Rich Engineers?

Generally, engineers are smart people - smarter than the average bear.

A few seem to have a larger world view and make excellent leaders guided by their experiences.

Engineering is an excellent vocation if the person has the right aptitude with a healthy dose of curiosity. It's a very valuable attribute and a good recipe for success.

Agreed. That deserves a toast, for which a plan is in progress.

I prefer wheat over rye, thanks.

Wheat whiskey?

Butter in your whiskey? Ewwwww.

Thanks.

Not if I can help it. :-)

Indeed.

And on the brighter side, I can have yet another "going over 1,000 good answers" party.

You're all invited.

Okay, this time, but next time we are installing a hysteresis routine.

Nicola Tesla, a man who for years was second only to Edison in terms of numbers of patents awarded, died in poverty in a cheap hotel room ironically illuminated at night by one of his own inventions: the neon sign. Meanwhile Charles Westinghouse - a man who benefitted greatly from Tesla's inventions - was laughing all the way to the bank.

Charles?

Charles took the credit for George's taking the money?

Not only that, but Thomas perhaps ripped Tesla off even worse than George did.

(In turn, the world has perhaps ripped off Steinmetz even more than Tesla.)

Just goes to show you that the fruits of engineering genius quite often go to others, typically those with the fewest scruples.

Edison was less the engineer and more the shrewd businessman. He learned at an early age that people will part with their money willingly for cool gadgetry. That sort of stuff is still going on today, think mp3 players, smart phones, etc.

They should've interviewed all the over-unity, perpetual-motion, oil-microwaving, energy-barging crackpots that blow through CR4. They're all rich now, yes?

There's hope for us yet.

In the spirit of fair play, I think Selles is the first to claim to have invented "new" microwaves.

However, there's always his crown jewel, "a powder which turns liquid at 92°C, get sticky as caramel at 110°C, turns back to a powder with 10x initial powder volume at 180°C" which our friend has in his pocket.

"The Ancients, your Highness, spoke in legend of a container into which were placed all the world's ills. All they got wrong was the name: they called it 'Pandora's Box' when of course they meant 'Selles'..er..Baldrick's Pockets..er..Trousers'."

- Edmund Blackadder

it depends on the location(country & level of civilisation of people). In some third world persons are respected for their family connection,caste,designation,place of work,appearance etc not for intelligence or good output. Such people can become rich by using a rubber stamp & their signature.

That has been true of governments from ancient times to present day.

My expectation from my profession as engineer is to solve the problems and make life comfortable for all humans. Let me not earn millions in this profession, but if I have made my living just happy and self contained with simple life then I am more happy than millionaires. Money can never bring you happiness it will only bring bad virtues and misery. So my advice to all fellow engineers is be proud of your profession and live happily.

Your statement that "money can never bring you happiness, it will only bring bad virtues and misery" isn't correct. Money simply magnifies the character of the person who has it. This is seen all the time in the arena of sports; some punk kid gets signed to a multimillion dollar contract and the next thing you see is his name in the police blotter for "assault and battery", "drunk driving", "assault with a deadly weapon", "domestic violence", etc. The money didn't change him it simply put him on the big stage to be seen by all.

There is a difference between wealth and being rich. Being "rich" just says you have developed an amount of money to live on. Being "wealthy" on the other hand means you have time and money freedom. I'd rather have enough money so I can be free to choose how to use my time rather than someone dictating to me how I spend my time. That will hardly ever be done in a job setting. It is almost always done through ownership of a Big Business as Robert Kiyosaki defines in "The Cashflow Quadrant" book.

"money can never bring you happiness, it will only bring bad virtues and misery"

I also agree that it is a fallacy.

Money is not evil, it's the love of money that is bad.

It depends upon how you earn the money-honestly or by capitalising the state's as well as community's madness.

Devil's advocation of the day: Is love of money really any worse than love of other material possessions? (cars, guns, stamps & coins, etc.)

