Former LSE boss says young bankers should stop complaining about long hours
This poll is closed
Do high salaries compensate for very high working hours?
Yes, high salaries are fair compensation for these kinds of hours 47%
Longer hours are to be expected in this salary range, but 95hrs+ is excessive 47%
High salaries do not compensate for these kinds of working hours7%
Total votes: 15
An interesting article on the BBC
Goldman Sachs raises banker pay after 95-hour week complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58054983
This bit in particular caught my eye.
'Xavier Rolet, who ran the London Stock Exchange for eight years, said the younger generation of bankers should stop complaining about long working hours or find another job. He suggested banks should hire "poor hungry kids who managed to put themselves through college" instead of "entitled" graduates. Mr Rolet, who worked at Goldman Sachs in New York and in London early on in his career, said on LinkedIn that he would regularly work 130 hours a week, seven days a week in the 1980s.'
'But Mr Rolet told the Mail on Sunday: "It's a free world. If you don't love what you're doing or think the hours don't suit your lifestyle, by any means do something else." He added: "Junior bankers are paid very well compared to other industries or sectors: ask a young entrepreneur drawing no salary how they would like to make $100,000-plus straight out of college?"'
What do people think about this? Are very long working hours compensated by high salaries? Does this take advantage of the ambitions of younger workers?
Goldman Sachs raises banker pay after 95-hour week complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58054983
This bit in particular caught my eye.
'Xavier Rolet, who ran the London Stock Exchange for eight years, said the younger generation of bankers should stop complaining about long working hours or find another job. He suggested banks should hire "poor hungry kids who managed to put themselves through college" instead of "entitled" graduates. Mr Rolet, who worked at Goldman Sachs in New York and in London early on in his career, said on LinkedIn that he would regularly work 130 hours a week, seven days a week in the 1980s.'
'But Mr Rolet told the Mail on Sunday: "It's a free world. If you don't love what you're doing or think the hours don't suit your lifestyle, by any means do something else." He added: "Junior bankers are paid very well compared to other industries or sectors: ask a young entrepreneur drawing no salary how they would like to make $100,000-plus straight out of college?"'
What do people think about this? Are very long working hours compensated by high salaries? Does this take advantage of the ambitions of younger workers?
Original post by Admit-One
Are very long working hours compensated by high salaries?
It is difficult to have much sympathy for people who chose to work in investment banking and then complain about it because they should have known what they were getting themselves in for. However they aren't actually that well compensated. This came about because bankers were complaining about working 95 hour weeks in return for £72,000. That's £14.50 an hour. Their hourly rate is equal to or less than other graduates working 9 to 5 jobs. I know there is the potential for bonus on top of this and the potential for serious money if they don't **** up or burn out, but they are required to sacrifice every other element of some of the best years of their lives.
And why don't they just employ more people on more sane hours? Senior bankers may not give a toss about the wellbeing of their junior staff, but surely running people into the ground just impairs productivity.
Investment Banking is immoral.
Goldman Sachs is immoral.
Everything associated with the above is immoral.
Those who work in investment banking should think about it seriously and leave as soon as possible.
Goldman Sachs is immoral.
Everything associated with the above is immoral.
Those who work in investment banking should think about it seriously and leave as soon as possible.
Not a scrap of sympathy.
I have 3 separate points to make.
Firstly a comparison of hours.
During my teacher training year I would work 41 hours (Mon-Thurs) in school, 3 hours at home each of those nights (12 for the week), Friday would be about 5 hours at the university (which I won't count as professional work, for the sake of arguing). Plus about 4 hours of lesson planning that night (+4 for the weekly total). Each Saturday and Sunday would be about 6 hours of lesson planning each (+12 for the week).
So in total I'd do about 79 hours of work per week - for 4 days of teaching on a reduced (trainee) timetable and not being paid.
From that perspective, 95 hours a week is a ridiculous physical expectation to put on people and I couldn't possibly imagine being able to do it.
However, the profession is not unique in working long hours for what is perceived as very little reward.
Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the number of hours I put in, as it was my choice to do that. I'm just stating the hours I did spend working.
Second, the moral implication
Plenty of people claiming the system and the people choosing to work within it are immoral. Okay. I'd invite them to question how comfortable they would feel with a family member or loved one putting themselves under those conditions. It's great commenting when you're detached from it, but it's not always that simple.
