Why Should Gen Z Even Bother with High Finance/Consulting Grind?
Honestly, why are we even grinding ourselves into dust for these finance or consulting gigs anymore? Gen Z is getting sold this “work hard, play hard” dream, but the reality feels more like “work hard, then work harder.” Back in the day, sure, banking was a cash cow, and you’d make bank and be set. But today, it feels like the payoff doesn’t match the cost of endless hours and burnout.
First off, salaries haven’t kept pace with inflation, especially in the UK. Yeah, you might make £60-100k as a junior, but good luck buying property or even affording rent in cities like London. Back in the 80s and 90s, these salaries went so much further. Analysts back then worked their 80-100 hours but went home, disconnected, and actually had some life outside the office. Now, with laptops and teams, we’re expected to be always on there’s no escape. Are we grinding for the same rewards or just higher expectations?
Let’s talk housing: back then, people could afford a place to live, even in central London. Now, even with a 6 figure salary, you’re probably stuck renting a shoebox, let alone owning anything. The house price to income ratio has blown up from like 3:1 in the 80s to 8:1+ now. And let’s not even get into rent increases and the insane cost of living half your paycheck disappears into housing, food, and utilities before you’ve even started.
Even bonuses are no longer the safety net they used to be. After the GFC, regulations cracked down on caps, and now, even with the restrictions being lifted, it’s only the top performers who see the big payout. For the rest of us, it’s a grind with no guarantee that the hustle will pay off.
The morale? It’s shot. You’re expected to work longer, for what feels like less. The burnout is real, and so is the question: why are we doing this? The flexibility Gen Z wants is getting thrown to the backburner because the culture still screams “more hours = more results.” But is it worth it when the quality of life doesn’t match the effort?
At this point, I’m questioning if the prestige and paycheck are worth sacrificing mental health, relationships, and any sense of balance? what's the point of working in these "elite" industries anymore when the reward barely justifies the grind?
Then don't — but in the UK at least, from my point of view, it's grinding for 65-70k base or earning 25-30k in my home city.
I know my choice
Yeah, I get it. Relative to most other careers, IB is still a solid deal salary-wise. But if you step back and compare what we're getting now versus what banking used to be, you can see the gap. Back in the day, the comp actually made up for the grind. People put in insane hours, but they were properly rewarded with life changing bonuses, a path to real wealth, and homeownership.
Now? It's like, sure, we're still making more than most, but the upside just isn't the same.
Buying property in London with a 6-figure salary is a joke. We're grinding the same hours, but inflation and cost of living are swallowing up the rewards. My point is, if you look across the board not just finance, salaries haven't kept up, and the hustle just doesn't have the same ROl anymore.
Bro what are you even talking about. IB analysts are making £120k these days and other careers pay like £30-40k on graduation. IB is one of the only careers with huge upside if you work hard in the UK.
Outside of the very few quant trading roles, IB/PE/HF pays the highest salaries of any career. So if you're complaining that you can't afford things with an IB salary (lol), then you're never affording them with any other career.
why you ask? why?
The UK job market is cooked thats why. I see graduates on twitter complaining that they can't find a entry level jobs in their field with degrees from top universities, and when they can its for crappy 30k salaries. You have to remember you are earning a top 5% income straight out of uni in this shit island with low salaries
Exactly. The UK job market is a joke frankly, and we're just stuck with this narrative that "if you grind hard enough, it'll pay off." But the reality is way different. Gen Z isn't lazy, we just have way less incentive to push ourselves to the same limits as previous generations. Why should we slave away for 100 hours a week when the payoff is nowhere near what it used to be? The cost of living is ridiculous, and despite inflation, salaries aren't adjusting. Where's the upside?
If I'm going to work like a dog, I better see the rewards. But now, even with all the BS we put up with, the bonuses don't hit the same, and the path to financial freedom seems further away than ever. People wonder why Gen Z isn't as motivated. Why would we be? There's no guarantee that after years of grinding we'll even be able to afford the lifestyle that was almost expected of bankers (or insert any high finance/consulting gig) before.
