I earn probably c. 50k, I've been offered a job at just under 70k (although likely to peep over it with bonuses etc). The pension arrangements are good, I'd have about 30 days annual leave.
The problem is the new job, I never expected to get and is a bit of a change from my current job which I excel at, but am stuck in a bind where I keep getting temporary pay increases and am very well liked, but am not getting the bandwith to make my promotion permanent. Several colleagues have said how fucked everybody would be without me but the senior levels just aren't interested in sorting me out a promotion.
The new job is way less interesting, but would take my standard take home pay from like £2600 a month to around £3300/3400 a month which is obviously a huge difference.
Would I be mad to turn it down and wait for a better salary in a sphere more aligned to what I'm doing now and keep applying for jobs slightly more in line with my experience?
Any thoughts/experiences on money vs passion in careers very welcome here.
Taking a job that you hate just for the money is usually a terrible idea for your long-term wellbeing. There's always a very real risk that you'll get accustomed to the higher pay and get stuck doing something you don't like because you can't face the idea of a big pay cut.
Taking a well-paid job as a stepping stone to something else can be a very good decision, because of the importance of your previous salary when negotiating future salaries - employers just aren't very good at judging what people are worth and tend to put far too much emphasis on the opinion of your previous employer. If you are subsequently willing to take a significant pay cut, then employers are often willing to offer very generous non-cash terms, from flexible hours to perks to tailoring a role to suit you.
>Several colleagues have said how fucked everybody would be without me but the senior levels just aren't interested in sorting me out a promotion.
That's a common career trap - if you're truly indispensable in your current role, then they can't promote you because they can't replace you. They could give you a nominal promotion while keeping your role basically unchanged, but that often upsets the org chart. Sometimes a smart manager can find a creative solution, but often the only good option is to move on.
>>462692 How is trapping somebody beneficial? Surely t's better to retain the subject matter expert for higher salary, particularly if their responsibilities have grown, than letting it all go to shit? I've seen it happen with my own eyes, but I just don't get it. It's always succeeded by useless middle management either picking up the slack and fucking it completely or them hiring somebody new and useless, every time.
I'd jump, if you hate it then stick it out for a year and come back into a similar position as now on a higher salary and a new range of experiance. If senior management have a brain they'll come with an offer once your immediate superior starts flapping their arms around but if not then you'll have the satisfaction of knowing things went to shit without you rather than getting ground down over time by an organisation that doesn't care.
I also hate Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell but it's difficult to find a rival podcast. I wish Dan Carlin kept doing his Common Sense episodes because in the run-up and aftermath of Trump and Brexit he was spot on but I also get why after decades of political radio he wanted out.
>>462695 >It's always succeeded by useless middle management
How do you think the people making the HR decisions arrived at their position?
It's not beneficial, it just is what it is. Large organisations are implicitly hierarchical, so there's only so much scope for increasing someone's salary before you start to disrupt that hierarchy. If you pay one person disproportionately more than their colleagues, you have to justify that decision and you might end up with people resenting it. Managers rarely get in trouble for doing things the way they've always been done, even if doing so will obviously lead to a bad outcome; conventional mistakes are viewed more favourably than unconventional successes. It's much easier to stick to the accepted pay scales, even if you know for a fact that by doing so you'll lose a vital employee.
The optimal strategy if you're taking a penalty in football is to blast the ball straight down the middle at least 1/3 of the time. Keepers don't have time to react to the actual direction of the ball, they usually choose to dive one way or the other, so a penalty shot straight down the middle will usually sail straight past the keeper's feet. Professional footballers actually aim for the middle less than 10% of the time, because if it goes wrong they look like a twat. Something very similar applies to free throws in basketball - shooting underarm with both hands has a much higher success rate than the conventional overarm style, but it's seen as weird and embarrassing so hardly anyone does it.
>>462698 >So the overarm shot, where the ball “sees” a smaller cross-section of the hoop, but is less likely to go wildly off course, is a more conservative strategy.
>“This competition between the entry angle and speed underlies both the speed-accuracy trade-off and the relative accuracy of one style versus another,” said Venkadesan.
>For the professional player, the analysis predicts, this trade-off is finely balanced and probably within the margins of error of the model, which did not consider the backboard.
So was there more science done or are you overstating the study's conclusions?
Slightly overstated for the sake of brevity, but the key point is that a lot of notoriously awful free throw shooters with percentages well below the league average refuse to try an alternative technique. Some of them have literally said that they'd rather miss their free throws than score points in an embarrassing style.
The handful of players who have switched all saw a significant improvement in their free throw percentages. Wilt Chamberlain switched for one season, improved his free throw shooting by more than 10 percentage points, but switched back to a much less effective technique because, in his own words, "I felt silly, like a sissy".