Finally, the potential discrimination
There are many debilitating illnesses that would not stand up to a working week that's being described here. I have type 1 diabetes and a hearing impairment. I'm concentrating all day straining to hear people, which tires me out to start with. Then I've got a disease affecting my energy levels too. I would not last more than a week on the working pace of these people. So why should they be expected to do something that only an able bodied person could realistically manage? Why is that deemed okay? Food for thought.
Firstly a comparison of hours.
During my teacher training year I would work 41 hours (Mon-Thurs) in school, 3 hours at home each of those nights (12 for the week), Friday would be about 5 hours at the university (which I won't count as professional work, for the sake of arguing). Plus about 4 hours of lesson planning that night (+4 for the weekly total). Each Saturday and Sunday would be about 6 hours of lesson planning each (+12 for the week).
So in total I'd do about 79 hours of work per week - for 4 days of teaching on a reduced (trainee) timetable and not being paid.
From that perspective, 95 hours a week is a ridiculous physical expectation to put on people and I couldn't possibly imagine being able to do it.
However, the profession is not unique in working long hours for what is perceived as very little reward.
Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the number of hours I put in, as it was my choice to do that. I'm just stating the hours I did spend working.
Second, the moral implication
Plenty of people claiming the system and the people choosing to work within it are immoral. Okay. I'd invite them to question how comfortable they would feel with a family member or loved one putting themselves under those conditions. It's great commenting when you're detached from it, but it's not always that simple.
Finally, the potential discrimination
There are many debilitating illnesses that would not stand up to a working week that's being described here. I have type 1 diabetes and a hearing impairment. I'm concentrating all day straining to hear people, which tires me out to start with. Then I've got a disease affecting my energy levels too. I would not last more than a week on the working pace of these people. So why should they be expected to do something that only an able bodied person could realistically manage? Why is that deemed okay? Food for thought.
Original post by Admit-One
An interesting article on the BBC
Goldman Sachs raises banker pay after 95-hour week complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58054983
This bit in particular caught my eye.
'Xavier Rolet, who ran the London Stock Exchange for eight years, said the younger generation of bankers should stop complaining about long working hours or find another job. He suggested banks should hire "poor hungry kids who managed to put themselves through college" instead of "entitled" graduates. Mr Rolet, who worked at Goldman Sachs in New York and in London early on in his career, said on LinkedIn that he would regularly work 130 hours a week, seven days a week in the 1980s.'
'But Mr Rolet told the Mail on Sunday: "It's a free world. If you don't love what you're doing or think the hours don't suit your lifestyle, by any means do something else." He added: "Junior bankers are paid very well compared to other industries or sectors: ask a young entrepreneur drawing no salary how they would like to make $100,000-plus straight out of college?"'
What do people think about this? Are very long working hours compensated by high salaries? Does this take advantage of the ambitions of younger workers?
Goldman Sachs raises banker pay after 95-hour week complaint
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58054983
This bit in particular caught my eye.
'Xavier Rolet, who ran the London Stock Exchange for eight years, said the younger generation of bankers should stop complaining about long working hours or find another job. He suggested banks should hire "poor hungry kids who managed to put themselves through college" instead of "entitled" graduates. Mr Rolet, who worked at Goldman Sachs in New York and in London early on in his career, said on LinkedIn that he would regularly work 130 hours a week, seven days a week in the 1980s.'
'But Mr Rolet told the Mail on Sunday: "It's a free world. If you don't love what you're doing or think the hours don't suit your lifestyle, by any means do something else." He added: "Junior bankers are paid very well compared to other industries or sectors: ask a young entrepreneur drawing no salary how they would like to make $100,000-plus straight out of college?"'
What do people think about this? Are very long working hours compensated by high salaries? Does this take advantage of the ambitions of younger workers?
After the GS survey came out earlier in the year I had a conversation with a close friend who has worked in finance (IBD) this person is now in their 50s would be considered successful for the industry, & no longer does the grueling hours but very much remembers them.
He had zero sympathy, everyone knows what they are getting themselves in for. If you don’t enjoy competing against your peers then don’t go into the industry. The reality is the work as an analyst can be grueling but if you are highly capable and you rise through the ranks you are richly rewarded both in compensation & lifestyle.
If you are unwilling to live the life for the first 5 (maybe slightly longer for some) years then move on.
