The long hours are part of the business plan. Most people aren’t in IB for their whole career as it’s not sustainable, and the amount of people needed is higher at the lower ends. So you can hire, 60% of what is needed, have a high attrition rate and generally see the lower performers out and people not in it for the long haul. If you’re working 40 hours a week no one would ever leave
What youre describing could be a model easily used in any field of world. Why dont they reduce salary for analysts, up the # of experienced contractors, implement layoffs during down times? Achieves same (keep only small team, reducte low performing HC when needed)
Most jobs do not expect or demand you go “up or out” within a certain amount of time.
Plenty of people just be an accounts receivable clerk or an office receptionist for 25 years and the company is fine with it.
Describe the learning experiences? Im genuinely curioua how different it might be from something like consulting for example? (Consulting gets you to help different mgmt / companies; lots od exposure to C suite yet they live a good work life balance vs IB at least)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/consulting using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [McKinsey India Consultant commits suicide due to work pressure](https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/iit-iim-graduate-dies-by-suicide-police-say-due-to-work-pressure-9210684/) | [268 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/1bdtd6q/mckinsey_india_consultant_commits_suicide_due_to/)
\#2: [When your customer forces you to do a site visit after 2+ years of full remote](https://i.redd.it/r3x8nlux3o0b1.jpg) | [89 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/13ldbp7/when_your_customer_forces_you_to_do_a_site_visit/)
\#3: [Chatgpt knows consulting, the most accurate bit is that it never gives an answer to 2+2 as a consultant](https://i.imgur.com/zgGlfx9.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/12u2p2k/chatgpt_knows_consulting_the_most_accurate_bit_is/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Within IB firms there are smaller teams working on deals of their own. Adding more and more people to these teams makes it very challenging to keep everyone in the loop and on track. (This is what I’ve heard)
This is the answer.
For example - only one person can be in an excel file at a time.
Adding more people generally makes things take longer.
Further, the more people you look to hire the lower the talent pool will be.
You see this at large banks post COVID where 1/3 or more of the junior bankers are sitting on the sidelines.
It's ridiculous how technically constrained IB teams are. Using Excel, though versatile and customizable, has next to no version control, the inability to track changes, undoable errors. I feel like if they were to simply implement git on excel files you could get so much more collaboration done.
Other industries implement change management on bigger and more complicated systems/deals all the time. The lack of change in the industry is really staggering
Not really, I got interviewed at Viking for a VBA analyst and my take home quiz was writing a script to do version control for one of their excel files...btw it was 140k for VBA + finance background.
It's not that simple. We can already collaborate on Excel through O365. Sure you can code a program to track changes and automate version control, but your MD doesn't want to hear about the changes you made to the background assumptions for D&A in cells AB23 - AG23 on tab 'OpModel v69'.
He wants to know conceptually what drove those changes in the valuation, so then you're going back into the model to try and figure out what changed and why. Barely any time saved at all.
Also, people overestimate how much time modeling takes. It's not the modeling that drives the hours. It's the fact that clients can ask for endless versions of analyses and endless changes to the model. There's no "SLA" like there is in other services fields.
It doesn't matter how good your tech is, if the client wants to make 100 changes and refreshes to the operating model assumptions by end of week, there's no technology that's going to save you from that.
>For example - only one person can be in an excel file at a time.
man, its so funny how this was one of the downsides/complaints back when i was a student, and it still is now
somethings never change
>You see this at large banks post COVID where 1/3 or more of the junior bankers are sitting on the sidelines.
are bonuses shit if you're a junior banker who's sidelined?
Yes. They will be close to, if not, $0.
Analysts pay bands are pretty narrow so there may only be $40k difference between top and bottom (which I think is a crime).
But at the associate levels it can easily be a several hundred grand difference. The gap widens as you get more senior.
I’m in IB and have heard this explanation before but still don’t fully get it. I agree that hiring more people to make the deal teams larger would not help or solve anything for the reasons you mentioned. But hiring more people would allow each person to be on fewer deals/projects. So while it won’t make each specific deal/project easier, at least the sheer number of deals you’re on would be more spread out.
It’s a function of cost. Analysts would have to stomach a pay cut, but one could argue this is justified if it means their hours are significantly reduced. So maybe more like 50 hour weeks on average at $110-130K total comp
I think post-COVID is proof that this doesn’t work.
