Should I take a lower paying job?

[Aiming_4_55]

I tried a slower pace job as an independent consultant and selective in the assignments. It started out as 40 hours a week, then increased to 80 hours a week as too many good assignments came along. I wasn't able to impact the companies as I hoped, but the work was still there along with the politics and frustrations. I realized it was me that was not ready for a change (Type A personality). I went back to the higher demand Corporate job as I felt I can contribute.

Unless you have a serious need to be home and work 40 hours a week, what will you do? If you been in a high demand job for 18 years, it would be very hard to make a hard shift without drivers like family or poor health. It sounds like the significant pay change would bother you, but I could be wrong. 12 years in a slower gov't job may seem like forever, so is that really an option?

Good luck considering your options.

 

[jane_sm1th73]

Good heavens. This is a no-brainer, and a "first world" question. On a public forum, I can't state my reaction to a DINK situation, where the dink income is barely enough to cover the nut.

Cut your frickin' overhead and go with the government job. Listen to Dave Ramsey. Your money or your life kind of thing. If spousie is not on board - oh well.

Really. You are an adult.

 

[Sunset]

Hi all,

I am struggling to make a decision and would love to hear different perspectives and opinions from this community. I'm trying to decide (in the next few days!) whether to chuck my law firm career and take a government job. ...

In terms of the financial picture, as I mentioned, huge pay cut. I think I'd be in a situation where I could live off the new salary with maybe a little boost taken from my savings if needed (i.e. taking out much less than 4%), but in doing so I would not have enough to keep contributing to savings (I may try to at least fund to the 401K maximum). With the federal job, I could also have access to health care coverage after retirement, but I think I'd need to make it to 57 years old (so a little more than 12 more years of work) before becoming eligible for that.

...

Keep your current job.
The Gov't job is not even paying enough for you to live on.
Your spouse may be pretty disappointed with the reduction in lifestyle a Gov't job would bring, compared to what you spend now.
Your retirement will be meager if you take the Gov't job and have to spend some savings rather than build up your retirement saving over the next 12 years.

 

[Bigdawg]

I keep reading this thread and think that I am missing something. Let me get this straight: You are a partner in a law firm. I'm guessing $250/$300K/yr. DW is also a lawyer. Not a partner so maybe $200 on the low side. That's 450-5. We'll say I missed it and we will call it $400k/yr for a couple with no kids and only a mortgage(and high HOA). How can you guys possibly make it? Between the shopping at goodwill and eating the 4/dollar ramen noodles I don't know how you can manage. Government lawyer jobs all pay 6 figures plus. Really? You can't make it as dinks when one of the 2 of you will ONLY be making 120K/yr while the other makes twice that? Call me confused on this one. Good luck.

 

[Aerides]

We'll say I missed it and we will call it $400k/yr for a couple with no kids and only a mortgage(and high HOA).

We don't know where they live. If they are in a major metro area, like NYC or SF/LA, then CoL will easily absorb that income.

 

[Bigdawg]

We don't know where they live. If they are in a major metro area, like NYC or SF/LA, then CoL will easily absorb that income.

My DW and I lived in a HCOL area (San Diego) in an expensive house(625K) with high taxes on about 150K/yr and had two kids playing ice hockey (expensive) and dance classes. We had zero issues paying our bills and investing. I still can't comprehend how this couple can have any money problems.

 

[Winter]

^^^
Is the income absorbed by the lifestyle "requirements" that go along with the job? (country club memberships, dinners out at higher end restaurants, expensive automobiles, etc.)

Also in regards to the government job, I would like to just mention that I have a close relative that used to work in a government position and they pretty much tore their hair out on a daily basis at the astounding inefficiencies of the system. So much so that they wound up quitting (for that reason plus several others).

Just some more food for thought.

 

[Bestwifeever]

No. You will find the lesser financial compensation does not mean the government job will not have its own issues. Plus would leaving a partnership position mean you’ve burned some bridges and essentially would not be able to re-reach that level? Appreciate the position you have and make it work?

 

[broadway]

No. You will find the lesser financial compensation does not mean the government job will not have its own issues. Plus would leaving a partnership position mean you’ve burned some bridges and essentially would not be able to re-reach that level? Appreciate the position you have and make it work?

I would venture to say the OP will be bored out of his/her mind in less than a year. High achieving people who can take unlimited vacation and yet take just 12 days a year are not cut out for a government job.
The choice not take at least 3 weeks of vacation is his/hers and yet the OP acts as if someone else is forcing his/her life to be all work.

.

 

[NomDeER]

I agree with closet_gamer, broadway, and bestwifiever. If you were in private practice this long and aren't taking a lot of vacation now, you probably wouldn't take all your vacation in a government job and wouldn't end up just working 40 hours a week. Plus, you are likely to find the government job very frustrating. You sound like you have a strong work ethic and are committed to excellence and doing everything well. If you take the fed job, you might very well find yourself frustrated by a culture that does not necessarily share those values, and you may have co-workers who resent you or disagree with your approach to the job if you do maintain those values and that work ethic. I'm speaking from experience, having worked in the private sector and in the federal government. Not all fed jobs are the same, of course, but I would do a LOT of research and talk to a lot of people you trust before making such a huge jump.

Yes, the health insurance at 57 would be great, but that's a long way away and you're giving up a lot of other compensation for that benefit. If your spouse will somehow provide you with health insurance in the longer term, then maybe stick it out in private practice for a much shorter time and try to make some adjustments.

You may think that the grass is greener on the fed side, but I suspect you'd find a lot of brown patches in that federal job.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a simple and appealing answer to your dilemma. I do understand the desire to get out of the rat race of private practice, but just be careful that you don't end up in a more frustrating situation with no way back.

 

[RAE]

I agree with closet_gamer, broadway, and bestwifiever. If you were in private practice this long and aren't taking a lot of vacation now, you probably wouldn't take all your vacation in a government job and wouldn't end up just working 40 hours a week. Plus, you are likely to find the government job very frustrating. You sound like you have a strong work ethic and are committed to excellence and doing everything well. If you take the fed job, you might very well find yourself frustrated by a culture that does not necessarily share those values

Having worked for the fed. govt. for 31 years, I guess I don't necessarily agree with some of this (at least from the perspective of the agency where I worked). Yes, there is a lot of bureaucracy, and yes, it can get frustrating at times. However, the culture at our agency was not as you describe. There were/are some very good and talented people there that had a strong work ethic, and were very committed to doing their jobs well.
I really doubt that we had a higher percentage of slackers than you would find at any private business. With regard to vacation time, employees at our agency were strongly urged to use their annual leave (vacation) time each year. Sometimes you might not be able to use it at the exact time of year you would prefer (if that happened to be a busy work period), but virtually everyone I worked with eventually used most or all of their annual leave time. And if you cannot use everything that you earn in one year, you can carry over up to 240 hours of annual leave into the next year (it does not disappear). And then at retirement, you will get paid a lump sum for whatever unused annual leave you have accumulated (up to 240 hours).

Working more than 40 hours/week is discouraged also, unless you are granted an overtime authorization by your supervisor. That does sometimes happen, but it shouldn't be happening on a regular basis, or your supervisor is probably going to be asked why he/she is overspending their budget. You can't just decide to work more than 40 hours/week on your own, as you would be in non-pay status, and there are all sorts of issues with doing that (such as using govt. equipment when you are not actually authorized to do so, not being covered by Workmans Comp. if you happen to get injured, etc, etc).

I understand that someone who has been working in a private law practice might initially find the pace of the work a bit slow at a fed. agency. However, it sounds like the OP has had quite a bit of interaction with the agency he is considering working for, for a while now, so I expect that he has a feel for how the work flows there, and would not be shocked at what he finds if he does take the fed. job.

Just wanted to add my perspective on this........

 

[broadway]

There were/are some very good and talented people there that had a strong work ethic, and were very committed to doing their jobs well.

To me, the words "strong work ethic" isn't the proper way to describe the OP.
He sounds more like type A personality.

Know thyself. Don't blame others for one's frustrations with one's job when some of the "wounds" from the job are self-inflicted such as the unwillingness to take time off when one needs it.

.

 

[NomDeER]

However, the culture at our agency was not as you describe.

I didn't describe the culture at your agency.

