31 Aug
25 Jul
快消类：
宝洁：本7200、研8200、博9700，均14个月，另有800交通补助，marketing每9个月涨
20％－30％
玛氏：月薪10000。据说将14个月的工资除以12得出的数据，有知情者可以证实或证伪
箭牌:sales:4400×15。
金融类：
阳光财险：研究生，投资研究岗，全年基本工资+奖金+福利＝8万（税前）
汇丰银行：Global markets中国大陆地区外汇trader，月薪8000。汇丰的BDP项目起薪
8000，18个月培训后涨到12000。
东京三菱银行：上海外汇trader可参考汇丰薪水，起薪不超过1万。
花旗银行MT：8000×13。
高盛香港：所有部门，不分本研，起薪66万港币，但bonus可能不同。
高盛高华：固定收益部 trader，本科生：30万。
中金IBD：本科：111000base，sign on bonus 9250×6。
研究生：19万base,sign on bonus 19250×10。
中信IBD：11000+
巴克莱：香港sales：40万港币。
瑞银证券（UBSS）：operation部门15万、投行部门30万，本科和研究生一样，奖金要
看项目。
荷兰国际ING：有一个base在香港的培训项目，是local pay＋global relocation p
ackage的形式，总额比一般投行都高（约70－80w），以前只招MBA，今年扩大到普研，
值得争取。现在有越来越多的公司有这样的项目，大家要多留心想在国内读MBA的，以
后可以瞄准这的项目。
中信银行总行：平均起薪5－6万，本科和研究生差别不大。
农行总行软开：转正后6500/月，房补1500左右，一年12个月。
招行管培：算是管培里面待遇比较好的，年薪10万，但是去深圳的话消费比北京要高
深发展管培：实习的时候非常非常少，少的可怜就不说了，转正了年薪8－10万，不同
部门差别比较大，做前端的比做后端的多很多，信用卡中心比总行少很多。
进出口总行：实习的时候3500，转正了4500，待遇福利一般
国开行总行：转正了7000以上，福利很好
嘉实基金：固定收益部研究生：基本工资11.2万，基本奖金4.8万。绩效奖金和福利不
祥。
固定收益部交易员（本科）：年薪10万左右，不包括分红。
华安基金：研究生，助理行业分析员，基本工资12万，不过是按照8万基本工资发，另
外4万按照福利名义发给刚入职的毕业生，奖金和其他待遇不详。
KKR和Blackstone：起薪40万USD，但都是要在投行里做过一段时间的。
南方基金：第一年年新大约16万，而且经常会发一两万元的沃尔马购物卡。
以后涨幅也挺大的。行业研究员更高，在21万。
深国投：待遇比南方基金的待遇还要好，确切数字不清楚，至少20万年薪吧。
明年开始深国投采取提成的制度，估计年薪会创新高
Discover Finacial Sevice：
上海，Base 15w/y，福利奖金不清楚，前MorganStanly的子公司，
Discover信用卡，2008第一年在中国招人
IT类：
IBM China：销售 (ISU,STG,SWG) 培训期6-9个月 本科4800，研究生6000，14个月。转
正后第一年 base 7500，14个月，100%完成任务发140%工资，200%完成任务大概拿340%
的工资，补助：ibm为每个员工设立一个帐户，每个月往这个账户上存员工工资的15%,
工作满三年后，员工才可以取这个账户的钱.三年后如果员工继续留IBM，公司会继续向
帐户存15% 的工资,总额满10w为止，ibm最多为每个员工存10w，这样算下来，新员工3
年能拿4－5w大概。
IBM CDL CRL前半年试用期待遇是band6,而且可以休病假、年假和探亲假
CDL=(7500+800)*12 + 7500*2.5
CRL=(7500+800+900)*12 + 7500*2.5
住房公积金的标准是750 + 750 /m
摩根斯坦利IT：18万base，奖金看表现。
穆迪KMV：计算机硕士：2500刀/月+绩效奖+年终奖，14个月。在深圳14万。岗位不同薪
酬不同。
Microsoft：base 16.1w，什么都加起来也就19w左右，股票不是每年都给。
腾讯：一般职位本科生起薪7万，研究生起薪10万。广告销售部按业绩提成，有人一单
就提成50w。
腾讯的研发不太透明，北大清华计算机牛人可以和hr谈工资，有专门的hr面。研发也分
部门，一个是传统的腾讯北京研发部，另一个是新搞的腾讯研究院。前者大部分都是
10w起，少数一两个特别厉害的，hr单独谈，可以谈到20w…腾讯研究院16万起，可以
谈，有把工资谈到20万的。
Google：软件工程师计算机硕士18万。
百度：应届计算机硕士：baidu se今年有好几等，17.8w，19.2，20.6w以及超牛的接近
30w，都是package。有道也有分别：web dev 15w多一点，普通dev 16w，这都是工资不
算奖金。
EMC：所有（奖金+福利）都加起来15.5w
sk：去年是去韩国交流培训的职位，年薪20万左右
HP：sales，月薪5000－6000，其中有很大部分要自己找发票报销
思科：sales,月薪7000左右，这是去完美国培训一年以后回来的身价，当然去美国的时
候也是有钱拿的。
咨询类：
麦肯锡: 16万base，3000美元 signing bonus
BCG: 18万
Bain：19万
Monitor：19w (summer intern招进去的20w）
奥纬: 20w
罗兰贝格：15万base＋3万bonus。
整体来说前三年bain和monior奖金和工资涨幅比较高，第三年加奖金能拿到50万左右。
Mckinsey和BCG在升consultant之前比较低。
IBM 咨询 (GBS)：base 6000-6800不等，在外地作项目每天200-250补助，14个月，补
助同上。其他IT咨询原五大分出来的如毕博、埃森哲、凯捷均可参考IBM的 GBS薪水，
IBM 的GBS部门是原普华永道咨询部门和IBM自身的咨询部门合并而成。
