My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 3 seconds. If not, visit
http://stackingpennies.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Evaluating job offers

I'm relocating from an inexpensive Midwestern city to Los Angeles. I have received two very similar job offers.

The first offer came in at $65k with a relocation package that included a $2000 tax assisted lump sum. I thought the offer was a little low, so I negotiated $67k and a $3k signing bonus. The pay includes up to 7% in 40k matching/contributions by the company and 12.5 days of vacation the first year. Bonuses were not explicitly mentioned, but I would imagine they do some kind of incentive bonus.

The second offer came in at $69k with a very similar relocation package (except $1000 non tax assisted lump sum rather than the $2000), a $3k signing bonus, and 10 days of vacation the first year. They also explicitly mentioned sick leave, at 8/hrs a month. They match up to 6% of 401k contributions, and have some sort of pension plan. I assume you have to work there some minimum amount of years to be vested in the pension. They mentioned bonuses when i was on-site, which this year was "ten days of pay."

My current job will be paying about $58k as of next year. I get 15 days of vacation per a year, and sick leave is not really an issues. You are encouraged to make up any hours that you are sick, but it is not an absolute requirement. I get 6% in a 401k match. I also got a 9% bonus this year.

All things considered, my current job is really the best financial deal, taking the cost of living into consideration. The pay increase is nearly a 20% raise. However, my rent is going to MORE than double, and I will be paying an extra $9,600 a year in rent. That practically wipes out the entire raise! The vacation is better, the bonus is better, and I would most certainly get promoted to "Grade 2" next year. I'm not sure how long it will take me at my next company.

However, the whole point of the job search is to relocate. So, which of the other two is the better offer?

Despite the extra relocation money from the first company (and the extra 2.5 days of vacation) the hard salary numbers will be what my future salary will be based off of. I think the second offer is better, though I'm going to miss that extra week of vacation. Is vacation negotiable? The second offer is only slightly better, but the job itself is more appealing, which really seals the deal.

My next thought is, should I negotiate the second offer? Am I worth more? I don't want to come across as arrogant to the company--I'm not even two years out of school, and I didn't go to a fancy big name engineering school. But if I am worth more than what they offered, I don't want to sell myself short. I don't know. I think it is a fair offer. I liked the company a lot. But the boyfriend insists it doesn't hurt to ask. Thoughts?

No comments:

Monday, December 17, 2007

Evaluating job offers

I'm relocating from an inexpensive Midwestern city to Los Angeles. I have received two very similar job offers.

The first offer came in at $65k with a relocation package that included a $2000 tax assisted lump sum. I thought the offer was a little low, so I negotiated $67k and a $3k signing bonus. The pay includes up to 7% in 40k matching/contributions by the company and 12.5 days of vacation the first year. Bonuses were not explicitly mentioned, but I would imagine they do some kind of incentive bonus.

The second offer came in at $69k with a very similar relocation package (except $1000 non tax assisted lump sum rather than the $2000), a $3k signing bonus, and 10 days of vacation the first year. They also explicitly mentioned sick leave, at 8/hrs a month. They match up to 6% of 401k contributions, and have some sort of pension plan. I assume you have to work there some minimum amount of years to be vested in the pension. They mentioned bonuses when i was on-site, which this year was "ten days of pay."

My current job will be paying about $58k as of next year. I get 15 days of vacation per a year, and sick leave is not really an issues. You are encouraged to make up any hours that you are sick, but it is not an absolute requirement. I get 6% in a 401k match. I also got a 9% bonus this year.

All things considered, my current job is really the best financial deal, taking the cost of living into consideration. The pay increase is nearly a 20% raise. However, my rent is going to MORE than double, and I will be paying an extra $9,600 a year in rent. That practically wipes out the entire raise! The vacation is better, the bonus is better, and I would most certainly get promoted to "Grade 2" next year. I'm not sure how long it will take me at my next company.

However, the whole point of the job search is to relocate. So, which of the other two is the better offer?

Despite the extra relocation money from the first company (and the extra 2.5 days of vacation) the hard salary numbers will be what my future salary will be based off of. I think the second offer is better, though I'm going to miss that extra week of vacation. Is vacation negotiable? The second offer is only slightly better, but the job itself is more appealing, which really seals the deal.

My next thought is, should I negotiate the second offer? Am I worth more? I don't want to come across as arrogant to the company--I'm not even two years out of school, and I didn't go to a fancy big name engineering school. But if I am worth more than what they offered, I don't want to sell myself short. I don't know. I think it is a fair offer. I liked the company a lot. But the boyfriend insists it doesn't hurt to ask. Thoughts?

