When you talk about shock waves on Earth, you're usually referring to particles bumping into each other. Since there are significantly fewer particles in space there's not the same kind of phenomenon for the most part. On the other hand, things can explode in space and because there aren't a lot of particles to slow them down, they just sort of keep going outward from where they started. Any sort of explosion disperses over a distance like a balloon that isn't inflated is much denser, then becomes thinner as you blow more air into it, so most space based explosions have very few particles that reach us on Earth.

About the only two objects in our solar system exploding that would eject material that would hit us noticeably are the Sun due to the sheer amount of mass it possesses and the moon, due to how close we are. The good news is that the sun is pretty stable for a star, and the moon is incredibly inert so either is astronomically improbable. The biggest danger as far as "space shock waves" go is a star or stars going supernova. Our star contains about 99.8% of the mass of our solar system but on a cosmic scale, is not one of the larger stars out there. When a star becomes unstable it can launch an absurd amount of its mass and energy out in a wave. This wave is not a threat to us if it is far enough away, but the closer the supernova, the higher the amount of mass, and the higher the energy the more dangerous it is. A small far away supernova might just be a more visible star in the sky as most of the energy doesn't reach us. A supernova in our immediate vicinity could be powerful enough to bathe our planet in un-survivable radiation. The good news is that most stars near us look fine, we're not expecting any atmosphere stripping shock waves from what we can see of our galactic neighborhood.

I believe it mostly oxidizes turning into water vapor and carbon dioxide.

That's fair, having a good wage and retirement savings is definitely important. What I meant was that OP should consider which job has better opportunities for learning and growth, if one job pays a little more but isn't something they're interested in long term, it would be worth taking a tiny paycut to do the more interesting work or the one that gives them better marketable skills for the future. It seems like both jobs are about equal benefit-ways with #2 being slightly more lucrative which in my mind, means they should choose based on which job will give them a better career path for 5/10 years in the future.

yeah on paper job #2 looks better but which job will you enjoy doing and which one has the most potential for your personal growth 5 or 10 years from now.