Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
BLT

Salary Progression To These £100k+ Jobs

Recommended Posts

Theres been a few threads on salaries recently and it seems that everyone from supermarket shelf stakers, to oxbridge grads eventually make it to £100k+ jobs by working hard and being rewarded by there employers.

The thing that I just can't get my head around, is that obviously there is some leeway for employers to pay you more as you become more experienced, there is a limit to doing this without being promoted or otherwise some staff will be earning more than there bosses in some cases. But heres the crux, to get these fantastic wages you obviously need to be promoted, but you need more indians than chiefs.

e.g. last year I was doing an entry level job after going back to university to retrain in another subject, the office I went to work in was staffed with fellow maths graduates from top universities (some oxbridge), for entry level the wages were £25k, after aprrox 1-2 years there was promotion to senior analyst approx 30k I think. there was no limit on the number of senior analysta, however the position above this of principal analyst required promotion as you would be responsible for 3 analysts/senior analysts.

I'm not sure of the wages, but principal analysts I think was on £35-£40k approx, above this was a manager responsible for about 5 principal analysts and he would be on about £40k plus.

so for everyone on a £40k plus job, there would be about approx 16 people serving under such a position. now heres were I dont get the maths despite having a maths degree! so if all of those 16 people analysts work hard and given that they have good degrees from top unis according to people on this board in ten years time they should all be in these 40k plus jobs. BUT for that to happen it would require them to have 16 people under each of them. thus using my former employer for example, in ten years time they would have to have 16*16=256 employees doing the work that 16 of us did to pay for these £40k plus wages we should be entitled to for "working hard". somehow I dont see my former or any employer going for this.

so how does it work then for everyone to be £40k a year for working hard let alone £100k a year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theres been a few threads on salaries recently and it seems that everyone from supermarket shelf stakers, to oxbridge grads eventually make it to £100k+ jobs by working hard and being rewarded by there employers.

The thing that I just can't get my head around, is that obviously there is some leeway for employers to pay you more as you become more experienced, there is a limit to doing this without being promoted or otherwise some staff will be earning more than there bosses in some cases. But heres the crux, to get these fantastic wages you obviously need to be promoted, but you need more indians than chiefs.

e.g. last year I was doing an entry level job after going back to university to retrain in another subject, the office I went to work in was staffed with fellow maths graduates from top universities (some oxbridge), for entry level the wages were £25k, after aprrox 1-2 years there was promotion to senior analyst approx 30k I think. there was no limit on the number of senior analysta, however the position above this of principal analyst required promotion as you would be responsible for 3 analysts/senior analysts.

I'm not sure of the wages, but principal analysts I think was on £35-£40k approx, above this was a manager responsible for about 5 principal analysts and he would be on about £40k plus.

so for everyone on a £40k plus job, there would be about approx 16 people serving under such a position. now heres were I dont get the maths despite having a maths degree! so if all of those 16 people analysts work hard and given that they have good degrees from top unis according to people on this board in ten years time they should all be in these 40k plus jobs. BUT for that to happen it would require them to have 16 people under each of them. thus using my former employer for example, in ten years time they would have to have 16*16=256 employees doing the work that 16 of us did to pay for these £40k plus wages we should be entitled to for "working hard". somehow I dont see my former or any employer going for this.

so how does it work then for everyone to be £40k a year for working hard let alone £100k a year!

Its a good question, and one that needs to be looked at.

In Public Sector, they went through a period where they compared the wages of top people with those in the private sector.

so they didnt look at ALL directors, many of which are small Companies, they looked at the top bods....so they used the "we need to pay ourselves this money or we will leave" argument.

Me, Id have said leave, but twats like Boris Jonson, who can also use the same argument and therefore benefits by it, let it go.

the Salary Differentials these days are way out of whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theres been a few threads on salaries recently and it seems that everyone from supermarket shelf stakers, to oxbridge grads eventually make it to £100k+ jobs by working hard and being rewarded by there employers.