General answer: everything else sucks pay wise in the UK. Finance at least platforms you for a financial future.
personal answer: Going to a HF for full time so this is industry specific, but I’m not grinding away for 300-500k but rather for the hope I’ll get a 15-40m payday eventually.
Basically just optimising for that
What HF positions pay that much? Don't know much about HF. Is it higher paying than PE, at least in top 5% performers?
Analysts running a sleeve and full fledged PMs with sizeable books at P72/Baly/Citadel/Millennium.
Top performers are making much more than PE, but it’s entirely performance based. You eat what you kill. You will hear of 8-9 figure guarantees for the top guys across these funds
Curious to hear from some of the US folks here how does this compare stateside? I wonder if it’s the same story with inflation and the cost of living as in the UK. From what I’ve seen, housing in cities like NYC and SF is just as brutal as London, maybe worse. Even if you’re pulling six figures early on, how far does that really get you when rent eats half your paycheck?
But honestly, why even grind it out in high finance anymore? There are other career paths that still pay decently and don’t require selling your soul. Business development, corporate strategy, tech roles, or even accounting they all offer a more chill 9-5 with way less stress. Sure, you might not hit the high figures as fast, but is it worth sacrificing your health and happiness for some mythical “payoff”? You might struggle a bit, but at least you’ll actually enjoy your life outside work instead of just grinding for the sake of it.
Would love to hear what others think, especially those in the US who’ve opted for less intense roles. How’s the balance? Are you happier for it, or do you miss the chase?
Congrats on KPMG!
.
So what’s the alternative? Not grind to make it into a high paying career & settle for a £40k 9-5. I’ve been there and it’s not fun
It should be relatively doable to get to a £250k total comp number (£150k base and £100k bonus) once you hit the lower VP level in London. On a base of £150k (£12.5k pre-tax, and roughly £7.5k post-tax monthly) you should be able to buy something in the £800k range. Now, you won't be living in Hampstead Heath or Primrose Hill, but you can still buy a decent 2-bed/2-bath flat in zones 2-3 with decent transport links to Canary Wharf/Liverpool Street/Mayfair (all on the Elizabeth Line now).
Where the game changes is if you (i) want to try to compete with the wealthy, or (ii) you want a stay-at-home wife and kids. On the first point, as a PAYE employee, you have no chance of competing with all the wealth in London, it's just not possible with the punitive taxes on earners and the low salaries. The worst thing you can do is try to mimic their lifestyle with membership clubs, expensive cars, and endless consumption. On the second point, if you want kids and the wife doesn't work, you need to move outside of London and commute in. You can buy nice houses in Essex and Hertfordshire and commute into the City in under an hour.
What you see now is the rise of assortive mating where people marry partners on similar incomes. So, you have a lot of DINKS (double income, no kids) couples in London with combined incomes well into the £400-500k level who can afford to live in the most desirable areas. If you want that kind of lifestyle you need to find a girl with similar earnings (law, medicine, consulting, banking, etc.)
I don't understand what medicine is doing in your list for UK😂
I get your point about the £250k comp being doable, but let's be real: how many people actually make it to VP? The burnout rate in this industry is insane 90% of analysts and associates burn out and leave before they even sniff VP. Most of them end up pivoting to more chill jobs in corp strat, tech, or even something like FP&A, where they can make decent money without destroying their health. So if the majority of people are going to end up in those kinds of roles anyway, why not just take a more balanced career from the start? Or at least change the culture in the industry so we’re not killing ourselves for a mediocre lifestyle.
You're still pulling in a good salary, working normal hours, and actually have time to enjoy life. Instead of grinding away in IB for years, only to end up in a "chill" job later, why not just skip the burnout altogether?
The reality is, the rewards in high finance just don't match the effort anymore. Sure, you might make it to VP, but for what? Struggling to afford a home in central London and still being outclassed by the ultra-wealthy. It just feels like we're chasing an outdated dream in an industry that's no longer delivering the upside it once did.