As I said, not all fed jobs are the same. I'd guess that the AUSAs in the SDNY office have some pretty intense jobs. And I'm pretty sure they routinely work more than 40 hours per week without having to get authorization.

But, in my experience, most lawyer jobs at agencies do not have the same culture as major law firms in terms of how demanding they are. The fact that the hours tend to be longer and the expectations tend to be higher for partners at law firms does not mean that the government lawyers are "slackers" as you put it or "untalented." (Your terms; definitely not mine.) It does mean that the hours, demands, and cultures are different.

You emphasize that your job was a 40 hour per week job and people took their vacation. I would bet a lot of money that the OP did not become a partner working 40 hours a week and taking significant amounts of vacation, and I would bet even more money that they are not the only attorney there on weekends. I also would bet that their standards are beyond demanding good or very good work.

So, what happens when the OP gets work at the new job, feels like it's necessary to spend more than 40 hours a week to do all the work and do it to their usual standard? As a new federal employee, they wouldn't have much vacation time to give up. But, they could give up evenings and weekends. And for much lower pay. And what if a pattern develops and supervisors like giving the OP more work and more demanding work knowing that they can count on the OP to get it done? The OP says that they do not find ER appealing and that they ended up as a partner at a major firm out of "inertia." That suggests that they inherently are a person who demands a lot of themselves. That's unlikely to change when they leave the firm.

Also, just because the OP files petitions with the agency does not mean that the OP knows what it's like to work there. Those are two very different things. If people are leaving the fed jobs there as the OP says, then I definitely would want to know why. I don't get the impression that the OP necessarily has a great understanding of what it would be like to work for the government. If the OP doesn't want to get an in-house job because of internal politics, then they definitely need to talk to more people about federal employment because lots of federal jobs come with lots of unpleasant and frustrating politics.

I totally get the desire to flee a law firm. Been there. Done that. And much more quickly than the OP did. But, I also understand how unhappy a person may be when they flee the firm for the federal job.

But, everyone is different. I don't like my current job for a variety of reasons. My friend doesn't understand why I don't just quit. When I was younger, that's probably what I would have done. I realize now that there's not necessarily a job I could get that I would like more. And my sense is that I could retire in a few more years if I could stick it out with this job that long. If I left for another job, it might be ten more years before I could retire, and I might be just as unhappy with that job.

Bottom line: I think the OP should make sure that they really understand what they would be getting into and be very honest with themselves about their own characteristics and whether making the change is a good idea.

 

[target2019]

Working more than 40 hours/week is discouraged also, unless you are granted an overtime authorization by your supervisor. That does sometimes happen, but it shouldn't be happening on a regular basis, or your supervisor is probably going to be asked why he/she is overspending their budget. You can't just decide to work more than 40 hours/week on your own, as you would be in non-pay status, and there are all sorts of issues with doing that (such as using govt. equipment when you are not actually authorized to do so, not being covered by Workmans Comp. if you happen to get injured, etc, etc).

This sounds exactly like the work arrangement for my DoD customers. Everything above and beyond must be submitted prior to working extra time.

Something not mentioned in this discussion (I think) is support staff. In private sector my IT help is very responsive. For my customers, their IT is over-worked, and you can guess the rest. In private sector, there are available extras, who at any given time can help me by performing additional tasks I can't do. In gov't, I'm not sure this happens as easily.

 

[Texas Proud]

Might be too late for a response.....


I would think that the difference in income would be in the 5X range (or more) based on some lawyers that I met when working...



If this is true, then working 3 more years where you are at is like 15 years in the gvmt job... to me this is a no brainer to keep what you have and save as much as possible for 3 years and then exit...


OR, scale back and become a (do not know the name of this) lawyer who just works whatever case you want and get paid by the hour... I also met a few of these and they loved this as they could take as much time off as they wanted and then take a case they liked... I think it is 'of counsel'....

 

[RAE]

You sound like you have a strong work ethic and are committed to excellence and doing everything well. If you take the fed job, you might very well find yourself frustrated by a culture that does not necessarily share those values, and you may have co-workers who resent you or disagree with your approach to the job if you do maintain those values and that work ethic.

