Once you're tenured, there's less risk. But going through 5-6 years of a PhD program getting paid peanuts is a risk. Because there aren't tenure-track jobs for everybody, and you can't support a family on an adjunct salary.
Classic. What is one risking if there are no big risks in having no capital? You're indicating there is some sort of issue with not having it, while arguing it isn't a risk to forgo it or not have it.
A resounding hell yeah, also add unemployment tax and workman's comp premiums. Oh, and health insurance and DOT fees for six states. plus be an uncompensated sales tax collector.
Very limited, but then gripe about working for the guy taking the risks. I'm arguing that professors don't take any and want a huge voice in politics - even have a huge voice relative to contribution. HS teachers have almost no voice and have much more impact on our country. It baffles me. How is there an issue with not having it? Working in a business to expand GDP is a good thing.
I'm trying to get a handle on what you're meaning by risk here. You seem to be looking at a particular subset of risk--something like financial investment. But there are other kinds of risk, and they vary based on situation. Telling your boss off may seem like a minor thing, but it's a pretty big risk if you're expendable, don't have much savings, and don't have any job to fall back on. If you're irreplaceable or totally flush, it's not really a risk at all. If you aren't independently wealthy, spending five years of your life in job training that doesn't guarantee future employment and doesn't allow you to build up any savings is a bigger personal risk than Donald Trump investing a few million dollars in some startup with nebulous potential. It may be worthwhile given the potential reward (a tenured professorship carries excellent job security, solid pay, and generally high job satisfaction), but it's certainly a risk.
I would say taking a sizable loan to run a business that will absolutely screw you if it fails is a hair different than agreeing to enter a program that doesn't pay a lot for a few years. Drop out of that PhD program and you are back at square one. Watch your business collapse and you are spending years trying to get back to zero.
I would agree with that. Taking out a loan to run a business is riskier. Taking out a loan to go to grad school is also riskier. But the existence of bigger risks doesn't make something a non-risk
The difference in riskiness renders one basically obsolete. Your meager pay period for the PhD is still better than tons of other programs where future docs pay out the nose, rather than getting one sort of stipend. And pretty much any other career path involves a period of low pay early on.
Have done both, with huge portions of money involved in each. Business loan is the one that keeps me awake at night. Much, much more stress and way, way more risk.
It's better than some, it's worse than some. It depends on how much you're getting paid, how much cushion you have, and the chances of having a job at the end of it. My wife and my sister both have jobs with starting salaries of more than double my PhD stipend. And their chances of having the same or better job six years later are pretty high. My career path is higher risk than theirs. It's certainly lower risk than trying to take out a massive loan to do the same thing (which crosses the line into stupidity, IMO). It's certainly lower risk than starting a business. When I started, as a single guy with no debt, it wasn't enough risk to worry me at all. Now, being married with a baby on the way, the stakes are higher. I'm not trying to make it out like this career path is some unusually high risk. I'm just saying that making a comfortable living on this career path isn't some sort of slam dunk. If you do bad work or the market goes sour (the latter of which is currently happening), you can end up out six years and with nothing much to show for it.
