Bah, humbug.

[unixronin]

I got pinged about a Solaris x86/Linux support contract with Sun in Burlington, MA.  I've never actually worked with Solaris x86; I know it's different, but not how much.  The Linux experience they want is RHEL4 and SuSE.

Problem:  This is not a job that pays well.  It's a fairly low-level support job.  The recruiter fed me some actual numbers, pre- and post-tax, W2; post-tax, I'd bring home about $737 per week.

With both of us working away from the house during the day, we'd need child care ten hours a day, five days a week.  We've been given to understand that for 2 to 3 kids, it's actually cheaper to have a nanny come into the home, and that's going to cost around $20 per hour.

Do the math... taking the job would put us about $260/week into the hole.  That is, of course, before deducting childcare expenses from taxable income; but even taking that childcare cost from pre-tax income and assuming it wipes out the taxable income from the job, I'd net $100 per week ... before commuting expenses.

 

Math is hard, so it's said, but not doing it can be harder.

Comments

[bfudlmint.livejournal.com]

Would it put you in line for a better job?

I have no idea what sort of commute Burlington would be for you.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's not a huge commute. The problem is that it's a short-term contract with no prospect for advancement, do we'd be losing money on it without even the possibility of making it up later.

low-level?

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

$737/week take-home is not what I could call a low-paying job. That's just under $40k annual net, which is, what, $60k paper gross? I mean, it's not high-paying, and it may not be enough for you to afford full-time day care - but it's not exactly flipping burgers, either. If there's room for rapid advancement, it might still be worth taking.

Re: low-level?

[bratling.livejournal.com]

well, sure. if they can afford to lose $260 per week until he finds the next job -- call it $13,000 per year assuming two weeks' vacation when they don't need to pay for child care. there are dodges to make this expense a pre-tax one, and that's useful, but ... Ronin is not the first person i know to discover that the cost of childcare equals or exceeds what one parent can make working. i've known several women who continued working not because it brought their houshold any more money, but because if they took a couple years off work, their career would cease to exist. their putting their young children in childcare was a way of ensuring they would still have a job when their kids were older and required less minute-to-minute care. (my words, not theirs.)

$60,000/year is not a low paying job if you're single. it's okay if you live someplace where the cost of living (housing, mostly) is cheap. it *is* a low paying job if you're trying to support a family in a part of the country that's fairly expensive to live in.

Re: low-level?

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

$60,000/year is not a low paying job if you're single. it's okay if you live someplace where the cost of living (housing, mostly) is cheap. it *is* a low paying job if you're trying to support a family in a part of the country that's fairly expensive to live in.

Well, my idea of $60k salary is based on where I live, obviously. Apparently a $60k salary in Burlington is only equivalent to about a $55k salary here in Atlanta based on CoL adjustments. But that's also not total household income; cymrullewes is also working, or else the day care wouldn't be necessary full-time.

I'm not disputing that taking the job might be a net loss and therefore not worthwhile; I was only wondering aloud if it might lead to something better in a reasonably short term. In that case it might still be better than nothing despite the immediate negative financial impact.

Re: low-level?

[bratling.livejournal.com]

that certainly seems fair, and i'll concede your point!

Re: low-level?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I wasn't saying it was necessarily that low-paying, just that it's a low-level position, and it's a short-term contract. Zero potential for advancement, basically.

Re: low-level?

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

Zero potential for advancement, basically.

Oh. Bummer. Screw 'em, then. :)