A fork in the road, two very different prospects`

oulton

oulton

oulton

Soldato
Joined
3 Feb 2011
Posts
12,518
Location
free and easy
The house is sold, notice handed in at work, and after 7 years in Scandinavia we are moving back to blighty this summer, yes! :D

I have interviewed had two job offers, both very different.

1 - lead analyst for a very large company in the energy sector. Would run a team of analysts reporting to the head of dept. Potentially a job for life with a great pension and good hours, lots of holidays.

- cons - in a potentially grim part of the country where my other half may not find work. Lots of red tape.

2 - head of dept for a small boutique company doing extremely well in the land, energy and utilities sector. Better money and very good five figure annual bonus, good car allowance, etc. Potential to be a non-equity director in several years time.

cons - 11 hour days are the regular. Lots of responsibility and mistakes could be extremely costly to the company so it is going to be high pressure. Also work scope will be less varied, lots of the same type of work. Missing out on some family time.

I know both jobs sound good, and if i was in the position of only having either one offered I would bite the proverbial arm off, but having interviewed today for the 2nd one I am in a bit of a conundrum.
 
Guess it comes down to what you personal circumstances are. Wife? Kids?
Am I right in thinking job number one would be more easy going, more free time, and therefore more family friendly?
Although the more money with job 2 is undoubtedly attractive, I am again guessing that the salary from job 1 will be more than enough to get by on? If that's the case, is sacrificing your free time worth the money and the 11hr days? If you go down hat route, how much is enough, 13 hrs days?

Only you can decided, obviously. Comes down to where the comfortable middle ground in life/work is, and only you know where your middle ground is.

I posted a similar thread a few years ago on here. I had the dilemma of continuing doing an extremely unfulfilling boring job that paid very well and gave me bundles of time off, verses a very enjoyable job that paid much less with less time off. I stuck with the boring job as I realized that although I would have loved an enjoyable career, the time and money that the boring career gives means my free time is...epic!
 
tintin82 said:
although I would have loved an enjoyable career, the time and money that the boring career gives means my free time is...epic!
Click to expand...

My current job is like that, but with the added boredom of Scandinavia, seriously compared to the UK this place is like a mortuary.

Yes, job 1 offers more stability and potentially a more enjoyable field, but its in a grim area. Job 2 is in a lovely part of affluent Cheshire. options to earn mega coin, and extremely successful business to be in. But hard work.
 
It sounds to me, purely from the descriptions you gave, as if number 2 requires a certain type of personality, that you need to be driven to do it.

It also sounds a bit like the perks and especially location appeal, but what the job entails, the hours and pressure, doesn't.

I think you have to do some soul-searching and that only an idiot would try to read your mind over the internet, but I'd just urge you to only take number 2 if you are doing it for the right reasons. And I wonder, given that you had to ask here, if you really want what it entails. If you take number 2 and you either don't have what it takes, or the mindset for it, I can see it being a recipe for stress and misery. If, on the other hand, you thrive on the challenge .... go fot it.

Time, circumstances and age all have an effect on us, and there was a time in my life I wouldn't have hesitated to jump at a 2-type challenge. Now, though, age and circumstances have changed and no way would I do what 2 might entail either to myself or my family. Where you are in that, only you can judge.
 
Aldav said:
Time, circumstances and age all have an effect on us, and there was a time in my life I wouldn't have hesitated to jump at a 2-type challenge. Now, though, age and circumstances have changed and no way would I do what 2 might entail either to myself or my family. Where you are in that, only you can judge.
Click to expand...

Well said. I would have jumped at option 2 when I was younger and had no dependents. Now however it is option 1 (or in my world as per previous post my boring career).
It slowly dawned on me that so many of us work so hard and so long during our younger / middle years (the best years), all for that great pension and retirement, and life has a real danger of literally passing by.
From once being quite a career driven person my ideas have morphed into quite a simple form - spending the least amount of time working for the most amount of money, period. The thinking behind that is why wait for retirement to enjoy life. I sure have way more energy now than I guess I will at 65, not to mention a very happy family life.
Unless you have a really meaningful career which changes peoples lives for the better then the day after you retire you can look back at your career and see it as pretty pointless waste of time (apart from that nice bank balance).
I know that's a pretty bold statement, but seriously, life is not about the successful career, IMO anyway. Work to live, not live to work.
 
