Do must people successful in their careers grind after 30?

[pauldun170]

I pretty much am in charge. I only talk to my boss a few times a week over the phone, and it's usually for minor QA/QC. Even then, I don't like my position. It's lonely and unfulfilling, the pay ceiling has been hit, no bonus, etc.

Time to go.
Plan your exit now.
Seriously GTFO

If the next place sucks as well plan a career change while you are house and kid free

 

[herm0016]

i'm 32. i worked my butt off for the last 10 years in o&g field, over seas, off shore, on shore in the middle of the Simpson desert. Saved a little money and bought some real estate. moved 3 times in 5 years remodeling homes we were living in... we have over 1m worth of real estate, significant equity, well funded 401k and investments. as long as i can get an avg or 6 or 7 % on my current we will be fine in retirement.

i am now looking to take a 50 % pay cut and do something i would enjoy, instead of being on call 24/7 50% of my year.

 

[pete6032]

You and your wife make a lot of money idk what you're complaining about.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I just turned 30, bring in around 125-145 depending on yearly bonuses, and actually -work- probably 30hrs a week. I have a huge amount of flexibility in my schedule (wfh about 3 days a week) and do very little travel right now. I expect at some point in the near future that I will likely end up working more hours, but most of those hours will be very spread around and less "work" and more just participating in calls, etc. High probability that in the next 5 years I'll also take something with much higher travel requirements.

I have an engineering degree, but have moved over to the business side, which is really the only way you can get this sort of flexibility.

If you're in O&G and have an engineering background, I strongly recommend trying to shift yourself into the business side of things. Product manager, analyst, R&D management, etc.

This is pretty much me, except I'm 31, and in data science and algorithm development. I WFH 4 days a week, and for for the one day I'm up in the office, I maybe go up at like 10-11am. I actually had some interest from recruiters recently for a job that would have paid $170K, but turned down any further talks because of the requirement to be onsite 5 days a week (wasn't a poor company, just government related work that cannot be brought home).

My brothers are on the other hand, are by the book engineers. All I can say is I'm very glad I shifted out of that career and into CS based work early on. It really paid off. But even they cap their working hours at 40 and just go home afterwards. So OP, if you work 50-60 hours a week, that's a choice you make in the end. If the projects aren't getting finished on time, it's up to management to acquire more manpower to get it done. You're not going to get fired because you "only" do 40, especially as a mid-level engineer. But if management sees you're a "live to work" person that is willing to put in 50-60 or more, then why would they ever go and get that additional manpower?

 

[snoopy7548]

Maybe I missed it, but OP, have you been working at the same place since you graduated? If so, that's 99% of the problem. Different companies have different working schedules - at one company you put in your 40 hours and you're done, at others you put in 50 hours and management sees that as just doing the minimum. I know some ex co-workers at large government contractors (i.e. Raytheon) who get paid very well and are on a 4/10 schedule, and one of them was never the brightest tool in the shed... He job-hopped after this place for a few years.

As an EE, there are only a few ways you are going to be satisfied in regards to workload and pay:
-Be an absolute rockstar and become one of the top-level guys - this requires passion for the work and of course the smarts
-Go the management/business route, but this comes with its own amount of stress so you're gonna have to be good at dealing with idiots
-Job-hop until you find a company with good pay, benefits, and work-life balance

BTW, ~$200k between just you and your wife is excellent and nothing to sniff at at all, especially if you're talking about buying a $500k house. You could think of it as both of you are each making $100k, if that makes you feel any better.


As an anecdote, I've worked at my current job for ten years. It was my first job out of college and I also had a co-op with them while in school. I'm not passionate about the work or my career, but I tend to enjoy it far more often than not, and I work with some absolutely brilliant engineers, and I like the vast majority of my co-workers. I've found my "niche" here and I'm paid well; I could be making quite a bit more if I switched jobs, but I'm comfortable where I am. I also have a four monitor setup (counting my laptop screen), and there's no way I'd get that at a new job. I worked hard for it! At this point, I want time more than a pay raise.

Sounds to me like it's way past time for you to jump ship, but I suggest sticking with EE at least for now. A new company in a separate area of EE may spark something inside you.

 

[eng2d2]

If I have one recommendation for aspiring electrical engineers, it is to change your major. Now. Not tomorrow. Now. I wish someone had given me that advice.

Please elaborate.

 

[SeductivePig]

Maybe I missed it, but OP, have you been working at the same place since you graduated? If so, that's 99% of the problem. Different companies have different working schedules - at one company you put in your 40 hours and you're done, at others you put in 50 hours and management sees that as just doing the minimum. I know some ex co-workers at large government contractors (i.e. Raytheon) who get paid very well and are on a 4/10 schedule, and one of them was never the brightest tool in the shed... He job-hopped after this place for a few years.

