. I believe people undervalue their future earnings potential working a job given the qualities you will likely have to be a successful trader considering how many jobs out there pay 6 figures at least in America. **The random jo shmo working in corporate makes 6 figures easily.**
What I find to be interesting is that not only did you make this statement but you probably didn't verify it and also probably don't know how much of the U.S. actually works in corporate positions. Using our "bad" aggregate logic above it's about 1/4 people who work in corporations, and I assure you not all of them make 100k+, but setting aside that discrepancy issue if we played it as a random state there's a 3/4s chance you won't get that job so how does that impact your opportunity cost? In other words, what is the *realistic* value you can expect to make if your corporatism is randomly assigned and you are highly likely to fail to get selected?
The game here is to figure out what happens if things don't go the way you want them to but they do go the way that's most likely to occur. The modal state.
>The corner store is a good example in that you could run a corner store instead of being a trader and make decent money. The person who runs the corner store isn't a failure if they could be doing something else and making more money, but it is possible that they could be doing something else and make more no?
To this I say ... Just do both?
Functionally there's a major problem you need to deal with at the end of the day: Doing two things at once, or between one another, is not only possible, but even easy to do given today's technological reality, so much so that people do all sorts of dualistic earning functions including (not joking) filming themselves doing their normal job and making money for it as entertainment being watched.
Your main problem is going to be solving the model that works where you can only do A or B rather than the realistic model of A and B.

document.getElementById("VZ8Z2K").onerror = function(){this.style.display='none';}; .dark-mode .ydNJHT{ color: white; background-color: #333333; border: 2px solid white; }.light-mode .ydNJHT{ color: #333333; background-color: white; border: 2px solid #333333; }OCOwens Corningstock NYSE

OC
Owens Corning
stock NYSE