The thing that I just can't get my head around, is that obviously there is some leeway for employers to pay you more as you become more experienced, there is a limit to doing this without being promoted or otherwise some staff will be earning more than there bosses in some cases. But heres the crux, to get these fantastic wages you obviously need to be promoted, but you need more indians than chiefs.

e.g. last year I was doing an entry level job after going back to university to retrain in another subject, the office I went to work in was staffed with fellow maths graduates from top universities (some oxbridge), for entry level the wages were £25k, after aprrox 1-2 years there was promotion to senior analyst approx 30k I think. there was no limit on the number of senior analysta, however the position above this of principal analyst required promotion as you would be responsible for 3 analysts/senior analysts.

I'm not sure of the wages, but principal analysts I think was on £35-£40k approx, above this was a manager responsible for about 5 principal analysts and he would be on about £40k plus.

so for everyone on a £40k plus job, there would be about approx 16 people serving under such a position. now heres were I dont get the maths despite having a maths degree! so if all of those 16 people analysts work hard and given that they have good degrees from top unis according to people on this board in ten years time they should all be in these 40k plus jobs. BUT for that to happen it would require them to have 16 people under each of them. thus using my former employer for example, in ten years time they would have to have 16*16=256 employees doing the work that 16 of us did to pay for these £40k plus wages we should be entitled to for "working hard". somehow I dont see my former or any employer going for this.

so how does it work then for everyone to be £40k a year for working hard let alone £100k a year!

you seem to be assuming that everyone on 100k+ a year needs to be in some sort of managerial role. That's not the case.

I also think it's quite obvious that you don't get 100k a year just by working hard and getting promoted every 3-4 years. Surely realizing that depends on occupation and skillset.....and that those salaries are more often likely to be paid in london.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you seem to be assuming that everyone on 100k+ a year needs to be in some sort of managerial role. That's not the case.

I also think it's quite obvious that you don't get 100k a year just by working hard and getting promoted every 3-4 years. Surely realizing that depends on occupation and skillset.....and that those salaries are more often likely to be paid in london.

Absolutely right - its the skill that is important.

In the public sector and indeed private sector there are too many fake managers, directors who were often promoted to get them away from doing anything that required some form of commercial, technical or legal competence who actually don't do much for the business other than go to meetings. Guess who tends to get killed first in a down turn?

There has certainly been a view over the last few years that management was some sort of transferable skill in its own right and that you could move managers from one area to another. This is why the NHS has idiots running it and why we ended up with a grocery boy running a bank.

The best thing for UK business would be to cull a lot of these people and run flatter organisational structures where you trust the staff and have fewer staff. In my own experience, one decent engineer can achieve the same as 5 bad ones plus general purpose manager - and funnily enough this is why a lot of off shoring working seems to end up flowing back.

Definitely time to kill the management cult - for this reason I never ever hire anyone who has an MBA. Yes, if you apply to me with an MBA, the CV goes in the bin - I am not interested in the experimental organisational theory rubbish that these people come up with - the Egyptians didn't need MBAs to build the pyramids. Much better to hire a good project manager who can do boring things like use Gantt charts properly and who can understand resource scheduling.

Edited by mikelivingstone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much better to hire a good project manager who can do boring things like use Gantt charts properly and who can understand resource scheduling.

unfortunatley headless chickens tend to get promoted to these roles instead... grrrr

my own prior experience showed Principle Analysts who never actually got beyong techie-programmer - they just prograammed longer hours for the higher pay - as opposed to doing any kind of analysis, it was just a job title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so how does it work then for everyone to be £40k a year for working hard let alone £100k a year!

It doesn't. Some people will work hard and not earn £40k. You just need to make sure that, as well as working hard, you are doing so in a company where you are in the best 1/16 so it will be you that gets the promotion and not somebody else.

Life is 50% hard work, and 50% luck and being in the right place at the right time.

Some people on £30k deserve £100k, some people on £100k deserve the sack. Unfortunately, that is life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't. Some people will work hard and not earn £40k. You just need to make sure that, as well as working hard, you are doing so in a company where you are in the best 1/16 so it will be you that gets the promotion and not somebody else.

Life is 50% hard work, and 50% luck and being in the right place at the right time.

Some people on £30k deserve £100k, some people on £100k deserve the sack. Unfortunately, that is life.

Exactly! this is how I understand it! but according to some of the postings on another thread, if you stick around in any job long enough you will eventually be rewarded for your experience.

but everyone cant have these jobs, even in jobs where degrees from top universities are required, the cheifs and indians argument means that there will be a lot more of these people plugging away on the average salary of circa £25k rather than on the top salaries.

