to ask what the "stereotypical 6 figure MN mum" does?

[TigerJoy]

And how can the rest of us get a job like that?!

Same

@ComtesseDeSpair

Among my friends, it’s the opposite: only those who came from relative or intergenerational wealth could afford to consider careers where initial (and often longer term) pay is poor: media, fashion, journalism, theatre and the arts. You can afford not to worry about earning six figures if there’s going to be family financial help

Totally agree with this. When I was younger a certain subset of my friendship group was very sniffy and disparaging about people who worked in “corporate” jobs (ie had a salaried job for a company as opposed to wafting from one creative but poorly paid freelance project to the next.)

I used to really beat myself up for being “boring” and “corporate” and wondered what magical “creative” gene had skipped a generation in me. I am from a MC background but not as wealthy as some of my friends and couldn’t afford not to get paid for work.

Over time it transpired that the missing gene was “family money”. All of these supposedly highly creative people who wrote plays and then waited years to get them staged in tiny backroom theatres or worked as DJs or filmmakers had a big wodge of cash behind them.

Many of these people are now hitting their 50s with not much to show for 30 years of “being creative” and the money has mostly run out.

I’m being slightly snarky but there’s a serious point here. think sadly a generation of people grew up on the idea that they could and should make a career in creative fields and were willing to invest quite a lot of their parents money in trying to do this. The world has changed and if it was ever possible to make a living doing this it certainly isn’t now

Eaay to laugh at trust fund kids pissing about playing at being actors or whatever but it is a reasonable question as to what happens to careers in media or the arts if they are out of reach to all but those from wealthy backgrounds. It hardly sets the world up to be a fair and representative place.

As an NHS consultant my hours are better now than they were when I was a junior doctor, working unlimited hours in the 90s. The responsibility for people’s lives is sometimes crushing. But goodness it is rewarding.

I know I have made a difference to many people’s lives, and saved lives over my career. I have rewarding relationships with colleagues, patients and their relatives and I have learned from them all as well. My career has made me a better person and a better parent. I am privileged to do the job I do and it most definitely has been ‘worth it’.

Law and regulation in Financial Sevices in the City. I went to a very ordinary comprehensive and a red brick uni. I put in the long hours when I was younger and I grabbed the chance to learn any new area I could. I developed a reputation as a problem solver. That has served me well as it makes me useful and adaptable. The other thing I would suggest women focus on are assertiveness, public speaking and self marketing. Two key attributes I have found helpful is learning how to work around difficult people (including when to walk away) and resilience.

Financial services in my case. It was hard word - relentless corporate reconfiguration. Retired now thank goodness - haven't missed any of it

That's an interesting take. The only Trust Fund Kid I have known was a fellow accountant. Probably reflects the circles I move in!

The schools my DCs went to did put a lot of emphasis on telling students they 'could be anything'. This I think because it is a low socio economic area, the message was really a thinly veiled 'don't just do what your parents did'.

Unfortunately I saw a lot of imposter syndrome amongst DCs' friends. It is hard to think the world is your oyster when everyone around you thinks whelks are plenty good enough and are repeatedly telling you so.

Quite a bit of pharma which is interesting. I know a lot of people who have been in that field and there seemed to be constant rounds of mergers and redundancies. Is there a particular area of the business that is safer from the impact of that?

I'd love to meet you IRL!
I'll be honest it's really hard to find a senior woman in tech that's actually technical. I think the need for it depends on your role, being principal engineer/engineering lead is different from a product manager. It's a bit disheartening seeing most of the 'women in tech' winning awards etc all in project management, HR or product management without even starting from a technical background.
Nothing wrong with that, it's just that they don't have the same challenges as a technical person. Needing to be assertive and show your technical chops against men who think they know better for example just because they have a penis.

I also love this field but it'd be great to see more women. My male peers/bosses luckily are very supportive of me but it's not been the same everywhere I've worked.

The last thread asking this had a very disproportionate number of posters saying they were homeless single mothers at 15 and then "just worked really hard".