For what it’s worth I loosely agree. They make no secret 90+ hour weeks are expected. And even if you leave after one or two years you are still rewarded with excellent compensation & CV clout.
Original post by 04MR17
I have 3 separate points to make.
Firstly a comparison of hours.
During my teacher training year I would work 41 hours (Mon-Thurs) in school, 3 hours at home each of those nights (12 for the week), Friday would be about 5 hours at the university (which I won't count as professional work, for the sake of arguing). Plus about 4 hours of lesson planning that night (+4 for the weekly total). Each Saturday and Sunday would be about 6 hours of lesson planning each (+12 for the week).
So in total I'd do about 79 hours of work per week - for 4 days of teaching on a reduced (trainee) timetable and not being paid.
From that perspective, 95 hours a week is a ridiculous physical expectation to put on people and I couldn't possibly imagine being able to do it.
However, the profession is not unique in working long hours for what is perceived as very little reward.
Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the number of hours I put in, as it was my choice to do that. I'm just stating the hours I did spend working.
Second, the moral implication
Plenty of people claiming the system and the people choosing to work within it are immoral. Okay. I'd invite them to question how comfortable they would feel with a family member or loved one putting themselves under those conditions. It's great commenting when you're detached from it, but it's not always that simple.
Finally, the potential discrimination
There are many debilitating illnesses that would not stand up to a working week that's being described here. I have type 1 diabetes and a hearing impairment. I'm concentrating all day straining to hear people, which tires me out to start with. Then I've got a disease affecting my energy levels too. I would not last more than a week on the working pace of these people. So why should they be expected to do something that only an able bodied person could realistically manage? Why is that deemed okay? Food for thought.
Firstly a comparison of hours.
During my teacher training year I would work 41 hours (Mon-Thurs) in school, 3 hours at home each of those nights (12 for the week), Friday would be about 5 hours at the university (which I won't count as professional work, for the sake of arguing). Plus about 4 hours of lesson planning that night (+4 for the weekly total). Each Saturday and Sunday would be about 6 hours of lesson planning each (+12 for the week).
So in total I'd do about 79 hours of work per week - for 4 days of teaching on a reduced (trainee) timetable and not being paid.
From that perspective, 95 hours a week is a ridiculous physical expectation to put on people and I couldn't possibly imagine being able to do it.
However, the profession is not unique in working long hours for what is perceived as very little reward.
Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the number of hours I put in, as it was my choice to do that. I'm just stating the hours I did spend working.
Second, the moral implication
Plenty of people claiming the system and the people choosing to work within it are immoral. Okay. I'd invite them to question how comfortable they would feel with a family member or loved one putting themselves under those conditions. It's great commenting when you're detached from it, but it's not always that simple.
Finally, the potential discrimination
There are many debilitating illnesses that would not stand up to a working week that's being described here. I have type 1 diabetes and a hearing impairment. I'm concentrating all day straining to hear people, which tires me out to start with. Then I've got a disease affecting my energy levels too. I would not last more than a week on the working pace of these people. So why should they be expected to do something that only an able bodied person could realistically manage? Why is that deemed okay? Food for thought.
I agree with the long hours part and feel like they definitely deserve the compensation for it, but (I know they don't control it) NHS staff members also pull in long hours and do not get compensated nearly as well. I'm not saying everyone in the NHS working 90+ hours should be on £100k+ salary as that is just not feasible but it does kinda put it in perspective.
Plus they do know they will be working those long hours it is not like they are not told beforehand in university or when they are applying for jobs. I feel like they need a better work-life balance as well because having all this money is good but there's no point if your mental or physical health is declining rapidly due to burning out or just the stress of working those long hours.
It’s worth remembering that the selection process during recruitment identifies the high-functioning, low empathy individuals who will perform as the relentless machines that they need to be in order to survive those initial years. It’s easy to conjecture ‘how would I function in those circumstances?’, but having seen/known so many bankers, they really are a breed apart and of course the most extreme exemplars, like Xavier R are the ones who rise to the top.
I voted middle, I get that it's highly competitive and that past a point you need to put in the grind.. but the culture of trying to masochistically break people seems a bit much/self defeating.
I feel it's one of roles where people almost aim at that big salary figure and narrow their eyes on it above all else, maybe how that's how you become the best at anything?