GA

I know several Big Business owners (one who owns 41 companies) who are the most miserable, wretched people on earth, constantly fretting about their bottom lines, their board members, stockholders, stock market - you name it. They're not free at all but chained to their companies and their money. One just survived his second heart attack - at age 36. I wouldn't trade places with him for the world.

Robert Kiyosaki's definiton of Big Business is someone with 500 employees or more, not someone with a lot of businesses. All the lot's of businesses does is fractures ones ability to focus and adds stress in the process. What that person needs to do is develop leadership in his key players, give them authority to act for the good of the company with a vested interest. If he is micromanaging and is a control freak, no wonder he is a miserable wretch. I would be too.

There are some great tools and businesses that help people handle situations like that, give them their time back and be more financially profitable to boot.

I didn't say Big Business is someone with a lot of businesses, you did. Read my post again.

Has it occurred to you that some of those companies might have over 500 employees and in fact do? I know that one has nearly 8,500. That's big, even by Bob's standard.

I guess knowing several out of the 7.4 million US corporations is a large enough number to be called statistically significant.

How many do you know who are happy, lots of free time, etc.? I spoke of examples whom I know, not making a broad-brush statement about owners of U.S. companies in general. One guy isn't even American.

Lots of assumptions flying about on this thread.

"Lots of assumptions flying about on this thread."

Lots of assumptions fly about on EVERY thread.

I mentor with Cody Newton who is 34 years old; is financially independent, makes as much in 2 months as I do annually (and I make decent money), is active in the business maybe 20 hrs/wk, has been happily married for 12 years, he and his wife have 4 little boys (age 9 and under) with a little girl on the way, can travel anywhere and whenever they want and their business will continue to grow without him being at the helm. That is because he has developed leadership and ownership within his business. Those leaders make the business thrive even when Cody isn't there. Cody is wealthy because he has time and money freedom. Only the things he and his wife see as priority get on their calendar.

Other examples of business owners I know who are happy, have time and money freedom, and who are also millionaires annually are Bill Newton, Tim Marks, Chris Mattis, Claude Hamilton and Bill Lewis among others.

When businesses are treated with the old Industrial Age way of thinking it means that typically the bigger the business gets the more time is taken from the owner. When we start to tweak that business model and develop leadership, give authority, help people take owenership (along with the associated risks and rewards financially), etc., the owner can then pull himself out of some of the day to day tasks and do just what he is skilled and equipped at doing. Michael Gerber wrote a couple of great books dealing with business ownership titled, "E-Myth" and "E-Myth Revisited", that help people look at business ownership and operation differently.

Well, what were you implying when you spoke of two examples?

How would others interpret what you wrote?

I know a lot of engineers and CEOs. Most are pretty happy. That doesn't mean that they have no problems at all, but as a whole are happy people.

Does that say most engineers are happy? It clearly is not a proof.

Just a quick search on the web turned up this site of happiest jobs. Engineers seem to be right on up there. I don't see doctors or health care professionals.

I am sure all of these jobs have stress and you won't likely have any more free time than the next guy working a full-time job.

Free time, to me, means that you generally don't like what you do for a profession and are looking to put in the minimal amount of time so you can engage in other activities.

I would like to clarify. Well, it depends on the person who owns the money. If it is owned by an man who thinks "now I am rich and can enjoy all luxuries of the world and money is meant for such use, then he is doomed." If it is owned by sensible person then he would invest it in good cause for betterment of society and himself. Most of the people are in first category. It is called in Indian language of Hindi "satupyog or durupyog" of money meaning use for good cause or bad cause.

I believe we all start out with goals that are achieviable then somewhere during the path reality sets in. Rich? well i dont know about that, i believe i am doing something for the good of mankind and i am compensated well or above average so i have no complaints.

The potential to make money , well more than i make, is there. I believe its just the desire and drive to step off the merry go round and proceed on my own.

I never went into engineering with the goal to get rich and that has been a proven fact time and time again.