Tech is over exaggerated here
Whenever the IB bashing begins, people on here resort to the argument of how much better tech is. While most in this forum seem to agree that in absolute terms, IB pays more than tech and it is largely the better WLB and time value that makes tech more lucrative, they seem to discount the difficulty of landing those few high paying jobs. The average software engineer makes around 90k and the average data science analyst makes 95k. There is a considerable entry barrier for the jobs where people make 250k+. Grinding leetcode and knowing data structures by heart are just some of the things one needs to excel at to land those high paying jobs. I know a number of people in the tech industry, some who have also graduated from ivy leagues, however, only a few of those who genuinely excel at comp sci are crossing the 200k mark while others are mostly making somewhere in the mid 100s.
Now that I have written this out, not sure what my purpose was with this, but just wanted to give my 2cents on why I believe tech as a career choice is thrown around here without taking into account the difficulty of breaking into the higher paying roles.
What is your point?
Like theres not a significant barrier to entry to IB ? Have you read what people are willing to do to land a seat at the table?
And you make no mention of what the average person in banking makes? I’d wager its less than 90-95k for back/middle office.
IB is elite. Citadel/HRT is elite. FAANG less so.
These are not regular outcomes for joe average in their respective industries… just no comparison.
"IB is elite" lol
No big company is actually elite, though some are better than others. If you want to be part of an elite organization, try joining a top tier startup (hint: you can't get an offer there because IB monkeys don’t add value to innovation)
IB monkeys make the world go round
Del
This guy gets it. Agree that HYPSM talent usually goes for unicorns/startups. Know of a person with that background whose made a relatively large fortune (probably $15-20M+, probably on the higher end of this range) with small equity percentage stakes at these type of companies that had game plans of eventually selling to strategics like Google (instead of going public). Near the end of his career though so this is definitely not something a graduate should expect 5-10 years out of their program.
Even those with a decent coding background struggle to clear the Amazon, Google coding interviews. Google has a whiteboard coding test where you have to physically write out your code rather than using an IDE. And someone pointed out above that google hires 6k SWE yearly, if you factor in the hundred of thousands that apply , it’s easy to see the competition in such FAANG roles
This is more accurate than most of what I've seen, though I would rank it as follows:
Bleeding edge tech (i.e. DeepMind, Neuralink) = Top Tier Quant/HFT (i.e. DE Shaw, RenTech, ) > Tier 1 early stage unicorns = Top buyside > BB/EB = Product Management Rotation Big Tech > SWE Big Tech
Would mostly agree but would push back a bit
Real ranking should be:
Rentech (not even comparable to the others, is this job even real, do you know anyone who ever worked at rentech) >> deep tech academia = top quant (desco, jane st, et al) > unicorns = MF PE > IB >= FAANG
I think all the arguments about FAANG vs IB are stupid, at the end of the day it's purely a matter of individual utility functions, you could not possibly argue that one is objectively better than the other.
"If you go to HYPSM, going to FAANG is frankly a waste" Not true, at mine I can count dozens of people who considered IB/PE (some who did "coveted" internships) and ultimately went to big tech, I've had deep convos w them abt the decision, again it just comes down to personal preference and what you value.
Hmm, i don’t know if IB pays more. You can’t possibly think the software engineers are making somewhere in the mid 100s…that’s just absurd. In Santa Clara county (think where Apple, Google, and probably another 500 random tech firms are located) where most people are tech employees, government poverty line is something like $155k…that means 80% of the household hear makes 155k or more. I get it’s not individual but household income but it’s a good reference point that people in tech make much more than you think.
Junior bankers make less than tech employees or are paid on par. It’s not a differentiator. As a junior banker with 3 - 5 years of experience, depending on what bank and what year you’re at, you are generally clearing 300 - 450k in cash + deferred. In any decent tech firms, with the same level of experience, you’re making 400k or more (less so at Google actually) at the minimum. And tech stocks are generally better than [insert your favorite financial institutions] stocks. I am not even talking about hours yet. My friends at a second tier tech firm of my same age play 2 hours of tennis a day, published a novel on Amazon Kindle, and clears half a mil a year easily. He just had his second kid and did not need to hire a nanny because he got 6 months of parental leave, and afterwards he’s got enough flexibility to juggle tennis, writing novels, working a full-time job, and taking care of two kids, with his wife. Let’s just say we live very different lives.