I feel it's one of roles where people almost aim at that big salary figure and narrow their eyes on it above all else, maybe how that's how you become the best at anything?
I agree with Xavier Rolet.
Although the problem with entitled attitudes and limited work ethic is not only restricted to the university graduate investment bankers.
As I mentioned on a previous TSR thread about Goldman Sachs investment bankers working a 95 hour week, I have no sympathy for any of the very highly paid investment bankers complaining about the stressful corporate culture of long weekly working hours or last minute overtime.
These are very well known core elements of the investment banking world.
There are only two main reasons why ambitious people opt to fight to establish a successful investment banking career for themselves: the relatively high levels of remunerations and prestigeous social status connected to being an investment banker working for a high profile employer.
I believe that all the lazy grumblers with large paychecks or lucrative share options should be all be placed on performance related weekly pay, lose their lunch breaks and be firmly 'advised' to go an extra 10 miles without any whines/written complaints or risk their annual cash bonuses being capped at 5p with no stock options.
Although the problem with entitled attitudes and limited work ethic is not only restricted to the university graduate investment bankers.
As I mentioned on a previous TSR thread about Goldman Sachs investment bankers working a 95 hour week, I have no sympathy for any of the very highly paid investment bankers complaining about the stressful corporate culture of long weekly working hours or last minute overtime.
These are very well known core elements of the investment banking world.
There are only two main reasons why ambitious people opt to fight to establish a successful investment banking career for themselves: the relatively high levels of remunerations and prestigeous social status connected to being an investment banker working for a high profile employer.
I believe that all the lazy grumblers with large paychecks or lucrative share options should be all be placed on performance related weekly pay, lose their lunch breaks and be firmly 'advised' to go an extra 10 miles without any whines/written complaints or risk their annual cash bonuses being capped at 5p with no stock options.
Thanks for all the replies so far. I'll address a couple of them below but I really do appreciate them all.
PRSOM
This is a good point. When you factor in the cost of living in the city, it's not an especially well compensated role. You really will need to be working exceptionally hard for 4-5 years to move onto other positions where the work/life balance is sustainable.
I agree that these kind of hours must surely be of no surprise to anyone going into the industry. They have been very well known for decades. I think one aspect that doesn't sit right with me is that although graduates going into these positions are high achievers, they won't necessarily know going in the implications of a 90+ hour work week. Obviously that is for them to find out, but a number are really going to struggle with physical or mental health in doing so.
From Xavier's POV there isn't necessarily a problem to fix, because a) he put in even more hours so things are already 'easier' and b) they will always be oversubscribed with applicants eager to get into the industry, so it really doesn't matter if X% fall by the wayside.
(NB. The poll is still open for another 4 days if you fancy chipping in.)
Original post by Trilobite.
It is difficult to have much sympathy for people who chose to work in investment banking and then complain about it because they should have known what they were getting themselves in for. However they aren't actually that well compensated. This came about because bankers were complaining about working 95 hour weeks in return for £72,000. That's £14.50 an hour. Their hourly rate is equal to or less than other graduates working 9 to 5 jobs. I know there is the potential for bonus on top of this and the potential for serious money if they don't **** up or burn out, but they are required to sacrifice every other element of some of the best years of their lives.
PRSOM
This is a good point. When you factor in the cost of living in the city, it's not an especially well compensated role. You really will need to be working exceptionally hard for 4-5 years to move onto other positions where the work/life balance is sustainable.
Original post by mnot
If you are unwilling to live the life for the first 5 (maybe slightly longer for some) years then move on.
For what it’s worth I loosely agree. They make no secret 90+ hour weeks are expected. And even if you leave after one or two years you are still rewarded with excellent compensation & CV clout.
For what it’s worth I loosely agree. They make no secret 90+ hour weeks are expected. And even if you leave after one or two years you are still rewarded with excellent compensation & CV clout.
Original post by SyedN
Plus they do know they will be working those long hours it is not like they are not told beforehand in university or when they are applying for jobs. I feel like they need a better work-life balance as well because having all this money is good but there's no point if your mental or physical health is declining rapidly due to burning out or just the stress of working those long hours.
Original post by londonmyst
As I mentioned on a previous TSR thread about Goldman Sachs investment bankers working a 95 hour week, I have no sympathy for any of the very highly paid investment bankers complaining about the stressful corporate culture of long weekly working hours or last minute overtime.
