"Lazy Girl Jobs"

17,433 Views | 159 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by GinMan
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

I think there's 2 sides to this. Employees certainly need to know their worth to an employer. High compensation expectations come with high contribution expectations. No one's going to pay for nothing. The flipside is that employers need to know their worth to employees. If you want the best and brightest and expect hard work and long hours, you need to be there best place to work and reinforce that with what employees want. Treat people like they're replacement and they'll act replaceable. Treat them like an investment and they'll act like an investment. Give them stability and a future, and they'll do the same. That said, if you don't take your employer and job seriously and make a meaningful contribution, don't expect anything in return.

It's like dating. If you get comfortable and let yourself go, take your partner for granted, or treat your partner like crap, don't be surprised if they leave you.
Yeah, this is a different take from where you started.

I'm looking for kids that are willing to give that discretionary effort in exchange for upward mobility. You build confidence that this promise will be kept by promoting the people that do put in that discretionary effort early, merit over tenure.

But, even in a practice where you have a 28 year old director, which is the level I am coming in at in my 40's, you still have associates walking out the door at 5pm.

The go-getters are out there. This guy is an example. It's just frustrating finding them.


As an employer, you cannot expect to get hard work and long hours from great employees with, "We'll promote you when you're ready and pay you the big bucks in 5-7 years." I've been consistent on that. Very, very few are going to give you what you're looking for on the the mere promise of, "Trust me, it'll work out if you put in the time," because it does nothing to ensure that it actually will and that you and your organization can and will actually follow through. You can make a big promise, but so can anyone. What you're presenting, from their perspective whether you like it or not, is uncertainty. For all they know, your promises of mobility and early promotions for over achievers is nothing more than a sales pitch to get them through door so you can burn them out in 4 years before telling them they're not cutting it. Or they'll do everything they're supposed to but they're won't be a director level position open or created when they are ready she deserving.

Now if you have structured development programs, defined development timelines or goals, guaranteed promotions/salary bumps if and when specific milestones/certifications/requirements are met, and there are measures of accountability for you following through and delivering on the previously promised compensation and promotions if they're putting in the effort and doing the work, then you are bringing something to the table by eliminating uncertainty and showing you will be reliable. You can give them a hard commitment that you can be held to as a partner. That's treating them like an investment. You can't use early promotions as a way to build confidence in your commitment to upward mobility for someone who's not even through the door yet. The attitude that they should be happy to work at your company of all places and should be grateful for the opportunity of maybe making director in 5-7 years or that anyone not willing to take you up on your offer must be lazy is treating them like they're replaceable.
GinMan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MRB10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Feel free to email, I don't have stars.

Insuranceag10@proton.me
AggieArcher17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

Urban Ag said:

Yeah I'm kind of shocked by it as well. I have an Indeed account that I dabble with mostly just to stay in the know on the jobs market. The number of roles I see in the $150k-250k range is pretty staggering and don't seem to require 50-60 hour weeks consistently.

Truthfully, very few outside the exec level work those kind of hours consistently, regardless of pay.
With only an undergrad and only only 7 years experience and 40 hours a week?

That is even more of a fantasy than the 25 year old start-up king.

Anyone here make more than $150,000 a year, have less than 7 years experience, and only an undergrad degree in anything but engineering (in engineering, upward mobility is really, really hard, in my experience. It's a salary slave type job), and only work 45 hours a week?

I think you guys are nuts.


Lol, both my wife and me.
MRB10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

I don't think it's a weird way to look at it at all. It's really just pursuing value optimization over a time horizon, which is every strategic decision. If you expect me to incur high cost with the justification of a potential future reward, that reward has to be a combination of so probable and so big that the discounted possibility of it outweighs the very definite and known initial cost. Absent that, you're not the optimal value choice for me to allocate my finite resources.

Put it this way, if someone you don't know came to you and said, "Hey, if you invest $3 million in this project you will make $15 million in 5-7 years and even more afterwards," you're gonna call bull**** unless there's a well reasoned and defined business case or plan backing it up, right? You will want to know the underlying assumptions on where all this money is coming from, the probabilities behind the assumptions, and the potential risks, right? If it turns out that you could make $15 million but the $15 million is optimistic and the probability of any return is only 5%, you're probably not investing the money because the risk/reward proposition makes no sense.

