Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?
-
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
The entire investment banking sector worldwide. I was once, ten years ago, turned down for a $350K job in Europe that I really, really wanted because I was "too senior, and they were confident that I'd move on quickly for more money." Little did they know that it was the village and residency that I wanted and I would have never left the company had they treated me well at that salary. We wanted to raise our kids there and were happy with the more junior admin role to do it (and hoped that they'd let me move to the senior position over time but keep the location.)
Even at lower paying places like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, these jobs exist, they are just the high end ones at those places that don't disclose their rates. But I've been approached at big numbers like this by some of those. Even non-profits can get into the $200K range.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
I agree that $250K is around the cap for the "mass market" which includes most of the big west coast firms. The west coast's lack of overall efficiency means that salaries can't be at the level of the east coast. For the truly top end pay you almost always have to be involved in the low commute time, long hours, high efficiency NYC metro or similar.
I don't think supercomputing gets the high pay, though. Top end pay typically, in my experience, comes not from technical know how but from ability to maintain that technical capability under extreme pressure, at high speed, while handling the most complicated and critical business decision making.
Example - you get seconds, with no one to peer review you, to decide on how to proceed to deal with an offline, failure, or compromised system that, if it fails, could be impacting you at millions a minute, or human lives at stake.
Lots of $80K people could fix the problem. But most under $200K will start to stress out and collapse under the pressure.
I've literally seen a $65K library system admin have to be hospitalized due to the stress of an outage at a LIBRARY!
-
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
I don't know though, the way it's been explained, it just seems like a glorified helpdesk role in a way. But I guess for the money, why not.
Admins are the top end of helpdesk. Just business helpdesk, not end user. And obviously, that's where the top end of the market is. The only thing that can be more valuable to a business is by leaving the hands on tech and going into the business side of things more. You can stay technical, but a CIO is 90% business and 10% tech, whereas a top admin is more like 60/40.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Pete-S said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
I know it's a millennial thing to be inefficient and out of touch intentionally. but outside of "failure culture" it's always been ubiquitous.
Funny and sad but true!
Could it be some kind of student mindset that keeps lingering in their brains, even 10 years after they left school?
There does seem to be the "perpetual student", and not in a good way, that seems to happen in millennial culture. Not the "continuous learner" that we hope that people will be, but the lazy bohemian that goes contrary to business just because it is felt to be "cool" to do things without actually thinking them through or understanding them to fit in with the crowd.
I don't see this as a millennial thing at all - in fact I'd say it's so much more the norm than not. Just the crowd each generation is going with is different.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
I think a huge part of this pay is also where you live.
Some company is now looking to allow their employees to WFH, from almost anywhere, but they are going to crush your pay based upon where you choose to live. We talked about it here a few days ago.
It's easy to say that, but it's not all that true. Flexibility is bigger, but location is not. In many cases, they might not know where you live. When you get to those really high end salaries, you are almost exclusively remote anyway. Your salary is impacted by your work visa and rights status, where the company is that you work for and other factors. And your flexibility overall. But you can make top end salaries all over the world, including WFH. Certainly being willing to move ups your options considerably. Nothing stops a career more than picking a really key factor and refusing to budget on it, like location.
Markets that will pay around the top end include: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, UK, US, Canada, Singapore, Japan, China, Hong Kong, etc. Not everywhere, by any stretch, but those are just the bases from which people work. WFH exists for people everywhere.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
CIO isn't a Systems Admin or Engineer. CIO is just a policy maker. Ours Makes way more than $500k as does any of our executive leadership.
Exactly, he's mixing things. Scott HAS BEEN a system admin. And Scott HAS BEEN a CIO. And Scott HAS BEEN a Burger King manager.
He likes to mix when I say what I made as an admin and randomly associate that with my high school jobs or my terminal career jobs or whatever as if they are somehow associated with each other and influence each other, which they do not.
CIOs in Investment Banking will never be $500K. $700K is more their minimum. And in big banks, that's department head level. GS CIO was $3.4m many years ago.
-
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
Was that at Citi?
No
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
CIO isn't a Systems Admin or Engineer. CIO is just a policy maker. Ours Makes way more than $500k as does any of our executive leadership.
If you ask Scott, he'll tell you that the CIO is the basically the ultimate IT Admin. I believe he also calls them IT Generalists.
A CIO is always a generalist, by definition. Therefore, since an system admin is the antithesis of a generalist, the two are fundamentally different jobs in every way. System Admin is a specialist. That's why to get to CIO you normally expect someone who has worked their way up as a specialist to have to specialize multiple times to have enough different experiences to be functional as a generalist. That's why there isn't a path from System Admin to CIO.
-
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
In these days in a SMB, what's the difference between an System Admin and a IT Director? Because its hard for me to believe that a System Admin or whatever random title you were giving would making a $200K and up.
Everything. Totally different jobs. One manages systems and doesn't oversee IT. The other oversees IT and, unless they have no staff at all, doesn't admin systems.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
In these days in a SMB, what's the difference between an System Admin and a IT Director? Because its hard for me to believe that a System Admin or whatever random title you were giving would making a $200K and up.
