Lots of responses here, probably many more intelligent than mine, so let me try to sum up. Here are the things that matter in this equation:
1. Job Satisfaction (clearly you expect to have this decline if you take the job)
2. Job Security (clearly you expect to have this decline if you DON'T take the job)
3. Job Performance (it sounds like you expect this to decline if you take the job)
4. Money (given the economy, this may or may not change if you take the job)
5. Experience (clearly if you take a new job you'll get more job experience than if you tried to stay in the same role)

Lots of things to think about here. Obviously, if job satisfaction is most important, then you know what to do. However, if job security is the most important, then you again know what to do. Etc etc. However, the point is this is a short-term view. In order to make the right choice for yourself, you probably have to take the long-term view.

Is it worth it to take the management job and push paper for a few years, hopefully bridging you through the bad economy, getting you experience in management so that you are more hire-able later on, potentially leading to more money, a better job, and increased job satisfaction? You could certainly make that argument. But if you go that route you have to maintain the long-term view and keep in mind that you are essentially interning as management to increase prospects later on, keep yourself abreast of the latest technology on your own time, and most importantly, when later on becomes now, ACT on that.

You could also make the argument that if the technical role is extremely important to you, then you need to stick to it so that you don't unintentionally transition into a job you're going to hate. I would argue that working a job you hate is only marginally better than not having a job at all.

I worked at a place that had 2 "tracks"-management and technical, and you picked one and advanced along that track. That's the best of both worlds I suppose; it's worth being aware of that sort of arrangement when finding a job if job satisfaction is high on your list.

I disagree that the web will evolve into some sort of 3D Virtual World. I do agree that 3D Virtual Worlds will continue to be prevalent and offer new and fresh experiences, such as for entertainment, education, experimentation, or even as a method for permanently disabled people to enjoy a fully realized existence (i.e. the matrix). However, that is *all* that they will be, for one single reason-convenience. The web is convenient. Real life is Not. Virtual worlds, as they move towards more and more realistic scenarios, by their very nature replace the convenience of (semi) immediate response engendered by traditional web browsers with the non-convenience of the real world, where you have to *go* somewhere to *get* something. I'm reminded of a post by the penny arcade guys where they reviewed the playstation home service (see http://www.penny-arcade.com/2008/12/12/). Hilarity aside, resources are limited in the real world, because things take up space. Therefore there cannot be an unlimited amount of them in a single location. Therefore by definition any "3D Virtual World" which provides as much correlation to the real world as something as simple as World of Warcraft *cannot* have the convenience provided by the current incarnation of the web browser. This is not to say that virtual reality will not happen, or that when it happens it will not be big. For all I know we might all decide to plug ourselves in matrix-style. Certainly the first company to figure out the sex angle at a more than pathetic level will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. However, what I am saying is that virtual worlds will continue being what they are-a tool for some purpose, be it entertainment or whatever-while what we consider the "web" will continue to exist in some "pure" (though evolved) form because of it's ability to offer the immediacy of information transfer, which is, ultimately, the thing we most value about it.