Let’s say hypothetically you were offered a job with less responsibility and a lower title than your current position, but you would be making more money with the potential to make a lot more money if the firm is successful. The downside is that if the firm isn’t successful you’re basically stuck with a lesser job title on your resume. Take the job or wait for something better to come along?
If I’ll enjoy the job with less responsibility and lower title, but making more money…, then I’ll take that one. There’s a downside with everything in life…, you might get laid-off at the current job. Just live life and enjoy. And if the firm isn’t successful, you’ll basically be stuck with a lesser job title BUT lots of money in the bank.
does less responsibility imply more posting on AF? framed in this way, i think you know where some AF-ers stand, lol (numi, MattLikesHitler, KarenC, mo34, and so on)
soppisoppi
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > does less responsibility imply more posting on > AF? > > framed in this way, i think you know where some > AF-ers stand, lol > > (numi, MattLikesHitler, KarenC, mo34, and so on) You are assuming that this guy has a real job in the first place, which I doubt, and if it exists he sits next to the photocopier.
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > does less responsibility imply more posting on > AF? > > framed in this way, i think you know where some > AF-ers stand, lol > > (numi, MattLikesHitler, KarenC, mo34, and so on) haha you think i post a lot - yeah right!!
negotiate the job title, make it sound more senior
kblade Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > negotiate the job title, make it sound more senior …or renegotiate your current salary. This might be difficult to impossible in the current job market, though.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let’s say hypothetically you were offered a job > with less responsibility and a lower title than > your current position, but you would be making > more money with the potential to make a lot more > money if the firm is successful. The downside is > that if the firm isn’t successful you’re basically > stuck with a lesser job title on your resume. Take > the job or wait for something better to come > along? So less responsibility and seniority but more current and potential pay? Why is this? Is the new firm bigger or more well-known than your current firm? If so, that itself might be valuable.
Let’s say for argument’s sake the new firm would be quickly growing in assets and the partners have a reputation for being more generous with compensation.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let’s say for argument’s sake the new firm would > be quickly growing in assets and the partners have > a reputation for being more generous with >sexual compensation. Sexual compensation?
For me, it would depend on the long-term prospects. In 10 years, which will leave you better off?
Hypothetically the second firm if you assume that hypothetically the first firm has less than a 50% chance of surviving for another 2-3 years. But this hypothetical person would also run the risk of working for two consecutive firms that went out of business if the second firm failed as well, and that might not look good on the resume.
So, both firms might fail in the next 2-3 years? If it was me in this hypothetical situation, I would pick the one that pays more, assuming that it was by some non-trivial amount. Before leaving the first hypothetical firm, I would ask to see if they will match the pay from the second hypothetical firm. I don’t think it matters if hypothetical person became associated with two failed firms, unless he or she is the CEO or some other person who directly affects the firm’s performance. For instance, I don’t think ex-Lehman or Bear Stearns employees are looked down upon today. More often, I have seen the people who quit before the busts praised for “good-timing”.
The first firm is in no position to hypothetically match the pay from the second firm. The second firm will definitely hypothetically survive longer than the first firm, it’s just a matter of whether it will ever be successful to the point that theoretically you will never have to work anywhere else after about 10 years.
Hypothetically speaking…, this hypothetical conversation is jacked up! But don’t be stressed, these hypothetical scenarios often help hypothetical folks find hypothetical jobs with hypothetical firms that might hypothetically not survive 2-3 years. We should all speak in hypothethical terms now. Hypothetically lol!
^ lol
JOE2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You are assuming that this guy has a real job in > the first place, which I doubt, and if it exists > he sits next to the photocopier. +1 haha … Donkey, honestly, if I were you I’d be happy that I have ANY job in the first place. Your stupidity and immaturity are unique. My advice to you is to just lay low, collect your paycheck and pray that they don’t realize how useless you are until you hit 40.
Yeah, F America, right mo34?
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, F America, right mo34? What does that have to do with anything ? 