Bro if you can't be bothered to grind for more money then don't do it. But some people will so don't understand why you're complaining.
I 100% agree with you that the return on effort isn't the same as it once was. You have a "negative jaws" effect where comp has fallen but asset prices (mainly housing) have jumped massively due to QE/ZIRP. The issue is, as others have pointed out, that UK salaries outside of FAANG/Finance/Magic Circle Law are really poor. Making £85k a year puts you in the top 5% of earners in the UK (you can barely rent a 1-bed for £2k per month on that income).
So, why do IB? You do it for 2 years for the exits. Hardly anyone joins IB expecting to stay 30 years and become global head of banking/advisory like Andrea Orcel. Most people grind it out to make the jump to the buy side. If I look at my peer group (I joined the industry in 2011) 90% of us work in cushy long-only real-money seats clipping £300-£350k working 2 days a week from home and the summers abroad. I have a few outlier friends who joined multi-manager pod shops and who have made millions, and a few friends who left the business to make £70-80k in corporate jobs.
The issue is the comp gap between IB and everything else. Most people who hate their jobs wouldn't trade making £300k in London to make £70k in Birmingham, even if they complain endlessly about the cost of London.
good point on the assortative mating, I feel like it has never been this prevalent before amongst young people not willing to date outside of their income bracket
Raaaaahhhhh America!!! Sorry.
Make your way to America. I'm not kidding.
The EU economy is structurally challenged and will be as long as regulation makes it a nightmare to start a tech company. Finance is competitive everywhere but at least in America assets grow which creates room for more investors over the long term. I'm always shocked to hear the state of the high-finance job market in other geographies. Like I see PE associates in Japan who have 7 years of IB experience, or grads from top EU universities being forced to accept multi-year "internships" with abysmal pay for the chance of maybe be offered a full-time entry-level asset management role.
Immigration is tough but the future really is much brighter in the states if you can swing it
I hear you on the U.S. hype, but let’s be real it’s not as glamorous as it sounds. Yeah, you might get paid more in New York, but what’s the point when housing is 24% more expensive than London, and you’re forking out 38% more on food?Plus, let’s not forget NYC’s lovely 53% tax rate compared to London’s 45%. So sure, bigger paycheck, but after rent, taxes, and $20 for a sad lunch, you’re not exactly rolling in it.
And don’t even get me started on the whole work-life balance thing. NYC takes it to a whole new level. Yeah, you might get to flex that bigger salary, but say goodbye to seeing daylight. Meanwhile, in Europe, you’ve got people enjoying more holidays, actual work-life balance, and not having to pay half their salary just to live. So unless you love working for the thrill of handing most of it back to Uncle Sam and your landlord, I’m not sure the U.S. is the dream people make it out to be. More money, but a lot less life.
Dude this attitude won't get you anywhere. Complain about the system all you want, join the Labour Party and live some mediocre life on £30k if it's so shit.
You know UK is not part of EEA ("EU economy") anymore, right?
However, your point re regulation limiting innovation and growth is certainly true (for the EU; UK faces other issues since brexit). But I wouldnt strictly tie IB comp to economic growth. IB has always found a way to generate fees independent from economic growth (some might say out of hot air).
I want to add a personal touch to this comment. Went to college, worked, and Lived ln the U.S. for a total of 7 years, got laid off and came back to China. Visa issues. I'm working my way towards Canada, and doing a coding degree - Penn's online MCIT - on the side.
I worked at a bank that is usually ranked tier 1.5/2 by deal flow, and tier 3/4 by salary. Let's just say my earnings have been mediocre at best. This has something to do with the investment banking industry in China/Hong Kong. A lot of Chinese institutions pay very low salaries, and some Western banks don't pay well like their U.S/EU offices.
It used to be possible to grind your way into a bigger bank or a big private equity fund and make very good money, before everything happened. Now the CCP wants to place a salary cap on finance. That is absurd. There is also a stringent SEC rule that makes deferred bonus mandatory, if I remember correctly at least for 3 years.
Fwiw, consulting has similar issues here. I know Oliver Wyman Hong Kong pays miserably.
This take applies to the US as well but it’s less severe over here
You are largely right, there’s just not many viable alternatives
London is optimal on a 50k wage with housing and other benefits (nhs, nursery etc.) paid for.
Hi OP - good topic, even if I maybe disagree with a few of your points. As a Brit-American (worked in both London and US) I'll comment specifically on working in London, although as others have said it could also easily apply to NY (if to a lesser extent).
First of all, I do take your point about the high cost of housing making things difficult - however in reality this is an issue in many developed countries, i.e. US and Canada as well for example. I'm a millennial so it was perhaps (slightly) easier for me to buy my first flat, but even ten years ago house prices were still very high. However I would 100% echo what the top upvoted poster says above - within a few years you can easily be earning £250-300k, which is still a really good income (if you disagree with that then respectfully you're probably coming from a very affluent/wealthy background). Yes as the poster says, with the UK's ridiculously punitive tax system you will likely never be a multi-millionaire or able to compete with the "real rich" of London, and yes your lifestyle takes a hit once you have kids especially if your partner doesn't work - however you can still live a very good lifestyle.
I saw your follow-up asking why bother grinding it out in IB for a few years if you won't make it to VP or hang around long-term? Well firstly, £100k+ income in your early 20s is honestly a fantastic salary (again if you disagree I'd say you must come from a very wealthy background). Honestly I felt my richest when I was 25 earning £150k (less than half what I make now) - as you have no real responsibilities, and so whilst you're working hard the opportunity cost isn't that great - if you did a 9-5 job you would likely be sitting at home watching Netflix a lot of evenings, so missing out on that working late isn't necessarily that bad if you're being paid well and getting tons of experience. And the money enables you to take great holidays (Thailand/Bali/South America) that most people either never do until their 50s, or do on a "gap yah" on a shoestring budget at 18 which isn't the same really. And go on great nights out and weekends away etc.
Also what is the alternative - you mention why not start in a standard corporate job, but in the UK do you realise how low the graduate pay is? As a graduate in a FTSE100 company you might be on barely £40-50k, versus double that in IB. Which is a massive difference in quality of life, especially at 21. And like others have said, IB makes you "drink from a firehose" in terms of learning/experience - which is tough at the time, but really sets you up for your career if you do end up leaving IB a few years later.
And let's say you stay in IB, and cap out at VP/Director level - what is your lifestyle like then? Well you won't be living like a multi-millionaire certainly, but you'll likely live in a £1m house (either a nice terrace in London or a large 5-bed in the commuter belt) and be able to afford to send kids to private school, and take a couple of nice holidays a year. Is that worth all the years of late nights and stress/pressure of IB? That's only a question you can answer to be honest.
I do agree with you that the 2000s era of banking making nearly everyone "loadsa money" and becoming multi-millionaires within a few years, is well and truly done. If you make it to MD then yeah you can maybe amass a few million over a decade or so, but like you say most people don't make it there. However I would say the majority of colleagues I know/worked with in London are living the £1m house/upper middle-class lifestyle I described above. Even the ones who left after a couple of years are living in £700-800k+ houses and have nice lifestyles. So is that enough for you personally is the question really? If you come from a rough council estate or lower middle-class background, that probably sounds like "making it" - but if your parents live in a £1.5m house they bought for £100k thirty years ago, then yes sadly you probably won't be outdoing them even in IB.
This is an interesting take, and I definitely see where you’re coming from. Heck I came from a lower middle class background myself and my first full time job I was only making £21k as an auditor. Earning £100k+ early on is undeniably great, but the bigger issue is more about what happens when we’re further down the line. You mentioned the reality of your lifestyle taking a hit once you have kids and a partner that might not work, and that’s exactly what makes this conversation so relevant. Even with solid earnings, the game has changed housing prices, taxes, and the overall cost of living have skyrocketed, but the salaries, while high, haven’t really kept up with inflation or the lifestyle expectations that came with those banking salaries 20 years ago.