1 all day - once you are comfortable financially time is all you need.

Lots of red tape... I have no idea what that means in this context but... meh?
No job for wife? Something will turn up unless she has a very specific set of skills....
 
Four words to live by career wise:

"No pressure, no diamonds".


Depending on how much of a family man you are, I'd go for option B. This means you can provide for your family better and cherish the time you have with them more. That said, if you're not good at dealing with pressure and the kind of person who takes their stress home with them, this might have an adverse effect.


Welcome home, just in time for summer :)
 
First sounds very steady and safe (in the current environment)

Though the 2nd sounds very exciting, the hours are a killer I'd say

I'd play it safe and go for the 1st one - at least for a couple of years to see what it's really like then decide if its for me
 
What does the other half want to do - you mention not much chance the other half is going to get something locally for option1.

Personally - move to the nicer area as that affects your family - do option 2 for a fixed amount of time - then evaluate your life with your partner and if its a problem move on with the experience and hopefully some money in the kitty but safe you live in a nice part of the country and if you have kids they probably go to a nice school. You could have the best job in the world but in you live in somewhere you don't like then life isn't going to be good regardless
 
2nd.

Although it is a tough one. The whole Mrs might not be able to find work and grim part of the country was a alarm for me. This will ultimately mean you'll get **** for this (women be crazy), and with no job possibilities, that leads to too much time on one's hands to contemplate how crap it all is. Although the job sounds decent, and you probably would be set for life, with nice pension etc. You might well get tired of the red tape/ office politics of the place after a while.
Option 2 seems like it's probably going to be harder work, but for potentially more gain in the future, but yea, you'll have to hammer in the hours and that is a downside. That said, if it's in a place where the Mrs can work and a better part of the country, you'd be better off on that part of the family life.

It sounds like a tough one though, very different, but I'd probably go the second for the reasons above.
 
Option 2 sounds like a good idea if you're used to working under pressure anyway, if not that combined with 11 hour days could quite quickly take its toll on you.

Personally that's what I'd go for, but I'm not you :p
 
Go for the job with fewer hours and pressure unless you are that career driven.

the pressure and 11 hour days you will regret when you get older esp if you have kids.
 
Diddums said:
Four words to live by career wise:

"No pressure, no diamonds".


Depending on how much of a family man you are, I'd go for option B. This means you can provide for your family better and cherish the time you have with them more. That said, if you're not good at dealing with pressure and the kind of person who takes their stress home with them, this might have an adverse effect.


Welcome home, just in time for summer :)
Click to expand...


Thanks :)

Lots of good opinions.

I am coming from working as a consultant in an EU institution which has taught me a lot because I was lucky enough to have a great boss, but generally the place had some serious issues, and I have found myself taking my grievances home at times. They weren't stress related though.

I think the opportunity afforded by Job 2 is worth taking, and after all I can take a little time to man up and get in the right frame of mind. Personally I prefer to be busy than twiddling my thumbs!

Option 1 is in West Cumbria, option 2 is in leafy Cheshire.

Greebo said:
Go for the job with fewer hours and pressure unless you are that career driven.

the pressure and 11 hour days you will regret when you get older esp if you have kids.
Click to expand...

But, my current commute can be 2.5 hours, meaning I get in after 7 often.

If I am in 7.30 till 6.30 with a 10 minute commute it can't be that bad.
 
Last edited:
Option 1 sounds like the plodding along through life to your grave scenario with no great things happening and option 2 sounds like the kind of 'all or nothing' approach is needed.

Quality of life is key as you want to die having enjoyed life rather than simply wandered through it pointlessly- if your wife can find work (which you say A would struggle but B would be ok) to then you double the amount so instead of a very good household salary you have a fantastic one. Also lack of stimulation and a boring life could cause friction whereas too much opportunity could cause problems in the other sense with trust etc. But if you are both into each other then that isn't even an issue. :)
 
oulton said:
Thanks :)

Lots of good opinions.

