7 ms·

I worked as a dev at GS - it's a much smaller bank than its competitors (40k vs 204k at Citi, for example) but completes the same amount of work. This means th

I worked as a dev at GS - it's a much smaller bank than its competitors (40k vs 204k at Citi, for example) but completes the same amount of work. This means that every employee is expected to do the job of multiple people, and is expected to manage their time appropriately to be able to handle this. For me, I joked about working two shifts, and starting 'second shift' after the trading day ended and I handed off monitoring to Asia. I'd grab dinner and then start working on my coding assignments. At the end of my tenure, it wasn't uncommon for me to work 15 hours a day and be on call 24/7. Now, this isn't healthy by a long shot, but it is what's expected. You get used to it and you allocate your time to make sure you don't go crazy. When I hear about these kids going through the ringer and working these 100 hour weeks, I'm almost incredulous because: a) this is the amount you're going to be expected to work in the future, but you need to figure out how to manage it and b) you've heard the stories, what did you think was going to happen ? I have sympathy because it's hard, and I've been there, but that's the culture of the firm and if you can handle it, it's awesome. It's pretty inspiring to figure out what you're capable of under dire circumstances, you develop great skills quickly, and after GS everything else has the volume turned down. Also, you can tap out and there's no shame in that.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> that's the culture of the firm and if you can handle it, it's awesome It's also a clear signal to everyone later in your career that you can handle that sort of throughput and not fuzz out.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  I highly doubt that. Those people are unmarried (probably not even dating), have very few friends outside of work, and definitely not any kids. That’s literally the only time in their life they can work like that without “fuzzing out” Later in life priorities change for good reasons.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Priorities change, but you can influence those by paying more. The ability to work 70+ hours week after week after week and keeping the quality reasonably high, that doesn't change as much. It's also something you can't convince people to be able to by offering more money.
    - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
      I don’t think people working like that in their 20s is a prediction of how they’ll work in their 40s. We have some kind of superpower in our 20s. You can work like dogs all day and night and still be productive in the morning. Biologically speaking it’s probably because those are prime child rearing years and that effort is needed to raise children. Instead Goldman Sachs gets those years. Hopefully it was worth it to all in the grind.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > it’s probably because those are prime child rearing years and that effort is needed to raise children. Instead Goldman Sachs gets those years. Few people are responsibly having kids in their early twenties. Goldman got the time, but their alumni got the cash and cachet. Not defending the practices in the complaint. 90+ hours is excessive. I turned down that lifestyle and think I’ve done decently well for myself. But being dismissive about the power, wealth and material comforts that work opens one up to is ignoring a strong signalling mechanism in our society.
        goatinaboat 6y ago
        Few people are responsibly having kids in their early twenties In most of human history your kids would old enough to help you on the farm by the time you reached your early 20’s!
      - luckylion 6y ago
        I've always found that working significantly more than average is a mental thing more than a physical thing. It can become a bit of a habit, not easy to get into, but once you're in the rhythm, "it just works". The signal is probably not so much the raw energy level, but the discipline to focus that energy on a task. If you choose to work that hard at 20 instead of spending half your day hanging out with friends, that might be a good signal for how hard you'll work when you're 40. It is in my personal experience, but that doesn't say much.
tmpz22 6y ago
Do you still consider it a good salary once you factor in all the extra hours and "health concerns" [1]? [1]: I imagine super high caffeine/stimulant consumption, sustained lack of sleep, high blood pressure, inconsistent diet, less time to go to the gym, lack of social opportunities outside of work, etc.
goatinaboat 6y ago
it's a much smaller bank than its competitors (40k vs 204k at Citi, for example) Not a like-for-like comparison as Citi and JPMC have huge retail operations. The size of their investment banking divisions isn’t as wildly disparate as you think

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> that's the culture of the firm and if you can handle it, it's awesome It's also a clear signal to everyone later in your career that you can handle that sort of throughput and not fuzz out.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
I highly doubt that. Those people are unmarried (probably not even dating), have very few friends outside of work, and definitely not any kids. That’s literally the only time in their life they can work like that without “fuzzing out” Later in life priorities change for good reasons.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Priorities change, but you can influence those by paying more. The ability to work 70+ hours week after week after week and keeping the quality reasonably high, that doesn't change as much. It's also something you can't convince people to be able to by offering more money.
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    I don’t think people working like that in their 20s is a prediction of how they’ll work in their 40s. We have some kind of superpower in our 20s. You can work like dogs all day and night and still be productive in the morning. Biologically speaking it’s probably because those are prime child rearing years and that effort is needed to raise children. Instead Goldman Sachs gets those years. Hopefully it was worth it to all in the grind.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > it’s probably because those are prime child rearing years and that effort is needed to raise children. Instead Goldman Sachs gets those years. Few people are responsibly having kids in their early twenties. Goldman got the time, but their alumni got the cash and cachet. Not defending the practices in the complaint. 90+ hours is excessive. I turned down that lifestyle and think I’ve done decently well for myself. But being dismissive about the power, wealth and material comforts that work opens one up to is ignoring a strong signalling mechanism in our society.
      - goatinaboat 6y ago
        Few people are responsibly having kids in their early twenties In most of human history your kids would old enough to help you on the farm by the time you reached your early 20’s!
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I've always found that working significantly more than average is a mental thing more than a physical thing. It can become a bit of a habit, not easy to get into, but once you're in the rhythm, "it just works". The signal is probably not so much the raw energy level, but the discipline to focus that energy on a task. If you choose to work that hard at 20 instead of spending half your day hanging out with friends, that might be a good signal for how hard you'll work when you're 40. It is in my personal experience, but that doesn't say much.

tmpz22 6y ago

Do you still consider it a good salary once you factor in all the extra hours and "health concerns" [1]? [1]: I imagine super high caffeine/stimulant consumption, sustained lack of sleep, high blood pressure, inconsistent diet, less time to go to the gym, lack of social opportunities outside of work, etc.

goatinaboat 6y ago

it's a much smaller bank than its competitors (40k vs 204k at Citi, for example) Not a like-for-like comparison as Citi and JPMC have huge retail operations. The size of their investment banking divisions isn’t as wildly disparate as you think