As an EE, there are only a few ways you are going to be satisfied in regards to workload and pay:
-Be an absolute rockstar and become one of the top-level guys - this requires passion for the work and of course the smarts
-Go the management/business route, but this comes with its own amount of stress so you're gonna have to be good at dealing with idiots
-Job-hop until you find a company with good pay, benefits, and work-life balance

BTW, ~$200k between just you and your wife is excellent and nothing to sniff at at all, especially if you're talking about buying a $500k house. You could think of it as both of you are each making $100k, if that makes you feel any better.


As an anecdote, I've worked at my current job for ten years. It was my first job out of college and I also had a co-op with them while in school. I'm not passionate about the work or my career, but I tend to enjoy it far more often than not, and I work with some absolutely brilliant engineers, and I like the vast majority of my co-workers. I've found my "niche" here and I'm paid well; I could be making quite a bit more if I switched jobs, but I'm comfortable where I am. I also have a four monitor setup (counting my laptop screen), and there's no way I'd get that at a new job. I worked hard for it! At this point, I want time more than a pay raise.

Sounds to me like it's way past time for you to jump ship, but I suggest sticking with EE at least for now. A new company in a separate area of EE may spark something inside you.

I have been with my company since I graduated college 6 years ago. I had a lot of student loans that needed to be cleared.

I dont think its too late to switch to tech/swe - I know I’ll be behind but the way I see it, I have another 30 years left in my career so no point in wasting it here. Shouldnt take long to reach $100k comp in a few years if I’m good I think. I plan to job hop and grind hard.

 

[Ns1]

Not in my current position. I'm a software engineer and have 14 years in the industry and have worked more than 40 hours 2 or 3 times in my career, and all of those times I was compensated in one way or another. And it was only working like an extra 8 hours each time, coming in one day on a weekend.

yeah but clearly you and ICF are outliers.

 

[Viper GTS]

There are definitely places where you can make decent money without working crazy hours, even without specialized education.

Broadcast has been very good to me for the last 7-8 years, have been $100k+ since late 20s. I don't really work that many hours, come and go as I please, etc. I do occasionally have to answer my phone in the middle of the night if something goes completely sideways but it's been quite a while since that happened.

That said, I did put in some pretty serious hours/travel to get to this. Now my job is pretty easy but in 2011 I worked over 1000 hours of overtime.

Viper GTS

 

[madoka]

Do those hours ever get lower for people in such positions? Or is it true that once you reach that level of compensation, you're basically bound to those kinds of hours unless you take a paycut?

The more I work, the more I get paid. Therefore, I've been doing 70ish hours per week for the past several months with no end in sight. Suicidal thoughts are becoming more common.

 

[purbeast0]

yeah but clearly you and ICF are outliers.

It's because we're good at what we do and work for well ran companies. Any company that makes their employees work more than 40 hours a week is just poorly ran.

 

[highland145]

It's because we're good at what we do and work for well ran companies. Any company that makes their employees work more than 40 hours a week is just poorly ran.

Or just a shitty one. Chinese overtime anyone?

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's because we're good at what we do and work for well ran companies. Any company that makes their employees work more than 40 hours a week is just poorly ran.

You really have an...interesting view of things. I applaud that you landed what you have, but in reality that is not the norm. If it was, there'd be nothing for everyone to be angry about. Positions, regardless of how good you are are still lacking, and the companies have had the advantage for years, no matter how much the white house wants to pretend that the economy is great. This is why the majority of Americans have barely received raises for nearly 10 years if not more. Most good companies also stagnate raises once you've been hired after 2-3 years. This is why job hopping starts to become important, and also why many women make less than men (because career women don't like to job hop once family becomes priority).

 

[purbeast0]

You really have an...interesting view of things. I applaud that you landed what you have, but in reality that is not the norm. If it was, there'd be nothing for everyone to be angry about. Positions, regardless of how good you are are still lacking, and the companies have had the advantage for years, no matter how much the white house wants to pretend that the economy is great. This is why the majority of Americans have barely received raises for nearly 10 years if not more. Most good companies also stagnate raises once you've been hired after 2-3 years. This is why job hopping starts to become important, and also why many women make less than men (because career women don't like to job hop once family becomes priority).

Again, the bolded is a sign of a poorly ran company, not a "good" one. Good companies should and will bend over backwards for you when they need to. Obviously it's to an extent, but you know what I mean.

And I'm not out there saying most companies are ran great, because they aren't. Also, revenue is also not a sign of a well ran company at the employee level. EA is probably the most obvious example of that.