I am coming from working as a consultant in an EU institution which has taught me a lot because I was lucky enough to have a great boss, but generally the place had some serious issues, and I have found myself taking my grievances home at times. They weren't stress related though.

I think the opportunity afforded by Job 2 is worth taking, and after all I can take a little time to man up and get in the right frame of mind. Personally I prefer to be busy than twiddling my thumbs!

Option 1 is in West Cumbria, option 2 is in leafy Cheshire.



But, my current commute can be 2.5 hours, meaning I get in after 7 often.

If I am in 7.30 till 6.30 with a 10 minute commute it can't be that bad.
Click to expand...

Ah you never said you were doing 11+ hour days already :P

Personally i have always viewed every jobs time as being from when i leave my house to when i get back home as to whether its worth it.

Hence a local job 5 minutes away but is 7 till 7 with an hour for lunch is the same as a job one hour away but its 8 till 6.

You will have the same free time in both.

The more local might have its other advantages due to being so close to home and coming home for lunch etc plus no long drives.

And what part of west Cumbria is grim???

Sounds like the second job wouldn't faze you so go for the money IMO.

Just factor in though that "leafy Cheshire" is a very, very expensive part of the country to live in. There is good reason that outside of London, its the only place with Mclaren, Ferrari, Maserati and Lamborghini car dealerships :P
 
Where is the 1st located out of interest?

I'd probably go for the second, it's sounds like the rarely/harder to come by role. I'm guessing if you really don't like it, a role similar to the first wouldn't be too hard to come by?
 
Greebo said:
Ah you never said you were doing 11+ hour days already :P

Personally i have always viewed every jobs time as being from when i leave my house to when i get back home as to whether its worth it.

Hence a local job 5 minutes away but is 7 till 7 with an hour for lunch is the same as a job one hour away but its 8 till 6.

You will have the same free time in both.

The more local might have its other advantages due to being so close to home and coming home for lunch etc plus no long drives.

And what part of west Cumbria is grim???

Sounds like the second job wouldn't faze you so go for the money IMO.

Just factor in though that "leafy Cheshire" is a very, very expensive part of the country to live in. There is good reason that outside of London, its the only place with Mclaren, Ferrari, Maserati and Lamborghini car dealerships :P
Click to expand...

Barrow-in-Furness? :p
 
tintin82 said:
Unless you have a really meaningful career which changes peoples lives for the better then the day after you retire you can look back at your career and see it as pretty pointless waste of time (apart from that nice bank balance).
I know that's a pretty bold statement, but seriously, life is not about the successful career, IMO anyway. Work to live, not live to work.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too dismissive of the nice bank balance, but I'd suggest it's a means to an end, not an end in it's own right.

It might be obvious, but people are different. Some place family life first and regard minimum time at work as the way to achieve it. Others are just workaholics, and in my view, can be obsessive about it to the point of being blinkered about the impact on family.

In-between is a spectrum where most of us are. Personally, I view it as getting my hard work and stressful bits in early, because doing so builds the bank balance to the point where you have options later in life. The bank balance enables a better family life, enables educational choices for the kids to give them the best start possible, enables the "Bank of Mum and Dad" helping hand onto the mortgage ladder, and that sure is increasingly useful.

In my twenties, I had the option if a good, safe, well-paid career, or a chance to be my own boss. I went on my own, and it worked out for the best, albeit I found a few banana skins on the way. It's a route that offers the best returns, but also the biggest risks.

Oulton's option 2 looks to me a be a bit like that, but it's a compromise that includes a safety net. If it's being done with a view to that equity position, Oulton, it's a strategic choice you're making not a tactical one. It's very much the same kind of risk/cost versus reward decision I made, but your heart and circumstances will point at the right choice.

Work to live rather than live to work by all means, but how far to take that? One option is as a wage slave, but no matter how good the wage, it limits options, like early retirement, funding the kids etc. There is no right or wrong answer, just the best option for Oulton, ay wherever he and his family are in life. It's a case of assessing priorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom