3 ms·

Interesting psychological twist at the end of the article, where this guy says he considers it more risky to take an offered job than whittle through savings. I

Interesting psychological twist at the end of the article, where this guy says he considers it more risky to take an offered job than whittle through savings. I'm amazed at his expectation that an employer would guarantee severance pay on hire. Ditto for the wife's complaints that she can't find an employer who will "accommodate her schedule with the children". Can't her unemployed husband take care of them?

gaius 17y ago
You're never in a stronger negotiating position than after they've offered and before you've accepted. And yeah, the wife's living in cloud cuckoo land.
sethg 17y ago
Look at it this way: if I'm unemployed but I can get a $100K job, and I get an offer for a $75K job, I'm leaving $25K on the table--not just a one-time loss but a permanent reduction in income. If another month of job-searching, burning through another $7500 of savings, will get me a $100K or at least a $90K offer, then it is perfectly rational to turn down the $100K offer.
- gaius 17y ago
  A banker ought to understand a "stop-loss" tho'.
- gvb 17y ago
  ...except experience has shown him that he cannot get a $100K job (he has been jobless for a year - and that is a recurring theme in the article). In reality he is leaving $75K on the table by not taking the job.