Now this brings me onto another mystery of salaries, using the example of above, an office with grads from top unis with good grades in an analytical degree (i.e. maths). the vast majority are on circa £25k. so what do the people who dont have this earn ? i.e. those who dont have degrees, those who have degrees in meeja studies, those who get 2:2 & 3rds, those who went to some old polytechnic and only had to fill out their name on the exam paper to get their degree.

surely these people must earn less than the grads above, so how the hell do we have a median wage in this country of approx £25k ? i.e. why is 50% of the country earning more than maths graduates who have been to top unis with good grades ? yes I am comparing everyones wage with the entry level wage, but remember the vast majority of entry level wont make it much further as there can only be so many chiefs for all the indians.

sorry about all of these wage questions, but in regards to HPC, we often bang on about average wage to average house multiples. What I am struggling with is the average wage! considering what you need to have earn the "average" wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now this brings me onto another mystery of salaries, using the example of above, an office with grads from top unis with good grades in an analytical degree (i.e. maths). the vast majority are on circa £25k. so what do the people who dont have this earn ? i.e. those who dont have degrees, those who have degrees in meeja studies, those who get 2:2 & 3rds, those who went to some old polytechnic and only had to fill out their name on the exam paper to get their degree.

you're being very idealistic - these people often seem to earn more

edit: as credit-spivs and public sector non-jobbers - so plausibly not for much longer...

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how the hell do we have a median wage in this country of approx £25k ? i.e. why is 50% of the country earning more than maths graduates who have been to top unis with good grades ?

The first point is that most of that 50% are probably not earning MUCH more than £25k.

The second point is that many earning more than the graduates will have many years experience, and have reached their maximum potential. Many of the graduates will one day overtake them, but they need experience first.

By way of example, to earn 25k you could be

1- a senior adminstrator who has been doing their job for 30 years

2- a manager who has been doing their job for 15 years

3- a new graduate, just about to embark upon a career that will take them to 40k and beyond

The people in 1 and 2 earn the same as the Cambridge graduate today, but one day the grad will earn a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.

Whatever.

Everybody with bog roll university degrees and C-note salaries.

Nae chance.

GB's cabinet reads like a name-call of mediocre (for the role) degree-backgrounds

my experience is that achievement and ability are actively discriinated against, in society at large and in govt/public sector. Exception, possibly, being academia and the more competitive London jobs market.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add my tuppence worth.

I've been paid a very large salary before, but it was contract work and I think you'll find that the vast majority of people claiming to be paid £100k+ are actually pro-rata-ing out their salary by saying "I earn £500 a day which equates to £100k or so a year".

Now for the small (and it is small) percentage of people who do earn £100k as permanent employees, I can say this much:

1. They are usually beneficiaries of circumstance rather than being exceptionally good at what they do.

2. They knew the right people early on (which is also luck)

3. They might themselves claim that they got where they are by hard work, but deep down, they know its not true.

4. They are rarely actually worth that much outside the company they work for (on the "open market" for their skills)

5. 20% ability, 40% knowing the right people (especially early on in their careers), 40% being in the right place at right time.

6. This is all backed up by Malcolm Gladwell and other writers on the subject (read Outliers for more research in the area of what actually makes people 'successful')

For example, Bill Gates is happy to admit that he feels that he is 'the luckiest man alive'. Malcolm Gladwell agrees. Champion Russian gymnasts thank their trainer, parents and peers when they receive awards - they say that not because they're being modest but because they're being honest.

Edited by Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
according to some of the postings on another thread, if you stick around in any job long enough you will eventually be rewarded for your experience.

Well plainly that's not true! Or, in the cases where an employer takes pity on the employee for being sat there making them money all these years for little income, they might get a bit more. But not much.

with good grades in an analytical degree (i.e. maths). the vast majority are on circa £25k. so what do the people who dont have this earn ? i.e. those who dont have degrees, those who have degrees in meeja studies, those who get 2:2 & 3rds, those who went to some old polytechnic and only had to fill out their name on the exam paper to get their degree.

surely these people must earn less than the grads above

I think your understanding would improve if you looked at things from the employers perspective. They aren't hiring employees for the employees benefit, they are hiring them in order to make money from them. Each employee is a cog in the system that makes the employer money. Given that the objective is to make money, and not to provide employment or provide employees with warm fuzzy feelings, a person is always paid the least the employer thinks they can get away with.

