Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

There’s an social media debate regarding a question presumably from a Gen Z worker.

The claim is that the person has 2 job opportunities: work 100% from home for $120K/year or go into the office each day for $240K. What would someone choose.

Obviously other factors come into play like growth opportunities, work responsibilities, commute time, etc. For argument’s sake, assume everything is somewhat similar and/or reasonable. We’re not talking about a 2-hr commute each way or working 100+ hours for the double salary.

Anyway, the online replies show that people feel very strongly about their answer. Some value working at home so they're cool with significantly less money. Others focus on the higher comp. I would go for the double salary because compensation is why I work. Double the money would allow me to meet my investment goals faster as well as enjoy my weekends and vacations that much more. And while I prefer to WFH, going to the office isn't a big deal to me.

What would you choose? (And if your comp is already higher, think about this in terms of doubling, or halving, your salary for changing work conditions.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Oh man, this is really tough

I honestly loathe going into the office.  I'm unproductive, I hate small talk, I hate driving, I lose a lot of flexibility during the work day

But 2x my salary would be life changing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I would go for the double salary because compensation is why I work.

 

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

But 2x my salary would be life changing. 

This is where I land. I certainly enjoy WFH but I'd be fine going back into an office regularly for 2x unless it was some ridiculous micromanaging situation with a shitty commute. 

Posted (edited)

I know that there are people for whom not going into the office is worth $120k or halving their income or not doubling their income or whatever way you want to slice this. I suspect that a lot of people answering this question online, particularly gen z kids, are coming from a place of "would you rather take more money than you've ever made to work from home or would you rather take even more money than you've ever made to work in the office" and answering "work from home".  I think mostly for most people there is a correct answer and it is double the income to work in an office.

 

I suppose there is a flip side to older folks who might have less need to earn more income. And this hypothetical is also weird in how it relates to... income growth if the roles are identical but wfh vs in office. But even if we just assume normal COL increases, if you have any number of years of career in front of you the higher salary has a lot more benefit than simply the delta between the two in year one.

Edited by Celery Man
Posted
16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There’s an social media debate regarding a question presumably from a Gen Z worker.

The claim is that the person has 2 job opportunities: work 100% from home for $120K/year or go into the office each day for $240K. What would someone choose.

Obviously other factors come into play like growth opportunities, work responsibilities, commute time, etc. For argument’s sake, assume everything is somewhat similar and/or reasonable. We’re not talking about a 2-hr commute each way or working 100+ hours for the double salary.

Anyway, the online replies show that people feel very strongly about their answer. Some value working at home so they're cool with significantly less money. Others focus on the higher comp. I would go for the double salary because compensation is why I work. Double the money would allow me to meet my investment goals faster as well as enjoy my weekends and vacations that much more. And while I prefer to WFH, going to the office isn't a big deal to me.

What would you choose? (And if your comp is already higher, think about this in terms of doubling, or halving, your salary for changing work conditions.)

Why not both?  Get you a wfh job then do it half-assed in the evening.  Can go 9-12 months before they fire you.  Then go get another one.

Posted

honestly depends on WHERE you live.   if you are in Cali for instance, earning 120k while living in Humboldt County and WFH is radically different than living near any slightly larger city and going into the office.  

 

 

and another factor would be am i forced to work remotely from my assigned designated home?  or am I allowed to work remotely while visiting national parks, other states etc.   even more bonus points if I am allowed to work remotely from another country with a much lower cost of living ( highly highly unlikely I know.. but if allowed, that would be a deal)

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I value impact and utilization over raw compensation. I wouldn’t want to be a cashier for $400k a year, for example.

I would choose going into the office for twice the pay as long as I enjoyed/appreciated the people who worked there. Office shenanigans are fun

Posted

I had kind of a similar dilemma except the pay scale differences weren't as stark, or knowable..

