The catch is rather obvious. In fact, there are two:

1. 70-100 work hours a week? That's a dead giveaway. Given that you teleport to and from work, require absolutely zero hours to address bodily functions and only sleep 6 hours a day, that gives you just about 126 hours / week to work with. Spread the excess from a 100-hour week (i.e. 26 hours) across 7 days, and that gives you just about 3.7 hours per day. This means to say, you can only expect to sleep no more than 6.5 to 7 hours per day if you expect to have a life.

On a personal note, I'd sooner work 4 days @ 40k p.a. than 7 days @ 70k p.a. - thanks to something called Quality of Life (QoL). On this note, I have stressed many times before that the goal is to raise one's QoL than to question jobs that appear dubious just because they have a great payout.

Great money comes with great responsibility.


2. Two words - Investment banking. The accountability is in excess of what the regular motley crew have to deal with.


To add:
Fast track management trainees that make the grade in O&G can command up to 75k - 90k p.a. within the first two years - bonus included and minus the crazy hours.

This post has been edited by thyceult: Jun 23 2012, 12:07 AM

+1

Exceptional performance is a very iffy thing in today's market. Furthermore, genuine KPI accountability only works in a society that is not prone to office politics "for the sake of office politics".

Granted, but even at 70 hours (the minimum that you have suggested) is by far in excess of the average overworked staff. Definitely a bitter pill for Next-Genners to swallow. Those already in the creative and communications industry are complaining about hours in excess of 60 per week - what more the figures that are being demonstrated in investment banking.

Of course, the two do not function at the same level nor capacity. However, one important thing to point out is that despite the remuneration being clearly better, there is always an applicable of diminishing returns on any reward - monetary or otherwise.

As for Quality of Life, I believe it is an empowerment issue. Any individual should be given the option to improve on their QoL at any stage of their career. This is an important aspect to address if the hiring party wants to secure good talent.

Every organization's administration must realize sooner or later that QoL does not necessarily mean monetary rewards. It could be something as simple as access, trust or even tiny perks that make the overall work experience easier to bear.

By putting the carrot (QoL) all the way at the end, many will not be motivated to take part in this race. Many of our forefathers and seniors have taken this road and have found that there was NO CARROT at the end, despite what they were told.

Dear debbieyss,

Assuming you are replying to me:

Nothing to apologize for. I find that your observations are often fresh and with insight. I happen to particularly agree with this line of observation that you have put forward earlier regarding bonuses and their subjective unreliability.

Hi there debbieyss,

Apologies on this. I was wondering why you were speaking in third person when referring to the TS haha. Noted on all accounts. Nevertheless, my add-on comment thereafter still applies to the overall conversation.

Dear Ibank,

I guess you can try checking with the local AIESEC chapter in UM and several other universities, if you have already exhausted those options. They usually churn out creme de la creme candidates, the savvy kind that you are looking for. Good luck on this.