Bain: 19w
AC尼尔森：MT 5500。
世联地产：本硕博一样，2500-5500，转正后有差别。
能源类：
斯伦贝谢：FE下面的部门里面：钻井部门（DM）的工资属于中等
国内员工：14万base，上井每天100美元补助。
国际员工（IM）：Global pay，培训期间工资4.8K美元×系数×12，一般越危险的地方
系数越高，从1.0－1.7不等，12个月工资。培训期间无补助，完成培训后上井补助每天
100美元。都有奖金，工作越久奖金越多。Wireline部门工资比DM高。
Shell：7500，本研博一样。12个月工资，超过12个月的属于bonus，Sales部门完成销
量有3个月bonus，销量多则bonus多；其他部门有1－5个月bonus不等。
法国液化空气：扬帆国际管培项目offer(签三年)的待遇
国内半年 7.8k/m
国外1年半 global pay + relocation expense
国内1年 12万+4万
GE Energy：普通职位：硕士5k-6k×13；CLP(Commercial Leadership Program)：6
000*13，两年4个rotation，2个在美国，所有费用公司cover。
其他：
华为：华为本科4500，每月1000补助，研究生再多1000，年底3-8个月的奖金。一般来
说第一年只能拿到3个月工资的奖金。外派海外补助很多。
国际纸业：sales本4000、研6000。
新蛋：MT 本10000、研11000，均13个月。
三星经济研究院：研究员、硕士，11万每年，分13个月。
华润置地：本科4000，硕士4300，发14个月工资
3 Jul
Davos, Switzerland
Thank you for that welcome and for the privilege of speaking at this forum.
This is the last time I will come to Davos as a full-time employee of Microsoft.
Some of us are lucky enough to arrive at moments in life where we can pause, reflect on our work, and say: "This is great. It’s fun, exciting, and useful—I could do this forever."
But the passing of time forces each of us to take stock and ask: What have I accomplished so far? What do I still want to accomplish?
Thirty years, twenty years, ten years ago, my focus was totally on how the magic of software could change the world.
I believed that breakthroughs in technology could solve the key problems. And they do—increasingly—for billions of people.
But breakthroughs change lives only where people can afford to buy them—only where there is economic demand.
And economic demand is not the same as economic need.
There are billions of people who need the great inventions of the computer age, and many more basic needs as well. But they have no way of expressing their needs in ways that matter to markets. So they go without.
If we are going to have a serious chance of changing their lives, we will need another level of innovation. Not just technology innovation—we need system innovation.
That’s what I want to discuss with you here in Davos today.
Let me begin by expressing a view that might not be widely shared.
The world is getting better.
In significant and far-reaching ways, the world is a better place to live than it has ever been.
Consider the status of women and minorities in society—virtually any society—compared to any time in the past.
Consider that life expectancy has nearly doubled in the past 100 years.
Consider governance—the number of people today who vote in elections, express their views, and enjoy economic freedom compared to any time in the past.
In these crucial areas, the world is getting better.
These improvements have been matched, and in some cases triggered, by advances in science, technology, and medicine. They have brought us to a high point in human welfare. We are at the start of a technology-driven revolution in what people will be able to do for one another. In the coming decades, we will have astonishing new abilities to diagnose illness, heal disease, educate the world’s children, create opportunities for the poor, and harness the world’s brightest minds to solve our most difficult problems.
This is how I see the world, and it should make one thing clear: I am an optimist.
But I am an impatient optimist.
The world is getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not getting better for everyone.
The great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least—in particular the billion people who live on less than a dollar a day.
There are roughly a billion people in the world who don’t get enough food, who don’t have clean drinking water, who don’t have electricity, the things that we take for granted.
Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.
Not only do these people miss the benefits of the global economy – they will suffer from the negative effects of economic growth they missed out on. Climate change will have the biggest effect on people who have done the least to cause it.
Why do people benefit in inverse proportion to their need?
Market incentives make that happen.
In a system of pure capitalism, as people’s wealth rises, the financial incentive to serve them rises. As their wealth falls, the financial incentive to serve them falls—until it becomes zero. We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.
The genius of capitalism lies in its ability to make self-interest serve the wider interest. The potential of a big financial return for innovation unleashes a broad set of talented people in pursuit of many different discoveries. This system driven by self-interest is responsible for the great innovations that have improved the lives of billions.
But to harness this power so it benefits everyone—we need to refine the system.
As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest, and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can’t pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need. But to provide rapid improvement for the poor we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.
Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don’t fully benefit from market forces. To make the system sustainable, we need to use profit incentives whenever we can.
At the same time, profits are not always possible when business tries to serve the very poor. In such cases, there needs to be another market-based incentive—and that incentive is recognition. Recognition enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive.
The challenge is to design a system where market incentives, including profits and recognition, drive the change.
I like to call this new system creative capitalism—an approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world’s inequities.
Some people might object to this kind of "market-based social change"—arguing that if we combine sentiment with self-interest, we will not expand the reach of the market, but reduce it. Yet Adam Smith—the father of capitalism and the author of Wealth of Nations, who believed strongly in the value of self-interest for society—opened his first book with the following lines:
"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."
Creative capitalism takes this interest in the fortunes of others and ties it to our interest in our own fortunes—in ways that help advance both. This hybrid engine of self-interest and concern for others serves a much wider circle of people than can be reached by self-interest or caring alone.
My thinking on this subject has been influenced by many different experiences, including our work at Microsoft to address inequity.
For the past 20 years, Microsoft has used corporate philanthropy as a way to bring technology to people who don’t have access. We’ve donated more than $3 billion in cash and software to try to bridge the digital divide, and that will continue.
But our greatest impact is not just free or inexpensive software by itself, but rather when we show how to use technology to create solutions. And we’re committed to bring more of that expertise to the table. Our product and business groups throughout the world, and some of our very best minds at our research lab in India, are working on new products, technologies, and business models that can make computing more accessible and more affordable. In one case, we’re developing a text-free interface that will enable illiterate or semi-literate people to use a PC instantly, with minimal training or assistance. In another we’re looking at how wireless technology, together with software, can avoid the expensive connectivity costs that stand in the way of computing access in rural areas. We’re thinking in a much more focused way about the problems that the poorest people face, and giving our most innovative thinkers the time and resources to come up with solutions.
This kind of creative capitalism matches business expertise with needs in the developing world to find markets that are already there, but are untapped. Sometimes market forces fail to make an impact in developing countries not because there’s no demand, or because money is lacking, but because we don’t spend enough time studying the needs and limits of that market.
This point was made eloquently in C.K. Prahalad’s book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, and that’s had a huge influence on companies in terms of stretching the profit motive through special innovation.
When the World Health Organization tried to expand vaccination for meningitis in Africa, it didn’t go straight to a vaccine manufacturer. It first went to Africa to learn what people could pay. They found out that if they wanted mothers to get this vaccine for their babies, it had to be priced under 50 cents a dose. Then they challenged the partners to meet this price, and, in fact, Serum Institute in India found a new way to make the vaccine for 40 cents each. They company agreed to supply 250 million doses to distribute through public health systems over the next decade, and they are free to sell it directly to the private sector too.