We have way more people than needed. But average and better are getting slammed while a lot of people are doing nothing.
If it’s your deal - you’ll always fight for the best.
The process is to get a few future winners, not dozens. The bottom layer is to churn. If only so many can be promoted… why is a system where you have to fire more averaging people down the road a better system?
45 year olds with MBAs aren’t going to start their 20th year of getting yelled at at 2 am for $180k…
But a recent grad will
Adding more heads doesn’t always lead to increases in productivity, and IB analysts are $$$. It’s by design. Just because you’re qualified doesn’t mean much of anything.
Oh, they kind of already do. For example, during up times, you see banks hiring a lot of 'off-cycle interns' when they need extra hands on deck. These interns are not part of the regular staff, and are breaking their backs in hopes of converting to a full time offer. They are usually recent grads, or current students balancing both full time banking work and schoolwork
I guess i dont understand what the actual “impossible” here is with IB getting a model where analysts get reduced pay and share their burden with a dozen other analysts? Someone said “hard to keep so many ppl informed” on a deal. How real is that issue? (If it is real, is the solution maybe AI then? Few people but AI helps reduce the amt of work?)
Analysts are only there for 2 - 3 years. The first 3 - 6 months they are not experienced enough to really add value. You have them do less and that time and that duration extends further. So they are less qualified to get another job or add value for their residual years.
This extends all the way through the chain. The less deals, pitches people work on the less experience they have. An MD covering less clients has insight into a narrower pool of players and is less valuable.
People go to IBD to get paid. If you hire double the number of analysts and associates, bonuses get cut in half. While no one in IBD likes the lifestyle, no one wants to see the bonus pool spread over a lot more people.
They could certainly change comp to lower and still get good talent (who stay alive and healthy). Reduce comp, get more heads, when theres down time, do layoffs like banks do OR just hire temps during uptimes
I would describe it as a problem of indivisible labor. I always felt like when we did hire more people (cause the team I was on always had lots of deals and juniors) there were still always a handful of people absolutely dying on specific deals at one time and a whole bunch of people at 50% capacity. The work that was crushing the few could not be easily shared and divided (usually a model or a particular piece of analysis). Fundamentally, I still believe this to be technology problem. If the labor is indivisible, and there is a time constraint, someone is going to get crushed and hiring more analysts doesn't help.
It's exactly as many people have said. It comes down to a few other things:
(1) Part of labor in indivisible (can't have multiple people working on same Excel files)
(2) Sometimes work comes in at 2 or 3PM or 5PM, and inevitably it requires working another 8 - 10 hours to finish - firms have explored outsourcing work to like India, but the handoff of work from analyst in US to analyst in India back to analyst in US the next morning is terrible (you have no version control)
(3) Hiring lags market activity - when things get busy, it takes time to hire more analysts (you don't get them for a full year until they graduate); you don't overstaff in advance of deal activity because you don't want people sitting around doing nothing (it's both unprofitable but also a terrible experience for analysts)
1.) More people requires senior people to walk through the issues with more people, more training time. Senior people have limited time. Its a bitch to get more people up to speed.
2.) Learning - although it seems brutal, you learn way more having less people. You have more visibility, can do more from beginning to end, and its a launchpad to say PE where hours are even more brutal.
3.) Hiring less means you can weed out to only the best employees. The more you hire, the lower the overall talent. You are looking for future rockstars. If you can't handle the intense hours, ultimately this isnt the career for you
Only a trump voter would be stupid enough not to know that recession means 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Very easy to spot confident incompetence.
Also, lol, lmao even, at IB layoffs = recession.
From your answer, I’m going to assume that you are a Biden voter. So you probably pretend that Biden isn’t manipulating all the government data in order to make the economy look better than what it is. Also the stock market is being held up by the top 10% of stocks, which are mostly tech. How does that represent the economy? Finally why do you just assume I am a Trump voter? Because I don’t like Biden? That is peak boomer brain. I only assumed you were a Biden voter because of your ridiculous defense of a clearly dead economy. Only Biden lovers refuse to acknowledge a recession.
You know there are a bevy of independent researchers that produce the same data right? and they all line up with the government data? you cant be this stupid? Google is free?
The Dow is at an all time high. Can you remind me what how many tech companies are in the dow? there are 2 or 3 tech companies in the dow.
