I don't actually need to know real numbers, I'm just trying to get a sense of proportion (which, I figure you gathered). Like, "a few bucks more" is not a significant variable if we're we're talking relative differences that are less than 10%. 10% or more difference in pay, well, you'll start to notice that.
The increase of A over B is right about 10%.
Though it's starting to sound to me like you've made up your mind and just want to make sure you're not missing anything obvious. Which is absolutely okay!
I suppose that's probably true. And truth be told my wife's probably more important in terms of planning things out than you guys are. And she's right about there with me -- B sounds good but we'll probably second-guess ourselves a bit before all's said and done.
But how about the potential job satisfaction? I don't think any NDA prevents you talking about what you think might happen there?
A is exactly the same work I've been doing for the past 4+ years. It's a Windows 7 rollout. It's decent enough work and I'm good at it; the quotas they ran by me suggested it's probably even going to be low-stress aside from the traffic part -- like I'll either have downtime or get ahead of schedule.
Buuut, like I say, it's the work I've been doing for years and I hate the idea of being stuck doing desktop support forever. It's the job that's most like what I've been doing and least like what I want to do long-term.
Also -- I think I mentioned this at first but not in the comparison -- A starts out as 8-5 for the first month, but then for the next 5 it's 12-8. Which means less traffic and less heat but also probably less time to see my wife or do general daytime tasks.
B is Web design but it's using some kind of in-house template. The phone interview did not involve any technical questions, it was entirely about how fast I could work, how comfortable I'd be using an in-house template instead of the raw code I'm used to, and how I'd deal with angry customers. (Which is weird because they also told me I would not be interacting directly with customers, that that's another guys job and he'll tell me what the customers want.) All this suggests to me that they're a lot more concerned with quantity than quality and aren't looking for someone terribly proficient. Which is kinda my impression of the company and why I didn't go to work for them as a phone tech when I had the chance 7 years ago. (More on that in a bit.)
C is tough to gauge. It could either be the most dynamic of the three or the most repetitive. It involves testing software across various platforms (Windows, Mac, Android), setting up a test bench and automated scripts, that kind of thing.
Otherwise, A sounds like 
. Take B.
You know what's funny? Seven years ago I had a choice between going to work at B (different job, same company) or a job up in north Phoenix, 2 or 3 miles from where A is.
On the one hand, I made the wrong call. On the other, A is offering me ten dollars more an hour than that job did and will almost certainly be substantially easier than that one was.
He also seems to be against C for the lack of security. But it's true that if he wants to shop around later for (potentially) better deals then the prestige of C matters.
I don't consider any of them secure. I am definitely considering the relative risks of "Definitely 12 months but no more than 18", "Definitely 6 months and possibly permanent", and "Definitely 2 months and the likeliest of the 3 to be permanent". I'm sure there's a game theory solution.
Though in my experience, it's not the company that you work for so much as it is the position you held. Which may bring B and C closer together in that regard.
C's probably got the best job title, too, even though it's the worst pay. It's that prestigious a company.
(My uncle worked there back around the turn of the century. I think it was about 6 months. It was still the pinnacle of his career in the computer industry. He's an art teacher now.)
(don't just count gas into the expense, also count having to change your oil about ever two months, tires every two and some change years and all that jazz)
Believe me, I know. I had a sudden and unexpected radiator replacement on Monday. Wife had to get a new car just a few months ago, and mine's approaching 110,000 miles. I'm VERY aware of the potential wear and tear of a 70-mile-a-day round trip.
and they're the only one that has already budgeted keeping all of you guys on and that seems a lot more secure than, "We can only keep one but you're in the lead", which, from experience, might just be something they're telling everyone to increase productivity and competition.
Yeah, it's not the first time I've been told that.
Hell, I've had guys tell me that and be perfectly sincere about it. The guys at the insurance company I worked for 2008-2010 were doing their damnedest not just to get me hired but to get me transferred to desktop architecture where my skills wouldn't be wasted on opening boxes and counting RAM. But they couldn't get the budget to hire me on; no budget no hire, bottom line.
B DOES seem like the likeliest one to yield long-term results. But I'm sure as hell not considering that a guarantee, either.
