Well Paying Jobs

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-02-2014 10:31PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Anyway, as for the button pushers vs. software developers....yes, the button pushers get paid more. Why? Because they make money And that's what businesses are all about. I can write some 'okay' code - but it doesn't generate any revenue. It's just code. Big deal. We don't sell it, and if we did, nobody would buy it. All of the money the company makes is a direct result of the button pushers correctly pushing the right buttons.

They make money by gambling, get paid tons for the gamble and apparently pick up a massive bonus even if the gamble fails

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-02-2014 10:33PM

Orlaw3136 wrote: »

They don't have to pay your PRSI, pension, any benefits etc. etc. etc.

You're cheaper to them off their headcount.

A lot of companies reduce their OPEX and pay the contractors on a project basis out of their CAPEX. They are not really saving money if they rely on contractors to deliver their work all the time. The OPEX is cheaper but the CAPEX is dearer!

johnnyskeleton · 22-02-2014 10:49PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

That's nothing. A bunch of guys from the UK arrived here and tested a comms system for bugs. At the end they said (according to the papers) we found three "anomolies", that will be €18,000 please guv.

Charging a professional fee of €18,000 doesn't mean that is what the individuals were paid

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 22-02-2014 10:52PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A lot of companies reduce their OPEX and pay the contractors on a project basis out of their CAPEX. They are not really saving money if they rely on contractors to deliver their work all the time. The OPEX is cheaper but the CAPEX is dearer!

But capex is depreciated over the life of the asset while opex is all current year expenditure.

wicklowstevo · 22-02-2014 10:56PM

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Wayne Rooney earns 1500 in 50 mins

dont you mean Wayne Rooney is payed 1500 in 50 mins rather than he earns it

Citroen2cv · 23-02-2014 12:35AM

Pee Flynn had a "well paid job".

Cedrus · 23-02-2014 12:49AM

sabat wrote: »

If he is a contractor he'll be getting a cheque for his gross earnings from the company and, seeing as it's in the UK, I'd advise him just to stick the money in his Irish bank a/c or transfer it home and not bother his hole with paying tax or any of that sh1t. Ok, he won't be able to work over there again but there's not a lot they can do about it and it sure beats handing £100K over to George Osborne.

I take it that you are not an accountant or tax advisor, possibly not even an adult.

macscoob · 23-02-2014 01:06AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I have yet to meet someone who earns more than me who is happier and has a better quality of life than me.

Is that why your called the backwards man????

jonnyfingers · 23-02-2014 01:19AM

The banking sector in London is where the big money is. I know of one analyst who works for an equity trading company who has threatened to leave because he's unhappy with a £150,000 bonus.

There are also some employees in their early thirties who have maxed out their pension pot of £1.25 million already.

I work as an IT Consultant and if I went contracting I could potentially get £900 a day for some contracts. Some of the business consultants I work with could get over £1000 a day.

Still doesn't touch the banking sector though, or Wayne Rooney who's now getting £300,000 a week.

Aidric · 23-02-2014 01:29AM

jonnyfingers wrote: »

The banking sector in London is where the big money is. I know of one analyst who works for an equity trading company who has threatened to leave because he's unhappy with a £150,000 bonus.

Yep. I know a friend of a friend who is in his late 20's working as a trader with Morgan Stanley on 250k basic. I work in finance myself but not in the banking sector. The punishing hours demanded shouldn't be overlooked in the rush to condemn high salaries.

B.A._Baracus · 23-02-2014 01:32AM

sszz wrote: »

There's a guy in my team who is going to interview for a position which pays 1500 sterling per day. The job is in London. He works for us for about 80k per year so he'd be mad not to go for it. Im actually tempted now to train up in his skillset. Didn't think you could make so much money from it.

So do you know anyone with really well paying jobs or are you in a really well paying job in the region of 1500 sterling per day?

erm yeah .... :pac:

Stavros Murphy · 23-02-2014 02:11AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

erm yeah .... :pac:

Spill.

KyussBishop · 23-02-2014 04:13AM

UCDVet wrote: »

I think quite a few of your assumptions are wrong....

First, the average salary at Google is higher than the average salary for software developers in the financial industry.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm
Senior Software Engineer averages 150k USD

Compared to the Financial industry average of 130k USD
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Senior+Financial+Software+Engineer&l1=Palo+Alto%2C+CA

Google developers earn 15% more than software developers in the financial industry, in the same area. If you compare Google devs to financial services devs in other cities like Chicago and New York, the Google devs earn even more.

Second, salary isn't (and shouldn't be) related to how hard a job is. Hardest job I ever had was digging holes for swimming pools. The pay sucked.

Third, while I agree that the bailouts and 'too big to fail' stuff is mostly crap and doesn't reflect a true free market...it's worth noting that almost every industry is regulated in some way, even if it's just minimum wage and safety laws. So a true free market is really just an academic concept. Still, lots of companies in the financial services industry weren't bailed out and only stay in business by earning a profit.

Anyway, as for the button pushers vs. software developers....yes, the button pushers get paid more. Why? Because they make money And that's what businesses are all about. I can write some 'okay' code - but it doesn't generate any revenue. It's just code. Big deal. We don't sell it, and if we did, nobody would buy it. All of the money the company makes is a direct result of the button pushers correctly pushing the right buttons.

How can you have such a rosy view of the financial/banking industry, after the part they played in inflating massive asset bubbles that destroyed our economy?

They don't make i.e. earn money, they control the flow of it, and take a cut out of the flow of money that goes through productive areas of the economy - finance is about rent-seeking, extracting wealth from the rest of the economy, not about 'earning' money by actually doing anything useful - the legacy of finance/banking in the last 3+ decades around the world, is one massive economy-threatening asset bubble after the other, because that's how they make the most short-term money, with guaranteed long-term failure (and they offload the risk from that, onto the public - i.e. we pay for that, all of their short-term guaranteed-to-fail risk taking, and by extension, retrospectively pay their salaries/bonuses...).

I really don't get how anyone could think the skills of people in finance/banking - in general - are worthy of merit matching their pay, when they have destroyed much of our economy through incredibly risky practices.
One part of what they provide, is a useful economic role, and then the other part is just made up of massive rapacious rent-seeking, and massive short-term risk-taking, that often is guaranteed to fail, with the cost (after being hidden/flipped through a number of bubbles for decades) being offloaded onto the public.

You even have silly stuff like this, showing that entire professions within finance are largely staffed with people, who would be better replaced with randomized selection:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9971683/Monkeys-beat-the-stock-market.html

I find it staggering really, that anyone doesn't see all of this, after the crisis...

asteroth · 23-02-2014 07:05AM

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

The main problem there is getting a contract for 5 years

1500 a day = 1500 x 22 = 33000 per month
After tax that should be about 25000 per month sterling.

That should at least be 30,000 Euros per month.
If he can live on 2500 euros a month he banks 27,500 a month or 330k in a year. A one year contract and a bit of discipline will get him a very nice pad in Ireland for cash.

Spunge · 23-02-2014 09:09AM

my plan is to be able to charge 400e a day for developer contract work. do that a few months a year then travel the rest. still not at that point. sector could be gone by the time i do though

UCDVet · 23-02-2014 11:16AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

They make money by gambling, get paid tons for the gamble and apparently pick up a massive bonus even if the gamble fails

I feel like you are painting an entire industry in the same light as a very few, very rich, handful or dozen of people.

Again, like many other companies in the financial services industry, the one that employs me is 100% privately owned. We don't have clients. The only money that is being gambled is that of the super-rich owners of the company.

When traders make bad trades, they get fired. They don't get bonuses. That's the reality for the vast majority of people in the financial industry.

The rules that apply to CEOs and other sufficiently rich people are completely different, and maybe that's unfair. But it's not even specific to the financial industry. My last job was at a software company. The CEO used underhanded and illegal tactics to make sales than breached contracts and refused to deliver. For a nice 3-4 years the CEO enjoyed record sales and record growth, before the lawsuits started. The company was found guilty and ordered to repay MILLIONS they didn't have. The company filed for bankruptcy (this was in the US) and fired 3/4ths the staff.

