Submitted by PopeWallace t3_z8neb0 in personalfinance
I am currently in the final stages of two different jobs,
Job 1:
Salary: $75,000
Hours: 40 PW, Most Weekends.
Super (retirement fund): Not Included
Weekend Penalty: Nothing Extra
Job 2:
Hourly: $34.33
Hours: 37.5 PW, Rotating roster includes weekends.
Super (retirement fund): 10.5%
Weekend penalty: 200% Hourly wage.
Extra: 2 days WFH (no $ on mileage)
Job #1 Is a 25-minute drive not in the CBD so no public transport is available.
Job #2 is a 20-minute drive into the CBD with public transport available (38 Minutes)
Thank You!
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.
I'm only 21 years old so the retirement fund doesn't appeal as much as it actually should...
Well it should. It’s best to start early. I wish I had done that.
The first job pays 10K per year more even when the weekend penalty in the second job is factored in (assuming you'd be working half of weekends). The retirement fund contribution in the second job is nice but doesn't beat it as it is only about 6K per year. While you might have a better WLB in the second job, the first one is definitely better financially.
Job 2 pays $1.80 more per hour and has better conditions with weekend penalty and WFH... is this not a no brainer?
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.
Correct me if I am wrong but Job 1 would be $36.05 ph ($75,000 / 2080)
Job 2 is $37.94 including super
As a guy who's done strict salary, no OT, I'd highly recommend job 2. Hourly implies 1.5x over 40 and the double on weekends is hard to beat. The only thing that would put #1 on top in my view is if there's opportunity for relatively quick upward movement.
I think you are right, 1.5x over 40 and also to note, 2.5x on Public Holidays.
I'd go with number 2. When you include the overtime pay they pay almost the same despite #2 being less hours. Not to mention work from home 2 days a week will make your life significantly better and save you gas money throughout the year. Plus the retirement is obviously much better. Having to work weekends sucks, being paid basically holiday pay every time you have to do it would make it feel much better while you're doing it.
If job 1 includes super in the 75k you make 1-2k (67.5k) more a year on job 1 bvut work 2.5 more hours a week. so i think your hourly might be lower.
Job 2 you make 66k plus 10.5% to your retirmeent which would make your package 72k, less hours, not including weekened rates and wfh options.
​
Job 2 is streets ahead
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
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?
I am moving to Australia, so I am just learning now that it is legaly required. Job 1 never mentioned anything about super, I will clarify with them the next time we talk.
I’d say job 2 the base salaries are close but the 10% retirement is nice. Also wfh days, and double pay on weekends.
But I guess one thing to consider is how much do you value weekends off. I’ve been fortunate to never work weekends and I’d not want a job that had it unless came with massive pay boost.
What’s the pto like at both?
I believe pto is 4 weeks at both.
The retirement fund and seemingly better conditions for job #2 does it for me. The hours and overtime pay tells me that they, as an employer, care about your work-life balance. And, again, I can't stress the retirement. Is that a 10-5 match? Like if you put in $50 they put in $100?
A '40 hour week' for a salaried job includes lunch breaks, it's actually typically 37.5. They are the same.
A 75k package that includes regular weekend work is rubbish.
Ok of it had no mention it's most likley excludes super. But always ask. If it excludes your take home package is~ 82k
I would also look at where you will be living and cosy out living. Rent is very expensive and things cost alot more.
If you're in a major city like Sydney or melb, the higher salary might be better option
For jobs in this range, Aussie legal minimum of 4 weeks leave, 2 weeks personal. Not sure if you'd be required to work public holidays given there seems to be an on call roster.
Lunch is not paid in Australia and doesn't make up your hours of work.
As long as you are an employee your employer will by law pay superannuation. Hence, jobs are not usually listed with a legal requirement.
Mate I live in Australia, I know this.
What I mean is, to get to 37.5 hours a week you will probably be rostered 9-5 with a half an hour lunch break.
If you're a salaried employee you'll probably be expected to keep those same or similar hours.
No, it means they pay 10.5 percent of your salary into a protected retirement account.
Thank you for the clarification - that's freaking solid at least by American standards. Some of our best retirements are with the government and higher education and they do the 10/5 match (its up to 10 percent assuming you put in 5).
Job 2.
One 8 hour shift a weekend can bring an additional $15K.
[removed]
Wow that’s nice.
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
If you work 1 day (or more) in the weekend per 2 weeks at job 2, everything will be in favor of job 2.
It should be the most appealing thing. Not caring about retirement funds at your age is going to ne your biggest regret in life.
Is this in the US? Does job 1 offer health insurance or PTO or other benefits as it is full time and job 2 isn't?
Job 2 sounds like the hours may not be guaranteed of they can't put you at 40 a week.
The more you dump in early, the more it will snowball later. Now is the time to care.