Getting a qualification that was 'hard' rarely makes it necessary to pay you more in proportion to the difficulty level in obtaining that qualification than anyone else. You don't 'deserve' more money for having worked hard at uni, you get your market rate for the role.

The person who went to the poly probably gets around 25k as well in your example. In terms of an income to effort ratio, the person who worked harder at uni in your example was unwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well plainly that's not true! Or, in the cases where an employer takes pity on the employee for being sat there making them money all these years for little income, they might get a bit more. But not much.

I think your understanding would improve if you looked at things from the employers perspective. They aren't hiring employees for the employees benefit, they are hiring them in order to make money from them. Each employee is a cog in the system that makes the employer money. Given that the objective is to make money, and not to provide employment or provide employees with warm fuzzy feelings, a person is always paid the least the employer thinks they can get away with.

Getting a qualification that was 'hard' rarely makes it necessary to pay you more in proportion to the difficulty level in obtaining that qualification than anyone else. You don't 'deserve' more money for having worked hard at uni, you get your market rate for the role.

The person who went to the poly probably gets around 25k as well in your example. In terms of an income to effort ratio, the person who worked harder at uni in your example was unwise.

most poly grads are less able than most better-university grads, however, in my experience.

one other thing - it's not just abouyt the money - employers also show signs of need-to-control. they don't want underlings who will show them up or suggest change. this is weird but too true, again IMHO.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
most poly grads are less able than most better-university grads, however, in my experience.

one other thing - it's not just abouyt the money - employers also show signs of need-to-control. they don't want underlings who will show them up or suggest change. this is weird but too true, again IMHO.

We finally agree on something!

Employers also want to know about your family and if you have a mortgage.

You're easier to control if you have either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We finally agree on something!

Employers also want to know about your family and if you have a mortgage.

You're easier to control if you have either.

indeed - family is a good reason - people change their outlook when they have kids, imho

the mortgage one is awful, but true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll add my tuppence worth.

I've been paid a very large salary before, but it was contract work and I think you'll find that the vast majority of people claiming to be paid £100k+ are actually pro-rata-ing out their salary by saying "I earn £500 a day which equates to £100k or so a year".

Now for the small (and it is small) percentage of people who do earn £100k as permanent employees, I can say this much:

1. They are usually beneficiaries of circumstance rather than being exceptionally good at what they do.

2. They knew the right people early on (which is also luck)

3. They might themselves claim that they got where they are by hard work, but deep down, they know its not true.

4. They are rarely actually worth that much outside the company they work for (on the "open market" for their skills)

5. 20% ability, 40% knowing the right people (especially early on in their careers), 40% being in the right place at right time.

6. This is all backed up by Malcolm Gladwell and other writers on the subject (read Outliers for more research in the area of what actually makes people 'successful')

For example, Bill Gates is happy to admit that he feels that he is 'the luckiest man alive'. Malcolm Gladwell agrees. Champion Russian gymnasts thank their trainer, parents and peers when they receive awards - they say that not because they're being modest but because they're being honest.

You are missing out a very large number of people who are permanent employees on more than 100k who do not fit into the above - a large number of professionals who work in the City of London. They got there based on high academic grades, and they are prepared to work very hard in their chosen professional area (be it law, accountancy or banking for example) such that they can be on 100k before they hit 30. They often get recruited half way through university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are missing out a very large number of people who are permanent employees on more than 100k who do not fit into the above - a large number of professionals who work in the City of London. They got there based on high academic grades, and they are prepared to work very hard in their chosen professional area (be it law, accountancy or banking for example) such that they can be on 100k before they hit 30. They often get recruited half way through university.

'very large number' - really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are missing out a very large number of people who are permanent employees on more than 100k who do not fit into the above - a large number of professionals who work in the City of London. They got there based on high academic grades, and they are prepared to work very hard in their chosen professional area (be it law, accountancy or banking for example) such that they can be on 100k before they hit 30. They often get recruited half way through university.

Salary progression for such jobs ?

