Choosing a career: Better pay or faster to start?

[JumpyTheFrog]

I had kids young so I never really had a career after college.

 

I have it down to two choices for an eventual part-time career. One choice doesn't pay as well, but I could be easily employable within a few months or less. The other could pay 2-3x the hourly rate, eventually, but would take a year of full-time (unpaid) work/apprenticing to be employable (which I can't do) or 2-4 years of apprenticing part-time. In short, the second career can pay much better, but is also much harder to get started.

 

Getting ready for either can be done from home. DH earns enough that we don't need the money, so this is more of a back-up plan.

 

So for a homeschooling mom who never had a career and hasn't worked for 11 years, which is more important: getting started sooner or going with the highly paid career?

[hornblower]

I'd go for the better pay.

 

[katilac]

If I had a strong preference for one job over the over, I would go with that one (as the money is not crucial). 

 

However, because the money is not needed right away, that also makes it easier to pick the slower starting job and take advantage of the higher pay, if you are likely to work for a good while. Financially, it would definitely be worth the slow start in the long term. 

 

Also consider things like: 

 

Is dh going to retire before the slow starting job pays off? If so, will you want to retire as well, or would you want to keep on working for a while? 

 

Are there any scheduling considerations? Would either of the new jobs require you to work at times that your dh does not, and would this bother either one of you? 

 

How hard or easy will it be to schedule vacation and time off with each of the potential jobs? 

 

Are you more familiar with one type of work rather than the other? Do you have a strong idea of which one you might prefer? If not, is there a way to do further research or job shadowing? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Id go for the one I'd most like to do because time is precious.

 

If they are equal, id go for pay. Because it is not just what you make at any given time, the little bit extra will earn more money on its own in even the most basic savings account.

 

Run some numbers and decide then.

[zoobie]

Which would make you happier?

[JFSinIL]

Better pay. Think how you will feel five years from now in either job. You will appreciate the higher income.

[Jenny in Florida]

The information you've given is not enough for me to make a call on this one.

 

For me, salary is only part of the big picture. Yes, money is nice, and more of it is even nicer. However, it wouldn't be the deciding factor if it were me making this choice. I would need to know lots more things: Which option is more appealing to you? Which one offers more opportunity to advance or move around if your get bored? Which one allows you to develop transferable skills in case you need to make a move for some reason down the line? Which one offers scheduling that works for your family situation both now and down the line? Is there a way to get started with the lower-paying, faster-to-get-into one and then leverage that to move into the other one later? 

 

There are more "ifs" I would personally consider, but those are the ones that leapt to mind immediately.

[bettyandbob]

Sunce you dont need the money quickly, which one do you really want?

 

If that doesn't answer the question, then as a backup plan you want the higher pay. Additionally, if you are going use some of this for retirement you could conceivably make up the few years of lower pay earned once you start in the higher pay job.

[JumpyTheFrog]

As far as interests go, the lower pay/faster start career is one I like enough and consider important enough to do for free. (Not full-time, obviously, but as a volunteer.) And although my work experiencd is limited, I have far more "career capital", as Cal Newport would say, in the field.

 

The higher pay career is okay and well suited for my personality, but not one I like enough to do for free or low pay. In addition, it's in a field that changes somewhat rapidly, so preparing part-time to work in it would mean by the time I would be employable, I'd have to catch up on new developments.

[bettyandbob]

As far as interests go, the lower pay/faster start career is one I like enough and consider important enough to do for free. (Not full-time, obviously, but as a volunteer.) And although my work experiencd is limited, I have far more "career capital", as Cal Newport would say, in the field.

 

The higher pay career is okay and well suited for my personality, but not one I like enough to do for free or low pay. In addition, it's in a field that changes somewhat rapidly, so preparing part-time to work in it would mean by the time I would be employable, I'd have to catch up on new developments.

OK

 

Go for the lower pay. Sounds like it could make you happier in the long run (says the woman who has an interview tomorrow in a field completely unrelated to her three degrees, but a field where she likes the work)

[wintermom]

Are either of the career areas going to get physically demanding as you age, making it difficult to do? 