Look, I am not saying I envy his position. I don’t think I can do his job, and he doesn’t think he can do mine. There’s no comparison. I am sorry but if you’re still doing IB thinking it’s for the pay, well you should really look into software engineering jobs…
As someone who actually works in a tech-adjacent industry, 400k is not the “minimum” for FAANG SWE positions, it’s typically the career maximum (600k is usually the hard ceiling).
Anyone can check levels.fyi to see this isn't the case.
Also another thing to note is tech pay is only this high in SF whereas finance pay is standardised even in other countries around the world. Its very rare to see SWEs making $500k+ in houston for example whereas banks pay street comp there.
Plain and simple: SWE (at all levels) are a COST center. As one progresses through IB/finance, you must become a REVENUE generator. That's why, overtime, your income is supposed to grow in finance; SWE is a commodity job (like analysts/associates are in the beginning, except they develop or they're out).
How is SWE a cost center at FAANG? Aren’t they the revenue generators?
Underrated comment, well said.
True but SWE can still make a lot of money even as a cost center. Aware of someone whose made probably $20M+ in their career due to equity shares. Was a specialist (SWE initially, essentially a Portco SVP/C-suite hire as an industry veteran) in a specific function at tech companies that were preparing for sales/IPOs.
Most people burn out in finance and leave eventually (startups/starting their own thing/real estate, have seen some become very financially successful that way too). It's not much different in SWE, most seniors don't code nearly as much at their positions vs. a junior.
This is the most laughable take I’ve seen.
The difficulty of breaking into FAANG is grossly exaggerated on this site. Plenty of kids from state schools with low GPAs get these “high paying roles”, and they literally have tens of thousands of SWE across the top companies. They literally hire people with no college degree who went to boot camps. If you go to a top school and major in CS, it’s trivial to get a SWE job at one of FAANG, Uber, etc.
IB has far fewer spots and higher barriers to entry. The average finance grad is far less likely to get a high paying IB job than the average CS grad is to end up at FAANG.
While I see your point “low GPA” in the context of a CS degree is extremely different than “low GPA” in a business major context lmao
Really not that hard.
CS at a bad school is easier to get good grades in than finance at Wharton.
Lol because you're still thinking with an elitist finance mindset. Just because kids from state schools can get into FAANG doesn't mean kids from top unis can just walk in. Tech is way more about your actual programming skills rather than your degree background. You can be a CS grad from Stanford but if you're average at programming and leetcode you won't get past interview.
You're missing the point.
Sure, if you lack any analytical ability whatsoever, perform horrendously in the interviews, and only got into Stanford because your dad donated a building, you probably won't get a job at FAANG.
Realistically though, 90%+ of the people with the competency necessary to get into Stanford could get a FAANG or similar job; and if they couldn't, they're probably not the kind of person who would have made it in IB recruiting either.
Kids who are getting 3.7+ GPA in Economics or Finance at good but not absolute top tier schools (flagship state schools, good liberal arts schools) have more than enough analytical aptitude to make it to one of the thousands of FAANG job if they majored in CS. These same kids might strike out of top finance recruiting because there's comparatively so few spots.
Because tech is merit based, not “my daddy is rich and has connections at HYPSM” based like banking and PE.
High level SWE is magnitudes more difficult than banking and that’s just the honest truth. Don’t let that make your ego too butthurt tho.
People on this site definitely over exaggerate how hard it is to get into FAANG as cope
Since analyst bonuses were on the lower end, the current mood on this website is that banking isn’t worth it and is some kind of low paying career. I guess I get it for the people who plan to leave in 2 years or whatever but I’m not sure people are seeing the full financial picture of staying and getting VP+ type of comp. I mean even if you’re leaving a reputable bank you set yourself up for some great roles moving forward.
It also seems like there are many here who are still in college, have never interned at a bank and say it’s ‘not worth it.’ Careers with this compensation don’t grow on trees. Comparing first year analyst comp to other industries is short sighted. Can’t wait for the responses on this but regardless of those, I am not wrong.
I think the argument isn’t solely about absolute pay, it’s more so about the lessor hours required.
Of course on a per hour basis, someone in corporate finance putting up 15-20 hours is going to earn more, however their absolute pay is well below IB.
Tech, however, is higher on a per hour basis, and close on an absolute basis as well. That’s why people are talking about tech so frequently on here.
.
