Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

drive.google.com

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#61
post #34

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 incl…

I'm not sure how to disprove what you're saying, but I'm right around the age of these first year analysts and have friends working at top IB firms in similar positions, and 95 hours is usually the extreme end of what they work a week. It's always at least 85 hours, and has gone up to 100 - 105 hours. Yes, it is around 14 hours every day if not more, with some weekdays being closer to 17-18 hours. It's the nature of…

[deleted]

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#62

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?

I for example would never work for someone like Goldman Sachs because my perception is the work/life balance is abysmal. It's a surprise to me that anyone is surprised by this.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#63
post #26

As a resident in the hospital (a couple years ago) I worked 100 hours a week and there were others on the team who were putting in more hours than I was. I think the hours are similar at some law firms. Honestly I find it hard to believe people actually exist that only work 40 hours a week.

> I find it hard to believe people actually exist that only work 40 hours a week

I'm one.

Why would I do more?

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#64
post #21

The burn out and churn is intended. Big 4 accounting is the same way, recruit individuals straight out of college, work them 80+ hours a week, burn them out and have them move on. It’s a win-win, the employee gets a stamp on their resume which opens many doors and the employer gets cheap labor and less people moving up the ladder.

It's an extension to the tournament of academia.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#65
post #63
post #26

As a resident in the hospital (a couple years ago) I worked 100 hours a week and there were others on the team who were putting in more hours than I was. I think the hours are similar at some law firms. Honestly I find it hard to believe people actually exist that only work 40 hours a week.

> I find it hard to believe people actually exist that only work 40 hours a week I'm one. Why would I do more?

It’s not a true incredulity I expressed, it’s that in the middle of it all 40 hours a week seems very distant.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#67
post #34

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 incl…

It’s definitely possible to “work” that much if work consists of being present in the office and nominally working on something or thinking about it. There’s a lot of menial work in most jobs that you can kind of force yourself through for hours at a time.

60 hours a week is easy: just work from 8-6 six days a week.

To get past that, the easy option is to add Sundays. But you do burn out if you work all Sunday, so taking Sunday to rest is a good idea. Let’s say you just work from 6-10pm on Sundays to map out the week and get ready for Monday, that leaves plenty of time to rest.

So now you’re at 64 hours a week, and you want to bump it up. Not too hard: give yourself a dinner break from 6-8 each night, and work again from 8 to midnight M-F. That’s an extra 20 hours, so you’re at 84. And that’s actually not too bad because you have Saturday nights free to socialize and Sunday morning to sleep off your hangover.

Getting past 84 hours is harder, you’ll have to sacrifice Sunday. But if you go ahead and adopt your normal 14h schedule Monday-Saturday you’re already at 84 without working Sunday, and by comparison fitting another 11 hours on Sunday still feels like a little bit of a breather. Maybe you just work 8-7 on Sundays and use the last few hours for some Netflix and go to bed early.

All of this is much easier if you’re not trying to spend 8 hours a day in bed. Suppose you find that 6 hours a day in bed can get you through, now you’ve got an extra 14 hours a week to do thinks like go jogging at 6am or whatever else helps you de-stress.

TLDR; 60 hours a week is relatively easy. 80 hours a week is harder but still manageable. The difficulty ramps as you go from 80-100. 100 hours a week is very hard. Anything over that is unsustainable, but can still be managed in short bursts if you don’t sleep, and we have lots of drugs that can help you avoid sleep.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#68
post #34

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 incl…

I'm not sure how to disprove what you're saying, but I'm right around the age of these first year analysts and have friends working at top IB firms in similar positions, and 95 hours is usually the extreme end of what they work a week. It's always at least 85 hours, and has gone up to 100 - 105 hours. Yes, it is around 14 hours every day if not more, with some weekdays being closer to 17-18 hours. It's the nature of…

[deleted]

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#69

It would be great to hear directly from somewhere who works at GS - anyone here spending some of their 98 hours on HN?

I worked at GS but not in investment banking. I had a really positive experience and rarely went over 60-70 hours.

It all depends on your role. IBD is definitely the most demanding, but they all made a choice, with basically perfect information, to accept that job. I promise you, they knew it would be like that. It's hard for me to feel too sympathetic.

Re: Goldman Sachs Working Conditions Survey

#70
post #34

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 incl…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN