Who gets paid more? Acoountants or Aeronautical Engineers? (1 Viewer)

[f111c]

Evening all

Who gets paid more over a career of 40 years? Accountants or Aeronautical Engineers?

My guess is Accountants because they can move onto big positions eg CEOs COs board members.

Peace.

 

[astroman]

depends on employer, education, location...

 

[Squar3root]

~ mechatronics ~

 

[seremify007]

Evening all

Who gets paid more over a career of 40 years? Accountants or Aeronautical Engineers?

My guess is Accountants because they can move onto big positions eg CEOs COs board members.

Peace.

Over 40 years? That's a tough one given every assumption becomes variable over such a long horizon. Who is to say the aeronautical engineer can't become a CEO or a board member, what happens if it turns out there is oil on Mars and it's possible to bring it back to Earth, etc..

That being said, without going too broad and allowing for significant role changes (the reality is most accountants unfortunately will not become CEOs), I'd say the accountant probably has better prospects in the short term at least of general salary increases due to increasing complexity/regulatory demand, etc... but again it really depends on which field an individual excels at, the employer and opportunities which present themselves, etc.

If this question is because you are trying to figure out a career path, I wouldn't let the answer to this question (even if it was with absolute certainty of being accurate) drive your decision because as much as the industry/career path matters, your own individual performance and interest is really what will drive whether or not you are able to be agile and grow over your career, or if you will stagnate and do the same thing for 40 years.

 

[Drifting95]

How long is a piece of string really. You could be a hotshot and progress to an amazing role in 40 years or you could be a low performer and be stuck in a middle management role for the rest of your career, it's too hard to answer.

 

[D94]

My guess is Accountants because they can move onto big positions eg CEOs COs board members.

Of the CEOs who head ASX100 companies, 35 studied either science or engineering at an undergraduate level at university — 19 of the 100 studied science at an undergraduate level (usually geology or mineralogy) while another 16 are engineers.

Not far behind, commerce and economics were studied by 14 and 11 CEOs respectively as a first degree. On par with economics was arts, while another five studied law.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/16/engineers-rule-the-roost-in-top-asx-companies/

But what of it? There's more to rising through the ranks and being paid than the degree you did 10/20/30/40 years ago.

 

[Amundies]

Plus, I know a lot of Engineers who are in C-level positions at a range of firms (I remember looking this up a while ago). Over the course of 40 years, there are just way too many variables for anyone to say that one group of graduates will earn more than another (unless it's something pretty significant, like investment banking and teaching for example).

The best answer anyone could give you is something short-term, and the answer to that would be Aero Engineers (they probably wouldn't get a job in their field of study, just something to keep in mind).

 

[enoilgam]

Over 40 years? That's a tough one given every assumption becomes variable over such a long horizon. Who is to say the aeronautical engineer can't become a CEO or a board member, what happens if it turns out there is oil on Mars and it's possible to bring it back to Earth, etc..

That being said, without going too broad and allowing for significant role changes (the reality is most accountants unfortunately will not become CEOs), I'd say the accountant probably has better prospects in the short term at least of general salary increases due to increasing complexity/regulatory demand, etc... but again it really depends on which field an individual excels at, the employer and opportunities which present themselves, etc.

If this question is because you are trying to figure out a career path, I wouldn't let the answer to this question (even if it was with absolute certainty of being accurate) drive your decision because as much as the industry/career path matters, your own individual performance and interest is really what will drive whether or not you are able to be agile and grow over your career, or if you will stagnate and do the same thing for 40 years.

This pretty much. I know it sounds like an airy fairy answer, but a career is really what you make of it and there is a lot more to it than just your qualifications. I've worked at a business where people with just a trade ascended to quality middle management positions. I mean, in the future this probably wont happen as much, but it just goes to show how much a career is influenced by the individual.

How long is a piece of string really. You could be a hotshot and progress to an amazing role in 40 years or you could be a low performer and be stuck in a middle management role for the rest of your career, it's too hard to answer.

Middle Management isnt too bad. A lot of people who get "stuck" in those roles arent really stuck there, but are moreso there by choice. Moving up the food chain requires "flexibility", which in other words refers to your propensity to go above and beyond (i.e. working long hours, travelling etc). People with families and other responsibilities are often unwilling to do this. I remember when I was doing talent reviews (i.e. where we were scouting managers for advancement potential), I always used to see managers who had comments like "good performer, low flexibility" and that would hurt a persons chances.

 

[Drifting95]

This pretty much. I know it sounds like an airy fairy answer, but a career is really what you make of it and there is a lot more to it than just your qualifications. I've worked at a business where people with just a trade ascended to quality middle management positions. I mean, in the future this probably wont happen as much, but it just goes to show how much a career is influenced by the individual.



Middle Management isnt too bad. A lot of people who get "stuck" in those roles arent really stuck there, but are moreso there by choice. Moving up the food chain requires "flexibility", which in other words refers to your propensity to go above and beyond (i.e. working long hours, travelling etc). People with families and other responsibilities are often unwilling to do this. I remember when I was doing talent reviews (i.e. where we were scouting managers for advancement potential), I always used to see managers who had comments like "good performer, low flexibility" and that would hurt a persons chances.

I agree, my godfather is a financial controller at a large clothing retailer/producer and got offered CFO but rejected it due to lifestyle purposes. For OP's question though, it just seems like they're interested in what job earns the biggest pay check and ultimately middle management would go against their focus on earning the most $.

Tbh OP, working your ass off for 40 yrs is a mundane way to get rich. Focus on something entrepreneurial and/or investing in your spare time to supplement and eventually become your main income source.

 

[RealiseNothing]

Tbh OP, working your ass off for 40 yrs is a mundane way to get rich. Focus on something entrepreneurial and/or investing in your spare time to supplement and eventually become your main income source.

A hint of Omni I see?

 

[Drifting95]

A hint of Omni I see?

Indeed

I hope you don't go do a corporate job because of good pay, because most people will be pretty disappointed.

Why go through all that trouble when you can just sit at home, collect rent, and sip latte and look for the next buildings to buy?

Haha, that's a pretty demanding list of attributes for a career that offers you a life of boredom, wasted hours and all-round average-ness.

 

[seremify007]

Tbh OP, working your ass off for 40 yrs is a mundane way to get rich. Focus on something entrepreneurial and/or investing in your spare time to supplement and eventually become your main income source.

I'm pretty sure the 99% of people who work their ass off for 40 years and don't get rich would disagree.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/16/engineers-rule-the-roost-in-top-asx-companies/

But what of it? There's more to rising through the ranks and being paid than the degree you did 10/20/30/40 years ago.

That last bit. I think the statistics you quoted are based on people who did Commerce/Business back 30-40 years ago, and back then, I don't even think Commerce/Business was really much of an option given the lower levels of demand in the field, the lack of standards/governing bodies/certifications, etc... in other words, by the time you have the data to support which degree leads to a C suite role in 40 years time, things probably have moved on a bit.

 

[turntaker]

Evening all

Who gets paid more over a career of 40 years? Accountants or Aeronautical Engineers?

My guess is Accountants because they can move onto big positions eg CEOs COs board members.

Peace.

You can basically become a CEO with any degree if thats your goal