Not quite 15 years ago, after the dissolution of my last firm, I went out on my own.  It was even unclear at that point whether I would rent an office or just WFH.  But I can work from home just fine, although I miss having colleagues.

I took a pay cut, I also work a lot less hard and have a lot more fun or satisfaction doing it.  And more free time to work out and mountain bike, among other things.  The downside is that I have a relatively static client base and the work ebbs and flows along with the cash flow, whereas at a firm, I could always find filler work between "major engagements."  And I could be more aggressive in courting new clients than I am.

Not quite the same thing as the above, and more to compensate me than just working at home in return for the pay cut.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Oh man, this is really tough

I honestly loathe going into the office.  I'm unproductive, I hate small talk, I hate driving, I lose a lot of flexibility during the work day

But 2x my salary would be life changing. 

It's harder than you'd think on first pass.

I drove into the office yesterday for a holiday party. It was an exercise in gratitude for not having to do that except for rare occassions. I can't go back to having to commute into a city center and work in an office and lose that time in commuting, etc.

On the other hand if I only made $120k, I'd have to do it. I can't even get by on $240k so I'd hate to try on $120.

Posted

Other factors:

Office setup - is it a cube, a bullshit open office thing (hard pass), or do I have my own office?

Extraneous costs - gas, maintenance, tolls, parking, lunches, coffees, office clothing, etc. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Other factors:

Office setup - is it a cube, a bullshit open office thing (hard pass), or do I have my own office?

Extraneous costs - gas, maintenance, tolls, parking, lunches, coffees, office clothing, etc. 

it’s a given that there are costs with going to the office. 

Posted (edited)

The question is whether you'd sell out, for a significant amount of money, a significant amount of your autonomy. The best argument I've read so far in favor of selling out is that the extra money enables you to retire sooner. But think of all the time you lose every day, getting ready for work, wasting downtime at the office, commuting, and how much more productively you could be using that time, including on activities whose revenue could far surpass the additional $120k that would be earned via the paycheck.

That extra, let's say conservatively, 5 hours per week that you get to spend however you want could be invested towards some smart real estate moves (or in other ways, such as high risk high reward investment opportunities). Of course, you can still do those things while working a normal office job, but you'd have to find the time to do it and usually at the expense of your sleep, hobbies, and family time. That might feel feasible when you're right out of college, but after that first kid? After 35? Now you have to ask: what's the true cost of that added stress? Think of how much harder it would be to get to the gym, or to eat well, or to go to therapy. Not enough hours in the day, so you're dealing with high blood pressure, maybe even diabetes. Eventually something will have to give.

So, I view that extra 5 hours per week as the only realistic way to devote adequate time toward profitable side hustles. If you're an enterprising person who believes in yourself, you should take the WFH and wisely invest the free time in your own capabilities.

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Maybe I'm now just an old but anyone that chooses WFH in this scenario isn't going to ever get promoted beyond that 120K.   Which I'm sure is fine for those that would make the choice.  Fair or not, I absolutely think electing to work from home is seen by senior mgmt as lack of commitment and/or ambition.  If you combine that with someone turning down a raise, then yeah, that person isn't moving up in their role.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

WFH and it's not close, health and my time is so much more valuable (to me) than money.  Edited to add I've manged to WFH since '21 with two different companies and would never do the office 9-5 again. 

Edited by Mother mopar
Posted

There is nothing finer than being the first one in the office in the morning and taking a giant shit in the office bathroom before anyone can beat you to it, and if it comes with double the salary, the choice is a no-brainer. 

  • Haha 2
Posted

at those salaries it's a no brainer to take the higher comp unless the commute is over 45 minutes each way and you don't have anything crazy going on at home that requires you to have extreme flexibility.

i just turned down an interview for a job that paid $40K extra because it would require 5 days onsite in downtown austin. i live in round rock - fuck that noise

Posted
8 minutes ago, Deej said:

There is nothing finer than being the first one in the office in the morning and taking a giant shit in the office bathroom before anyone can beat you to it, and if it comes with double the salary, the choice is a no-brainer. 