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.
It's Australia. Super is their version of 401k kind of.
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?
Well, which job is better or more inline with your career aspirations? I am not as concerned about immediate financials. I like to think more long term. The opportunity that gives you better work experience for your future is the one I would pick.
Job 2 is a no brainer all other things being equal. WFH, slightly better pay, better retirement, some weekend work, but a rotating schedule typically also means you get more days off in a row. (And non-weekend days off are great - nothing is as crowded, it's easier to get appointments for doctors, haircuts, etc., and travel can be cheaper!)
I once had a "40 hour a week" salaried job (managed car rental locations) the 40 hours only applied to my staff and I was expected to work 60+ to "minimize employee expenses" I got paid a cut of the profit which is how they made it seem beneficial (as lower employee cost = bigger profit) but was 100% predatorial in regards to having most managers be young and not know any better.
Oh jeez. I though they were using the word super as slang. As in good...
We don't have good things here...
Very typical in retail work when you become a 'management trainee'...... Your hourly rate becomes terrible.
Funnily enough, my former employer had everyone start as a management trainee. Even the CEO and VPs we're all management trainees at one point. That's how they sold the dream (every major city had at least one guy making over 1mil/year and district managers making 150+)
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.
Looks like the price is $68.66.
Agree with other commenters, Job 2 is objectively better today.
What's your 5/10/20-year plan look like with these two options though?
#2. I would be worried that Job #1 have me working a lot of OT. I hate hourly pay jobs (I'm in a different field), but this job seems like there is going to be OT involved and the hourly pay provides incentive for them to not do it. The only thing I'd be concerned about Job #2 is the WFH. I've had friends that did hourly pay WFH and their employers had screwy systems to make sure you were working that were invading their personal space and privacy, IMO.
Money aside, which is the better long term career move.
it would vary on the position iv been both salaried and hourly, personally i find hourly tedious you always clock in and out at certain time and OT is expected, salaried worked really well for me i work in office position meaning you can come in whenever (almost) no penalty for being late or early and same with lunch no penalty, but again thats just the places i worked at, and we generally never had OT for salaried and those that did had OT paid,
[removed]
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.
but you have to work weekends...
I would tell them to fuck off if they wanted me to work OT or weekends. My free time is way more valuable than that
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.
even without the super, i consider it a no brainer. I value my weekends
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!
What kind of industry is it? Are you going to be held tight to that 37.5/under 40 for their costs? Or are you likely to average ot?
[removed]
But you wouldn't even go out for either of these jobs because they both have weekend requirements. OT and weekend/holiday pay shows that THEY also value your free time - they're offering to pay a premium for you.
[removed]
Eh I wouldn't consider $51.50 an hour valuing my free time. Mental, physical, and emotional health is worth way more than tha.
I think the better thing to do is to ask if they give you a comp day when you do weekends. tuesday-saturday isnt a bad thing for some people. Working m-sat plus tons of overtime would probably lead to burnout. Job 2 seems to be doing more for burnout like offering wfh, so theres probably better work life balance there.
Then these jobs wouldn't interest you. I have the option to do weekend work for additional pay. My job doesn't affect my mental, physical, and emotional health significantly. Sometimes I have better things to do and nothing will make me come work on a nice weekend. Sometimes it is the decision between making extra money and playing video games for half the day, or playing video games all day in which case I'd rather work. Tho my weekend hours are usually 6am-noon. I still have half the day to do things and lunch is provided.
yeah but job 1 also work most weekends with no double pay
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.
Job 1 is most weekends. Job 2 "includes weekends" - not sure how relative they are, but OP would find himself working some weekends regardless of which job they took.
$68.66 actually. OP gets double time on weekends according to the post.
Not sure if it implies that you’d get 1.5x, definitely would check with the company. I’m hourly but don’t get 1.5x.
But #2 is the better option for sure.
Job 2 sounds much better, everything considered in this thread.
What about Paid Time Off?
Assuming the same, I'd say job 2 has a slight edge. Assuming 1950 paid hours per year with no weekends, the hourly rate comes to $66,943.50. 10.5% into a retirement fund adds another $7029.06 for a total of $73.972.56. That's $1027 less than job 1, but no commute 2 days per week probably more than makes that up financially, not to mention quality of life (time you don't have to spend commuting) though the full analysis of that depends on how bad the commute is. And job 2 has the potential for bonus weekend pay, assuming that's not a quality of life negative for you.
The real question is where do you have the better potential for advancement and raises. What are each of these going to be paying you next year, and 5 years down the line?
All the more reason to take job 2 and be forced into responsible retirement saving.
ze11ez t1_iycbxu8 wrote
I have no answer for you but I’m curious how long your drive to work is for job #1, and for job #2.
Either way, congrats on at least having job offers. I hope things work out