People are just so used to thinking that companies that hire them are doing them a huge favor and will bend over backwards for them and poorly ran companies take advantage of that. That's a terrible mindset to have, and one I used to have too. The right mindset to have is that you are doing the company a favor by working for them, not the other way around. They are the one that is lucky to have the honor of hiring you and having you work for them. If you can have this mindset (and obviously are good at what you do), you can land a job that is actually with a great company.

And I realize this will probably be an even more "interesting" view of things lol.

 

[Ns1]

It's because we're good at what we do and work for well ran companies. Any company that makes their employees work more than 40 hours a week is just poorly ran.

IMO:
Some people aren't quite as good as you and need more than 40 hours/week to get the same output as you and be competitive against you on the corporate ladder. When you don't have mad skillz you can make up for it with mad work ethic.

ex) Exhibit A is a superstar and can bang out X+Y+Z output in 40/hours week. Exhibit B is not a superstar and can only bang out X+Y output. But Exhibit B is way hungrier than Exhibit A, so Exhibit B does 55 hours/week and does X+Y+Z+AA output and is all of a sudden a fucking superstar eclipsing Exhibit A and is ready to be promoted to the next level.

 

[purbeast0]

IMO:
Some people aren't quite as good as you and need more than 40 hours/week to get the same output as you and be competitive against you on the corporate ladder. When you don't have mad skillz you can make up for it with mad work ethic.

ex) Exhibit A is a superstar and can bang out X+Y+Z output in 40/hours week. Exhibit B is not a superstar and can only bang out X+Y output. But Exhibit B is way hungrier than Exhibit A, so Exhibit B does 55 hours/week and does X+Y+Z+AA output and is all of a sudden a fucking superstar eclipsing Exhibit A and is ready to be promoted to the next level.

All your example tells me is that B is less efficient than A and because of that he should be paid less. He shouldn't have to work 55 hours a week to meet A's output. They should hire C to help get the extra output and scale down the workload of B.

Also, working more hours has nothing to do with work ethic. I've seen plenty of people work more than 40 hours a week who have way less output than I do and part of it is because they aren't actually "working" while at work. They are just there longer clocking hours.

 

[Ns1]

Responses in bold.

All your example tells me is that B is less efficient than A and because of that he should be paid less.
Depends how you define efficiency - sure he's less efficient if your math is output/hours, but my math is output/headcount (assuming salary here).

He shouldn't have to work 55 hours a week to meet A's output. They should hire C to help get the extra output and scale down the workload of B.
Except B doesn't want that, he wants to show the company he's a fucking hustler and is going to get it done in order to get promoted. I mean from a management perspective, if C
Also, working more hours has nothing to do with work ethic. I've seen plenty of people work more than 40 hours a week who have way less output than I do and part of it is because they aren't actually "working" while at work. They are just there longer clocking hours.
That's kinda my point exactly - measure on output, not on hours. If you can't output as much as the guy next to you in 8 hours because you're not that good, but you want to be better than the guy next to you, the only possible solution is to work more to produce more output

They can't all be top tier talent; scrubs need jobs and advancement opportunities too...and they ask for less money.

 

[snoopy7548]

Where I work, it seems like the people who haven't learned how to game the system and/or work smart are the ones who complain the most and "work" the most.

Some of it depends on your department, though; if you're one of the junior engineers you're expected to support a ton of different products and always be going at full speed; if you work in the R&D lab you're pretty much left to manage yourself, and while you may be working on a few things simultaneously, you don't have anyone breathing down your back - crises rarely occur. There has been almost zero turnover in one of those groups in the past eight years, and 100% turnover multiple times in the other. You can guess which ones.

 

[Zeze]

It's amazing you guys have EE and stem majors with only 100k salary

I hated school and am a PM today making more than that.

 

[SeductivePig]

It's amazing you guys have EE and stem majors with only 100k salary

I hated school and am a PM today making more than that.

Yea, I'm not even at $100k after 6 years. $95k

Really want to get out just need to study software a bit..

 

[Mai72]

You can do whatever you want.

If you want to work 60 plus hours a week then go for it. If not, THEN DON'T DO IT! The money won't matter if you're miserable.

 

[sdifox]

thats the typical range for a house in Toronto...sadly..it's usually higher

Where are you finding 500k house in Toronto?

 

[PricklyPete]

I worked a LOT till about 32 (consulting, traveling, etc.). That allowed me to have my pick of jobs when I was ready to hang that lifestyle up and have a family. I make more now than I did consulting and barely work 40 hours a week and generally get off each day at 3pm. That being said, I still work my tail off while at work. This isn’t a cake job.