Perhaps a nitpick, but: in your entrepreneurship example are you taking into account the income (eventually) available to the entrepreneur to give away?
Finance can easily beat CS if you don’t become an entrepreneur in earnings, but they are closer in risk-neutral returns if one goes the entrepreneurial route. Much would depend on which is a better fit for you.
It’s true that it could be that for a given person, if you consider
A = the direct impact of entrepreneurship
A’ = earning to give via entrepreneurship
B = earning to give in finance
C = the direct impact of entrepreneurship plus earning to give via entrepreneurship
then
A, A’ < B < C
I tend to think that people who are equally good at finance and entrepreneurship (in the sense of being in the same percentile of each pool of people) should do entrepreneurship: either A or A’ could be bigger than B separately, and when taken together all the moreso.
Perhaps a nitpick, but: in your entrepreneurship example are you taking into account the income (eventually) available to the entrepreneur to give away?
No, I’m not. That’s not a nitpick. Quoting Carl Shulman:
It’s true that it could be that for a given person, if you consider
A = the direct impact of entrepreneurship
A’ = earning to give via entrepreneurship
B = earning to give in finance
C = the direct impact of entrepreneurship plus earning to give via entrepreneurship
then
A, A’ < B < C
I tend to think that people who are equally good at finance and entrepreneurship (in the sense of being in the same percentile of each pool of people) should do entrepreneurship: either A or A’ could be bigger than B separately, and when taken together all the moreso.
Thanks!