No comments:

Monday, December 17, 2007

Evaluating job offers

I'm relocating from an inexpensive Midwestern city to Los Angeles. I have received two very similar job offers.

The first offer came in at $65k with a relocation package that included a $2000 tax assisted lump sum. I thought the offer was a little low, so I negotiated $67k and a $3k signing bonus. The pay includes up to 7% in 40k matching/contributions by the company and 12.5 days of vacation the first year. Bonuses were not explicitly mentioned, but I would imagine they do some kind of incentive bonus.

The second offer came in at $69k with a very similar relocation package (except $1000 non tax assisted lump sum rather than the $2000), a $3k signing bonus, and 10 days of vacation the first year. They also explicitly mentioned sick leave, at 8/hrs a month. They match up to 6% of 401k contributions, and have some sort of pension plan. I assume you have to work there some minimum amount of years to be vested in the pension. They mentioned bonuses when i was on-site, which this year was "ten days of pay."

My current job will be paying about $58k as of next year. I get 15 days of vacation per a year, and sick leave is not really an issues. You are encouraged to make up any hours that you are sick, but it is not an absolute requirement. I get 6% in a 401k match. I also got a 9% bonus this year.

All things considered, my current job is really the best financial deal, taking the cost of living into consideration. The pay increase is nearly a 20% raise. However, my rent is going to MORE than double, and I will be paying an extra $9,600 a year in rent. That practically wipes out the entire raise! The vacation is better, the bonus is better, and I would most certainly get promoted to "Grade 2" next year. I'm not sure how long it will take me at my next company.

However, the whole point of the job search is to relocate. So, which of the other two is the better offer?

Despite the extra relocation money from the first company (and the extra 2.5 days of vacation) the hard salary numbers will be what my future salary will be based off of. I think the second offer is better, though I'm going to miss that extra week of vacation. Is vacation negotiable? The second offer is only slightly better, but the job itself is more appealing, which really seals the deal.

My next thought is, should I negotiate the second offer? Am I worth more? I don't want to come across as arrogant to the company--I'm not even two years out of school, and I didn't go to a fancy big name engineering school. But if I am worth more than what they offered, I don't want to sell myself short. I don't know. I think it is a fair offer. I liked the company a lot. But the boyfriend insists it doesn't hurt to ask. Thoughts?

No comments:

Monday, December 17, 2007

Evaluating job offers

I'm relocating from an inexpensive Midwestern city to Los Angeles. I have received two very similar job offers.

The first offer came in at $65k with a relocation package that included a $2000 tax assisted lump sum. I thought the offer was a little low, so I negotiated $67k and a $3k signing bonus. The pay includes up to 7% in 40k matching/contributions by the company and 12.5 days of vacation the first year. Bonuses were not explicitly mentioned, but I would imagine they do some kind of incentive bonus.

The second offer came in at $69k with a very similar relocation package (except $1000 non tax assisted lump sum rather than the $2000), a $3k signing bonus, and 10 days of vacation the first year. They also explicitly mentioned sick leave, at 8/hrs a month. They match up to 6% of 401k contributions, and have some sort of pension plan. I assume you have to work there some minimum amount of years to be vested in the pension. They mentioned bonuses when i was on-site, which this year was "ten days of pay."

My current job will be paying about $58k as of next year. I get 15 days of vacation per a year, and sick leave is not really an issues. You are encouraged to make up any hours that you are sick, but it is not an absolute requirement. I get 6% in a 401k match. I also got a 9% bonus this year.

All things considered, my current job is really the best financial deal, taking the cost of living into consideration. The pay increase is nearly a 20% raise. However, my rent is going to MORE than double, and I will be paying an extra $9,600 a year in rent. That practically wipes out the entire raise! The vacation is better, the bonus is better, and I would most certainly get promoted to "Grade 2" next year. I'm not sure how long it will take me at my next company.

However, the whole point of the job search is to relocate. So, which of the other two is the better offer?

Despite the extra relocation money from the first company (and the extra 2.5 days of vacation) the hard salary numbers will be what my future salary will be based off of. I think the second offer is better, though I'm going to miss that extra week of vacation. Is vacation negotiable? The second offer is only slightly better, but the job itself is more appealing, which really seals the deal.

My next thought is, should I negotiate the second offer? Am I worth more? I don't want to come across as arrogant to the company--I'm not even two years out of school, and I didn't go to a fancy big name engineering school. But if I am worth more than what they offered, I don't want to sell myself short. I don't know. I think it is a fair offer. I liked the company a lot. But the boyfriend insists it doesn't hurt to ask. Thoughts?

0 comments: