I am having an internal conflict and would love some outside opinions. I have been in Southern California for 3 months, and have 3 years of experience (and mostly with renovations, barely any core an shell). I am 27 and licensed. I have been working for a tiny 5 person firm and hated the lack of social environment and that they're 5 years behind on their Revit use. I went looking for my dream job: a midsize firm, with a social culture, cool projects, and nice people. I finally found it (Firm A), and got a nice offer out of them. I've had nearly 20 interviews in SoCal since I moved here, and I haven't found a firm like them.
The thing is, I had an interview set up by a recruiter for an owner's rep company (Firm B) as well. This company has 6 people, mostly contractors, and a couple architects. They want to hire me to train me to do cost estimating/be an architect, and also to teach Revit throughout the company. They want me so badly, and have so much money to throw around, that they offered me 10K higher than Firm A - and I can negotiate for even more. I wouldn't have given Firm B a second thought, since I value my personal happiness and a good design sensibility. BUT after skimming their benefits package, they offer 11 holidays, 3 weeks vacation a year, a 401K with a 50% match, and time and a half paid overtime...
I am severely conflicted on whether I should sell my soul for amazing benefits & money, or go the traditional path and probably be happier. Has anyone ever worked for an owner's rep firm? How far do you stray from the traditional architect path? I am soliciting advice because I am terrible at making decisions, so I invite any snarky/sarcastic opinions...