Does Liberty Mutual pay higher than average?

[Anonymous Grader]

Liberty Mutual has regular re-organizations, accompanied by layoffs. In some recent re-orgs, Liberty has given notice to every person in a group, and then had them apply for the new jobs. Liberty regularly lays off both poor performers and good performers who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are advantages and disadvantages to working for an employer that regularly selects for excellence.

Also, Liberty may publish a salary range, but it doesn't publish the distribution of salaries within that range.

[Klaymen]

Originally Posted by itGetsBetter

This cost of living calculator could help you compare your salary to one of those similar positions. I am surprised at how high the cost of living is in Boston. https://www.bankrate.com/calculators...alculator.aspx

I was jealous at those salary ranges for about 3 seconds. Then I looked at a cost of living calculator and realized I'm better off here. Unless you don't mind living in a complete shack in Boston, since that's the biggest driver.

[CowboyGuy]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Grader

Liberty Mutual has regular re-organizations, accompanied by layoffs. In some recent re-orgs, Liberty has given notice to every person in a group, and then had them apply for the new jobs. Liberty regularly lays off both poor performers and good performers who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are advantages and disadvantages to working for an employer that regularly selects for excellence.

Also, Liberty may publish a salary range, but it doesn't publish the distribution of salaries within that range.

Bingo, this is the catch!

Most of the re-orgs that I've seen in the insurance world don't impact actuaries. If Liberty regularly lays off actuaries or asks them to re-apply, this would be a big deal breaker for me. One of the best features about this profession is the safety and stability that comes with it. I ain't working for a company where you have a constant fear of being fired due to not performing up to their standards.

[hjacjswo]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Grader

Liberty Mutual has regular re-organizations, accompanied by layoffs. In some recent re-orgs, Liberty has given notice to every person in a group, and then had them apply for the new jobs. Liberty regularly lays off both poor performers and good performers who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are advantages and disadvantages to working for an employer that regularly selects for excellence.

Also, Liberty may publish a salary range, but it doesn't publish the distribution of salaries within that range.

So do actuaries get laid off at pretty much every layoff cycle? Or are they selected once in the blue moon?

[hjacjswo]

Originally Posted by BigBlackBen

I got an Actuarial Analyst offer from Arch when I had 5 exams for 75K. Of course ya boi tried to negotiate a higher salary and the best they could offer up was a 3K sign on bonus. I was a bit shocked since I was always under the impression that reinsurance paid better.

FWIW they do put 10% of your salary towards your retirement account and an additional 5% for every dollar above 130K.

Anyways I respect Liberty Mutual's salary range transparency and NYL student program transparency. Very few companies are as open.

Since we are all being transparent, this is similar to the range I was told from the hr as well. I was non entry level and had the same number of exams. This was at arch capital (not re)

[lllj]

Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff

That's why it seems high. There are only top performers, those expected to become top performers, and those who will not be with the company for long.
They have always had a strong pay-for-performance philosophy and implemented the philosophy in a way that they really do pay top performers much better than average performers. And they have always had very high standards for entry level college hires. Over the past few years, they have also moved to a much more aggressive stance on average or sub-par performers.

If you feel that you are not exceptional, it is not an environment to go to just for the higher pay.

In a way, you have to wonder if this is the best business strategy. If you only have people who are way above average, won't some of them get bored if they all have leadership ambitions and can't all be leaders?

You should hire above average talent but is there enough above average talent that will be happy without climbing the ranks?

I have no solution to this btw and am not advocating hiring substandard talent.

[Colonel Smoothie]

Originally Posted by lllj

In a way, you have to wonder if this is the best business strategy. If you only have people who are way above average, won't some of them get bored if they all have leadership ambitions and can't all be leaders?

You should hire above average talent but is there enough above average talent that will be happy without climbing the ranks?

I have no solution to this btw and am not advocating hiring substandard talent.

Imo the idea is that if you hire ambitious people, the company will grow and that growth will drive the need for new divisions and employees, so the people you hire will be leading their own departments fueled by that growth. There also ought to be challenging individual roles as well, so even if you're not managing people, the value-add and pay are commensurate with what you'd be getting as a manager elsewhere.

[actuarialgenes]

Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie

Imo the idea is that if you hire ambitious people, the company will grow and that growth will drive the need for new divisions and employees, so the people you hire will be leading their own departments fueled by that growth. There also ought to be challenging individual roles as well, so even if you're not managing people, the value-add and pay are commensurate with what you'd be getting as a manager elsewhere.

I think this is a good point. I think the strategy here is to grow, and have the growth extend downwards, so the existing employees essentially get “promoted” just by staying where they are as new employees are brought aboard below them. As the company grows, so too will the responsibilities of the more tenured employees, even though their distance to the C-suite is unchanged.

[hostess]

Originally Posted by actuarialgenes

I think this is a good point. I think the strategy here is to grow, and have the growth extend downwards, so the existing employees essentially get “promoted” just by staying where they are as new employees are brought aboard below them. As the company grows, so too will the responsibilities of the more tenured employees, even though their distance to the C-suite is unchanged.

you really think theres that much growth in insurance? the rate at which they're hiring (~30 analysts per year), it's hard to see each one of them becoming managers just by staying where they are....

[Colonel Smoothie]

Originally Posted by hostess

you really think theres that much growth in insurance? the rate at which they're hiring (~30 analysts per year), it's hard to see each one of them becoming managers just by staying where they are....

Once you have too many, you get rid of the bottom x%. A lot of companies operate this way and are transparent about it, e.g., GE, Netflix, etc.