These are very well known core elements of the investment banking world.
These are very well known core elements of the investment banking world.
I agree that these kind of hours must surely be of no surprise to anyone going into the industry. They have been very well known for decades. I think one aspect that doesn't sit right with me is that although graduates going into these positions are high achievers, they won't necessarily know going in the implications of a 90+ hour work week. Obviously that is for them to find out, but a number are really going to struggle with physical or mental health in doing so.
From Xavier's POV there isn't necessarily a problem to fix, because a) he put in even more hours so things are already 'easier' and b) they will always be oversubscribed with applicants eager to get into the industry, so it really doesn't matter if X% fall by the wayside.
(NB. The poll is still open for another 4 days if you fancy chipping in.)
Original post by Admit-One
Thanks for all the replies so far. I'll address a couple of them below but I really do appreciate them all.
PRSOM
This is a good point. When you factor in the cost of living in the city, it's not an especially well compensated role. You really will need to be working exceptionally hard for 4-5 years to move onto other positions where the work/life balance is sustainable.
I agree that these kind of hours must surely be of no surprise to anyone going into the industry. They have been very well known for decades. I think one aspect that doesn't sit right with me is that although graduates going into these positions are high achievers, they won't necessarily know going in the implications of a 90+ hour work week. Obviously that is for them to find out, but a number are really going to struggle with physical or mental health in doing so.
From Xavier's POV there isn't necessarily a problem to fix, because a) he put in even more hours so things are already 'easier' and b) they will always be oversubscribed with applicants eager to get into the industry, so it really doesn't matter if X% fall by the wayside.
(NB. The poll is still open for another 4 days if you fancy chipping in.)
PRSOM
This is a good point. When you factor in the cost of living in the city, it's not an especially well compensated role. You really will need to be working exceptionally hard for 4-5 years to move onto other positions where the work/life balance is sustainable.
I agree that these kind of hours must surely be of no surprise to anyone going into the industry. They have been very well known for decades. I think one aspect that doesn't sit right with me is that although graduates going into these positions are high achievers, they won't necessarily know going in the implications of a 90+ hour work week. Obviously that is for them to find out, but a number are really going to struggle with physical or mental health in doing so.
From Xavier's POV there isn't necessarily a problem to fix, because a) he put in even more hours so things are already 'easier' and b) they will always be oversubscribed with applicants eager to get into the industry, so it really doesn't matter if X% fall by the wayside.
(NB. The poll is still open for another 4 days if you fancy chipping in.)
Yes this is true.
I think a large part of my lack of sympathy is they are free to quit. Not only this but nowadays basically every analyst has interned in the bank before joining. So they join having already had a taste of it.
Lets say you do go for a few weeks one summer & call it a day, as you can’t handle the lifestyle (a very reasonable reason). Well you got some tremendous education from the experience, the internships are paying excellent pro rota compensation, you will get to meet VPs/MDs/maybe get a client meeting so can build an excellent network & lets face it summer internship at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Blackrock, BAML.. is going to open lots of doors outside of professional services.
So even if the dust settles just by doing a short internship, learning it’s not the job for you, you end up well ahead. I would go as far to say that simply having the name & experience on the CV makes you privileged & you should appreciate the value of that.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by mnot
So even if the dust settles just by doing a short internship, learning it’s not the job for you, you end up well ahead. I would go as far to say that simply having the name & experience on the CV makes you privileged & you should appreciate the value of that.
This. In 2017, 2nd year undergrads were picking up over £10k for Summer internship.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should I distance myself from him?
- Does it matter which university I go to become an Investment Banker
- Bf told me he only slept and took my virginity from me as a bet
- How to get a job in High Finance
- which would be the highest paid out of these jobs?
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- Girl cries after first day of work "How do you have time for your life?"
- Stick at LSE or clearing
- Investment Banking
- The "Am I good enough for Investment Banking/Consultancy?" Thread
- Manchester for IB or alternative route?
- HELP retaking lnat, reapplying for law next year
- LSE decision appeal
- I work in Harrods! - ask me anything
- I’m stuck
- Do students at LSE care about making a positive impact?
- Do teachers crush on students?
- My best friend just told me he’d pick his boss over me
- Ex-banker (Moelis & Co), Ask me anything
- Haven’t got paid
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