What I’d like to ask is: given how the financial upside has changed, do you think the culture and intensity of banking should change as well? I mean, if we’re not getting the same kind of financial reward that bankers were pulling back in the day, why are we still expected to grind at the same pace? It feels like we’re doing the same work, with the same intensity, but for less real financial reward. Shouldn’t the industry shift to reflect that?
For example, if the comp isn’t what it used to be, maybe the culture could adapt to prioritize better work-life balance or offer more flexibility, especially as other industries are catching on to that. I’m not saying we should expect the lifestyle of an MD while working 9-5, but there’s definitely a conversation to be had about whether the grind still matches the rewards.
Yes you do make a very good point about whether hours should be adjusted to reflect lower comp. I think (to some small extent) they have got slightly better, i.e. ten years ago it seemed like analysts working until 3am and doing 90-100hr weeks was quite common, now most analysts/associates I work with finish before midnight. That's just my anecdotal experience I know, and I realise 70-80hr weeks are still pretty bad compared to your average 40hr week, but it feels like there has been a marginal improvement particularly since Covid.
I do agree with you that in an ideal world there would be a much bigger change in demands/hours to reflect the lower rewards. The problem here though goes beyond banking and is a UK issue - most people in the UK (even in banking) still see £100k as some huge salary figure, when in reality the concept of a six-figure salary being enormous dates back 20+ years now. Inflation has massively eaten away at it but most people in the UK can't recognise that, and senior bankers either can't or don't want to recognise it. And like I said above even now it is still relatively a very good salary, so there will always be lots of applicants for these roles - so ultimately what incentive is there for banks to reduce the workload for juniors?
Also the tax system in the UK is rather diabolical for higher earners unfortunately, with the low 40% threshold and the 60% tax trap above £100k. High taxes combined with high house prices are the main reason why young high earners struggle to build wealth in the UK today. As a 60yr old boomer whose house has gone from £100k to £1m will have a £900k gain that is tax-free, i.e. you'd need to earn £1.8m in IB for the same return! Which is crazy.
However, the tax system/housing crisis isn't the banks' fault - so again why would they care? And like I said in my above post, the high housing costs are an issue in the US as well - it sucks for Gen-Z/millennials, but what is the alternative? And as I said above, even today you will still get a great upper middle-class lifestyle if you stay in banking. I guess the answer to your question is that yes the game is rigged for younger people (i.e. rewards are much lower than in the past for various reasons) however the rewards are still good enough for lots of people/applicants to want to play the game, so banks don't really have any incentive to change their ways/approach.
Edit: Would also just add on the aspect of having kids/family - whilst even in banking the “single earner household/stay at home mum” concept is dead (or at least would mean a big lifestyle hit), I think this is mitigated somewhat if your partner is at least earning something. Eg if you’re earning £200k and your partner makes even £30k, that is nearly the same as you earning £260k if your partner was making nothing (due to the UK’s punitive tax system). So if you wanted your partner to still be there for the kids, it is potentially doable if they can get a low stress/flexible job even if it doesn’t pay much.
Congrats on Big 4 Tax
It’s the result of long-lasting bad economic policy
For London rents, there’s clearly lots of regulations constraining the housing market to function properly and create new supply -> be more liberal with building permits, build higher, get rid of the green belt, reduce environmental regulation for new buildings. If we had done these things over the last 30 years the housing problem would be less acute.
More broadly, there are lots of wrong incentives for people like you (and me) who reconsider how much effort they put in. A few generations ago we started off across Europe with a culture of hard work but gradually incentives (high taxes) translate into culture and people making bad decisions. This starts off in school where kids already know they can rely on social welfare and that there is limited upside to studying hard, not taking drugs, etc. This continues through adult life and bad decisions add up, leading to productivity losses and ultimately shit salaries across the board. The payoff doesn’t work -> Decrease social welfare, decrease taxes (particularly for low incomes to make it attractive to work), encourage a mindset of self-agency instead of relying on the state for everything
Trusting free market principles works in the long term. And just look at an example like China to see how much change would be possible in 40 years (which they are gradually turning back somehow)
So demand free market policies and condemn the socialists across all parties
You make a solid and very interesting point about loosening up some regulations, especially when it comes to housing. I completely agree with relaxing building restrictions and making the planning process more efficient, would definitely be a win for productivity.