In another case, a Dutch company, which holds the rights to a cholera vaccine, retains the rights in the developed world, but shares those rights with manufacturers in developing countries. The result is a cholera vaccine made in Vietnam that costs less than $1 a dose—and that includes delivery and the costs of an immunization campaign. There are a number of industries that can take advantage of this kind of tiered pricing to offer valuable medicine and technology to low-income people.
These projects are just a hint of what we could accomplish if people who are experts on the needs in the developing world would meet several times a year with scientists at software or drug companies and help them try to find poor world applications for their best ideas.
Another approach to creative capitalism includes a direct role for governments. Of course, governments do a great deal to help the poor in ways that go far beyond nurturing markets: they fund research, subsidize health care, build schools and hospitals. But some of the highest-leverage work that government can do is to set policy and disburse funds in ways that create market incentives for business activity that improves the lives of the poor.
Under a law signed by President Bush last year, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria or TB can get priority review from the Food and Drug Administration for another product they’ve made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier. This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Another approach to creative capitalism is simply to help businesses in the poor world reach markets in the rich world. Tomorrow morning I will announce a partnership that gives African farmers access to the premium coffee market, with the goal of doubling their income from their coffee crops. This project will help African farmers produce high-quality coffee and connect them to companies that want to buy it. That will help lift them, their families, and their communities out of poverty.
Finally, one of the most inventive forms of creative capitalism involves someone we all know very well.
A few years ago, I was sitting in a bar here in Davos with Bono. After Asia and most of Europe and Africa had gone to bed, he was on fire, talking about how we could get a percentage of each purchase from civic-minded companies to help change the world. He kept calling people, waking them up, and handing me the phone. His projections were a little enthusiastic at first—but his principle was right. If you give people a chance to associate themselves with a cause they care about—they will pay more, and that premium can make an impact. That was how the RED Campaign was born, here in Davos.
RED products are available from companies like Gap, Motorola, and Armani. Just this week, Dell and Microsoft joined the cause. Over the last year and a half, RED has generated $50 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. As a result, nearly 2 million people in Africa are receiving life-saving drugs today.
What unifies all forms of creative capitalism is that they’re market-driven efforts to bring solutions we take for granted to people who can’t get them. As we refine and improve this approach, there is every reason to believe these engines of change will become larger, stronger, and more efficient.
There is a growing understanding around the world that when change is driven by market-based incentives, you have a sustainable plan for change—because profits and recognition are renewable resources. Klaus Schwab runs a foundation that assists social entrepreneurs around the world, men and women who turn their ideas for improving lives into affordable goods or services. President Clinton demonstrates the unique role that a non-profit can play as a deal-maker between rich world producers and poor world consumers. The magazine Fast Company gives awards for what they call Social Capitalism.
These are not a few isolated stories; this is a world-wide movement, and we all have the ability and the responsibility to accelerate it.
I’d like to ask everyone here—whether you’re in business, government or the non-profit world—to take on a project of creative capitalism in the coming year. It doesn’t have to be a new project; you could take an existing project, and see where you might stretch the reach of market forces to help push things forward. When you award foreign aid, when you make charitable gifts, when you try to change the world—can you also find ways to put the power of market forces behind the effort to help the poor?
I hope corporations will consider dedicating a percentage of your top innovators’ time to issues that could help people left out of the global economy. This kind of contribution is much more powerful than simply giving away cash, or offering your employees time off to volunteer. It is a focused use of what your company does best. It is a great form of creative capitalism, because it takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest, and dedicates it to improving the lives of everyone else.
There are a number of pharmaceutical companies—GlaxoSmithKline in particular—that are putting their top innovators to work on new approaches to help the poor. Other companies are doing the same—in food, technology, cell phones. If we could take the leaders in these areas as models, and get the rest to match them, we could make a dramatic impact against the world’s inequities.
Finally, I hope that the great thinkers here will dedicate some time to finding ways for businesses, governments, NGOs, and the media to create measures of what companies are doing to use their power and intelligence to serve a wider circle of people. This kind of information is an important element of creative capitalism. It can turn good works into recognition, and ensure that recognition brings market-based rewards to businesses that do the most work to serve the most people.
We are living in a phenomenal age. If we can spend the early decades of the 21st century finding approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits and recognition for business, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce poverty in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a passionate effort to answer this challenge will help change the world.
中文翻译：
1 Jul
|
|
唉，手痒了。。。
18 Jun
1 Jun
Citer
YouTube – China Earthquake – Do You Miss Me?
see also the true pictures of the earthquake http://umedia.nddaily.com/#20080516-34
19 May
17 May
