[JumpCrisscross]

>The most visible (to a young person) sign of a bank's character is how it treats its employees

Character in a limited sense, but I don't know how much that translates into client satisfaction. Foxconn, Apple, and Disneyland come to mind.

As a trader I officially had a 50 hour week. I stayed for 70+ hours because I found the work I was doing, at least initially, interesting (I was generally the last trader on the desk to go home). Specifically regarding investment bankers, yes they work very long hours, but the analysts there generally see the time as financial boot camp. Besides, the staff senior to them are no less workaholic.

Some start-ups have their employees working 90+ hours. This isn't because they're evil but because they have limited resources, a lot of work, and the people there are amazingly passionate about what they're doing.

[michaelochurch]

Some start-ups have their employees working 90+ hours. This isn't because they're evil but because they have limited resources, a lot of work, and the people there are amazingly passionate about what they're doing.

Limited resources. That's why the long hours are not a sign of evil in startups but are one in banking. Banks could easily hire more people. Startups generally hire good people as soon as they can.

[JumpCrisscross]

Whether they could is debatable given that many of them are aggressively trying to raise capital, even if it means laying off workers to cut costs. But let's assume they can.

That doesn't mean they should. Most bankers I knew were much more upset about losing their week-end beer fridge or a $5 reduction in their daily meal allowance than they were about putting in a few more hours. You have to remember that most analysts see their 2 years as an apprenticeship or finance boot camp - they want all the experience they can get so they have a gilded resume at the end of it.

I still don't see a good argument for judging firms where highly compensated employees with plenty of options work long hours, particularly when, as in banking, their tangible skill-set is relatively low.

[michaelochurch]

Whether they could is debatable given that many of them are aggressively trying to raise capital, even if it means laying off workers to cut costs.

They could always, you know, stop paying million-dollar salaries to people with no skills other than office politics. I know this sounds radical, but it would free up some of the money.

Most bankers I knew were much more upset about losing their week-end beer fridge or a $5 reduction in their daily meal allowance than they were about putting in a few more hours.

I'm not talking about "a few more". I'm talking about the difference between 40-50 (sustainable, safe, sane) and 80-120.

In most companies, a 5:00 pm work drop with 6 hours of work due next morning would be taken as a sign of dysfunctional process. It might happen occasionally, such as during a production crisis, but it wouldn't be an everyday event. Bankers like to hire naive college kids because they don't know their rights and don't know that these kinds of late-day work drops are a textbook example of bad process.

they want all the experience they can get so they have a gilded resume at the end of it.

You and I both know that the "experience" most analysts are getting isn't very useful or interesting-- not enough to merit working 100+ hours per week. Checking pitchbooks at 1:30 am? Downloading 600 corporate logos? Do you really think people learn much doing this kind of grunt work that a high-schooler could do?

They just want the name on the resume and the automatic acceptance at a top business school, because for whatever reason B-schools still believe people actually get something useful about being an investment bank's peon for two years.