But I think where we differ is on welfare (I’m not advocating for higher taxes here just for the money to be spent better). Cutting it isn’t going to magically make people work harder. Look at Denmark they have high taxes, sure, but that money goes into education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The result? A healthier, more educated, and ultimately more productive population. That’s why multinationals still invest there despite the tax burden.
Compare that to the UK, where sometimes you're literally better off staying on benefits than working full-time in some jobs. The system is clearly broken when working part time nets you the same, or even more, than putting in 40+ hours a week. Of course, people are frustrated with the welfare system, it's designed in a way that doesn't incentivize working or building skills.
Cutting welfare would likely just increase inequality and hurt productivity. If you want to see people become more productive, reform welfare to focus on education and skill-building early on letting people become net contributors once they hit the workforce. Scandinavian countries prove you can have high taxes and a welfare system that actually boosts productivity, as long as the money is spent wisely. So yeah, some regulations should go, but welfare reform, not reduction, is the way to make people more productive in the long run.
Dude, what ? WTF are you even talking about? I was hired into UBS as a post MBA associate in London a couple decades ago at GBP 60 K per year. What are these “good old days” of which you speak? Also, what does it even matter? Do you have a time machine that you can go back into time and revisit these theoretical good old days? If so, please DM me because I have some life decisions I’d like to revisit.
Good discussion, OP.
Not even hit the desk, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I agree with your sentiment and others in the thread that the game is rigged against young people, but what is the alternative?
I come from a low-income background so this type of money is life-changing, there will be no improvement in the industry as there will always be a kid willing to eat shit and grind because what else is there to do?
If you or others here wanted real wealth you're smart enough to know it can only be done by starting your own business but nobody here has the risk appetite for it, so we are being rewarded accordingly.
Pessimistic view, I know but how can you not be. I just drink the Kool-Aid and hope for a upper-middle class life at the end of this as that's the only way to not be miserable.
Note that the market has become much more competitive than before. The number of IB headcount now is probably a few times what it was 20 years ago. This also allowed many of the non-target folks accessing IB jobs while in a like for like scenario they would be working in a lower tier bank or TAS in consulting
Main difference between UK and US (have worked in both) is that you can earn good money in the US working in non-high finance/consulting jobs and there’s more geographic optionality (NYC, Boston, SF, LA, Chicago, Austin, etc). Good luck finding a well paying job in Birmingham, UK at all, but you can easily break +70K working for a no name fintech start-up doing credit risk in Austin as a fresh grad.
saw UK, moved on
best bet, do whatever you have to do to move to the US ASAP
Because you're using the wrong point of comparison. It is irrelevant what "high finance/consulting" used to be. The only thing that matters is how do these fields compare to other fields now and in the future. IB is still the easiest, most conservative, path to earnings and wealth.
Sure. I can grant you it isn't as easy to have the quality of life in high finance/consulting than in the past. Let's just take that as true. That doesn't matter. Because the IB/PE/etc career path is still the easiest, most conservative path to earnings and wealth compared to all the alternatives out there.
I didn't even bother reading the full post and I know there is no point to this thread. It's just another whine session over how bad the UK is. Yes the UK is bad. Economy sucks, blahblahblah. Do something then.
Yes IB isn't what it used to be (in any country). But what are you gonna do about it? You say there are other jobs that pay less with less stress... Yeah duh, that's always been the case. Guess what, those jobs don't pay as well as they used to either. E.g. Big 4 salary has barely moved in like 15 years.
This is just another whine session about an issue that other people, who earn less, have too. You're just doing it from a higher vantage point.
Either do something different, propose a solution, or stop whining.
