Ken is right, whenever I advise people on choosing between job offers or on taking a job, I always explore with them the job after the one they may move to. It's hard and hardly deterministic but a valuable process.
Risk pay shows some signs of improving, but frankly not very much.
I will state, as a fact on the record, that the idea that top decision makers value risk management to be a lie of evangelical proportions.
Not bullshiot, bullshit is being reckless with the truth, a lie is when you say something that you know to be false, if one doesn't know that your bank regards risk managers purely as a cost to be minimised and patronised then you should not be in management.
Truth in banking is a function of money, if person A is paid more than B, then the work of A is valued more than B for all tuples A,B
Risk, especially model validation is really badly paid compared to front office.
Risk is just above IT in the pecking order, and a good % of risk people earn less than "housekeeping IT" programmers, that's not high frequency trading IT, that's database admin developers.
Risk managers aren't high in seniority, look at the board of any bank, see if you can even spot someone capable of managing risk on the board. Hint: taking risks is not the same as managing them.
Also the career progression even within risk is not good, the more senior roles typically require that you've been in front office, that's rational of course, but think how it affects career prospects for those trying to "work their way up" the risk management greasy pole.
Ken is also right that the world has changed, I see little evidence that the banks are changing with it, if anything it has got worse, since there is little appetite to spend money upgrading risk. Laws will cause new IT systems to be written and more forms with tick boxes to be generated, but risk management can't be done properly if it can pay enough to attract the best staff.