Maybe but the fact you have pharama experience on your cv really helps getting a new job quickly and transferring skills to it. also you build up alot of contacts through pharama. always someone who knows someones somewherw. plus if you want to do consultancy for pharama companies huge money there. no business is safe from mergers and redundancies. alot of pharma companies offer remote and flexible working options too

I did a summer internship in between my 3rd and 4th year of uni. I got in touch with them when I was about to graduate and they offered me a full time (entry level) role.

After a year of two, I floated the idea of transferring to their office in the Middle East and luckily they agreed. I was earning 6 figures (GBP) by my late 20s.

I'm still here 15 years later and still earning well, although since having kids, have far less disposable income than I did then.

I'm not in HR (I posted earlier to say I'm in pharma) and would be hesitant to say which fields are "safer" but I would think those working at mid-to-senior levels in regulatory affairs/compliance, R&D/clinical research/translational medicine and product/process development are less likely to be laid off than, say, those in sales, medical affairs, data analytics, engineering, manufacturing.

I agree with @Wexone that people working in more specialised jobs have a good chance of finding another company if they're made redundant, given transferrable skills and connections (ex-colleagues in new/growing companies). With the caveat that if someone is at a very senior level, similar roles in other pharma companies may be few and far between, and perhaps that person may be extremely picky about who they work with next and what package they receive. They often have stocks, pensions, large savings to fall back on so can take their time.

This website has an interactive graphic showing the top pharma companies by numbers and growth: https://invivo.citeline.com/IV148551/After-All-The-Layoffs-Is-Biopharmas-Headcount-Still-Growing

The companies to the left (e.g. GSK) have cut back on headcount the most, those to the right (e.g. AbbVie) have grown the most. Note these are global employment numbers.

Oh my goodness, yes, agree!

I left science to become a quant in a bank and got so much sniffiness about leaving academia. From people whose parents could afford to buy them a house in a university city!

I earned 18k tax free as a PhD student. Post-docs are paid 30-45k depending on experience (our best and brightest working on curing cancer and solving real problems).

I now earn >10x my PhD salary after less than 4 years in banking. For those people to say I should have stayed when their parents could bankroll them was frankly abhorrent.

Front office quant. 3 years (but I have a PhD, so that was the investment).

I think it’s harder if you don’t have in-demand technical skills or deep domain knowledge. The closer you are to the money, the more you make.

I'd be interested to know what sacrifices and working conditions you feel all high earners are subject to...perhaps I've been in it so long (over 20 years in finance) I'm just used to them lol

A bit about my typical day as a single parent with 2 DC, 1 with SEN, primary school age

• I’m up at 6am, DC up at 6.30am, our Nanny arrives at 7.30am
• I have a 1 hour commute, at work at 8.30am
• 2 to 4 meetings in the morning, lunch is either brought in and wolfed at desk, or out at a restaurant networking (maybe once a week/fortnight) then 2 to 4 more meetings in the afternoon
• I leave work at 4.30pm, home at 5.30pm, then our Nanny leaves at 6pm
• i log on to my laptop again after DC have gone to bed 1 to 3 times a week, depending on what work I've got on

Our Nanny does both school runs, and takes the DC to all their after school activities (every day except Fridays). She also cleans the house, does the washing and does food shopping and cooking etc. I’m able to flex my days to attend all DC school meetings, performances and appointments.

My commuting time is my me time. I might read a book, scroll on FB/Insta/MN or perhaps just look out of the window lol

I'd rather not state my gross salary, but my main outgoings are:

£2,600 mortgage
£4,000 Nanny costs (salary/PAYE/NI/Pension)
£1,300 food/bills/car insurance etc
£500 DC extra curricular activities

I’m able to save and have a bit of money left over at the end of the month, but certainly not enough to be holidaying in the Caribbean!

I love my job. I enjoy the variety, no two days are ever the same and I like the challenge. I was more than happy to go back to work after maternity leave, I took over 6 months, but less than a year for each DC.

Would I go into the same career and have the same lifestyle again? Absolutely! However if I could change one thing about now, I would probably go down to 4 days a week, however my role doesn’t really lend itself to that, and I’d end up doing the work, not getting paid for it, and be stressed. I’d also have chosen a different DP/DH, as that’s quite a crucial decision for senior level women 🤣🤣🤣

@Mumsanetta I’ll answer your genuine question!

Personally speaking, the longest continuous shift I have worked is 30 hours. I have done this a few times. 18-20 hour shifts are fairly regular occurrence. The longest I have spent at work was three days, sleeping on the floor in a sleeping bag for two nights. I have regularly slept at work on the floor. Longest I have worked in a row without so much as an hour off, let alone a day, is around 20 days, working 2pm-2am non-stop, usually finishing a few hours late. Worked countless nights and weekends, bank holidays, brought the family home early from holiday, missed funerals for family members, and been stuck at work missing birthdays, anniversaries, booked time off. Worked during annual leave, and worked during the night of annual leave so I could be with my kids during the day. Gone to work on zero sleep, gone to work with the kids when leave was cancelled in an emergency and there was no one else, gone to work with broken bones as no time to go to A&E.

All ^^ is for the passion of the job, and moral compass. It’s affected by staff shortages, but also in the design of my work; usually a sole person in charge so work can’t be passed on unless you accept the quality suffering. Salary = 40-50kpa in London.

I am in the public sector and whilst I am hardworking and passionate about my work, my story not so unusual. I imagine children’s social care is very similar in terms of turning up to your 9-5 and staying on through the night. There are so many who have the stamina and the stomach for long and hard hours. Not everyone has chosen jobs which will reward these hours financially. And yes - it is a choice; I’m not moaning, just answering your question!

I think it’s incredibly inefficient for companies to be expecting members of their legal teams to be working 20 hours a day. If you can pay someone that much then split it into two roles and you’ll be less likely to have a massively burnt out team stressed about making mistakes due to extreme tiredness.

I think this too. The risk of negligence must be vast.

My basic salary is £150K. I work in marketing. Colleagues and friends I know that earn £100K+ work in law, customer success, sales, IT, L and D, HR and finance roles. All have gone to university and then done additional professional qualifications over the years.

Yeah I think this is an area of nuance that is neglected.

I worked for a full year then at uni as an NHS nursing assistant. I also have a maths PhD and now I work in trading. I’m probably paid around 10 times what an HCA is now. So even if no one asked for it I feel well placed to opine on the two ends of the spectrum.

HCA hard:

• on your feet for 12.5 hours and physically demanding, shift work
• screamed at
• boring and you have to deal with the worst of the public

HCA easy:

• extremely limited responsibility
• you can do a shit job and as long as you’re not actively dangerous you won’t get fired
• no expectations
• no real requirement for difficult qualifications (NVQ level 2s are a joke, sorry) or skills that take a long time to develop (as evidenced by the fact that all you need to do that job is sit a numeracy and literacy test)

Quant job hard:

• extremely competitive (your competitors have PhDs from top institutions, so it was an 8 year slog to get onto those programmes in the first place and then complete them)
• if I suck at my job, and don’t deliver, I get fired
• even if I don’t suck at my job and there is restructuring, I get fired
• I work on problems that no one has an answer to, and I have to use my background as a scientist to come up with new stuff that makes money. If that were easy, everyone would be rich and I’d be on an island somewhere
• if I fuck up, I can theoretically tank an institution (checks and balances mean that shouldn’t happen but it’s probably easier than people think)

Quant easy:

• People respect my skills and expertise which have taken years to develop, and pay me enough that I’m not stressed and can throw money at problems
• my job is intellectually stimulating and rewarding, and I get to learn from really smart people
• I don’t have to work crazy hours because there’s an expectation that highly technical work needs well rested people to produce the best results

I’m not saying people who work the low paid jobs don’t work hard, because they certainly do. And I think they should be paid more than they are. But the market pays for results, not ‘I can be nice to people’ unfortunately.

I kind of wish more people told their daughters that, tbh.

Operating lean teams allows them to pay loads.

Also there’s definitely a penalty due to handover. Productivity does not increase linearly with size, I should imagine.

@Mumsanetta what kind of law do you do?

@Eigen I’m a finance lawyer.

Oh. I really wanted to do that!! I started as an engineer in the music industry. But defo would have gone onto oil engineering.

I was a woman though and they didn’t have a single one so I never got the job.

Exactly, that’s my point - in terms of priorities, it’s arse over tit.