Edit: In order to avoid further monkey shit, I will just say that you are right, tech is super overrated and only nerds pursue it for low pay, bad wlb, and a life of virginity. IB is clearly the superior option, it's just that not everyone is smart/competent enough to pursue it as a career. I hope to get there one day, wish me luck guys!
An intern with several friends going into both SWE and finance roles:
Here's what it seems like -SWE is a trimodal career path:
Level 1 is small tech ($50k - $100k):Non-target CS degree would be better than general business non-target degree
Level 2 is mid tech ($100k - $200k)Non-tech SWE roles is similar to corp fin roles.
Level 3 is Big Tech ($200k - $500k)
3a $200k-$350k: Terminal Level SWE
Usually you get one or two expected promotions and then have to either hop companies or really push for that next promotion
3b $350k-$500k: Senior SWE
This is where that ceiling notion comes in. Fundamentally, FAANGMULA and its equivalents tend to hire a lot of entry-level talent (3a level) and then make it rather tough to progress. Comparing a first year SWE and IB analyst seems very myopic.
$500k+ is top of FAANG/ managerial level/ start-up exec. These individuals are truly exceptional engineers or got incredibly lucky with their equity.
Another poster mentioned $400k as a cap, and it's starting to seem reasonable after reviewing Levels dot fyi and Blind/Fishbowl. However, it'd be foolish to not acknowledge that in a vacuum that's a very large number and can lead to a solid (FAT)FIRE lifestyle if you are into that.
I think a much more interesting comparison would be SWE v. CorpDev/ adjacent finance roles in BigTech. Now, at the onset, SWE would come out ahead (SWE is to BigTech as IB is to a Bank - revenue generators). However, if this ceiling is truly a concern, then the finance professionals at BigTech would come out on top later on, which seems reasonable. In CorpDev, there'd be a latter to climb: analyst-associate-manager/ senior manager-director/senior director-head of corp dev (VP). Finance professionals can also move into other business lines within the firms or between them to secure titular promotions that may be commensurate to pay.
Just feels like an ex IB TMT Analyst who moves into corpdev and the other business/ finance departments would be in a solid position to climb the corporate ladder, whereas a SWE would have to indicate an interest in entering management roles and leaving the Individual Contributor status behind.
Would love to hear any feedback.
Why are you assuming that it’s hard to break into senior management for tech but easy for finance? There are far, far less seats for ED/MD in PE/IB compared to the number of analysts who start out. Clearly a lot of people either wash out to corp dev/corp strat or bounce around at the VP level. I would think $500k is the realistic cap for both industries because making MD in IB isn’t guaranteed by any means just like director in SWE wouldn’t be. You have to be polished, smart, and the best of the best. So I would argue the salaries are similar until you start adjusting for hours and then finance loses. If finance continues to penny pinch on bonuses talent is only going downhill.
It depends on what your baseline is. If we’re talking about career options for an Ivy League grad, chances are they’re not going to wash up in some corpdev job. They’re ending up at MFPE and probably raising a fund in a few years. That’s not going to be the case for someone from Ohio State (no hate for OSU, just need an example).
As for tech jobs, it doesn’t matter whether or not you went to Dartmouth or Bama. You’re going to end up in the same place no matter what, which is probably terminal at L6.
Bro in life there is no free lunch anywhere. The problem with tech is that obviously since its a far better lifestyle there is far less attrition which means people hang around making it a lot more competitive to move upwards. Contrast that with finance where a lot of people decide to leave for WLB reasons meaning for the most part as long as you hang in and are decent then you'll get to VP level at least.
Am I reading this right? $500k cap in banking? I made that as an associate.
hidden
Make a new account bro. Your username is recognizable as fuck, I’ve seen in it every tech cope thread since a few months ago.
I don't really understand this entire bullshit thread that has stupid "finance bros" cherry-picking examples that fit their narratives. What about unicorns? HFT's? Hedge funds? SWE's work in all these companies and terminal level is absolutely not 350k, that's a complete and utter joke.
Tech also provides a way to make $300k+ without sacrificing your life like in IB. The lifestyle in IB does improve over time, but a VP is absolutely still grinding till midnight when on live deals and still dealing with shitty pitches and client requests.
