Fresh Engieering Diploma holder to continue Engineering or move to Finance ?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How much can an engineer earn in Singapore?

It is a common misconception that this phenomenon is unique to Singapore.

You can check up the annual income of chief engineers in the West and they don't go much above the low six-figures, whether measured in USD or SGD.

The reason even the best engineers cannot earn much is because their income is hampered by idiots.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi, then how about housing agent?

In terms of the total pot of money in each profession, there is not much difference between the housing estate and engineering professions.

However, whereas engineering is egalitarian in nature whereby the pot of gold is shared almost equally by all engineers, including the idiots, there is no money for idiotic housing agents.

The housing estate profession has a capitalist remuneration structure based on Adam Smith's "invisible hand", similar to that of insurance agents and traders.

For people who are worldly wise and thrive in the more competitive professions, the housing estate profession provides an opportunity where the sky is the limit.

The downside of this is that, just as the "invisible hand" will turn a shrewd agent into a multimillionaire, it will also strangle those who cannot close deals.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It is a common misconception that this phenomenon is unique to Singapore.

You can check up the annual income of chief engineers in the West and they don't go much above the low six-figures, whether measured in USD or SGD.

The reason even the best engineers cannot earn much is because their income is hampered by idiots.

...

For people who are worldly wise and thrive in the more competitive professions, the housing estate profession provides an opportunity where the sky is the limit.

The downside of this is that, just as the "invisible hand" will turn a shrewd agent into a multimillionaire, it will also strangle those who cannot close deals.

Then the best engineers should learn to be more worldly wise and more shrewd to take advantage of the capitalistic nature of the world they live in. If money is what they want, learn to be like Steve Jobs rather than Stephen Hawking. Otherwise, they should just shut up and accept their average pay, or contribute to the world in a totally different way like Stephen Hawking.

I think there is a misconception between earning power and potential earning power here.

Out of 10 people doing the "backend job in Finance", how many is becoming a VP? Similary, out of 10 engineers, how many is able to lead the company to become a VP?

I know some VPs of government-link companies that started out as engineers. Based on the annual report, they are all earning >250k. They do not become VPs because they studied engineering or finance. It is because their ability to run the company.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think there is a misconception between earning power and potential earning power here.

Out of 10 people doing the "backend job in Finance", how many is becoming a VP? Similary, out of 10 engineers, how many is able to lead the company to become a VP?

I know some VPs of government-link companies that started out as engineers. Based on the annual report, they are all earning >250k. They do not become VPs because they studied engineering or finance. It is because their ability to run the company.

You mean CEOs? VPs are a dime a dozen everywhere.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think there is a misconception between earning power and potential earning power here.

Out of 10 people doing the "backend job in Finance", how many is becoming a VP? Similary, out of 10 engineers, how many is able to lead the company to become a VP?

I know some VPs of government-link companies that started out as engineers. Based on the annual report, they are all earning >250k. They do not become VPs because they studied engineering or finance. It is because their ability to run the company.

You are one of the very few people here who can distinguish between the two. I call them acquired and inherent earning power.

Acquired power is conferred upon a person by his training; whereas inherent power is inborn. One needs to depend on his acquired power only if his inherent power is lower.

Those engineering-trained VPs whom you mention above obviously have inherent abilities that have outgrown their engineering background. For such people, it doesn't really matter what they studied, be it engineering, finance, or even mathematics!

Obviously, the CEO of Keppel Corp MR. Choo Chiau Beng, who appeared in the papers recently extolling the virtues of his engineering training, has inherent ability far beyond the acquired power conferred by his engineering training. It would be quite amusing if anyone, after reading his interview, thinks that studying engineering leads to jobs that pay $11.75 million per year!

On the other hand, for engineers with low or even negative inherent earning power, getting an engineering job that pays a five-figure annual sum would be better than running their own company to the ground.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You are one of the very few people here who can distinguish between the two. I call them acquired and inherent earning power.

Acquired power is conferred upon a person by his training; whereas inherent power is inborn. One needs to depend on his acquired power only if his inherent power is lower.

Those engineering-trained VPs whom you mention above obviously have inherent abilities that have outgrown their engineering background. For such people, it doesn't really matter what they studied, be it engineering, finance, or even mathematics!

Obviously, the CEO of Keppel Corp MR. Choo Chiau Beng, who appeared in the papers recently extolling the virtues of his engineering training, has inherent ability far beyond the acquired power conferred by his engineering training. It would be quite amusing if anyone, after reading his interview, thinks that studying engineering leads to jobs that pay $11.75 million per year!

On the other hand, for engineers with low or even negative inherent earning power, getting an engineering job that pays a five-figure annual sum would be better than running their own company to the ground.

I'm not that guy you quoted, but I agree with you generally.

However, since not everyone is an elite, I would like to shift the focus of this discussion to talk about target careers for the average guy.

I'm of the opinion that for an average graduate in Singapore, it's better to work in the "right" industry.

Let's not talk about the financial industry as it's been talked about to death. (Conclusion: it's lucrative. )

There are other examples I can think of: the average graduate who became an average property agent will earn more than his counterpart who's now an average engineer.

Hey, I would like to use this thread to settle a query.

Presently I hold an engineering diploma, and is intending to change my field of study to the business/finance sector. I already gotten a spot in one of the local uni.

I just worried that if the transition in between the fields going to affect me much; like lost in the transition, lagging behind my peers, as I do not have any foundation compared to A'level grads and business diploma grads.

Yes,

An engineer in Singapore works more than 40 hours per week, with pay lesser than banker and financial advisors. I also have some enquiry for people to upgrade the diploma to degree to get higher pay in engineering field.

If you are keen to know more, do let me know and will send you more details.

Regards
Chocobo,

Goto smrt website read the annual report. The very most engineering company in Spore.

The top 6 earners only 1 engineer and he did it at very old age of 62. The youngest is of course the Acct grad, only 39, her pay already more than 700k. hehehehe

Engineering is doom, believe it or not, unless you engineer your own company lah..... They are emphasising on the ENTREPRENEUR module.... stress and highlight and emphasis again and again.

Is this true