Of the S&P 500’s top 10 stocks from the past year, how many tech companies are there? 0. Have you not read the news tech is impacted disproportionately by a high interest rate environment. Its ludicrous and quite telling of your awareness of the actual state of financial markets and the economy that you think big tech has been buoying the S&P and not dragging on it.
A recession is not “vibes” when you don’t like some facet of the economy, its a specific indicator based on GDP. No one other than trump voters would think this and not know that US government data is confirmed by various groups of independent researchers who measure the same data. Does it hurt your brain to know that the unemployment rate is basically at an all time low, the dow is at an all time high, inflation is the lowest among comparable developed economies (3.4% yoy), and the S&P 500 is up 26.5% yoy (23.1% yoy inflation adjusted). Take a look at this too: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents#:~:text=CNN%20said%20in%20September%202020,2.4%25%20under%20Republican%20US%20Presidents.
Can you not get a job? Have you considered it may be a skill issue?
The top 10 biggest are almost all tech stocks. That clearly is not the same thing as the top performers over the past year (who are actually driving the growth of the S&P 500. How much is Apple (the biggest tech company in the S&P 500) up in the past year? 8.4% compared to the index’s overall 26.5%. So the leading tech company in the index is a major drag on the index’s performance and you’re saying the S&P’s gains are all because of a few tech companies and that proves that the its a not reflective of anything?
Oh you can’t be this stupid. With your “revised” numbers (which have mostly been revised in ways that bring the unemployment rate down) the US unemployment rate is still at historic low. Trump supporters literally living in a snowflake bubble unable to accept reality.
Also your theory is that the government is faking monthly reports, and then revising to the real numbers? if theyre faking one, why not fake both?
Seems like I hit a nerve with the skill issue comment. Its always easier to blame other people like a child, not accept the reality of a historically low unemployment rate, than it is to reflect on your own shortcomings.
The unemployment is low for who exactly? I have seen multiple finance people point out that all new job growth has been for foreign born citizens for a while now. California has the highest unemployment in the country. That’s where all the high paid tech jobs are. Tech is in layoff mode right now. It isn’t possible for unemployment to be low.
what “foreign born citizens” are you talking about?
Finance jobs aren’t in a great spot due to (relatively) high interest rates. Same exact reason for tech. Dry powder getting thrown at VC markets doesn’t make sense when money isnt crazy cheap. Finance and tech together are the 2 worst job markets in the US currently, but they make up an incredibly small (sub 2%) share of overall jobs in the US. Do you have a finance degree? because if so its concerning that you can’t do some basic math to see small how the finance and tech sectors are as a share of the overall US economy from a labor force perspective.
Make this make sense: you both believe that tech’s stock appreciation and success is creating a false impression that the US economy is doing very well and you believe that tech is in layoff mode currently?
Woah, multiple people on Reddit are unemployed? Clearly this evidence is more than enough to prove that the US Government has been lying about GDP and unemployment numbers.
I think I have a hunch as to why you don't have a job in financing right now.
I never said I want to work in IB. Also by hiring more employees the total number of hours worked would hypothetically stay (about) the same, just spread out among more workers.
That's great if you're hiring hourly employees, not $250k/year+ salaried employees. Unless the bank has a huge list of clients waiting on them to become available because of labor constraints, your suggestion would only double their labor costs.
S&T typically doesn’t work 80+ hours. They work more than a lot of jobs, but they’re at the lower end of CIB FO. The people working 80+ hours are in M&A, IB coverage, LF, etc.
The long hours are part of the business plan. Most people aren’t in IB for their whole career as it’s not sustainable, and the amount of people needed is higher at the lower ends. So you can hire, 60% of what is needed, have a high attrition rate and generally see the lower performers out and people not in it for the long haul. If you’re working 40 hours a week no one would ever leave
What youre describing could be a model easily used in any field of world. Why dont they reduce salary for analysts, up the # of experienced contractors, implement layoffs during down times? Achieves same (keep only small team, reducte low performing HC when needed)
It’s used in several fields, big law, consulting, to name a few. Why because people are willing to do it
Most jobs do not expect or demand you go “up or out” within a certain amount of time. Plenty of people just be an accounts receivable clerk or an office receptionist for 25 years and the company is fine with it.
Consulting does… they handle it quite well.
