If an opportunity to commute 140 miles per day also presents a great chance at learning and team membership, and includes at 25% increase in pay, would you take it?
Asking for a friend.
I became unemployed, unexpectedly, in 1997. My oldest was 11 mths old when it happened, and he had several health issues. I was let go the week before Thanksgiving, so hiring had slowed to nil through New Years; talk about a perfect storm.
I landed a job that started in February, and it had a 110-mile commute. I took it because I needed it. Every day it was a 2-hour drive, each way. It sucked. But I did it for 17 years, every day. It was a good job, it was great pay, and I was fortunate to have worked with some terrific people. I adjusted my schedule to 0630-1530, which enabled me to participate in kid's evening activities, including studying martial arts.
In the next 5 years, I drove 62 miles and thought it was an easy commute.
It's not ideal- I'm the first to say that. But if the opportunity is indeed good, you can make it work.
Best of luck.
What you don't say is: main highway, 140 miles = 2 hours or 3 each way.
I had the opportunity one time to take a job in Toronto that was paying substantially more (probably about 30% than I was making) but didn't take it.
Rationale: I did the math. From Hamilton (where I lived to downtown Toronto was an additional 1 1/2 to 2 hours each way (which included a car ride to train, a train to central station, a subway to work and then a short walk). That meant that my day was now 11 to 12 hours (and potentially longer). When I divided the hourly rate to include my travel time, I found I would be making essentially the same money....okay maybe a little more, however, I then did the pros and cons.
The Pros of staying seemed to outweigh the cons (in my case). I had a job, the money was about the same (remember to count in lost PTO or vacation or sick days.....in my case, I would have lost two weeks vacation).
Other factors to consider: do you like your boss, is he/she fair or are they totally out in left field.
Doing the pros and cons (and remember something can be both) often helps in these situations.
Good luck to your friend.
I used to commute weekly 1040 miles each way by train, air and taxi. It took 6 - 8 hours each way. Most of it was dead time. I could maybe do 2 hours work on my laptop, but given the cramped conditions and limited battery life that was about it. I did get to read a lot of novels though.
Yes. I currently commute 70-79 miles (one way) and it takes about 1 hr. 45 min to 2 hr. 30 min ( I work at two different offices) so that wouldn't be that much to me. But I also live in a rural area on 6 acres of land. Couldn't find that closer to where I work for what I paid for this place. Couldn't find a job paying this much closer to the rural area I live in. So yes I would.
Take in to account what @dcontesti said. List the pros and cons. Think outside the box too. It's not just about leave and benefits. Would this set you a new high for salary? People are often willing to pay you a greater salary if you have made close to that amount before. Few people like to be the person that takes the risk of hiring someone for a six figure salary if they only made mid five figure salaries before. Would it be a "title" type of a position, i.e. getting you into a C-level title role? Some things do not have an immediate benefit but will help out for the future.
I currently have my eyes on some jobs in a large metro area about 3 hours from my home. If I could get one of the jobs I have my eyes on I could retire in 10 years versus working until I'm 67 (17 years away). So for me I would be commuting now to save time later. It would involve a bump in pay of about 12% initially but would be 25% more than what I make now in 3 years. So the rise in commuting costs would be taken care of and a pay raise would be in the future, but the thought of shaving 7 years off of my retirement date is worth it. It would also add to my retirement account. Plus it would raise the amount my retirement is based off of, so it is a win-win-win for me. Yes the longer commute would suck (no trains so driving is basically the only option) but the wife and I have even discussed several scenarios such as getting a cheap apartment or hotel in the the metro and stay a few nights a week and then come home on the weekends. She could come stay with me during the week some too.
There is another area that I am interested in with the same commute as I have now but at the same or potentially slightly less pay. Why would I consider it? This opportunity would allow me to get a Master's degree for free and some of the other jobs I am eyeing require a Masters degree. Plus it would benefit my retirement situation and PTO situation. So again I am shooting for longer term benefits rather than a lucrative boost now.
So there can be creative options to work out if it makes sense.
Just depends on my situation. If I don't have a job and there is nothing in my area then yes. If I have a job then I factor in the Organization's purpose, mission, and vision as a first pass. On the 2nd pass, I'd factor in commute time, position responsibilities, etc. 3rd pass is the actual interview to assess if I'm a good fit culturally and pay typically at this point as well.
70 miles one way is not that bad but taking traffic into account it could be a major factor in the no column. The drive time could double or triple depending on the city.
It all really depends. I turned down a final interview for a position 75 miles away because being on call and able to attend site 24/7 for incidents was a requirement. There was no realistic way I as going to leave, set off on the 3 hour journey home to be called back in. And shortly after midnight there were no trains anyway, so it'd be possible to be stranded in the City overnight. It just wasn't worth it, as I was only 9K away from clearing my mortgage and had no desire to relocate to somewhere where the property prices were massively inflated.