It's also why dentistry is so popular - easy way to clear low-mid 6 figures without ever working past 5pm. Sure you could make more as a surgeon but a lot of people don't want to deal with that stress / hours.
tech wins out in terms of lifestyle and pay combined and it isn't close. I'm tech adjacent right now (have 2YOE and am currently in an analytics & strategy combo role at a bank), and I get paid ~170k for 30 hours a week or so fully remote. I'm expecting to get an offer this month from a tech company for a junior-level position (but more tech-focused), that will bump me up to ~220k, all while staying fully remote and having a life. 2-3 years after that I will either hop companies again or get promoted and be at ~300k. By the time I'm 30, I could reasonably be clearing 350k/yr assuming a normal trajectory. Could I have made more starting off in finance? Probably, but I didn't want to (came from HSW so both were/are on the table). Honestly, my only regret is not studying CS from the start because I could have come out of college making 200k+ at google rather than 100k starting in a strategy role at a bank.
I wouldn't be surprised if the average IB analyst out of college is making less money 5 years out of college than the average big tech SWE, and there are way more of those SWEs too. Sure if you follow the "golden path" of BB IB/MF PE you'll make more than the GOOG/FB equivalent, but how many end up with that outcome?
I recently met up with 3 of my mates from college that did PE/MBB/IB out of college, and all are now at "prestigious" (ie constantly mentioned on this forum) GE/PE/VC shops after their analyst stints. They all make between 225 (VC) and 300 (PE) or so in HCOL cities working double my hours. Yet somehow, all of them expressed that I likely had the best lifestyle making "only" 170 in MCOL with lesser hours.
Work to live not live to work.
Does part of me wish i made as much as some of my friends? Sure, I'm not gonna lie and say there isn't a piece of me that wishes I also made 300 when I talk to them. But then I realize I still make enough money to save and live comfortably, and while I can't splurge on stuff as much as them, I can still afford to do basically whatever I want. And in terms of day to day happiness (being able to see my gf, grab lunches or dinners with friends, travel on a whim) I definitely appreciate the level of freedom I have more than making an extra 50k
Genuinely interested as I’ve seen you quite a bit on the side of working more hours, why? Sacrificing a decade+ to a job as a cog in a machine doesn’t seem appealing, not to mention the health degradation and lack of sleep is almost guaranteed to take years off one’s life. Why do you think those people in their 30’s secretly regret it? I suppose if career progression/money is the number one focus in one’s life, that makes sense. But for how many people is this actually the case? I’m in my mid 20’s and I could definitely be working more hours, but I don’t know why I should. And full disclosure, the times I’ve done shrooms have never convinced me that I need to work more. Maybe I need a higher dose but I’m doubtful
As a counter-anecdote, I also caught up with some friends from college who went directly into IB after undergrad. Both went to PE/growth shops after about two years. One of them just started their own VC fund and raised 100-200 million from LPs. The other is a principal at the same growth fund and is pulling in something like 2 million a year annualized. Contrast that with a few of my senior mentors who went into big tech. One guy who’s an M1 at a big tech company, another who capped out at L6 and another who tried his hand at startups and is now jobless (not a big deal, his wife makes more than him anyways and he can apply for a new job, he’s just a lazy fuck). All of these guys are 28-32 (fuzzing all of these numbers for anonymity, but you get the point). Not necessary making any conclusions from this, but you can get a wide range of outcomes in life.
What? Even if you stay in IB you'll make more than all faang swes once you hit associate. Like even MM IB which to my knowledge pays just as much if not more than BB does all the way to MD level.
Can I pm you more about your role? Am coming up on 2 years in IB and want to learn more about roles in strategy.
Go for it, I've got a bit of a weird role but can answer some questions
Comparing SWE to banking is apples to oranges, and clearly most of us clearly have no idea of the nuances. Comparing relevant roles like corp dev/strat, FP&A and the like, isn't it just comp vs. WLB?
I don’t think it’s fair to use averages because IB isn’t your average finance job. We’d have to start talking about some FLDP analyst making $70k all-in in Indianapolis or Columbus.
Of course the top tech jobs ($250k+) are hard to break into. I’ve echoed your point numerous times on this forum.
I think the point people are making after the weak bonuses is that finance is no longer even trying to stay competitive with tech anymore and the gap is only widening. The smartest and brightest go to tech and are compensated accordingly. Us second tier folks remain in finance and work worse hours for comparable or worse pay.
I hear that a lot, but I don’t think it’s really true. I went to HYP, and the absolute best and the brightest went into quant trading. Something like 10 people per class. The most driven students, though not as bright as the quants, all went into PE/IB after graduation. Everyone else went into either tech or consulting. The tech/consulting kids were all super laid back, love those guys, but I can’t really say they were ever particularly brilliant or motivated.
