Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

drive.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#31

Post by RankingMember »

DelightOne wrote: post #11
axlee wrote: post #5

I wonder what they actually "do" for 95 hours a week. There is no way it can be productive work for all that time over such long periods.

If most is productive work then I imagine its a hell of an education. May give you burnout tough, best only for a short time.

"May give you burnout" hahaha.

I can recall multiple studies finding that working more than 50 hours a week sees a severe drop-off in productivity. Here's an article about one: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/26/working-more-than-50-hours-m...

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#32

Post by jmeister »

tgv wrote: post #10

I don't think these are the people that deserve our sympathy. What did they think? That they would get rich by defrauding the world only 40 hours a week? > mentally I’m in a really dark place Indeed. First find some morals, then try again.

Goldman does the Lord’s work, the thankless but necessary work of facilitating accurate pricing in capital markets by ruthlessly arbitraging inefficiencies, and similar morally repulsive but necessary gutter-cleaning tasks.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#33

Post by TuringNYC »

jnwatson wrote: post #13
GEBBL wrote: post #3

Is anyone here experiencing this? It must be really tough.

If you're working 105 hours, you don't have time for HN.

I dont work 105 hours, but I am on HN all the time while waiting for builds and all-test cycles. I can usually do two things at a time, but there is a limit to that.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#34

Post by LeonM »

I call BS on the 95 hour claim.

Among a lot of people, especially bankers, there is a sort of bragging right about making insane hours.

But 95h/week is impossible. That would be almost 14h per day, for every day of the week. Or 19 hours a day when working week days.

My impressions of bankers is that they are like programmers. They are paid to think. Performing research, reading reports, etc. Most people, myself included, can't even do that for 8 hours a day. 14 hours a day is impossible, no matter how work hungry you are. You may be 'at the office' for 14h, but there is simply no way that you can be productive for 14h straight, and certainly not for 7 days a week.

But regardless of the amount of hours you make. If you don't like it: get a different job. If bankers expect crazy hours, and you don't want to do that, then don't become a banker.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#35

Post by dempseye »

1. They are all lying. They are not working productively for 95 hours a week. At most they are *present* for 95 hours a week. It is not humanly possible to maintain mental focus for that long. Everyone who says it is telling macho lies. It might be possible to get close to it for a week or two with stimulant drugs, but eventually you will have to pay the piper.

2. It is no secret that Goldman expects self-destructive levels of work from some of its employees. Everybody knows this. Former employees brag about keeping up with the punishing schedule. Future employees speak to each other about it before they start work. It is seen as a point of pride. "If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere." So while this is undoubtedly abusive behaviour by an employer, the employees are getting exactly what they signed up for.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#36

Post by mason55 »

axlee wrote: post #5

I wonder what they actually "do" for 95 hours a week. There is no way it can be productive work for all that time over such long periods.

If you're interested in what investment bankers do in a 95-hour week then check out the book "Barbarians at the Gate." Events took place in 1988 so you don't have things like PowerPoint but there are a lot of good examples of how it becomes "necessary" to put in so many hours. "Necessary" in quotes because it's not a matter of life or death but it really does become required to win the deal. With the amount of money involved in these deals it becomes ultra-competitive and more hours pretty directly translates to a better chance of winning the deal. Especially once you have short deadlines that are intended to get everyone to come forward with their best & final offer, you might just have one weekend to put together a whole pitchbook + all the deal terms to try to win the business.

Because the hours worked translate so directly into increased chances of winning the deal, it really does become a prisoners dilemma amongst all the firms. If they could all stick to 40 hour weeks then no one would have an advantage based on hours worked, but all it takes it one firm to defect and it's game over, welcome back to 100 hour weeks.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#37

Post by okamiueru »

GEBBL wrote: post #3

Is anyone here experiencing this? It must be really tough.

The most I've worked in my life was a two week intensive effort to reach a deadline. I did little more than work eat and sleep, and yet I only worked 75 and 80 hours. And my brain was pretty fried after. This was working from home, with rewarding work I was motivated to do. I don't see how it would be possible to work 95 hours in some office, let alone the 105 hours reported with 5 hours of sleep. It wouldn't make any sense. If you haven't slept more than 5 hours, the other 15 hours (assuming you work Saturday and Sunday) are going to be unproductive. Diminishing returns is a real thing. So, the managers here seems both very unprofessional, and remarkably bad. No one wins, and everyone loses? Nice way to run a business.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#40

Post by aero-glide2 »

3saryHg6LP2e wrote: post #28

I have already commented with something snarky, but in seriousness: Does it it seem to anyone else that the new generation entering the workplace (zoomers?) have wildly different expectations of what it's like vs. the reality? Not necessarily out of line with what it could or should be like (though I would say it does lean this way), but just how it is in practice?

Can you be more specific about what you mean?
Post reply on HN