 

One year apprenticing sounds really short, in the big picture. Could you do that and have the option of both careers? Does it have to be one or the other, or could you do both, or one then the other. The more career options the better, in my mind, especially if you have 20 - 30 years to work.

[StephanieZ]

Since it isn't an urgent need right now, I'd definitely go for the better paying career. 

[Crimson Wife]

I should be have my Speech and Language Pathology Assistant license by next summer with no out-of-pocket costs due to the generosity of my late grandma and my parents. I could stop there and make around $20-25/hr. I could perform ongoing therapy under the supervision of a fully certified SLP but could not evaluate or write therapy goals.

 

Or I could attend a 2 year master's program and become a fully certified SLP myself, making $35-40/hr or more. I could perform all aspects of the job and not have to be directly supervised.

 

SLPA is a good back-up credential to have if I wind up not getting accepted to grad school (it's very competitive). It also is something that I could potentially use to help finance grad school (there are PT programs designed for working SLPA's).

[StephanieZ]

As far as interests go, the lower pay/faster start career is one I like enough and consider important enough to do for free. (Not full-time, obviously, but as a volunteer.) And although my work experiencd is limited, I have far more "career capital", as Cal Newport would say, in the field.

 

The higher pay career is okay and well suited for my personality, but not one I like enough to do for free or low pay. In addition, it's in a field that changes somewhat rapidly, so preparing part-time to work in it would mean by the time I would be employable, I'd have to catch up on new developments.

 

Go for the high pay. You can always work PT and volunteer for stuff you want to do . . . 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Are either of the career areas going to get physically demanding as you age, making it difficult to do?

 

One year apprenticing sounds really short, in the big picture. Could you do that and have the option of both careers? Does it have to be one or the other, or could you do both, or one then the other. The more career options the better, in my mind, especially if you have 20 - 30 years to work.

Neither is physically demanding.

 

One year apprenticing would be full-time. My DH did it, but there is no way I can do it FT. The most I could realistically do would be 10-15 hours per week, which would mean it would take 2-3 years to be employable.

 

I could do the lower paying one now and then switch in my mid-40s after my youngest graduates high school. DH will probably be working another 20-30 years, so even if he retires early, we'll have ten years of being empty nesters before that.

[Katy]

Better pay generally means the job is more valuable to society, and frequently that goes hand in hand with more autonomy and more respect (both for self and from others).  All other things being equal, pay is the reason you work.  Choose a job that pays well, especially if you don't have a need to work immediately.

[wintermom]

Neither is physically demanding.

 

One year apprenticing would be full-time. My DH did it, but there is no way I can do it FT. The most I could realistically do would be 10-15 hours per week, which would mean it would take 2-3 years to be employable.

 

I could do the lower paying one now and then switch in my mid-40s after my youngest graduates high school. DH will probably be working another 20-30 years, so even if he retires early, we'll have ten years of being empty nesters before that.

 

I'd start with the apprenticing career training first, and have the other career idea as a fall back or alternative. Having a recognized certification is always better than not, even if you end up working in a different field. You will always have that credential to put on a resume. If you simply jump into a self-employed type of career, or something with no certification, you don't have the same number of options available.

 

Having a recently attained recognized certificate as an "older adult" heading into the workworld for the first time will be a huge benefit.

Edited April 14, 2016 by wintermom

[JumpyTheFrog]

I'd start with the apprenticing career training first, and have the other career idea as a fall back or alternative. Having a recognized certification is always better than not, even if you end up working in a different field. You will always have that credential to put on a resume. If you simply jump into a self-employed type of career, or something with no certification, you don't have the same number of options available.

 

Having a recently attained recognized certificate as an "older adult" heading into the workworld for the first time will be a huge benefit.

It wouldn't be an official apprenticeship. I was using the term very loosely. It would be more like independent study with some tutoring/mentoring to get going.

[December]

Are you positive the internship will lead to the desired job or is it possible you could spend 2-3 years working for free and then find that you can't get hired?

[mamiof5]

Tough one. I see the benefits of pursuing the higher pay one...but, at the same time, nothing is guaranteed in life. 2-3yrs is a long time, a lot could happen during that time. Or, nothing could happen and everything would go as planned. No one can predict the future. Probably I'd go for the one that starts sooner.