There's a big difference. an IT director Manages people, specifically, a Director manages managers and/or supervisors. The CIO is at the top of the chain(an executive), they do very little day to day managing of people, usually go to the board and shareholder meetings set policies etc. an Admin is working on the systems/network.
If an SMB is using those titles interchangeably they are using the titles wrong.
Correct, SMBs use made up titles all the time. It's so bad. They use whatever they've heard from enterprises that they think has a nice ring to it and just use it.
-
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
In these days in a SMB, what's the difference between an System Admin and a IT Director? Because its hard for me to believe that a System Admin or whatever random title you were giving would making a $200K and up.
There's a big difference. an IT director Manages people, specifically, a Director manages managers and/or supervisors. The CIO is at the top of the chain(an executive), they do very little day to day managing of people, usually go to the board and shareholder meetings set policies etc. an Admin is working on the systems/network.
If an SMB is using those titles interchangeably they are using the titles wrong.
In an SMB, one typically wears many hats.
I personally dropped IT Director (what my boss calls me) to IT admin. While I advise what to buy, I haven't been the one making the decisions, though I suppose my opinion does weigh heavily...
So lets say that's there is only two IT in the company. An System Admin and IT Director. The IT Director quits. Are you still an System Admin? Will you be getting paid more?
Who is doing all the other work if you only have those two roles? Those aren't two roles that can really exist in an SMB. System admin is only a function for large businesses. SMBs only use generalists, and then give them fake specialist titles because there is a weird stigma against generalists in the SMB, but not in the enterprise.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
In these days in a SMB, what's the difference between an System Admin and a IT Director? Because its hard for me to believe that a System Admin or whatever random title you were giving would making a $200K and up.
There's a big difference. an IT director Manages people, specifically, a Director manages managers and/or supervisors. The CIO is at the top of the chain(an executive), they do very little day to day managing of people, usually go to the board and shareholder meetings set policies etc. an Admin is working on the systems/network.
If an SMB is using those titles interchangeably they are using the titles wrong.
In an SMB, one typically wears many hats.
I personally dropped IT Director (what my boss calls me) to IT admin. While I advise what to buy, I haven't been the one making the decisions, though I suppose my opinion does weigh heavily...
So lets say that's there is only two IT in the company. An System Admin and IT Director. The IT Director quits. Are you still an System Admin? Will you be getting paid more?
They aren't an IT director, maybe that's what they are calling them but it's an IT manager or IT Supervisor if all they have under them is a Systems Administrator.
Yeah, more like a team lead. You can't be a real director and have only one employee. You'd be lucky to even be a manager. You can be a manager, but what a ridiculous, failed system it would be to have a one to one manager to employee ratio. How worthless is your single employee if they need a 100% time manager to keep them working? And how worthless would you be as the IT director if your entire job was making one person do their job (rather than firing them and hiring someone that doesn't need to be managed.)
If this was a real scenario it implies that it is two people attempting to do the job of one.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
In these days in a SMB, what's the difference between an System Admin and a IT Director? Because its hard for me to believe that a System Admin or whatever random title you were giving would making a $200K and up.
There's a big difference. an IT director Manages people, specifically, a Director manages managers and/or supervisors. The CIO is at the top of the chain(an executive), they do very little day to day managing of people, usually go to the board and shareholder meetings set policies etc. an Admin is working on the systems/network.
If an SMB is using those titles interchangeably they are using the titles wrong.
In an SMB, one typically wears many hats.
I personally dropped IT Director (what my boss calls me) to IT admin. While I advise what to buy, I haven't been the one making the decisions, though I suppose my opinion does weigh heavily...
So lets say that's there is only two IT in the company. An System Admin and IT Director. The IT Director quits. Are you still an System Admin? Will you be getting paid more?
Even at that level, calling the higher level one a Director is a joke. Unless he is actually directing IT decisions in the company, in that case he's likely the CIO/Director and also likely still hands on IT as needed (like the other guy is on vacation, or more).
So back to your question - is the company planning to replace the guy who left? if not, then as the person who stayed, I'd be demanding more money because I'm assuming my workload just doubled, and as the non decision maker, my role likely just changed as well - to decision maker.
@valentina uses "general manager" as her title and she has over a dozen, direct, technical reports ranging from help desk to admins / engineers. Calling her a director at that scale would be absurd. And she is a true manager with the ability to hire, fire, promote, direct, etc. And those are her full time staff only, she has loads of contractors and part timers, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
How could you turn down that job? lol
-
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
How could you turn down that job? lol
Lawsuits from other banks. It wasn't just good money, which is obviously a factor, duh, but it was an amazing team, private flights, my own offices and staff in NYC, Zurich, and France, a junior CIO to support me off hours in Singapore, HK and Tokyo that would report to me, a budget of billions... it was amazing on the tech side and the human side. It was also a "move into the office and work non-stop" position with crazy stress, but brilliant, amazing people. Best interview I've ever been to, best offer I ever got.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
How could you turn down that job? lol
Lawsuits from other banks. It wasn't just good money, which is obviously a factor, duh, but it was an amazing team, private flights, my own offices and staff in NYC, Zurich, and France, a junior CIO to support me off hours in Singapore, HK and Tokyo that would report to me, a budget of billions... it was amazing on the tech side and the human side. It was also a "move into the office and work non-stop" position with crazy stress, but brilliant, amazing people. Best interview I've ever been to, best offer I ever got.