I can also take a giant shit in my bathroom and use my bidet to clean my ass and then hop in the shower.  For free. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

My wife and I had this conversation the other day. Commute time would be the biggest factor for me. For example, we live in east Round Rock, so commuting to downtown Austin 5 days a week probably turns a 40 hour week into a 50 hour week, factoring in commute time. 500 extra hours per year sitting in traffic is life changing. Not to mention increased blood pressure, gas, tolls, insurance, parking, more vehicle maintenance, more money on work clothes, having to plan better for lunches and hope I could continue eating healthy, etc. 

So I think it would take double for me to make up for all those tangible costs. I'm not horribly far off from retirement so the comfort of working at home, listening to the music I want to listen to, not smelling a coworker's microwaved fish, setting my own schedule, showering when I want to shower, being at home for deliveries, the AC guy, the pest guy, whatever - all that has a big price tag. 

Now if the commute was 10 min from home? Yeah, I'd take the money.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Maybe I'm now just an old but anyone that chooses WFH in this scenario isn't going to ever get promoted beyond that 120K.   Which I'm sure is fine for those that would make the choice.  Fair or not, I absolutely think electing to work from home is seen by senior mgmt as lack of commitment and/or ambition.  If you combine that with someone turning down a raise, then yeah, that person isn't moving up in their role.

I don't view it as "commitment" or "ambition."  I think it is more an an experience thing.

In my line of work--which is the line of work of seemingly 95% of the posters on this board--much of the mentoring that young people get is just absorbed as a consequnece of being in close proximity.  Listening in on a phone call, hearing people talk in the halls or in the next office over, running into a colleague in the breakroom and asking what they're up to, walking into a supervisor's office and asking if there's something you can do on this case--that's how much of the most valuable mentoring gets done.

I'm not saying that mentorship can't be done in a WFH environment.  I am saying that it's really hard.  And if both the mentor and the mentoree are not real conscientious about it, it's not happening.

If I need to hire a third-year associate--adn I really need to hire a third-year associate, BTW--I'm 100% going to take an assciate who has been in the office over one who has been exclusively WFH over his/her career, all other things being equal.  It's not because of what I percevie as commitment or work ethic; it's all about the mentorship and training that I think that lawyer has gotten at his/her previous job.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

No brainer for me - in office for $240k. Hell, I drove into the office in March and April of 2020, it was great having almost no one else here. I really can’t get shit done at home and I have a laptop-based job. 

Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I don't view it as "commitment" or "ambition."  I think it is more an an experience thing.

In my line of work--which is the line of work of seemingly 95% of the posters on this board--much of the mentoring that young people get is just absorbed as a consequnece of being in close proximity.  Listening in on a phone call, hearing people talk in the halls or in the next office over, running into a colleague in the breakroom and asking what they're up to, walking into a supervisor's office and asking if there's something you can do on this case--that's how much of the most valuable mentoring gets done.

I'm not saying that mentorship can't be done in a WFH environment.  I am saying that it's really hard.  And if both the mentor and the mentoree are not real conscientious about it, it's not happening.

If I need to hire a third-year associate--adn I really need to hire a third-year associate, BTW--I'm 100% going to take an assciate who has been in the office over one who has been exclusively WFH over his/her career, all other things being equal.  It's not because of what I percevie as commitment or work ethic; it's all about the mentorship and training that I think that lawyer has gotten at his/her previous job.

Literally just had this discussion with a young employee today at an end of year review. Totally agree and tell my kids the same thing. 

Posted
21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The question is whether you'd sell out, for a significant amount of money, a significant amount of your autonomy. The best argument I've read so far in favor of selling out is that the extra money enables you to retire sooner. But think of all the time you lose every day, getting ready for work, wasting downtime at the office, commuting, and how much more productively you could be using that time, including on activities whose revenue could far surpass the additional $120k that would be earned via the paycheck.

That extra, let's say conservatively, 5 hours per week that you get to spend however you want could be invested towards some smart real estate moves (or in other ways, such as high risk high reward investment opportunities). Of course, you can still do those things while working a normal office job, but you'd have to find the time to do it and usually at the expense of your sleep, hobbies, and family time. That might feel feasible when you're right out of college, but after that first kid? After 35? Now you have to ask: what's the true cost of that added stress? Think of how much harder it would be to get to the gym, or to eat well, or to go to therapy. Not enough hours in the day, so you're dealing with high blood pressure, maybe even diabetes. Eventually something will have to give.

So, I view that extra 5 hours per week as the only realistic way to devote adequate time toward profitable side hustles. If you're an enterprising person who believes in yourself, you should take the WFH and wisely invest the free time in your own capabilities.

to me, the idea that I'm "discover 5 more weekly hours" away from moving the needle meaningfully on some smart investment moves is bananas, at least on that salary and in comparison to what I could do with twice as big of a shovel. Similarly, if you can make it on 120k (which, if you're willing to take 120 that's assumed) then surely 240 means your wife could stay home and cook or you can hire a chef/meal service, you can solve any number of time problems with the money. Even the commute, although I think that's realistically the thing that is the big sacrifice in time and soul sucking if you're not just extremely introverted.

i think you might be able to start to bring me around if you adjusted the numbers a bit and added some sort of draconian stuff to the office part. Generally if you're a white collar worker making $240k in an office you can duck out for therapy. I'm also assuming it's not a bullshit job that you do in 2 hours at home but 8 hours in the office, or there's not some other catch like you have to work 80 hours a week or whatever. Drive in, drive out, you're at work all day. I say this as someone with a 2 year old and a 4 year old who wakes up every day at 5 and eats well and exercises and keeps a clean house and is an engaged dad and all that kind of stuff - the commute time seems easily worth it in exchange for bigger vacations and better college funds and less groceries and bill stress and more flexibility for the family and activities and etc etc etc. I am surprised that there's this much of a debate for 2x income.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Redneck Mutha said:

Now if the commute was 10 min from home? Yeah, I'd take the money.

Yeah, if it's like "work is 10 min away and I don't have to be there for 8 hours/day," I'd take $240k

Run home at lunch, eat my food, walk the dog, go back to work

Maybe only in the office like 9am - 3pm or something.  With the rest being done at home.  (Kind of what I do now)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

to me, the idea that I'm "discover 5 more weekly hours" away from moving the needle meaningfully on some smart investment moves is bananas, at least on that salary and in comparison to what I could do with twice as big of a shovel. Similarly, if you can make it on 120k (which, if you're willing to take 120 that's assumed) then surely 240 means your wife could stay home and cook or you can hire a chef/meal service, you can solve any number of time problems with the money. Even the commute, although I think that's realistically the thing that is the big sacrifice in time and soul sucking if you're not just extremely introverted.

i think you might be able to start to bring me around if you adjusted the numbers a bit and added some sort of draconian stuff to the office part. Generally if you're a white collar worker making $240k in an office you can duck out for therapy. I'm also assuming it's not a bullshit job that you do in 2 hours at home but 8 hours in the office, or there's not some other catch like you have to work 80 hours a week or whatever. Drive in, drive out, you're at work all day. I say this as someone with a 2 year old and a 4 year old who wakes up every day at 5 and eats well and exercises and keeps a clean house and is an engaged dad and all that kind of stuff - the commute time seems easily worth it in exchange for bigger vacations and better college funds and less groceries and bill stress and more flexibility for the family and activities and etc etc etc. I am surprised that there's this much of a debate for 2x income.

