Which job offer is better?

[ActIihome]

OPTION A). $50 an hour is $104,000 but there are no paid vacations or any paid time off. There are no benefits. Also it’s contract to hire. You start as a full time contractor and there is a very good chance they bring you on as a direct permanent hire in the near future. In this position I would be working with the people that I’ve been working with for the last 6 years and I’m very comfortable with these people and with the management. 50 minute commute

OPTION B). $85,000 is a permanent/direct hire position. There are benefits, and 3 weeks or paid vacation. This would be at a company where I don’t know anyone yet, and I’ll be doing new kind of work in addition to what I’ve already been doing. So new experience but a bit more challenging because it’s going to be new. 20 minute commute

Option A

Option B

[Anonymous]

So I currently do almost exactly what you described in Option A, except that I work remotely. Factoring in the difference in the commute, I voted Option B.

The main reason I became a remote freelancer was because I got burned out on commuting. My previous job was only about 35 miles from my house, but with traffic, I would spend 1 hr. 15 min. commuting each way, so 2.5 hours per day! That time was worth something to me.

In your situation, my logic is this... $85,000/year works out to $40.86 per hour (assuming you work 2,080 hours per year = 40 hours/week for 52 weeks). You get 3 weeks paid vacation, so $40.86 x 120 hours (3 weeks) = $4,903. Benefits are easily worth $15,000/year, if not more. Add an extra hour per day of your life back because of the shorter commute? I think this makes Option B pretty close to Option A, financially speaking. I would still try to negotiate the offer on Option B up a little (counter at $95,000, settle for $90,000), but even if they're firm at the $85K offer, I'd probably still take it.

[ImSparkly]

Your time is worth something too, so that extra hour of commuting time each day will be worth 10k a year by itself plus the grief and wear. Add benefits and your over option A, plus the novelty of learning something new.

[slatyb]

A $50/hour no benefits contract to hire is not comparable to a $104,000 salaried position. It’s comparable to about a $50,000 salaried position. No one on salary works 2080 hours per year. That’s 52 weeks with no holidays or paid vacation or sick days. Suppose you work a more reasonable 1900 hours. $59x1900=$95000. The benefits of the salaried position plus the lessened risk of unemployment is worth much more than $10,000. The next time that recruiter contacts you, ignore them. It’s highly deceptive to suggest that someone on contract can work that many hours.

[Effably]

Probably roll with B. But eh, why not see if you can't make them sweeten the deal first? Best case it gets.. better. Realistically even if denied that type of initiative is something any company want their employees to have. I'd probably be willing to offer higher salary for the sole reason someone has the drive to ask for it, with the stated expectation I want the same go-getter in the workplace after the raise.

[Redstang88]

B is probably a better deal overall, which has better opportunities for future development?

[Avicenna]

B is definitely better

[4dmins-4-13itches]

Didn't yo uask this before? I chose A last time