I would assume that would be a one or two year gig max, but damn would you have had some nice money and a hell of a resume after that. I would have tried to stick it out at least a year or two.
-
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
How could you turn down that job? lol
Lawsuits from other banks. It wasn't just good money, which is obviously a factor, duh, but it was an amazing team, private flights, my own offices and staff in NYC, Zurich, and France, a junior CIO to support me off hours in Singapore, HK and Tokyo that would report to me, a budget of billions... it was amazing on the tech side and the human side. It was also a "move into the office and work non-stop" position with crazy stress, but brilliant, amazing people. Best interview I've ever been to, best offer I ever got.
I would assume that would be a one or two year gig max, but damn would you have had some nice money and a hell of a resume after that. I would have tried to stick it out at least a year or two.
While it was a very specific "help this bank change direction" position, my feeling was not a 1-2 year gig. It might not have been a really long term one, but I think 5+ years was likely. This was a team that put in some insane effort trying to find the right match for them and there was a lot of "fits the culture" concerns that you rarely have with a 1-2 year situation. We were all looking at it as hopefully longer than that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
How could you turn down that job? lol
Lawsuits from other banks. It wasn't just good money, which is obviously a factor, duh, but it was an amazing team, private flights, my own offices and staff in NYC, Zurich, and France, a junior CIO to support me off hours in Singapore, HK and Tokyo that would report to me, a budget of billions... it was amazing on the tech side and the human side. It was also a "move into the office and work non-stop" position with crazy stress, but brilliant, amazing people. Best interview I've ever been to, best offer I ever got.
I would assume that would be a one or two year gig max, but damn would you have had some nice money and a hell of a resume after that. I would have tried to stick it out at least a year or two.
While it was a very specific "help this bank change direction" position, my feeling was not a 1-2 year gig. It might not have been a really long term one, but I think 5+ years was likely. This was a team that put in some insane effort trying to find the right match for them and there was a lot of "fits the culture" concerns that you rarely have with a 1-2 year situation. We were all looking at it as hopefully longer than that.
So it really boiled down to - you didn't want to live at work for 5+ years and have no family life.?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@IRJ said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Obsolesce said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
But admins head closer to $500K.
Where?
You can easily get in the $200-250k range but to get above that you pretty much got to go into the research science, supercomputer/computer science kind of stuff IMO.
Scott was the CIO or a step or so below or to the side of that making that much or more on wallstreet. So sure, it's possible, but again, just super rare.
These are true facts, but this mixes things together in a misleadingly suggestive way. I was a CIO or similar on Wall Street. But that only explains why I have such broad insight into what different roles get there. I was also a true admin and engineer there.
CIOs make way, way more than this up there. You word this in such a way to make it sound like you believe that it was me not being an admin, but rather a CIO, and to explain my salary that way. But that's wrong. And we aren't talking about me, but jobs in general. All of your implications here are completely wrong.
My CIO offer was in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. And I hired admins, lots of them, at this prices. Real admins. And I worked as an admin and I'm using the admin salary, not some other salary, when I talk about admins. And I still, to this day, am used as a salary advisor for hedge funds who call me and I help to set their hiring prices. So I think you tend to mislead in how you present this. I'm part of the hiring manager teams, still today, who determine these salaries. So when I say $450K is what we intend to hire at as a mid-point for a position category, I mean it.
How could you turn down that job? lol
Lawsuits from other banks. It wasn't just good money, which is obviously a factor, duh, but it was an amazing team, private flights, my own offices and staff in NYC, Zurich, and France, a junior CIO to support me off hours in Singapore, HK and Tokyo that would report to me, a budget of billions... it was amazing on the tech side and the human side. It was also a "move into the office and work non-stop" position with crazy stress, but brilliant, amazing people. Best interview I've ever been to, best offer I ever got.
I would assume that would be a one or two year gig max, but damn would you have had some nice money and a hell of a resume after that. I would have tried to stick it out at least a year or two.
While it was a very specific "help this bank change direction" position, my feeling was not a 1-2 year gig. It might not have been a really long term one, but I think 5+ years was likely. This was a team that put in some insane effort trying to find the right match for them and there was a lot of "fits the culture" concerns that you rarely have with a 1-2 year situation. We were all looking at it as hopefully longer than that.
You didn't have to work a full 5 years. I've seen one or two year retention at most. I don't know if I've even seen two year tbh.
Even with retention, you could always pay some of the bonus back if you leave early