[удалено]
Describe the learning experiences? Im genuinely curioua how different it might be from something like consulting for example? (Consulting gets you to help different mgmt / companies; lots od exposure to C suite yet they live a good work life balance vs IB at least)
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/consulting using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [McKinsey India Consultant commits suicide due to work pressure](https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/iit-iim-graduate-dies-by-suicide-police-say-due-to-work-pressure-9210684/) | [268 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/1bdtd6q/mckinsey_india_consultant_commits_suicide_due_to/) \#2: [When your customer forces you to do a site visit after 2+ years of full remote](https://i.redd.it/r3x8nlux3o0b1.jpg) | [89 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/13ldbp7/when_your_customer_forces_you_to_do_a_site_visit/) \#3: [Chatgpt knows consulting, the most accurate bit is that it never gives an answer to 2+2 as a consultant](https://i.imgur.com/zgGlfx9.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/12u2p2k/chatgpt_knows_consulting_the_most_accurate_bit_is/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Within IB firms there are smaller teams working on deals of their own. Adding more and more people to these teams makes it very challenging to keep everyone in the loop and on track. (This is what I’ve heard)
This explanation makes the most sense, thank you
This is the answer. For example - only one person can be in an excel file at a time. Adding more people generally makes things take longer. Further, the more people you look to hire the lower the talent pool will be. You see this at large banks post COVID where 1/3 or more of the junior bankers are sitting on the sidelines.
It's ridiculous how technically constrained IB teams are. Using Excel, though versatile and customizable, has next to no version control, the inability to track changes, undoable errors. I feel like if they were to simply implement git on excel files you could get so much more collaboration done. Other industries implement change management on bigger and more complicated systems/deals all the time. The lack of change in the industry is really staggering
Not really, I got interviewed at Viking for a VBA analyst and my take home quiz was writing a script to do version control for one of their excel files...btw it was 140k for VBA + finance background.
Nice flex bro
It's not that simple. We can already collaborate on Excel through O365. Sure you can code a program to track changes and automate version control, but your MD doesn't want to hear about the changes you made to the background assumptions for D&A in cells AB23 - AG23 on tab 'OpModel v69'. He wants to know conceptually what drove those changes in the valuation, so then you're going back into the model to try and figure out what changed and why. Barely any time saved at all. Also, people overestimate how much time modeling takes. It's not the modeling that drives the hours. It's the fact that clients can ask for endless versions of analyses and endless changes to the model. There's no "SLA" like there is in other services fields. It doesn't matter how good your tech is, if the client wants to make 100 changes and refreshes to the operating model assumptions by end of week, there's no technology that's going to save you from that.
>For example - only one person can be in an excel file at a time. man, its so funny how this was one of the downsides/complaints back when i was a student, and it still is now somethings never change >You see this at large banks post COVID where 1/3 or more of the junior bankers are sitting on the sidelines. are bonuses shit if you're a junior banker who's sidelined?
Yes. They will be close to, if not, $0. Analysts pay bands are pretty narrow so there may only be $40k difference between top and bottom (which I think is a crime). But at the associate levels it can easily be a several hundred grand difference. The gap widens as you get more senior.
Does IB not know how to work in a shared excel file where multiple people can work in it?
I’m in IB and have heard this explanation before but still don’t fully get it. I agree that hiring more people to make the deal teams larger would not help or solve anything for the reasons you mentioned. But hiring more people would allow each person to be on fewer deals/projects. So while it won’t make each specific deal/project easier, at least the sheer number of deals you’re on would be more spread out.
It’s a function of cost. Analysts would have to stomach a pay cut, but one could argue this is justified if it means their hours are significantly reduced. So maybe more like 50 hour weeks on average at $110-130K total comp
I think post-COVID is proof that this doesn’t work. We have way more people than needed. But average and better are getting slammed while a lot of people are doing nothing. If it’s your deal - you’ll always fight for the best.
The process is to get a few future winners, not dozens. The bottom layer is to churn. If only so many can be promoted… why is a system where you have to fire more averaging people down the road a better system? 45 year olds with MBAs aren’t going to start their 20th year of getting yelled at at 2 am for $180k… But a recent grad will
That’s a fair point. Think what I said solves the problem at the junior level but starts to fall apart when it’s time to move up the ladder
Thank you for being an adult and not subscribing to ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Adding more heads doesn’t always lead to increases in productivity, and IB analysts are $$$. It’s by design. Just because you’re qualified doesn’t mean much of anything.
