I just wandered by the late-stage capitalism temple to wage-slavery known as LinkedIn. There was a survey there that was interesting mostly for the hellscape of comments it drew. I'll ask same question here where I hope to read much more sane commentary.

Would you rather make:

@tomasino I'll make the unpopular $150k choice.

You can save and invest that money and one day become independently wealthy. I'd rather sacrifice more now, within reason, to accelerate that time frame. Also, knowing my luck, that 35hrs/week job would be a "SIKE" (remember that term?) 45 hrs/week job anyways.

When I'm older, 50 plus, then definitely 35 hrs over 45 hrs unless I'm literally the one running things.

@Columbkille there are many on linkedin who share your line of thinking. There's a lot, and I mean A LOT, of commenters bragging about their hellish 80+ hour workdays and hustle-culture, or slapping entrepreneur after their names to justify spending every waking hour of their lives building capital or whatever else they want to call it.

I'm firmly in the work less camp, as you can probably tell. I went on a 10 minute rant to my wife after seeing the first survey. I'll save you from that now. :)

@tomasino Well, remember people in LinkedIn are posturing, since they want others to see it.

I actually have worked 80 hours a week before (I used to do biglaw before fleeing). It's really hellish and damaging to one's health. There are definitely marginal declining returns to work, it's just a question for each person.

I used to be really into the FIRE movement and honestly could probably FIRE now with lifestyle adjustments. So that's where the view of take the pain now comes from. I stopped obsessing about FIRE when I found a job I liked more.

Nothing wrong with a solid 35 hour per week job and living below your means. I wonder about our culture where people work themselves into ill-health only to amass more money than they need and use that money to wreck the planet. It doesn't make any sense.

The problem is that interesting high-profile jobs just require a lot of work, and that amassing a lot of money is a great way to never feel trapped -- by a boss, by cancel culture, whatever. So it makes sense to sacrifice while you are young and use the proceeds wisely.

@tomasino If I'm doing my math right, its ~64$ an hour for the 150k salary vs ~60$ an hour for the 110k salary.

@gedvondur If you assume 3 weeks vacation it's closer to $68 vs $64 hourly, but yeah. The math isn't equal. Even so, this is going as I expected with my network on fedi.

@tomasino Its a hell of a question, really. In my 20s and 30s, I'd have been all about the salary.

Now....Time is the only factor I can't work on changing. Only got so much of it and I already resent how long I spend the best parts of it working.

@gedvondur @tomasino After taxes, the $110k job may pay a bit more per hour.

Here's the question. Say you're raising a family and your expenses are $75k. (Mine are higher, I live in an expensive area, but my job pays more.)

$150 after taxes $115 - $75k = $40k per year.
$110 after taxes $90 - $75k = $15k per year.

You can save almost double with the first job. Invested with compounding returns, that's huge. It's the difference between retiring early and retiring at 65.

This assumes no lifestyle inflation with the higher paid job. Which is tricky to pull off, but not impossible.

@tomasino Taking taxes "brackets" into account and the 10x52 more hours yearly... I'm not even sure you get a meaningful increase in "real" income from the 35 to 45 options vs the time it take away. Once you get a family and/or other people to take care of... that 10 hours help a lot. so.. Ill take the 35 ^^'

@tomasino your local context matters a lot. In a big Australian capital, $110k income is the bare minimum for a household to buy a family home before the children move out. So I can see many choosing more work.

But in other places 110k is a much more extravagant income.

@tomasino I'll take more money for more hours than negotiate more vacation to spend it in.

@tomasino In the future I would take less than $110k@35hrs.

I'd need to sell my apartment and finance a house to know exactly how low I could go.

I wouldn't do 45hrs.

In 2005, I worked 16 hour days, six days a week, for the better part of the year. It took being hospitalized for exhaustion to put a stop to that. No amount of money, notoriety, consumer goods, or promises of great things is worth it.

@tomasino It’s easy for me to pick the 110@35, but also easy to justify an additional +40@10 to myself, depending on circumstances.

Time is more valuable to me now than it used to be, though, so I’d take the small financial hit for less work time if I had the headroom in my budget.

@tomasino when I was a rising star at IBM I told my manager that I would happily take more vacation time in lieu of a raise. He basically laughed in my face

Sign in to participate in the conversation

masto instance for the tildeverse