Share your salary progression

advisory (in wealth management)

If it’s only cash salary then yes, 220K is a rather high number. I was referring to total compensation (cash salary + cash bonus + RSU grants vesting).

1 Like

Once could say this formum contains an abnormally high percentage of “one percenters” :laughing:


Damn dude! I definitly went into the wrong specialty. I see Hirslanden (one assumes) pays well :slight_smile:


It’s one thing to be an “one percenter” and totally another thing to realize you are an “one percenter”… or not :joy::joy:

How much net income makes you 1 percenter in Switzerland? I’m not sure 300k does it.

EDIT: Well apparently it’s 20k and above net monthly. I honestly thought it would be more.


-Or 5% above 13k / month net (ca. 16k gross)

That means roughly that ca. less than 5% of total population earns more than 190k gross salary in Switzerland…

wow the gap between men and women is brutal

It’s less bad when you look at the part time net salary, but still.

I wish they had the part time values broken down further. “Everything < 90%” is very broad.

Question : these are net salaries. Is it defined somewhere what it is ?

(incl. bonus and 2nd pillar contribution ?, - AHV, KLG etc. and taxes ?)

1 Like

It’s in the excel sheet.

Yes indeed brutal, but I wonder how they calculated it and if it makes sense.

It’s more sensible to compare by sector and not for wage. Some sectors pays more some less. If womens prefer to work in a pharmacy and men like off-shore oil fields, of course there will be huge differences.

Or maybe I’m missing something.

1 Like

Don’t forget that the stats linked only pertain to employment income (wages and salaries)

This is Switzerland, so I am sure there is substantial capital & rental income that goes unreported in these figures.

1 Like

Please folks, let’s not start that discussion again we’re going out of financial discussion territory here…


So if I understand it right it is salary - 2nd pillar contribution, AHV, ALS, SUVA etc. but taxes have not been taken away yet ?

1 Like

The data set is wrong. How can you compare net salaries when there are so many changing variables? They should have done this with salaries before ANY deductions to make it comparable.


Also note that we have a lot of self-employees which are often located in the higher ranges as well.

1 Like

I wouldn’t call it wrong per se.

I just noted today that your sheet actually states a net income line, which would be standardized for everyone except 2nd pillar contributions.

So basically, it is the amount hitting your accounts before taxes (if not taxed at source), which is basically the disposable income for you.

Furthermore it is easy to gather since this is the amount declared in your tax declaration.

1 Like

Yes if you want it to be more or less comparable. If you want it to be 100% comparable it has to be without any deductions in my opinion.

I thought so too. But, don’t you think, if you earn this much self-employed, you probably have a GmBh or AG already and are employed by your business. Wouldn’t you be counted then as well?