It all really depends which five hours it is (and again that was a conservative estimate, because many people have easily 1+ hour commutes each way in places in LA, SF, and NY). If these hours are during normal business hours, that really changes what you can accomplish if you're looking to make your money with commercial and residential real estate.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I can also take a giant shit in my bathroom and use my bidet to clean my ass and then hop in the shower.  For free. 

Are you getting an extra $120K for your shit?

Posted
31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't view it as "commitment" or "ambition."  I think it is more an an experience thing.

In my line of work--which is the line of work of seemingly 95% of the posters on this board--much of the mentoring that young people get is just absorbed as a consequnece of being in close proximity.  Listening in on a phone call, hearing people talk in the halls or in the next office over, running into a colleague in the breakroom and asking what they're up to, walking into a supervisor's office and asking if there's something you can do on this case--that's how much of the most valuable mentoring gets done.

I'm not saying that mentorship can't be done in a WFH environment.  I am saying that it's really hard.  And if both the mentor and the mentoree are not real conscientious about it, it's not happening.

If I need to hire a third-year associate--adn I really need to hire a third-year associate, BTW--I'm 100% going to take an assciate who has been in the office over one who has been exclusively WFH over his/her career, all other things being equal.  It's not because of what I percevie as commitment or work ethic; it's all about the mentorship and training that I think that lawyer has gotten at his/her previous job.

You can also learn bad things through mentorship that are harder to unlearn than it is to teach someone for the first time. Your are correct in that, if we're focused on what's in the best interests of the guy writing the paychecks, it's almost always better for the payee to be in the office.

Posted
1 hour ago, Skipper said:

Maybe I'm now just an old but anyone that chooses WFH in this scenario isn't going to ever get promoted beyond that 120K.   Which I'm sure is fine for those that would make the choice.  Fair or not, I absolutely think electing to work from home is seen by senior mgmt as lack of commitment and/or ambition.  If you combine that with someone turning down a raise, then yeah, that person isn't moving up in their role.

I think this is an old model and outdated way of thinking...

As previously mentioned, I trekked into the office this week because I had a holiday party at a local place nearby, and it's kinda dead. A bunch of low-end employees are there and a bunch of the sales people. It's a younger crowd who comes in office. There is 100% not a President or EVP or SVP in the group. It feels like the only people going into the offices these days are people that are mandated.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

You can also learn bad things through mentorship that are harder to unlearn than it is to teach someone for the first time. Your are correct in that, if we're focused on what's in the best interests of the guy writing the paychecks, it's almost always better for the payee to be in the office.

I don't agree with that at all.  There are plenty of employers that are wildly successful with a WFH model.  They have lower overhead as a result of paying less in rent and they can often pay lower wages.  At the same time, they may not have any drop-off in productivity.  That's particularly the case when the employees are doing piecework or when they're doing a job that has high levels of employer monitoring (e.g., call-center work).

Once upon a time, airlines had reservations centers.  They were large buildings across that country that housed hundreds of agents physically on the phones.  I don't think any airline in America today has one; they're all WFH.  And for that kind of thing, that makes a lot of sense for the airline.  It doesn't have the expense of operating a reservation center (or a dozen reservations centers around the country).  And pay for res agents hasn't increased nearly as much as it has for in-airport employees, owing to the supposed "benefit" of getting to WFH. 

But at the same time, a supervisor can listen in on the call just the same as they did when they were all in the same building.  The number of calls an agent takes is logged.  And all of the calls are recorded.  So the employer gets the same productivity for less cost.

And that's not unusual.  I'd say that is the case for most white-collar jobs.  It's just not the case for most professional jobs.

Posted

Why not get a 240k WFH job? The difference between in office and out of office is worth at most 20% for the same kind of job/skillset.

120k vs 240k are two completely different jobs/stages of career etc. 

If you wanna fuck off and do half the brain work and take half the pay and fuck off half the time, take the 120k job. If you want to WFH and use your full brain find a 200k job that is the same job as the 240k one but with WFH.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...