In a hypothetical situation that I have an outside chance of encountering, which of the following scenarios do you choose: 1.) $110,000 to $120,000 per year (USD) salary, senior management, 50-55 hour work weeks, travel on average 1 day per week, work from home on average 2 days per week, in the office 2 days per week. 2.) $180,000 to $200,000 per year, senior management, 60-65 hour work weeks, all in the office (for the most part). Which scenario do you choose?
#1 without a doubt, unless it’s in NYC, in which case it would be a tough choice because $110K isn’t all that much in NYC. Also, what arethe opportunities for growth in each role?
Good point, luke. I’m talking about in, say, a large suburb of a big city (e.g. suburbs of DC, Philly, LA, San Fran, Chicago, etc.). Growth opportunities? LOL, I dunno, guaranteed 5% increase per year.
I’d say #1 then, but obviously it depends on your priorities. Money isn’t all that important to me, and I could easily live comfortably on $100,000 in any city other than NY, and still sock away a decent amount in savings. I don’t have anyone to support, though. To me, only having to be in the office 2-3 days a week sounds great. Plus, a 50 hr/week job is much different than a 60 hr/week job, even though it may not sound like it - those extra 10 hours a week really make a difference, imo.
working from home would be the biggest thing to me. i’m gone from the house for 12 hours a day and almost 2 of those is commuting. i’d gladly increase the hours a bit to avoid traffic, etc.
I agree with luke77. For my lifestyle, I could live well on $100k/yr. My time is most important, and once you hit 60-65 hrs a week you don’t have much of it to spare. If you don’t choose #1, can I have it… ha ha ha
KKent, From what you have described I will play the devils advocate and say you should go for #2. For the following reasons: a) 110K per year in SF/Chicago/DC is not a huge sum given the cost of living for things like rent etc Besides if you live in cities like that you need the juice in order to enjoy what they have to offer (esp SF or LA). b) The #2 role is definitly more hours but at the same time it is likely one where there is a higher degree of responisbility etc…if you take 2 you can always go to 1 but not necessarly the reverse. c) office time usully = face time with BSDs. Face time with BSDs usually = better promo operunites and better assignments. d) You will still have a life with 60-65 a week, 7-7 M-F (plus odd Saturday) means time for life unless you decide to live deep in the 'Burbs with a huge commute.
CCM, valid points. I know you’re playing devil’s advocate, but which one do you actually choose? You stick with #2? Bodymore, if I don’t take #1, I’m hoarding it in a freezer!
depends on how old i am, if i have a family, the nature of the work, where i work, for who i work and most importantly my upward mobility. right now id go with no.2. commuitng is not an issue cuz id probably walk to work
Yeah, Sean, my commute’s a slut–but I literally can’t afford to live where my job is.
KKent, From the detail you have provided, personally I would take #2 every day of the week and twice on Sunday; for the exact reasons I outlined. Money does not buy happiness but is sure does make things easier and besides 60-65 hours a week is not onerous in any way shape or form unless you live deep in the burbs. Save the earth, live near work:)