›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Jobs: $$$ vs Quality

cosmicenemacosmicenema
edited April 2010 in Everything Else
If you had two job offers, one of which is rockstar work and the other of which is ten years behind the curve BUT has a 40% higher pay ceiling, which do you take?

Just looking for some anonymous thoughts on the subject as I've never had the decision prior to this:
  • Both jobs make the same today but 5 yr outlook is much higher doing grunt work.
  • The difference in the work is being on the bleeding edge or IT or forever 10 years behind.
  • Lifestyle choices means either job is perfectly feasible financially.
So what do you do? Are you dreamer or a big roller and why?

Comments

  • JayJay
    Dreamer. If I am spending half my waking hours working, I want that time to be well spent. You live once, live large.
  • ......
    I would go for the bleeding edge awesome job that pays less. I don't care for money really, and I'd rather enjoy my work than make more money.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Rockstar work, every single time.

    Of course, your example is a little flawed. If both jobs are perfectly feasible financially (as in, you don't have to sacrifice or put anything on hold), then most people will go with the work that is more "gratifying."

    A better question would be something like: would you be willing to lower your standard of a living to take a job that was more interesting to you than your current job? You can still "make" it, but you have to sacrifice and go without some creature comforts.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited April 2010
    It honestly depends on what other goals a person was taking into consideration. Obviously, it would be wonderful to have job satisfaction, but if a person has other goals (whether career related or not) that require gobs of money, then they should be taken into consideration. If the 40% extra meant that 5 - 10 years in the company would leave one with enough money to be independently wealthy afterward, have enough money to invest in personal projects, live a significantly better lifestyle, allowed one to help out a struggling friend/family member, etc., then it may be worth it to take the higher paying gig.
    Any debts or strained financial situations should be taken into account as well.
    Frankly, if I had to put in 10 years doing dull, but well paying work and come out debt free with a comfortable home, a decent investment portfolio, some ready cash, and some great vacations behind me, then give me the dull work. If it wouldn't be enough money to really have that much life impact and put a shelf life on the position, then I would take the more rewarding work.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    The difference isn't enough to be independently wealthy though that's an interesting idea. Maybe if I didn't have a family to worry about ...
    A better question would be something like: would you be willing to lower your standard of a living to take a job that was more interesting to you than your current job? You can still "make" it, but you have to sacrifice and go without some creature comforts.
    In my particular case the standard of living would not decrease but the amount I could save in long term investments would be reduced. I'm holding out hope the job offer won't mean a pay cut but it could.
  • AprecheApreche
    Don't interpret this as me saying that Maslow's Heirarchy of needs is absolutely true and perfectly explains human psychology. However, it is a useful model for examining this kind of decision.

    When I was in a position of not enough money, I would take just about any job. The higher paying the better. If I could have found a job jumping up and down for a dollar more an hour, I would have taken it.

    Nowadays I have enough money. More wouldn't hurt, but I've got enough. When I last job hunted, I had two offers, and chose the one that offered less. It wasn't that much less, I'm not stupid, but it was still less. I chose this job partially because it involved more modern technology that I care about, and not old busted junk. I had been working with old busted crap for years, and was sick of it.

    I think what I'm trying to say is that your priorities in this decision will change as the amount of money you have changes. Therefore, the decision itself doesn't really have that many long-term consequences as long as you are ready and willing to possibly change jobs when your personal priorities change.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    but the amount I could save in long term investments would be reduced
    How reduced? Compound interest is a bitch; losing a few thousand in the next few years could cost your hundreds of thousands down the road.
  • RymRym
    edited April 2010
    Compound interest is a bitch; losing a few thousand in the next few years could cost your hundreds of thousands down the road.
    If you invest in, say, stocks, as opposed to steaks. My steaks compounded into little more than poo.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • theknoxinatortheknoxinator
    I think my current job situation points very strongly to me choosing the rockstar route. As others have said, as long as the money is enough to live off of, having the more interesting job is much more important to me. I just had a job where I made a lot more than most of my other friends, but it was boring, the technology being used was outdated years ago, and every day I would wonder about what else I could be doing with my life. Which is exactly why I quit and took a job doing exciting things, even though it doesn't pay anything at all yet.
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    How reduced? Compound interest is a bitch; losing a few thousand in the next few years could cost your hundreds of thousands down the road.
    The industry average for this gig is 15k less than I make now so I'll need to talk them up to not lose any money. I think I can.

    Interesting feedback all. Lots of dreamers around here! Thanks!
  • ChurbaChurba
    Rockstar work, every single time.
    This. Roll the dice, man, and hope they come up awesome.
  • NuriNuri
    Do an analysis of your goals. Do you NEED the money from the potentially higher-paying job? Because a job that has a high pay ceiling isn't worth dick if you hate it so much you quit after 2 years. Is the money you will potentially lose worth the difference in interest and happiness over the same time period? There's usually a turning point. Good luck with your decision.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    This. Roll the dice, man, and hope they come up awesome.
    Well, I interpreted "rockstar" work as "something you're really really really interested in doing," and not so much the "OMGBLEEDING EDGE!!!11!!11one." I'm the kind of guy who likes to do satisfying hard work, even if the pay isn't necessarily the best. It has to be sufficient, though.

    Also, it's worth noting: a high pay ceiling is not a guarantee that you will wind up making that much money.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Well, I interpreted "rockstar" work as "something you're really really really interested in doing," and not so much the "OMGBLEEDING EDGE!!!11!!11one." I'm the kind of guy who likes to do satisfying hard work, even if the pay isn't necessarily the best. It has to be sufficient, though.
    That's precisely what I meant - I was just saying, give it a go, and hopefully, it comes out as awesome as you hope, rather than disillusioning you and making you jaded.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Well, I interpreted "rockstar" work as "something you're really really really interested in doing," and not so much the "OMGBLEEDING EDGE!!!11!!11one."
    My interest in interventional neuroradiology satisfies these conditions in more ways than one.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    I may have to opt for the better paying, less fulfilling job, if only because of how much I'd like to accomplish outside of my career. I could easily take that 40% and do something rewarding with it: go abroad every year, own a home & start a family, maybe even save enough to form my own company. I guess, in the end, my decision depends on just how demanding the work is: if it actually is going to drain my soul and leave me unable to achieve my dreams, then hell no. If it's just a means to reach a more personal end, then I'd probably go for it.*


    *WARNING: This advice coming from a college student who has never held a soul-sucking full-time career (plenty of part-time jobs, but nothing permanent). If you're wondering why I'm not more naive about this (and thereby going for the "rockstar" work), my father had an incredibly demanding (but exciting and rewarding) job, and as a result was never home. It really affected how I look at careers and my future today.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    When I quit my last "real" job it took about 4 year until I was earning the same money again. It was worth it, as I now have time, money and space.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited April 2010
    The difference isn't enough to be independently wealthy though that's an interesting idea. Maybe if I didn't have a family to worry about ...
    If that family includes any children that you are guardian or provider for, then - in my opinion - their needs trump all. If taking the higher paying job provides significantly better benefits and enough money to substantially aid in setting your child/children up (college funds and the like), then that is the one I would recommend you choose. However, if the benefits are similar and the lesser paying job provides enough for you to care for your child/children in a responsible way, then it may be worth it to have greater peace of mind and come home less stressed/annoyed.
    Look at the benefits, vacations, bonuses, raises, and location and factor them into your analysis as well.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
Sign In or Register to comment.