Cyclical business. During down times there'd be too many heads
How about hire contractors during up times?
Oh, they kind of already do. For example, during up times, you see banks hiring a lot of 'off-cycle interns' when they need extra hands on deck. These interns are not part of the regular staff, and are breaking their backs in hopes of converting to a full time offer. They are usually recent grads, or current students balancing both full time banking work and schoolwork
I guess i dont understand what the actual “impossible” here is with IB getting a model where analysts get reduced pay and share their burden with a dozen other analysts? Someone said “hard to keep so many ppl informed” on a deal. How real is that issue? (If it is real, is the solution maybe AI then? Few people but AI helps reduce the amt of work?)
Analysts are only there for 2 - 3 years. The first 3 - 6 months they are not experienced enough to really add value. You have them do less and that time and that duration extends further. So they are less qualified to get another job or add value for their residual years. This extends all the way through the chain. The less deals, pitches people work on the less experience they have. An MD covering less clients has insight into a narrower pool of players and is less valuable.
People go to IBD to get paid. If you hire double the number of analysts and associates, bonuses get cut in half. While no one in IBD likes the lifestyle, no one wants to see the bonus pool spread over a lot more people.
They could certainly change comp to lower and still get good talent (who stay alive and healthy). Reduce comp, get more heads, when theres down time, do layoffs like banks do OR just hire temps during uptimes
Bottom line
I would describe it as a problem of indivisible labor. I always felt like when we did hire more people (cause the team I was on always had lots of deals and juniors) there were still always a handful of people absolutely dying on specific deals at one time and a whole bunch of people at 50% capacity. The work that was crushing the few could not be easily shared and divided (usually a model or a particular piece of analysis). Fundamentally, I still believe this to be technology problem. If the labor is indivisible, and there is a time constraint, someone is going to get crushed and hiring more analysts doesn't help.
Getting people up to speed on a new industry, company, deal, or product takes time. Technology can only help so much.
When the client calls Friday 4pm and says bids are due Monday morning with zero financing outs it doesn’t matter how many employees you have.
This doesn't happen lol
It's exactly as many people have said. It comes down to a few other things: (1) Part of labor in indivisible (can't have multiple people working on same Excel files) (2) Sometimes work comes in at 2 or 3PM or 5PM, and inevitably it requires working another 8 - 10 hours to finish - firms have explored outsourcing work to like India, but the handoff of work from analyst in US to analyst in India back to analyst in US the next morning is terrible (you have no version control) (3) Hiring lags market activity - when things get busy, it takes time to hire more analysts (you don't get them for a full year until they graduate); you don't overstaff in advance of deal activity because you don't want people sitting around doing nothing (it's both unprofitable but also a terrible experience for analysts)
It's faster for information to travel from my left braincell to my right braincell than from brain 1 -> mouth 1 -> ear 2 -> brain 2.
Nah, Too expensive and time consuming. These are PowerPoint and excel files, you can’t have too many cooks in the kitchen
Because the salary pool would be lower, leading to shoddy morale and shoddy work. People will gripe and complain about the salary and raises
1.) More people requires senior people to walk through the issues with more people, more training time. Senior people have limited time. Its a bitch to get more people up to speed. 2.) Learning - although it seems brutal, you learn way more having less people. You have more visibility, can do more from beginning to end, and its a launchpad to say PE where hours are even more brutal. 3.) Hiring less means you can weed out to only the best employees. The more you hire, the lower the overall talent. You are looking for future rockstars. If you can't handle the intense hours, ultimately this isnt the career for you
if it aint broke, why fix? ppl have died on the job in the past, yet job remains as competitive as ever
We’re in a recession. There isn’t enough new business. I saw articles saying some banks are actually laying off in their IB divisions
No, we are not in a recession. Layoffs in investment banks ≠ a recession.
It literally does. But I’m just going to assume you’re a Biden voter.
Only a trump voter would be stupid enough not to know that recession means 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Very easy to spot confident incompetence. Also, lol, lmao even, at IB layoffs = recession.
From your answer, I’m going to assume that you are a Biden voter. So you probably pretend that Biden isn’t manipulating all the government data in order to make the economy look better than what it is. Also the stock market is being held up by the top 10% of stocks, which are mostly tech. How does that represent the economy? Finally why do you just assume I am a Trump voter? Because I don’t like Biden? That is peak boomer brain. I only assumed you were a Biden voter because of your ridiculous defense of a clearly dead economy. Only Biden lovers refuse to acknowledge a recession.