If you'd said something along the lines of: "plenty people on Gen Z being entrepreneurial via internet, why not try that". This might've been a discussion worth having.
The whole point of the discussion is to highlight how the IB grind doesn’t match the rewards it used to. And I did offer a solution: if salaries can’t keep up, then expectations need to shift. If pay isn’t climbing, why are we still expected to grind like it’s the 90s when the upside was actually worth it?
You keep saying “do something,” but discussing these issues is doing something. It’s about figuring out how the industry needs to evolve. Acting like talking about problems isn’t productive just shows you’re more comfortable sticking to the status quo than making anything better.
Right, so the big solution here is to make the banks make IBers work less or paid more... You want to make their biggest expense line item less productive?
In all fairness, there's something to be said about culture shifts that enable the banks to keep productivity while IBers work less. This doesn't happen overnight though and needs proper incentive structures. I'm not in IB but I feel pretty pessimistic about how that comes about. How do you incentivise someone to not be neurotic over getting a multibillion dollar deal through when it's really no skin off their back? I'm open to ideas but I don't see it, right now anyway.
People have "figured out" how the industry needs to evolve many times. Look at GS 13, first BAML intern death, recent BAML associate death and the "discussions of problems" that occur after these events. What changes?
In my view, for at least the next generation, the industry is what it is.
My reference to "do something" however wasn't really do something about this clearly past-help industry. It was more about do something else with your life. If the rewards and the risk aren't stacking for you, find somewhere they are. And I'm not saying this in a "if you don't like it, then leave" way. I mean it for your own benefit.
My point was also that in almost every corporate industry, especially in the UK, people are working more/the same for a less than proportional increase in buying power than 10-20-30 years ago. This isn't unique to IB, you can just see it on a bigger scale (in terms of time and $).
Sir, kindly move over to the exit queue so we can screen the next 1,200 applicants
Yup, this is the real world answer
True IB isn't the golden ticket it was in '04-'07. But....
IB teaches you to do relatively complex work under huge pressure with minimal sleep.
You learn how C-level / investor think about their companies. Valuation, metrics, financing, etc.
Even if you don't want to full IB career, those skill mean you can accelerate your career and earnings.
Most people can't handle pressure and they have to get to mid career before they start to understand shareholder perspectives and valuation.
Use IB, don't let it use you.
Move to the Middle East (Dubai/Abu Dhabi) and you will double your quality of life and take home pay.
Bruh in USA you can make $100K driving a truck. If you're that pressed then move to USA.
You bust your ass now to be able to buy a 1700 sqft house in East Meadow NY and drive a Honda HRV. And you should be thankful for that!
Whats the alternative? Become a passport bro and go teach english in Thailand?
Ut voluptatem doloribus laborum illo numquam est. Porro harum sint quis odio assumenda eligendi. Necessitatibus quas aut quia. Quos inventore tempore reiciendis perspiciatis maiores aspernatur. Error et ratione et perferendis. Sit culpa quod debitis et nisi id explicabo. Eveniet autem deleniti veniam illo odit quod rerum 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...
Quis sit voluptates nihil blanditiis molestiae quibusdam rerum. Deserunt voluptatem aut sit delectus. Nostrum asperiores praesentium corrupti. Deserunt esse sint excepturi provident veniam.
Dignissimos sit fuga quis vero. Ea quia deserunt natus dicta. Voluptatem cum et ut repudiandae itaque unde suscipit quia. Eos in esse deleniti qui.
Debitis velit cupiditate fuga ipsum earum quidem. Voluptatem sit repudiandae quasi ipsum nostrum cupiditate reiciendis qui. In qui ratione nam ipsam molestiae dolorem enim. Odio vero doloremque quia. Earum quasi est consectetur iure. Perferendis rem quidem odio alias ex rem illum.
Esse dolore accusamus voluptatibus velit necessitatibus. Voluptatum quas non non reprehenderit odit. Molestiae sed perferendis voluptates quos perferendis error. Iusto repellendus ut saepe eius id quae architecto in.