It's the exact same for this job. There is plenty of uncertainty in the outcome, but there is also a well defined and high immediate cost. Buster's problem is that potential associates look at it and don't see a business case for the demanded hours beyond, "I promise it'll work out." If that's not enough for you to invest your money, it shouldn't be enough for you to invest your life. Now if there is a defined career ladder with objective and measurable goals, defined rewards and bonuses, and salary levels that offer some guarantee of returns on effort and work, that's a business plan a potential employee can invest themselves into and justify the demanding schedule and time cost.

You can talk about hard work and risk paying off, but go dig a few miles of ditch or take your life savings to the roulette wheel and tell me how much you're rewarded for your hard work and risk taking. History is riddled with forgotten people who busted their ass or risked it all and even up with buying to show for it. Hard work is only rewarded if it's done with a purpose towards well defined and worthy goals or objectives. Risk taking is only rewarded when risk is properly assessed and managed.


I wish I could give this post more blue stars. The last two paragraphs are applicable to just about every industry.
BBRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Urban Ag said:

Just a word of unsolicited advice to the young guys here.

I married an educated, witty, absolutely knock out of a woman.

She told me early on that one of the most attractive things about me to her was that I was....................driven.


Deep down, they want to nurture and they want you to get out there and bust your ass,

Truth.


Oh yeah, there are a lot of women out there content to let you be the drafthorse while they stay home.
texagbeliever
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

texagbeliever said:

BusterAg said:

texagbeliever said:

BusterAg said:

DeBoss said:

Sounds like a big 4 gig to me. I remember those days.

FYI, my wife is available for hire 2-3 hr/s a day for $36k if anyone has one of these unicorn jobs.
Not big 4, but similar financial consulting.

Big 4 is a good comparison. But even they require a CPA, which requires a masters degree. And like 75% travel, which I have done and sucks.

Big 4 accounting is the biggest scam ever. A masters degree earns you the right to make $60k and work 70 hours a week with tons of pressure. Oh but you get a free counselor. Anyone who sticks that out for more than 2 years is an absolute fool. I don't care about grinding or gaining skills. That is being played.
What percentage of controllers / CFOs in the US do you think have Big 4 experience?

Big four is just more education that you get paid for, instead of paying Universities $25k a year. Todays universities are by far a bigger scam.

But, moving up in Big 4 as a career is for suckers.

The comparison is that you work your ass off as a kid for upward mobility. Kids seem to expect upward mobility without the hard work, or are just not interested in moving up all that much.

That discretionary effort that kids traded for advancement, aggregated across the entire US economy, WAS American exceptionalism. We are Rome circa 450 AD.

That is a bunch of bull they sell stupid people.

Look only a few people have the "IT" to really be a CFO. Just because the top 25% of graduates in accounting all go work for big 4 because they think that is what smart people do doesn't mean it is smart. 95% of those accountants at best just get burned out. Many Develop drinking problems. Have family relationship issues. Etc. Many of those accountants would be better off trying to win the lotto then thinking they are on a ticket to CFO.

What happens if people put their discretionary effort in charity or in the church or gasp in their family. You know ate dinner together. Played games together. Did stuff together. You aren't doing that at a big 4 accounting firm.
You likely aren't doing that the first 2 - 3 years out of college anyways. You are probably spending most of your time trying to bang your co-workers.

Well nothing prepares one for the csuite life quite like being able to navigate messy sexual affairs in the office. I didn't factor in that invaluable job training.
MRB10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

AggieBarstool said:

BusterAg said:

The ladies bragging about this are not mom's with a husband that also has a salary. They are primarily young ladies in their 20's.

The standard of living at $60k is pretty damn low. Probably $3,600 a month after taxes and insurance. Rent is going to cost you at least $1,000 for a crappy 1 bedroom apt. Car lease is going to be at least $400. Hopefully you don't have any student loans.

So, you are living off of a max of $2,200 / mo with no plans for upward mobility?

This is not the mentality of the kids that I went to school with at A&M.

I need to hire 4 associates that want to bust their ass working 50 - 60 hour weeks, 70 hour weeks about 10 times a year, and be making >$150,000 / yr within the next 5 - 7 years. They are tough to find these days.


Everything about what you just typed is gross.

