Just an example for the last 20 years: - Java 2000-2005? - Cloud 2007-2012? - Machine learning 2017-? Had you become an expert in these after the early adopter phase (during the chasm), you would have made at least 4-500K/year in consulting. And none of this is hard. And in the in-between years, once the knowledge is diffused (read: they start teaching it in universities because companies want cheaper workers), you'd make at least 200K. Boohoo.
yes, the diffusion component in machine learning is quite noticeable nowadays it's like when deep learning first entered public consciousness in 2013, there were reports of bidding wars for top hires, even at startups then nowadays you get clickable ads for data science bootcamps on various websites the tech labor market sounds like a red ocean, maybe it's just difficult for all but the most talented engineers/ savvy types who accurately forecast the right trends to have control over careers
It's not really that hard tbh. Think of 10x productivity. Ruby on Rails was a 10x tech. Cloud was a multiplier. Machine learning not so much!!
Business and portfolio management/trading are different things. There are an infinite number of answers but I think luck and politics are the dominant ones. IMO the vast majority of pro fund managers and the like have no real edge, and they face many disadvantages that retail traders typically don't - like restrictive mandates, the need to move/invest large size, need to appear to be in tune with market fads/fashions, short-term performance expectations of LPs, etc. The flip side is that in terms of building personal wealth they're of course better off, as the fee-based model lets you extract a risk-free fortune during a hot streak, and when it turns sour you can just retire with your millions or billions. Likewise, while there are sound and unsound ways to run a business generally and specific to various industries, the outcome of big corporate investment projects or strategy shifts involves a lot of guesswork, and these may fail for reasons that couldn't be foreseen or reasonably avoided. Just look at what's happening with Boeing: it's entirely possible that many careers might end over an obscure software bug that was missed in thousands of hours of exhaustive testing, despite using the best available people and techniques and taking every precaution.
Had to look this up, I think this is true to an extent but you can avoid the competition if you like with the caveat that maybe you'll only make $150K/year
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox, 1922
If your competition is outside US, 150k(plus other substantial costs to employers) becomes hard to rationalize to someone who sees you as a cost of doing business. Try to position yourself on the revenue producing side of the ledger.