When would you take a large pay cut?

[dales]

WTF?

[rubato]

And back to the present reality ... I had an interview last week. Parts went well, parts I wish I had done better with. I would really like to get the job. No patent bonuses, no 401k match, and a very large cut in base pay.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

And back to the present reality ... I had an interview last week. Parts went well, parts I wish I had done better with. I would really like to get the job. No patent bonuses, no 401k match, and a very large cut in base pay.

yrs,
rubato

Well - at least you get to wear a shirt with your name on it and cool-looking little hat. Always look on the bright side of life!

[oldr_n_wsr]

As long as you are happy in your work.

[rubato]

I wouldn't have to commute so 10 hours a week could be better spent.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

That's a bonus.

[rubato]

"...

Well - at least you get to wear a shirt with your name on it and cool-looking little hat. Always look on the bright side of life!

I already have a lab coat with my name on it. (several)

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Reducing the commute is a big bonus and, IMHO, worth quite a bit. Good luck.

[dgs49]

Pardon my opacity, but I don't understand the choice you are describing. How can a job that pays substantially less money put you in better shape for retirement? Is it a government job? How far off is retirement? If you can afford to take a 20% cut in pay with no impairment of lifestyle, why couldn't you put that delta into some investment and save toward retirement that way? The tax benefits of the 401k are not so overwhelming as to make savings irrelevant.

I will be asking my employer to put me on part-time status as of the first of next year, in effect taking a 40% pay cut but freeing up a significant amount of time. I'm not sure whether they will go along with it, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint it is a no-brainer. I will do the same job for substantially less money, with no benefits.

As with the rubato person, a well-employed spouse makes options available that otherwise would not be.

[rubato]

Pardon my opacity, but I don't understand the choice you are describing. How can a job that pays substantially less money put you in better shape for retirement? Is it a government job? How far off is retirement? If you can afford to take a 20% cut in pay with no impairment of lifestyle, why couldn't you put that delta into some investment and save toward retirement that way? The tax benefits of the 401k are not so overwhelming as to make savings irrelevant.

I will be asking my employer to put me on part-time status as of the first of next year, in effect taking a 40% pay cut but freeing up a significant amount of time. I'm not sure whether they will go along with it, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint it is a no-brainer. I will do the same job for substantially less money, with no benefits.

As with the rubato person, a well-employed spouse makes options available that otherwise would not be.

It does not put me in better shape for retirement financially but in other ways it is a better job. I just want it not to reduce the 401k contributions. Having an intelligent, beautiful, graceful and witty spouse makes all prospects better.

yrs,
rubato