A graduate leaving uni at 21 at the earliest, to be on 100K+ by the time they are 30 would required payrises on average of just under £10k a year ? Which employers would be willing to give pay rises on this scale ? In grad jobs I have worked in pay rises on this scale only happen with promotion.

despite the fact I would be moving from the provinces to london, a position I applied for which would have been a promotion above where I was (I had a years experince after taking an entry level position), the employers told me they were unwilling to give me more than £5k than I was already on, any more would be "excessive and stupid"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salary progression for such jobs ?

Many of these jobs are essentially non-hierarchical - i.e., once you've qualified, it doesn't make much sense to speak of an "entry-level" position or a "senior" position (at least, below equityownership). Salary is simply based on what you bring in. In my industry, I bill (and recover) at £400 per hour, and generally bill about 35 hours a working week. Allowing for holidays etc., that's about £650,000 gross per annum. Again, in my industry, it's normal to pay people between about a fifth and a quarter of what they pull in - in this case about £130,000 to about £160,000. It's simply not dependent on having other people in the ranks below - only on there being the work volume coming in the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now this brings me onto another mystery of salaries, using the example of above, an office with grads from top unis with good grades in an analytical degree (i.e. maths). the vast majority are on circa £25k. so what do the people who dont have this earn ? i.e. those who dont have degrees, those who have degrees in meeja studies, those who get 2:2 & 3rds, those who went to some old polytechnic and only had to fill out their name on the exam paper to get their degree.

I'm 28, I have a degree in theatre studies from a third rate polyversity, I'm on >45k and currently running a reasonable sized change program including setting up a IT dept from scratch.

Thankfully I am judged and paid acording to the value I bring to a company rather than having the right school tie. Sorry if that bursts any entitlement fantasies you might have been nurturing. :)

I mean this is a nice way, what I am trying to say is that while there is an obvious correlation of grade, subject and university in finding people you think are "worth" good money we didnt all take the same path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm 28, I have a degree in theatre studies

You're a communicator. Corollary: you can ******** fluently, when the occasion arises.

The only qualification that matters in UK plc in our times.

[edit] the censorware didn't like ******** :huh:

[edit again to add] sorry, that could come across as putting you down. That wasn't the intention at all. The fact you (presumably) have one skillset (which happens to be overvalued) doesn't detract from your other skills - of which I know nothing.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm 28, I have a degree in theatre studies from a third rate polyversity, I'm on >45k and currently running a reasonable sized change program including setting up a IT dept from scratch.

wholly private sector?

(btw I always thought you came across as a bright person)

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm 28, I have a degree in theatre studies from a third rate polyversity, I'm on >45k and currently running a reasonable sized change program including setting up a IT dept from scratch.

Thankfully I am judged and paid acording to the value I bring to a company rather than having the right school tie. Sorry if that bursts any entitlement fantasies you might have been nurturing. :)

I mean this is a nice way, what I am trying to say is that while there is an obvious correlation of grade, subject and university in finding people you think are "worth" good money we didnt all take the same path.

I'm not having a pop at anyone elses degrees and qualifications, although I know it sounds like that. But I am relating the group I belong to, and as you say there is a correlation between grade,subject and university and this is group is most likely to succeed to these fantastic wages. So since from my observations it is hard even in this group, it must be even harder if you belong to any others.

So come then ? how did you make it from "theatres studies at a third rate poly" by your own admission to making £45k+ at 28 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
e.g. last year I was doing an entry level job after going back to university to retrain in another subject, the office I went to work in was staffed with fellow maths graduates from top universities (some oxbridge), for entry level the wages were £25k, after aprrox 1-2 years there was promotion to senior analyst approx 30k I think. there was no limit on the number of senior analysta, however the position above this of principal analyst required promotion as you would be responsible for 3 analysts/senior analysts.

I'm not sure of the wages, but principal analysts I think was on £35-£40k approx, above this was a manager responsible for about 5 principal analysts and he would be on about £40k plus.

And therein lies what's wrong with british industry ...

... the inbuilt assumption that career progression must involve a move into management. And the other side of that: seeing (and treating) anyone on the sharp end of doing a job as a junior bod on the way to better things or (by 30) as a failure.

Glad I'm no longer employed by a company like yours. Not that they'd ever employ me (unless on contract) at my present age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.