[DawnM]

2-3 times over the course of 30 years is a lot.  It is worth a little extra investment of time to study/learn/grow.

 

Personally, if it is only a matter of a year or two, I would do the higher pay one.  You can work half time when you are done and make the same as what you would make with the other one working full time.

 

Dawn

[DawnM]

Tough one. I see the benefits of pursuing the higher pay one...but, at the same time, nothing is guaranteed in life. 2-3yrs is a long time, a lot could happen during that time. Or, nothing could happen and everything would go as planned. No one can predict the future. Probably I'd go for the one that starts sooner.

 

 

See, I don't see 2-3 years as long at all.  Esp. when we are talking about a career and the rest of your life.  

[Bluegoat]

I would go with the job you would find more satisfying over the long term.  I'd also want to look at where each job could lead, and which would be better in terms of lifestyle for my family.  (I tend to think that in family life it is usually better if one partner has a more flexible kind of job.)

 

I'd also consider whether you want the job to be there for security - say if something happens to your husband.  In that case, the higher pay might be more important.

 

If there is something specific you might be interested in with the money you earn (house renos, college fund) could higher pay mean not working for as long?

 

But just based on what you said, since you think you would enjoy the lower paid job more, and the higher paid one would possibly involve more up-dating even after your study period, I would tend to go for the lower pay.  (But, I am at a point where I am not keen on spending a lot of time in school to learn job skills, if I want a job I want to be working now.)

[SparklyUnicorn]

1 year full time or 2-3 part time doesn't strike me as too much time.  So I think either of these could work.

 

I might go with the one I'd enjoy more unless I needed more money.

 

 

 

 

[wintermom]

It wouldn't be an official apprenticeship. I was using the term very loosely. It would be more like independent study with some tutoring/mentoring to get going.

 

Why not try and get an official apprenticeship or get a certification in something.

 

I think you may also be using the term "career" loosely. A career is when you intentionally work at building up a portfolio of training and work experience, and expect some personal and professional growth and development in the field. 

[mamiof5]

See, I don't see 2-3 years as long at all. Esp. when we are talking about a career and the rest of your life.

True. I just have a hard time picturing the scenario...not sure what I would do. But, if it was a 1yr deal, sure. But it's not, it can't be. Unless they will guarantee that she'll get the job? I'd just hate for her to put all that time into it and not get it at the end

[Jenny in Florida]

As far as interests go, the lower pay/faster start career is one I like enough and consider important enough to do for free. (Not full-time, obviously, but as a volunteer.) And although my work experiencd is limited, I have far more "career capital", as Cal Newport would say, in the field.

 

This would be the deciding factor for me. At this point, you don't "need" the money. You care more about this one. And it would allow you to get started sooner.

 

Especially since your other posts suggest that taking this option now doesn't really close any doors for later, I'd go for the lower-paying one in a heartbeat.

[DawnM]

True. I just have a hard time picturing the scenario...not sure what I would do. But, if it was a 1yr deal, sure. But it's not, it can't be. Unless they will guarantee that she'll get the job? I'd just hate for her to put all that time into it and not get it at the end

 

 

I think that is always a risk you take when you further your education.  

[StephanieZ]

See, I don't see 2-3 years as long at all.  Esp. when we are talking about a career and the rest of your life.  

 

Exactly!

 

When dh decided to be a vet. . . He was already almost 30. He applied to vet school and worked for the year waiting until his class began (year 1), then 4 years of school (year 5), then 3 years of working for someone else (year 8), then he bought a practice and we worked *really* hard to grow it and nourish it and pay for it until it was paid off (year 20) . . . So, now, we're 20 years into his plan . . . We just paid it off the practice loan. *Now* we're golden, lol. 20 years to get here . . . Now 15-20 more years to coast & fund our retirement . . . until a cushy retirement. 

 

2-3 years investment into a long term career is nothing in my book, lol. 

 

I've always been a big picture gal, but, really I think you need to be. If you aren't desperate for cash flow right now, why wouldn't you use this time to prepare yourself for a more lucrative career for the rest of your working years?