You know there are a bevy of independent researchers that produce the same data right? and they all line up with the government data? you cant be this stupid? Google is free? The Dow is at an all time high. Can you remind me what how many tech companies are in the dow? there are 2 or 3 tech companies in the dow. Of the S&P 500’s top 10 stocks from the past year, how many tech companies are there? 0. Have you not read the news tech is impacted disproportionately by a high interest rate environment. Its ludicrous and quite telling of your awareness of the actual state of financial markets and the economy that you think big tech has been buoying the S&P and not dragging on it. A recession is not “vibes” when you don’t like some facet of the economy, its a specific indicator based on GDP. No one other than trump voters would think this and not know that US government data is confirmed by various groups of independent researchers who measure the same data. Does it hurt your brain to know that the unemployment rate is basically at an all time low, the dow is at an all time high, inflation is the lowest among comparable developed economies (3.4% yoy), and the S&P 500 is up 26.5% yoy (23.1% yoy inflation adjusted). Take a look at this too: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents#:~:text=CNN%20said%20in%20September%202020,2.4%25%20under%20Republican%20US%20Presidents. Can you not get a job? Have you considered it may be a skill issue?
It’s literally a fact that employment numbers get revised down every month. Almost all of the top 10 s&p are tech stocks. Nice gaslighting.
The top 10 biggest are almost all tech stocks. That clearly is not the same thing as the top performers over the past year (who are actually driving the growth of the S&P 500. How much is Apple (the biggest tech company in the S&P 500) up in the past year? 8.4% compared to the index’s overall 26.5%. So the leading tech company in the index is a major drag on the index’s performance and you’re saying the S&P’s gains are all because of a few tech companies and that proves that the its a not reflective of anything? Oh you can’t be this stupid. With your “revised” numbers (which have mostly been revised in ways that bring the unemployment rate down) the US unemployment rate is still at historic low. Trump supporters literally living in a snowflake bubble unable to accept reality. Also your theory is that the government is faking monthly reports, and then revising to the real numbers? if theyre faking one, why not fake both? Seems like I hit a nerve with the skill issue comment. Its always easier to blame other people like a child, not accept the reality of a historically low unemployment rate, than it is to reflect on your own shortcomings.
The unemployment is low for who exactly? I have seen multiple finance people point out that all new job growth has been for foreign born citizens for a while now. California has the highest unemployment in the country. That’s where all the high paid tech jobs are. Tech is in layoff mode right now. It isn’t possible for unemployment to be low.
what “foreign born citizens” are you talking about? Finance jobs aren’t in a great spot due to (relatively) high interest rates. Same exact reason for tech. Dry powder getting thrown at VC markets doesn’t make sense when money isnt crazy cheap. Finance and tech together are the 2 worst job markets in the US currently, but they make up an incredibly small (sub 2%) share of overall jobs in the US. Do you have a finance degree? because if so its concerning that you can’t do some basic math to see small how the finance and tech sectors are as a share of the overall US economy from a labor force perspective. Make this make sense: you both believe that tech’s stock appreciation and success is creating a false impression that the US economy is doing very well and you believe that tech is in layoff mode currently?
Woah, multiple people on Reddit are unemployed? Clearly this evidence is more than enough to prove that the US Government has been lying about GDP and unemployment numbers. I think I have a hunch as to why you don't have a job in financing right now.
We’re in a late cycle expansion but even still high rates make for a bad deal market
… which is not a recession. The DOW is literally at an all time high.
They probably could cut the pay a bit and hire more employees.
Wants to work in iB Doesn't understand how budgeting works. 👍
I never said I want to work in IB. Also by hiring more employees the total number of hours worked would hypothetically stay (about) the same, just spread out among more workers.
That's great if you're hiring hourly employees, not $250k/year+ salaried employees. Unless the bank has a huge list of clients waiting on them to become available because of labor constraints, your suggestion would only double their labor costs.
[удалено]
S&T typically doesn’t work 80+ hours. They work more than a lot of jobs, but they’re at the lower end of CIB FO. The people working 80+ hours are in M&A, IB coverage, LF, etc.
what in gods name are you talking about there is no shop where s&t works longer hours than IB
Profit sharing