Meanwhile, the CEO sold the company and pocketed millions.

I'm not saying things like that don't happen....in all sorts of industries. It does. And it's not fair. But the idea that everyone in the financial industry is smoking cigars lit with 500 euro bills, laughing as their profits tank and writing themselves bonuses is not in line with what I've seen.

If I thought it was even remotely close to reality, I'd be doing everything I could to leave software development and join the button pushers.

KyussBishop · 23-02-2014 11:50AM

UCDVet wrote: »

But the idea that everyone in the financial industry is smoking cigars lit with 500 euro bills, laughing as their profits tank and writing themselves bonuses is not in line with what I've seen.

If I thought it was even remotely close to reality, I'd be doing everything I could to leave software development and join the button pushers.

You've kind of just highlighted the attitude in the financial industry, which contradicts exactly what you've said.

When you have an industry full of people with an attitude like that, it breeds a criminogenic environment, where it's piss easy for fraud to take place, and be completely hidden (with the complicity of a firms well-paid/rewarded employees).

I don't buy the claim that a firm someone is working for, is all above-board, when the person openly admits themselves, that they'd engage in fraud if they thought it would make them rich - saying it casually as if nothing was wrong with that.

Knex* · 23-02-2014 12:06PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Yeah, but I've been everywhere man.

There's two things money can't buy, happiness and persona.

Not true.

There is a clear, direct correlation between money and happiness/contentment.

Diemos · 23-02-2014 12:29PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Rubbish. The best engineers actually work for google etc. But they don't earn the same as people who work for the financial industry. You would get nothing like that rate contracting for google.

The real question is why bankers and people who work for the financial industry are overpaid relative to the difficulty of their work, which is hardly the most intellectually onerous work, it's not rocket science. There is no evidence to me that bankers actually know what they are doing, but it's cost less to continue paying great bonuses for little work seeing as they are too big to fail.

So there can't be a free market in jobs for bankers, if there were they'd be on something approaching minimum wage.

That said the software devs who work for financials are very smart, just not smarter than the best devs elsewhere. In fact most of the real work done in financial institutions are based on the back end software, the rest is button pushing. But the button pushers get paid even more than the devs, so why?

This article implies you are wrong: link.

There is a large number of reasons why devs in financial institutions don't get paid as well as colleagues within the company. Most of which, this is just my observation, is that techies, by and large, have little time for ego and office politics.

23-02-2014 01:57PM

Diemos wrote: »

Contracting is a trade off between risk and reward, I have an in depth knowledge of a piece of financial software that is rare and can be highlight sought after, the problem is, these contracts are, by their very nature, very rare, if you get one it pays well but you could be 12 to 18 months between contracts.

You'll hear stories of the 1500 per day but you never hear about the contract ending and the specialist left with nothing to do. That and those rates only apply in London, were rent is sky high and consumes a large portion of your large earnings.

I agree with most of what you said but the rates are still unbelievable, even in London. I take home less than 1500 a month and have to pay rent etc out of that and plenty of people are on a lot less. If you're careful and save as much as possible, it's not a disaster to get no work for a while.

23-02-2014 02:23PM

asteroth wrote: »

1500 a day = 1500 x 22 = 33000 per month
After tax that should be about 25000 per month sterling.

That should at least be 30,000 Euros per month.
If he can live on 2500 euros a month he banks 27,500 a month or 330k in a year. A one year contract and a bit of discipline will get him a very nice pad in Ireland for cash.

Nobody and I mean nobody on 30k per month is going to scrape by on 2.5k per month. You are going to live a very nice life style for yourself and would be foolish not to. Saving 15k (if even) of it would be closer to reality id say.

23-02-2014 02:46PM

Blaine Fierce Watermelon wrote: »

Nobody and I mean nobody on 30k per month is going to scrape by on 2.5k per month. You are going to live a very nice life style for yourself and would be foolish not to. Saving 15k (if even) of it would be closer to reality id say.

