People can interpret a data set in so many ways. I don't know which people you put into the "technology" and "finance" categories. I just went with the people that Forbes put into the categories of "Finance" or "Investment" vs the people that they put into the categories of "Internet" or "Software". I ran some numbers on the data they provided and here's what I found:
Finance/Investments:
Total People: 81
Avg Net Worth: 181.77
Avg Age: 62.32
Internet/Software:
Total People: 48
Avg Net Worth: 321.47
Avg Age: 45.43
The net worth is in millions I guess, but the numbers don't seem to jive (Bill Gates is worth $85B??)
It seems that technology > finance, in terms of net worth and number of years required to achieve that worth. While a financier may be more likely to make the list, the expected value for a tech entrepreneur seems to be much higher.
Did you look at just the new rich (the people who have gotten rich over the past ten years), or all the rich? If the latter, you're including a lot of dot-com people who wouldn't have gotten nearly as rich if it weren't for the bubble.
I'd have to normalize the data for all kinds of bubbles in a variety of markets, not just the dotcom bubble. Plus, I couldn't see how to determine who was new rich based on the data.
In the light of morning, I'd like to amend my statement to "the expected value for a tech entrepreneur seems to be slightly higher", based on the definition of an expected value:
81 / 400 x 181.77 = 36.80
48 / 400 x 321.47 = 38.57
Given that the odds of making the list in finance are higher, it's still a better bet to start a technology startup.
Finance/Investments:
Internet/Software: The net worth is in millions I guess, but the numbers don't seem to jive (Bill Gates is worth $85B??)It seems that technology > finance, in terms of net worth and number of years required to achieve that worth. While a financier may be more likely to make the list, the expected value for a tech entrepreneur seems to be much higher.