Take a QA job with relaxed short workweek or very pressuring dev job with significant financial rewards?

Question

Hi All.

I've been agonizing over a career decision and reached the point where I have to take one of the other. I'd appreciate any community feedback. I'm in my 30s, out of a long time in graduate schools, living in a small city.

I got an offer from a nearby company to do QA-related dev (interesting but still QA) during work normal 9-5 work hours, flexible informal environment, etc. Pay is decent for the area but not exceptional.

My other option is to actually do challenging dev, but in a company that would require relocation to a larger and more expensive city. The company is very business-centered, including environment, atmosphere, dress, etc. The financial upside is significant, with a higher base and much more bonuses potential (say up to 40%). But the workweek is also much longer, about 50 hours (9-7).

I have a family, a baby, and like to preserve my sanity. On the other hand I've been so focused on my career for years, it's weird to take the easier path, and giving up on the financial rewards is huge.

I don't expect anyone to make the decisions for me, I'd just like to hear opinions.

Answer 1

QA related dev has a lot of upside. I would opt for the position that allows you stay current in the field, live where you are, and have a decent life outside work.

Answer 2

My opinion is that if the financial awards were that important to you then you wouldn't even be struggling to decide. How much more money than the QA job is it worth for you to have a worse life? If you can put a monetary figure to that and are happy to trade then you'll find the answer.

Answer 3

Money can never buy back time lost with your children.

Answer 4

If the lesser paid job won't leave you living pay cheque to pay cheque and you will still be able to pay all your bills and put food on your table, take that. If however it'll leave you fighting to make pay cheques last through to the next then you'll put yourself under a lot of financial pressure in your personal life.

I've been on both sides of the fence, I've lived pay cheque to pay cheque, and I've had very lucrative contracts where I've had financial surplus. The extra couple of hours I spend at work per day isn't a particularly huge ordeal although for sure I'd rather be home with my family.

A high pressure development position can be both very lucrative and very rewarding, but working and living in a laid back environment will do a world of good for your health, sanity and personal life.

Be realistic about the financial repercussions of the lesser paid job before your look at the up-side. If it is realistic that you can still afford to live reasonably comfortably and not struggle - then it's really time to make the call. When you're weighing this up though, don't look at it through rose coloured glasses - you've gotta be brutally honest with yourself about it. If you take the lesser paid job and you put yourself in a financial mess, then it doesn't matter how laid back your job is - you'll be stressed and your family life will suffer - if you're going to be stressed in either situation, better to take the higher paid job and stress about something that's making you money rather than something that's putting you in a financial hole.

This is really a good point to analyse your family expenditure and figure out what your outgoings are every month, ask yourself what is necessary, what you would like not to have to give up and any frivolities that you could [or maybe should] get rid of. Once you've got a good idea of what your outgoings are, then you'll have a better idea of what you realistically need for an income.

Answer 5

Whenever I feel like I need to make a choice between my job and my family, I always think about the song "Busy Man" and that usually puts me in my place.

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/cyrus-billy-ray/busy-man-5773.html

Answer 6

I'd go with the lower paying one, assuming you can survive on the pay.

I'd also try negotiating up at the lower paying job. You have a good chance at being successful with that (assuming you haven't already). Between the increased cost of living in a larger city, and the lower stress I'd think your standard of living would actually be higher.

Answer 7

You say that the potential financial bonus is up to 40%, but what is the cost of living increase? This is a huge factor in your decision. Depending on where you live and where you would be moving to, the cost of your house alone could increase by 100% or more.

A 50 hour workweek is 25% more hours, so the salary increase minus cost of living increase needs to be at least that before you even break even in terms of work/pay ratio.

Then you need to factor in quality of life issues. Moving to a larger city probably means a more difficult commute in addition to the extra work hours away from your family.

Answer 8

Dave, first of all, congratulations on having multiple offers in this economy.

I'd go with the big city offer. From my own experience (I've worked in Boston, NYC, and now Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and we had a baby in NYC): it seems scary and challenging, but doable if you work long hours and your spouse has a fixed work schedule (or works less than full-time).

If you end up not liking your job with the big-city company, you will probably be able to find another one nearby that will be a better fit.

As a certain big-city song goes, "if you've made it here, you can make it anywhere." Consider all your future accomplishments and all the people you'll have a chance to meet and work with and how that will make you a better developer (compared to the small town QA job). I disagree with those who assert that the quality of life will necessarily go down. Life will be of about the same quality, it will just be different.

You're in your 30s, experienced, but young, that's a right age to be confident and accept challenges rather than take the easier path.