I mean HYP aren’t really known for being the top CS schools. MIT/Stanford/CMU are probably where you’re going to see far more of the bright kids feeding into tech.
Bottom line is, if you want to spend your 20’s getting home from work at 6pm to drink beer and watch TV on week nights (or whatever the fuck you WLB types wanna fucking do), go become a unionized plumber or electrician. You’ll make more per hour than IB or your precious “tech”.
If you want to have a real career, I’d recommend starting to get just a tiny little bit less work shy. I know Gen Z has a whole different set of values, but no successful person got to where they are by bitching about WLB in their 20’s.
Cope. Plenty of people in tech have fulfilling “real” careers and become directors or CTOs without ever putting in 80-100 hour weeks.
This the type of dude to tell his homies he's slept with "plenty" of girls
Lmao really no point in arguing for tech on this thread unless you want 20 monkey shits thrown at you. It’s obvious to me that the OP’s question was rhetorical, and all these finance bros will mindlessly support them.
Edit: This is exactly what I mean, for making the grave mistake of defending your industry on this biased website you'll get some monkey associate (who just finished bringing coffee for the VP) browsing through your account history to make a fake personal attack. Pathetic
not overexaggerated at all. Just head to Blind and see the total comps tech ppl are getting. Any senior level engineer (5-6 years of exp) is getting paid $500K+. Directors easily make $1MM+ and there's a lot of them. Also don't forget that stock is paid a lot more frequently than an annual bonus, and there's the benefit of appreciation since all grants are locked in at the price upon starting.
EDIT: lol at all the interns and kids throwing monkey shit because they're upset. Salary bands in tech are widely publicized and confirmed but whatever makes you feel better.
“Yeah bro just head over to WSO and you can see MDs making 5 mil and snorting the purest coke you’ve seen in your life”
Directors easily make $1MM+ just like how PE Principals easily make $3MM+
But the senior level is the terminal level in Big Tech (L5 at Google, L6 at Amazon). 95% of the engineers don't go above that. A recruiter can count on fingers how many people they hired above senior level. Director is L8 and is extremely difficult for an average SWE to reach.
You don't have to be a SWE to work in tech you dumbass.
Sales, product management, project management all pay similar salaries (sales has an higher ceiling too).
And you can be a CS major and work 45 hours even in finance in trading.
Unless I'm missing something, you're just describing a standard supply-and-demand function? Tech is preferable to IB therefore greater supply of candidates and lower chance of success. Sounds logical a priori but don't understand why it needs its own thread.
so much finance cope in here lmaooo, tech >>>>>> finance. tbh it's not even close. finance is a dying industry.
Notice how all the certified PE/IB users in this thread with 4+ years of experience are advocating for tech, while all the coping finance cucks are interns/prospects/anonymous posters who are throwing monkey shit. lmao
Sounds like someone’s RSUs are down 😂
what
so much finance cope in here lmaooo, tech >>>>>> finance. tbh it's not even close. finance is a dying industry.
Notice how all the certified PE/IB users commenting are advocating for tech, while all the coping finance cucks are interns/prospects/anonymous posters throwing monkey shit. lmao
I have worked in both (can't be bothered to update title)
Did SWE at FAANG before switching careers and starting in IB at a BB. I could do the work in tech but didn't really like it and didn't really see myself fitting in the typical tech environment/stereotype (which I found to be somewhat true - maybe this is more prevalent at FAANG)
Having had time to consider and in my case at least, I wish I never made the change. Regardless of the pay in either, the amount of flexibity and autonomy you get in tech is second to none. There's no other career like it in terms of being highly paid and actually having time to live your life. It is normal to be able to wfh absolutely whenever you want, and that is probably the closest thing you have to the feeling of freedom in college - except it lasts for a large portion of your career - can't speak on management level work.
If you are smart and capable enough to do SWE, there's no contest (unless your sole goal is to make as much money as possible, regardless of whether you have time to spend it - I still cannot comprehend why someone would do this once you get past 300k+, but thats just me). I do feel like I fit in with and enjoy working with the people in finance much more but that's about it.
While you may eventually reach reasonable hours with increasing seniority in finance, it will never be the same and you are never truly free - this is an industry wide problem and is deeply entrenched in the sector and its approach to working in general. Working till 7/8pm is considered late to my tech friends but in finance that's probably an amazingly early finish time.
I was never going to post this but thought I might as well for the off chance it helps someone also trying to decide on what to do, especially if they value having time for themselves and their friends/family, which I think is the most important thing for me at least.
Yeah definitely helpful lol, thanks for posting. Just finished my BB IB SA, did well, and accepted the return, but fuck I’ve been wondering why I’m doing this shit instead of SWE/Product since I have a cs minor (indifferent content and culture wise). Tech hiring glut right now isn’t a tailwind for full time recruiting, especially as a finance major, but I’ve got time senior year and know I could grind for the more technical roles + I’d imagine it’s harder/more of a career restart to recruit for SWE/PM post-IB. Might just try - the summer was cool at times but tiring, and that was during the summer slowdown for 9 weeks. Thanks!
It isn't just as simple as lc and there you go you have a good tech job.
A lot of people here who are complaining about finance (excluding OP of this post) probably wouldn't have the motivation to grind lc either. Its not hard and at the end of the day anyone can do it, but it probably takes about 10-20x the amount of effort it takes to recruit for finance. Its also mind numbing in the sense that finance you'll always be able to start nailing the technicals with enough practice but for LC it can take weeks before you're comfortable with dp mediums or being able to recognize that a problem needs dijkstras. Not to mention all the other topics you need to cover and you really do need to have some real swe experience otherwise your onboarding period will be incredibly rough since lc != swe.
It doesn't take a genius to get swe even at top hft firms, but you really do have to evaluate if you would have been willing to put in 10x more effort into recruiting to get good swe outcomes in college compared to your BB/EB sa position.
This completely depends on your goals and personality. If you want to gun for the most money possible, obviously go into finance unless you are insanely good at coding. Just check levels.fyi for the bay area. There are only 7 submissions out of 1000s of people earning more than $2M+. It seems to be a <1% case of SWEs earning more than $1M+. The top end of finance completely dwarfs this, there's far more seats at the table for PE/HF partners than C-Suite in FAANGs. At the end of the day it is hard to scale if you are working for a multinational company so PE/HF can pay a lot more. If you compare the submissions for 10+ years experience then the vast majority do not earn more than their counterpart IB VPs and IB VPs have a much greater chance for more upside.
Now if you don't care about earning a ton of money/building a lot of wealth, you want a chill high paying job, WLB is important to you and your personality doesn't fit well with finance culture, then tech is a far better option for you.
At the end of the day they're both high paying jobs which will afford a nice early retirement so choose the one which fits better with your goals and personality. Do you think the average IB MD would fit well and enjoy himself coding all day in a Google office in Silicone Valley? No. Do you think the average L6 at Google would fit well and enjoy himself running deals in NYC? No.
An MD is a really high level in IB.
An MD correspond to a L9/L10 at Google on a management track. They never touch code.
L6 IC is a peasant in the big picture. Probably a low level VP.
It's way easier to make MD then get to L9/10 at a FAANG though
Lol I just thought it was funny the MD to L6 comparison.
You can easily get L6 at Google by age 29. Don't even have to be extraordinary. As long as you don't have a team that cucks you over then L3->5 4 yrs, 5->6 3 yrs. Maybe worst case take an extra year for the 3->5 process making you 30.
I've never heard of a mid bucket person in IB making MD before late 30s.
My friend is softeng at JS and he makes 400k all in while I am bitching over my 50k bonus
See this is the problem with "tech" on WSO. You could be talking about some sales bitch working at FAANG or a JS SWE/quant.
Outside of SWE there are PMs who earn a ton for the work we do. I work about 40-45 hours weekly. I used to do commercial banking and left to join the company i was doing a deal for. started out as a strategy person but jumped to another tech company and got into product. I get paid more and do way less work in product at a SaaS company than i did in banking. I broke in by luck but we hired a junior PM with literally like 2 years of work experience and they’re making over 160 base plus whatever they got in equity and bonus and they live remote out of long term airbnbs just exploring the country. I’ll probably cap out base salary at around 250 and then majority of my income will be in RSUs/ISOs later in life with TC making out at about 450-500k all in assuming i just do what i need to and promote normally. I know MD/MPs will out earn me but I’m fully remote and living in a MCOL city with what is considered a NYC/SF income. I plan on buying a pretty big house soon about 5-10 minutes outside of downtown for not a lot of money relative to Manhattan or Brooklyn. I’m currently spending about 13% of my current base pay on rent and live on an upper floor of a nice building in the city with about 1100 sqft in my apartment. I always have weekends to myself and we even have mental health days every couple of weeks where the whole team just does whatever they want and takes the day off. I guess the whole point of this is to say that 1) MAANG/FAANG isn’t the only high paying tech option out there and you’d be surprised how many places take in former bankers (yes including commercial bankers) and pay them big salaries for just being willing to learn/smart enough to pick up some concepts and then apply them to the job. It’s not as hard as it’s made out to be (unless you are dead set on being an engineer that’s straight up hard and a 180 for any banker’s skillset/background unless you studied CS in undergrad but you’d basically be starting from the bottom of the corporate ladder in eng. 2) nobody is denying that you can get stupid rich in IB or that IB out earns tech but IB is already like the 0.01% of top income earners so it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Having a 200k job outside of NYC with actual WLB is a very cushy lifestyle and i always have time for family and friends. Personally, it’s worth whatever income i could have earned staying in banking.
Current senior with a signed IB return offer, but have been considering PM since I got the internship offer sophomore year lmao. Do you think your banking experience was still valuable (productivity maybe) or would you have straight-shot PM in hindsight? Know it’ll be specific to you, but have been wondering about this given I’m free senior year and I’m sure UG to PM is easier than IB to PM (or maybe not in the current tech glut).
Can you motherfuckers shut the fuck up? I cannot even begin to imagine the ungodly stench that would arise if you nerdy cunts were all in a room together.
Vel eligendi vel similique accusamus nisi. Voluptatem est necessitatibus et vel assumenda. Eum est nesciunt eos veritatis quae. Odit quidem ipsa deserunt est et ducimus. Est quia quaerat voluptas amet optio officiis.
Maxime velit dolorem porro blanditiis et consequatur. Alias dolore ea quaerat deserunt quam impedit. Voluptatem eveniet omnis modi eaque beatae.
Eaque dicta ratione nihil eveniet et ut. Autem ea minus et qui sit. Et in impedit temporibus iste eum eaque voluptatem.
Quia eum perferendis unde nobis est aperiam nulla. Nihil et voluptatibus accusantium accusamus sequi laudantium error. Sapiente mollitia architecto soluta facilis dolor qui sunt nihil. Autem temporibus saepe quibusdam et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nisi non expedita eius. Fuga asperiores dolorem veritatis non. Quia ut commodi ipsam praesentium asperiores. Veritatis omnis excepturi ab dolorem exercitationem.
Qui velit qui quis sit. Unde omnis ea vitae. Est sit deleniti qui vero minus unde. Doloremque est doloremque amet fugiat. Quia voluptas omnis assumenda odit numquam.
Eveniet eaque laudantium fugiat eveniet pariatur dolores. Fuga praesentium ad at illum consequatur est excepturi. Voluptas et blanditiis aut exercitationem. Sit nisi autem aut quasi et neque. Eveniet ad reiciendis sit repellat.
Repellendus alias voluptatem sed aut eum. Accusamus eaque sequi nostrum aut voluptatem ut sequi. Odio est sequi pariatur sed perferendis. Rerum vel at id esse enim sunt.
Totam et numquam repellendus ducimus. Corrupti repellat omnis id est qui voluptas rem. Aut quod vitae aliquid unde. Reprehenderit modi accusamus sit rerum. Cupiditate ipsa occaecati assumenda nostrum animi ipsa ipsa.
Nisi est mollitia illo iste unde quod. Vitae illum voluptates ratione. Molestias non eaque autem fugit debitis ipsum expedita non.
Temporibus voluptas blanditiis mollitia non nemo necessitatibus. Illum consectetur provident et et assumenda eos ut temporibus. Autem quo libero accusamus nihil recusandae in aut.
Et quo ducimus velit nisi neque non dolorum. Rerum dolor aliquid aliquid. Est voluptas sint delectus error alias temporibus blanditiis.
Odit qui libero distinctio veritatis necessitatibus. Id atque fugit qui est tenetur id. Tempore culpa non culpa et. Et pariatur molestiae ipsum inventore reiciendis aperiam ut.
Ducimus dolores aut qui deserunt autem. Voluptatem molestias et ut. Similique omnis possimus sed eligendi temporibus. Tempora ipsa corporis distinctio quisquam illo non sunt. Omnis quasi adipisci quia optio similique soluta ad. Cumque voluptas porro quia vitae earum eaque.