Profile

unixronin: Galen the technomage, from Babylon 5: Crusade (Default)
Unixronin

December 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Friday, November 4th, 2005 03:03 pm

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.

Tags:
Friday, November 4th, 2005 06:29 pm (UTC)
$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; [livejournal.com profile] 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.
Saturday, November 5th, 2005 05:48 pm (UTC)
that certainly seems fair, and i'll concede your point!