That's a choice. It wouldn't be 'foolish not to'. I think it would be a lot more foolish to fritter away your cash on booze and fancy clothes when you could save enough to buy a house outright in a year. After that, you could start enjoying more disposable income. Nobody needs 10K a month to live on. 2.5K is a bit stingy for London if you want a nice lifestyle, but 3 or 4 grand a month is more than enough to live well and still save loads.

steddyeddy · 23-02-2014 03:19PM

UCDVet wrote: »

People get caught up on job titles and pay. 'That guy does ______ and makes _____. I should do _______ and I'll make ______ too!'

The thing is, people aren't interchangeable. That's why you find large salary ranges for the same position. There are a lot of factors that go into it.

It's far better to look at median salary - but even that is biased. The median doctor has done a lot more work to become a doctor than the median businessman. Most people, they *couldn't* become a doctor, even if they wanted.

This is particularly true when you start talking about exceptional cases. High paid consultant in the financial industry? That's an exceptional case, IHMO.

Basically, what you end up with is that, in order to make a lot of money, you need to be exceptionally good at something, or you need to be averagely good at something that is exceptionally difficult. An average doctor makes a lot. An exceptional software developer makes a lot. An exceptional businessman makes a lot.

When you get into niche job markets - like a guy who is really good at some particular financial software - you find very high wages....but also lots of risk and uncertainty. It's a trade-off. It can also be very difficult to get involved/trained on those things.

Really though, if it were super easy to get a high paying job, everyone would do it. And wages for that job would drop. It's just how life works. If you are really good at it - you'll make millions kicking a ball around a field. But if you aren't amazingly good at it, it's worth nothing.

Most people could become a doctor. The intellectual requirements aren't that high to be honest. A better example would be a PhD level mathematician.

steddyeddy · 23-02-2014 03:24PM

Knex. wrote: »

Not true.

There is a clear, direct correlation between money and happiness/contentment.

I've been to some of the poorest countries in Africa and I can assure you that isn't the case. More equal societies are more happy imo.

scwazrh · 23-02-2014 05:29PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Most people could become a doctor. The intellectual requirements aren't that high to be honest. A better example would be a PhD level mathematician.

I think the majority of people would agree that to be a doctor you need to be fairly clever .

Diemos · 23-02-2014 10:05PM

Garrett Big Sextant wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said but the rates are still unbelievable, even in London. I take home less than 1500 a month and have to pay rent etc out of that and plenty of people are on a lot less. If you're careful and save as much as possible, it's not a disaster to get no work for a while.

You are correct, what I was trying to explain is that there is more to these stories than the headline daily rates. But if you are sensible, you can live very comfortably.

steddyeddy · 23-02-2014 10:07PM

scwazrh wrote: »

I think the majority of people would agree that to be a doctor you need to be fairly clever .

Yes indeed but most people are fairly clever.

NoCrackHaving · 23-02-2014 10:22PM

scwazrh wrote: »

I think the majority of people would agree that to be a doctor you need to be fairly clever .

Most people are relatively clever, there's extremely difficult professions-aerospace engineers, PhD level mathematicians, astrophysicists, even slightly more 'ordinary' chemical engineers that I think would command significantly higher levels of intelligence than medicine.

It's just an opinion and lots may disagree with me but I think the difficulty of studying medicine is severely exaggerated.

BillyMitchel · 23-02-2014 10:44PM

Knex. wrote: »

Not true.

There is a clear, direct correlation between money and happiness/contentment.

I've been rich and I've been poor. I was happier poor.

steddyeddy · 23-02-2014 10:52PM

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Most people are relatively clever, there's extremely difficult professions-aerospace engineers, PhD level mathematicians, astrophysicists, even slightly more 'ordinary' chemical engineers that I think would command significantly higher levels of intelligence than medicine.

It's just an opinion and lots may disagree with me but I think the difficulty of studying medicine is severely exaggerated.

Indeed. There's a huge amount of rote learning in medicine. The difficulty of medicine is often confused with the popularity of medicine. 600 points does not mean it is the most difficult subject. Most people are intelligent enough to study medicine but engineering, maths and the sciences require far more complex thinking than medicine. For instance far less people will be able to earn a doctorate in science (10 years) than those who are able to earn a doctorate in medicine (6 years).

Well Paying Jobs

Comments