Your expecting today's workforce to value the same things as yesteryear's, not taking into account the significant changes in market volatility, risk/reward posture, societal pressures, etc.

Whether you like it or not, meritocracy and "putting your nose to the grindstone" are not things the younger workforce values. Look at any comment thread on reddit.com/r/antiwork and you'll learn everything you need to know: bad bosses are out, work/life balance is in, and your silly comment about busting ass for the CHANCE to make a decent living is just.... gross.
Yeah, that's what I'm starting to get.

Most kids don't dream about making $300k to $500k a year anymore.

By the way, just because a job requires a lot of work doesn't mean you have a bad boss. I have always led from the front. You can expect the same kind of hours from me, and plenty of teaching / development / appreciation (in the form of perks, amenities, food, etc.) along the way. The people that have worked for me in the past are all very loyal, just too senior for the positions I am going to need to replace with good workers.

Are there really jobs out there for undergrads with finance degrees that pay $150k - $175k a year after 5 years where you only work 40 hours a week? Where are these jobs?


One factor that hasn't been discussed is that women are now choosing to be equal(or primary) financial contributors to a family and part time parent/worker is now the new norm. Many younger(<40) folks don't see it necessary to bust their ass for 10+ years to just have the chance at making $300-500k at some point. A dual income couple working in financial services can recreate that at 30, if not sooner, and still take the trips, log off at 4-5p, workout during the work day, have kids, etc. without the need for one person to do what you want them to do.

The incentive you need, to get the younger generations to do what you want, is essentially gone.
Premium
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pepper Brooks said:

BusterAg said:

AggieBarstool said:

BusterAg said:

The ladies bragging about this are not mom's with a husband that also has a salary. They are primarily young ladies in their 20's.

The standard of living at $60k is pretty damn low. Probably $3,600 a month after taxes and insurance. Rent is going to cost you at least $1,000 for a crappy 1 bedroom apt. Car lease is going to be at least $400. Hopefully you don't have any student loans.

So, you are living off of a max of $2,200 / mo with no plans for upward mobility?

This is not the mentality of the kids that I went to school with at A&M.

I need to hire 4 associates that want to bust their ass working 50 - 60 hour weeks, 70 hour weeks about 10 times a year, and be making >$150,000 / yr within the next 5 - 7 years. They are tough to find these days.


Everything about what you just typed is gross.

Your expecting today's workforce to value the same things as yesteryear's, not taking into account the significant changes in market volatility, risk/reward posture, societal pressures, etc.

Whether you like it or not, meritocracy and "putting your nose to the grindstone" are not things the younger workforce values. Look at any comment thread on reddit.com/r/antiwork and you'll learn everything you need to know: bad bosses are out, work/life balance is in, and your silly comment about busting ass for the CHANCE to make a decent living is just.... gross.
Yeah, that's what I'm starting to get.

Most kids don't dream about making $300k to $500k a year anymore.

By the way, just because a job requires a lot of work doesn't mean you have a bad boss. I have always led from the front. You can expect the same kind of hours from me, and plenty of teaching / development / appreciation (in the form of perks, amenities, food, etc.) along the way. The people that have worked for me in the past are all very loyal, just too senior for the positions I am going to need to replace with good workers.

Are there really jobs out there for undergrads with finance degrees that pay $150k - $175k a year after 5 years where you only work 40 hours a week? Where are these jobs?


One factor that hasn't been discussed is that women are now choosing to be equal(or primary) financial contributors to a family and part time parent/worker is now the new norm. Many younger(<40) folks don't see it necessary to bust their ass for 10+ years to just have the chance at making $300-500k at some point. A dual income couple working in financial services can recreate that at 30, if not sooner, and still take the trips, log off at 4-5p, workout during the work day, have kids, etc. without the need for one person to do what you want them to do.

The incentive you need, to get the younger generations to do what you want, is essentially gone.
You've disregarded the people who want the wife to be able to stay at home with the kids to provide a better start to their life. There are still plenty of those. But yeah, point taken - culture has changed for the worst, things are different overall.
MRB10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I phrased my post to intentionally imply that there are people who choose to do it differently, and that's fine. However, I think the part time parent/worker dynamic is likely more common nowadays.
Muy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maroon Dawn said:

Those are the jobs AI is going to take first


My immediate thought as well. Administrative jobs involving routing, approving and processing files are going to be dead.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBRex said:

Urban Ag said:

Just a word of unsolicited advice to the young guys here.

I married an educated, witty, absolutely knock out of a woman.

She told me early on that one of the most attractive things about me to her was that I was....................driven.


Deep down, they want to nurture and they want you to get out there and bust your ass,

Truth.


Oh yeah, there are a lot of women out there content to let you be the drafthorse while they stay home.
Marry better would be my advice
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wish I had a kush job at CNN, so I can pull out my dong on a zoom call "on accident" and still keep it, making six figures+.

Wouldn't even have to do any real journalism either. Just read the prompter.
boboguitar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

The ladies bragging about this are not mom's with a husband that also has a salary. They are primarily young ladies in their 20's.

The standard of living at $60k is pretty damn low. Probably $3,600 a month after taxes and insurance. Rent is going to cost you at least $1,000 for a crappy 1 bedroom apt. Car lease is going to be at least $400. Hopefully you don't have any student loans.

So, you are living off of a max of $2,200 / mo with no plans for upward mobility?

This is not the mentality of the kids that I went to school with at A&M.

I need to hire 4 associates that want to bust their ass working 50 - 60 hour weeks, 70 hour weeks about 10 times a year, and be making >$150,000 / yr within the next 5 - 7 years. They are tough to find these days.


Assuming this is for a fresh law grad, if you are promising 150k 7 years from now as long as you work 70 hour weeks now, no wonder no one is going to take that. You are severely underpaying for that level of work.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:




Now if you have structured development programs, defined development timelines or goals, guaranteed promotions/salary bumps if and when specific milestones/certifications/requirements are met, and there are measures of accountability for you following through and delivering on the previously promised compensation and promotions if they're putting in the effort and doing the work, then you are bringing something to the table by eliminating uncertainty and showing you will be reliable. You can give them a hard commitment that you can be held to as a partner. That's treating them like an investment. You can't use early promotions as a way to build confidence in your commitment to upward mobility for someone who's not even through the door yet. The attitude that they should be happy to work at your company of all places and should be grateful for the opportunity of maybe making director in 5-7 years or that anyone not willing to take you up on your offer must be lazy is treating them like they're replaceable.
I agree with this 100%.

Sorry that my OP wasn't a dissertation. There are 4 steps between associate and director. And I have said earlier in the thread that training, development, and appreciation are all important steps, and that promotions are based on merit, not on tenure.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

Buster's problem is that potential associates look at it and don't see a business case for the demanded hours beyond, "I promise it'll work out."
This is totally putting words in my mouth with zero context.

Look, you and I agree and are in alignment. I never said that the promise of director was the only thing that should be attractive to candidates. That is just an assumption on your part.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not for a law grad.

It's for a fresh undergrad with a finance or economics degree.

That detail is in the thread. Someone just assumed lawyer in the thread.
Deputy Travis Junior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

It's not for a law grad.

It's for a fresh undergrad with a finance or economics degree.

That detail is in the thread. Someone just assumed lawyer in the thread.


That was me. My bad. Usually entry level associate = lawyer.

Obviously a much better deal for somebody fresh out of college though I'd consider redoing your sales pitch. When you're 22, 5-7 years feels like an eternity (you can't remember much before 6-7 years old so 7 years is nearly half their effective life). Also, 150 in 7 years all isn't that great for finance. If you go work for a tech company you can be pulling down 200 in 7 years with a smoother salary increase schedule (I have 2 friends that are both in the 160-180 range 5 years out of school and they for 15-25% raises every year)
Matt_ag98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BadMoonRisin said:

I wish I had a kush job at CNN, so I can pull out my dong on a zoom call "on accident" and still keep it, making six figures+.

Wouldn't even have to do any real journalism either. Just read the prompter.


Or you could also have no knowledge of the O&G industry and be a board member, or sell your art for millions right? #81M
GinMan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBRex said:

Urban Ag said:

Just a word of unsolicited advice to the young guys here.

I married an educated, witty, absolutely knock out of a woman.

She told me early on that one of the most attractive things about me to her was that I was....................driven.


Deep down, they want to nurture and they want you to get out there and bust your ass,

Truth.


Oh yeah, there are a lot of women out there content to let you be the drafthorse while they stay home.


I've been married to one for 27 glorious years
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.