Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jollymoose1 t1_iyccpm4 wrote

Personally I would go for job #2 because of the retirement fund and the WFH option since I hate going into the office 5 days/week. I’m dreading going in even once a week right now with my current job.

24

PopeWallace OP t1_iycdboy wrote

I'm only 21 years old so the retirement fund doesn't appeal as much as it actually should...

−121

Aaeolien t1_iyce17s wrote

That's the best time for it to appeal. Invest as much as you can in retirement early and it'll pay off later. I made that mistake.

31

Electronic-Tonight16 t1_iycr5wa wrote

It should be the most appealing thing. Not caring about retirement funds at your age is going to ne your biggest regret in life.

13

vt1032 t1_iycy61i wrote

The more you dump in early, the more it will snowball later. Now is the time to care.

8

strudledudle t1_iycp126 wrote

I got a job with a pension at 19. It's huge. I'm only 22 now. I can't even understand that you would think this way

6

mrbrsman t1_iyczvr5 wrote

At 21, you should be thinking more about career potential and not what the hourly rate works out to be. Which job is best for the 40yo you?

5

ivanthekur t1_iyd72tx wrote

yeah on paper job #2 looks better but which job will you enjoy doing and which one has the most potential for your personal growth 5 or 10 years from now.

3

BluntDisregard69 t1_iye0ji7 wrote

Yea there's other factors that could be big decision makers here

But I will say at 21 typically work / life balance isn't as big of a deal as when you're older and have more responsibilities

Being 21 you really should "go for the money" and start your retirement investments

When you're 21 you can find time to have your fun at all odd hours and recover from it so working some OT on the odd weekend shouldn't be a deal breaker but to each their own!

3

ivanthekur t1_iyeajpy wrote

That's fair, having a good wage and retirement savings is definitely important. What I meant was that OP should consider which job has better opportunities for learning and growth, if one job pays a little more but isn't something they're interested in long term, it would be worth taking a tiny paycut to do the more interesting work or the one that gives them better marketable skills for the future. It seems like both jobs are about equal benefit-ways with #2 being slightly more lucrative which in my mind, means they should choose based on which job will give them a better career path for 5/10 years in the future.

1

Tefkat89 t1_iych51h wrote

Youre clearly australian and 10.5% super is stardard minium and against the law to to be paid. However you want to look at roles with a salary that is "exclusive" of super so 75k + 10.5%. INclusive of salaries are ass

4

PopeWallace OP t1_iychjp1 wrote

I am moving to Australia, Job 1 never mentioned super. I wasn't aware it was legal requirement, are jobs usually advertised exlusive of super?

1

drschwen t1_iycixth wrote

As long as you are an employee your employer will by law pay superannuation. Hence, jobs are not usually listed with a legal requirement.

6

GirlsLikeStatus t1_iycza1u wrote

As even one else said, it should. Save like crazy in your 20s and you’ll have a lot more freedom as you get older.

1

BluntDisregard69 t1_iye05ez wrote

The earlier you start the better, seriously google retirement investment age charts and see the power of compounding interest, it's INSANE.

This was one of my no.1 reasons I would go with Job no.2 , they're giving you free money for something that when you're young you (like you indicated) are typically not very interested in but NEED to be, so they do it for you which is the best way to do it, out of sight out of mind and doing work passively for you.

1

PurpleVermont t1_iyf9vh4 wrote

All the more reason to take job 2 and be forced into responsible retirement saving.

1

PopeWallace OP t1_iydvo6k wrote

102 downvotes.. I think people are missing my point, I know that I should be worrying about my retirement fund. But because I am young and dumb (and self-aware of it), a savings account with money I can't possibly touch for 45 years isn't as appealing as an extra $10k base now that I have freedom to invest in savings myself now.

−2