Just to be clear, this is what you said. And my disagreement with your statement is based on what I experienced when I worked for the fed. govt. (which included working with several govt. attorneys from OGC). I can say with some certainty that many of my co-workers, including the OGC attorneys, were "committed to excellence and doing everything well". Yes, they almost certainly worked fewer hours than an attorney at a private practice would, but remember - the OP stated that he was getting a bit burned out from working so many hours at his current job, and thinking that it would be nice to be able to cut back on his hours so that he could pursue other things in life. So my point is that I don't believe the OP would have to make any trade-offs regarding the quality of his work, at a govt. agency - but he would be working less hours per week. The OGC attorneys that I worked with were all very talented and did excellent work.

 

[pb4uski]

Given that this thread is about a week old I suspect that the OP has probably made a decision by now... I wonder what he decided?

 

[Katsmeow]

You say in your first post that your current job gives you the flexibility of unlimited vacation. But despite the sentiment that “work is all I do,” you only took 12 days off last year. My medical partners would often take 6-10 weeks off a year. Would more vacation like that help?

I am not the OP, but at one time I joined a firm where it was expected I would soon become a partner (I did). As an incoming associate, I was told that I could take 3 weeks of vacation, but I would never do it. This wasn't the person ordering me not to do that. They were simply assuming I would never do it. I later became a partner (well a shareholder) and I guess on paper there was no limit on vacation. But, no, I didn't do it then either.

So, why might I not have taken vacation that I could have taken. I assure you it wasn't because I was a workaholic or a Type A person. Two reasons really:

1. If you took a lot of vacation and actually didn't work during the vacation that showed insufficient dedication. It wouldn't have looked good. I got married in Las Vegas and worked on the plane coming back from the wedding. During vacations with DH and our 3 weeks I would often come back from a week of vacation having billed at least 20 hours while I was gone. That was very common for people to do.

2. Which brings up the main thing. Unlimited vacation actually = no vacation. That is, whether I was an associate or a shareholder there were always expectations for billing. How many hours you billed was looked at. If I was expected to bill at least X hours a year, I could take all the vacation I wanted to...but I still was expected to bill X hours a year. So if I took off 3 weeks of vacation or 4 or 5 or whatever and didn't do work during the vacation (if that was even possible which usually it wasn't) then I would be working a lot of very long days and weekends to make up the time later on. So, most of the time, it made more sense to either go on "vacation" and still work while gone or just not to go at all....

I told someone recently that my biggest career regret was that I stayed in private law firm practice. I liked my co-workers and there was a lot I liked about the work. But, it placed enormous stress on me and my family and if I had it to do over again I would have bailed for a corporate job or government job a long time ago. I think that the high stress of the work is the main reason that I semi-ER'd when I was in my mid 50s.

 

[nhcycling]

I did it 10 years ago, gave up that high paying demanding, stressful job. I enjoy what I do now but I love being home in the evening, not working weekends, not traveling. Best decision yet.

 

[Texas Proud]

I am not the OP, but at one time I joined a firm where it was expected I would soon become a partner (I did). As an incoming associate, I was told that I could take 3 weeks of vacation, but I would never do it. This wasn't the person ordering me not to do that. They were simply assuming I would never do it. I later became a partner (well a shareholder) and I guess on paper there was no limit on vacation. But, no, I didn't do it then either.

So, why might I not have taken vacation that I could have taken. I assure you it wasn't because I was a workaholic or a Type A person. Two reasons really:

1. If you took a lot of vacation and actually didn't work during the vacation that showed insufficient dedication. It wouldn't have looked good. I got married in Las Vegas and worked on the plane coming back from the wedding. During vacations with DH and our 3 weeks I would often come back from a week of vacation having billed at least 20 hours while I was gone. That was very common for people to do.

2. Which brings up the main thing. Unlimited vacation actually = no vacation. That is, whether I was an associate or a shareholder there were always expectations for billing. How many hours you billed was looked at. If I was expected to bill at least X hours a year, I could take all the vacation I wanted to...but I still was expected to bill X hours a year. So if I took off 3 weeks of vacation or 4 or 5 or whatever and didn't do work during the vacation (if that was even possible which usually it wasn't) then I would be working a lot of very long days and weekends to make up the time later on. So, most of the time, it made more sense to either go on "vacation" and still work while gone or just not to go at all....

