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?
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
-
@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.
Why would other banks sue?
-
@Dashrender 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?:
@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.?
That's exactly what happened. That's why we left the industry.
-
@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?:
@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
Oh I would not HAVE to have stayed. And I would absolutely have taken that one (and moved my family to Zurich once the ball was rolling.) We were house shopping in Manhattan though, at first (eww... I know.) Now that I'm older and wiser, I would make the Paris office home and commute to Zurich but... live and learn.
This particular one was stopped by the lawsuits (and that's why I had to leave the country.) But why I didn't continue down this path was as Dash said, we rethought our life goals.
-
@thecreaitvone91 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.
Why would other banks sue?
Sadly, that's what they do. On the surface, the official complaint was that I was so high level and valuable that it was not acceptable for me to work in the US for three years (they literally said if I moved to the other coast to bag groceries that they'd find me and stop me and shut down the store) because I had too much insight into other country's finances (I did not, that was a lie, but in theory, I could have seen, maybe.)
But the real issue was deeper. The bank I was at touted that they were the best paying, most advanced environment out there. But the job I was going for had interviewed tons of people from our bank and turned them all down, including my manager, and offered me the job on the spot and had told the headhunters that I was who they were really looking for. So the bank I was at had a lot of internal politics to be impacted if word got out that they weren't paying, acting, or staffing competitive with another bank - it would dramatically undermine their culture and facade. To a tune of potentially billions of dollars.
As my lawyer said... no question we'd win the lawsuit. But they'd destroy a decade of my life while we fought it. In the end, we settled on a settlement involving money and me retiring and leaving the country. And at the end of the day, while I REALLY wanted that job (not for the money), I think things worked out for the best and that wasn't the life for me while raising kids.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 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.
Why would other banks sue?
Sadly, that's what they do. On the surface, the official complaint was that I was so high level and valuable that it was not acceptable for me to work in the US for three years (they literally said if I moved to the other coast to bag groceries that they'd find me and stop me and shut down the store) because I had too much insight into other country's finances (I did not, that was a lie, but in theory, I could have seen, maybe.)
But the real issue was deeper. The bank I was at touted that they were the best paying, most advanced environment out there. But the job I was going for had interviewed tons of people from our bank and turned them all down, including my manager, and offered me the job on the spot and had told the headhunters that I was who they were really looking for. So the bank I was at had a lot of internal politics to be impacted if word got out that they weren't paying, acting, or staffing competitive with another bank - it would dramatically undermine their culture and facade. To a tune of potentially billions of dollars.
As my lawyer said... no question we'd win the lawsuit. But they'd destroy a decade of my life while we fought it. In the end, we settled on a settlement involving money and me retiring and leaving the country. And at the end of the day, while I REALLY wanted that job (not for the money), I think things worked out for the best and that wasn't the life for me while raising kids.
That's crazy I had a similar thing happen to me.
-
@ScottyBoy it was definitely pretty crazy and nothing that we had expected. But the silver lining is that because of the whole lawsuit situation, they were forced to pay me full salary (can't legally renegotiate or fire you during this kind of scenario) for about six months while we fought it out. But because of security rules, I wasn't allowed in the building or to have access to computers (at work.) So I 100% could not work, and 100% could not stop getting paid. So it was a stressful, but complete vacation for quite some time. That gave us months to save money, plan, talk, make life decisions, choose to move to Europe and retire and do a full about-face on our lives.
-
When money was tight, he'd get his lunch money from the local wishing well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Typically we see engineers cap out around $225K. But admins head closer to $500K.
Also, CIOs were more likely to be pulled from the admin ranks, not the engineer ranks. Because engineering was nearly all technical while admins had to be able to do everything an engineer could do, but apply it to the business in real time, deal with active security, and fix what the engineers broke all with the pressure on.
Also, in the SMB space, engineering is the low cost afterthought that admins do. It's maybe 5% of the job, and the easiest 5%. Consider how little knowledge or effort goes into installing a new server, and how much goes into supporting it after it is installed. We often have the most junior staff do the engineering parts because typically it requires the least experience or knowledge, and it can be double checked so doesn't matter even if they get something wrong - there is a chance to fix it before it goes live.bro I think you lost your mind no one is making this much money in those roles
-
@Hugh-Jass said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Typically we see engineers cap out around $225K. But admins head closer to $500K.
Also, CIOs were more likely to be pulled from the admin ranks, not the engineer ranks. Because engineering was nearly all technical while admins had to be able to do everything an engineer could do, but apply it to the business in real time, deal with active security, and fix what the engineers broke all with the pressure on.
Also, in the SMB space, engineering is the low cost afterthought that admins do. It's maybe 5% of the job, and the easiest 5%. Consider how little knowledge or effort goes into installing a new server, and how much goes into supporting it after it is installed. We often have the most junior staff do the engineering parts because typically it requires the least experience or knowledge, and it can be double checked so doesn't matter even if they get something wrong - there is a chance to fix it before it goes live.bro I think you lost your mind no one is making this much money in those roles
Don't confuse "I don't" with "other people don't."
The top end of IT is generally limited to a few physical locations (NY, London, Zurich) and to a few industries. So you aren't going to find it in some SMB shop, nor in some small village (other than in CT.)