I told someone recently that my biggest career regret was that I stayed in private law firm practice. I liked my co-workers and there was a lot I liked about the work. But, it placed enormous stress on me and my family and if I had it to do over again I would have bailed for a corporate job or government job a long time ago. I think that the high stress of the work is the main reason that I semi-ER'd when I was in my mid 50s.

If you were not a workaholic or type A then why do it


I was in one of the big accounting firms but was not interested in making partner.... sure, when I was there I had to work crazy hours during tax season (100 per week was not unheard of) but I was there the expected 3 years and got out...


Later in life when I was working and the job started to become just like this, long hours and expected overtime I moved on....


Never made huge money like some law partners (one of my coworkers wife was a partner and was making over $500K per year back in 2007) but I made enough...


Also, if I had gone down the lawyer road I probably would have made partner and worked maybe another 10 years and be done... I would have socked away enough money to RE.

 

[MarieIG]

Obviously, it would depend a great deal as to the particular job, but certainly not all government lawyers work a 40 hour week.

 

[Katsmeow]

If you were not a workaholic or type A then why do it

Good question. I actually decided when I was in my mid-30s that I was not only going to leave private practice...I was going to leave the practice of law entirely. When I first came up with that plan I was single. I was a shareholder.
Another path would have been to leave private practice then and go to a corporate or government job (with regular hours -- I know that isn't true of all of them). But, at the time I thought to leave the practice entirely.

I started taking university classes at night to take pre-requisites for what I thought I wanted to do which was to be a psychotherapist. Time passed. I got married and got into grad school (to get an MSW degree). The plan was to keep working as an attorney while going to school part-time to get an MSW degree and then to get out be a therapist.

Well while I was in grad school, I had a child. I loved being a mom. But, I did finish my program and we decided to adopt 2 children. By then I was in my early 40s. I felt I had a decision to make. Become a therapist -- the plan I had started with when I was single with no expectation that was going to change or stay an attorney. I didn't feel I could afford to go into a low paid field at that stage of life and have 3 children. So - I stayed an attorney. I didn't hate practicing law and it was a good income. When I went with an attorney to a different firm I could have gone in as a shareholder but chose not. For a few years I worked slightly reduced hours (for people in "normal" jobs that equated to working almost full-time hours). I think by then I felt in my mid-40s that my prospects of finding other employment were low and certainly would have been a cut in pay.

That said, from retrospect I think I was too pessimistic and I would have done it if I could it all over again...

 

[Texas Proud]

Interesting way of how your life went....


In my mid 40s I had thought about going to law school and becoming a mediator... I was tired of doing what I was doing as it was so simple for me... I took the LSAT and scored in the mid 160s (went in cold with never looking at what kind of questions they would ask)... I was really surprised when I got full tuition offers from some of the low ranked schools...


But, I was going to go to night school and University of Houston... they required that all undergrad and grad colleges send in my transcripts... all but one did... I was calling to try and get that one to do it... and it was... yes, the University of Houston ... I could not get them to send a transcript across the campus... SOOO, I missed the start date for that year... now I had to wait another year to start .. no exception...


Well, fate played a part and my company asked me to move to London to change the internal costing over there since the person who was supposed to do it would not or could not... also she was pregnant and was going to be out for 6 months or more.... I went, still planning to come home and start but she quit, the company bought a big competitor so they wanted me to stay... then they bought a really big competitor and wanted me to stay more... then moved me to NY as the person in charge worldwide quite just weeks before the budget... since I knew everything they asked me to do it... for 3 years....


SOOO, my legal degree never materialized but I was happy doing what I was doing so it worked out for me in the end... I also got some really big raised along the way so that was not bad either...

 

[meleana]

Sometimes lower paying jobs can also be stressful and hard work as well. Just sayin'...

 

[Rianne]

OP had a long introduction with little financial information.

1. Ballpark portfolio $$

2. Overall health
3. Spending habits or ballpark spending in real $$
4. Long term $ goals.

5. COL $$
Posts are making lots of assumptions based on little $$ facts.