Again, depends where you live. In many expensive urban areas $100k isnt exceptional.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
100k(40hr/week) vs 300k(55hr/week) salary
- Thread starter OEM
- Start date
Again, depends where you live. In many expensive urban areas $100k isnt exceptional.
I'd take the 300k, it's a no brainer
This. I'm single, so i ain't got no kids or waifus to worry about. Give me all the money!
40 hours per week, no doubt. While a lot of money sure is nice, I much rather have more free time. Americans sure does love working their whole lives away though.
I don't live to work, I work to live. What's the point of having all that money if you never really have the time to actually use it.
"Just 3 more hours per day" and then you probably have around 1 hour in total commute to and from work. There's nothing of the day left after that. You eat dinner, spend some time in front of the computer/TV and then it's back to bed and off to work again. No thank you.
I don't live to work, I work to live. What's the point of having all that money if you never really have the time to actually use it.
"Just 3 more hours per day" and then you probably have around 1 hour in total commute to and from work. There's nothing of the day left after that. You eat dinner, spend some time in front of the computer/TV and then it's back to bed and off to work again. No thank you.
retroBrand
Member
100k at 40 hours. Honestly I'd take 75k at 30 hours.
To me, the time spent with family and loved one are far greater than money.
To me, the time spent with family and loved one are far greater than money.
Currently making 30k for usually 35ish hours a week and couldn't be happier with my life.
Tons of free time to pursue my hobbies and have fun.
Wealth and just having lots of shit in general is highly overrated. Getting by on the bare minimum is fine with me, as long as it doesn't start to take a negative mental toll.
So the 100k option, but honestly I'd probably reject both.
Tons of free time to pursue my hobbies and have fun.
Wealth and just having lots of shit in general is highly overrated. Getting by on the bare minimum is fine with me, as long as it doesn't start to take a negative mental toll.
So the 100k option, but honestly I'd probably reject both.
Rumblebones
Banned
100k, easy.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I play video games or watch movies for like 90% my time at work. So yeah give me that triple pay and I'll 'work' 15 more hours. I'm actually working 70 hour weeks this month already while my coworker is on vacation.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
I'd take either. 100k would change my life.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yes its massive, but so is 15 hours a week away from my family. Thats 780 hours a year I dont get to see my wife and dog. How much is 780 hours of my life worth? How much is my time with them worth?
It's probably worth less than a straight tripling of your income with all the awesome shit you can do with a 300K salary
thechristoph
Sir!
I already work quite a bit more than 55hrs a week so I'd take that in a heartbeat. It'd be less work for more than four times the money...
Darryl M R
Member
I already work 60+/hrs per week and as long as I can do hours outside of the first 40 remote then this is an easy decision for me.
Hippopuncher12
Member
300k without thinking. I will work an extra 15 hours a week to be able to retire that much earlier.
mullet2000
Member
100k at 40 hours and it's not even a contest.
Temeculan3000
Member
Take the 300k, save/invest most of it. Then retire earlier. No brainier. In the long run you will have worked less.
CreepingFear
Member
I'd take either. 100k would change my life.
Definitely. That's my "grounded dream".
ThanksVision
Member
I just... don't get the 100k answers. I understand that having time to yourself/family day-to-day is priceless, but futureproofing your entire life justifies most workloads for me. 300k for a couple years provides a safety net for you and your family. You could set your family up for generations on 300k a year. You could even retire decades earlier if you play it smart.
55hrs/week is child's play.
So duh, 55 hrs/wk.
Pretty much
It's a huge amount of money, which is why it's super tempting. I will never, ever make anywhere near 300k/year in my current career path, no matter how hard I work.People are seriously underestimating the difference.
The downside is that depending on the work environment, even a 40 hour work week is a slog for me and can cause burnout. Doing 3 extra hours every day in such an environment would make me miserable in short order. And possibly dangerous too, if it tires me out to the point where I get in a car accident while commuting or something.
I can see myself trying to do the 300k job and toughing out the hours for a few years, but I really don't think I can do it for decades.
Yes, the difference is working 30 years at 100k vs 10 years at 300k. I'd work an extra 15 hours a week for 10 years to get 20 years to myself.
Money buys you time and freedom that's all.
Yep this is how I see it as well
Hippopuncher12
Member
Same job? nah I think I'd save a couple hours for not much benefit.
No much benefit? Think of it this way at 100k for a 40 hour job at 52 weeks/year you are making $48/hr. 300k for 65hrs/week is $88/hr. If you don't think $40/hr difference isn't much benefit.....I just....I dunno what to say lol. You are working an extra 3 hours a day during a 5 day work week, so you still get your weekends. You are also making so much more that you would retire years before you would choosing the other option getting all of that time plus more back. I just don't know why anyone would choose 100k. Crazy to me.
Edit: I did this as 65 hours/week for some reason on the 300k so I actually short changed what you are making. You are actually making $105/hr which is even more ridiculous at the correct 55 hours/week.
Linkstrikesback
Member
300k every time, easy.
Get myself a really nice house first. Then use the additional money to buy houses/flats, rent them out through a letting agency who take care of all the hard stuff, retire early. I'm nearing the end of a PhD, i'm pretty sure I've averaged 50-something hours this past year for a stupidly small fraction of that amount of money.
Get myself a really nice house first. Then use the additional money to buy houses/flats, rent them out through a letting agency who take care of all the hard stuff, retire early. I'm nearing the end of a PhD, i'm pretty sure I've averaged 50-something hours this past year for a stupidly small fraction of that amount of money.
No much benefit? Think of it this way at 100k for a 40 hour job at 52 weeks/year you are making $48/hr. 300k for 65hrs/week is $88/hr. If you don't think $40/hr difference isn't much benefit.....I just....I dunno what to say lol. You are working an extra 3 hours a day during a 5 day work week, so you still get your weekends. You are also making so much more that you would retire years before you would choosing the other option getting all of that time plus more back. I just don't know why anyone would choose 100k. Crazy to me.
Edit: I did this as 65 hours/week for some reason on the 300k so I actually short changed what you are making. You are actually making $105/hr which is even more ridiculous.
Some people just value their free time a lot more than others. I don't consider it worth living a life where I spend 95% of the time either at work or sleeping and then have 2 days to myself during the weekend.
You triple your salary by working three hours more a day if spread equal through a five day work week.
Well worth it. It's actually a no brainer really.
This...300k is the no brainer here.
Earthbound64
Banned
Yes, the difference is working 30 years at 100k vs 10 years at 300k. I'd work an extra 15 hours a week for 10 years to get 20 years to myself.
Money buys you time and freedom that's all.
This.
Unless you're locked into some long-term contract (say, 30 years) and if you don't complete it, you have to give money back.
backflip10019
Member
300k in a fucking heartbeat. My 40* hour job is already around 47-50 hours per week. Getting that huge bump in salary would be well worth it.
Forerunner
Member
It depends. If I actually like and enjoy the job then sure give me the 300k/55hr. If not then I'll take the 100k/40hr. For me, money never has been that important. Finding a career I'm passionate about and enjoy is more important than the money. I'm one of the weird people that work to live and I enjoy it.
40 hours per week, no doubt. While a lot of money sure is nice, I much rather have more free time. Americans sure does love working their whole lives away though.
I don't live to work, I work to live. What's the point of having all that money if you never really have the time to actually use it.
"Just 3 more hours per day" and then you probably have around 1 hour in total commute to and from work. There's nothing of the day left after that. You eat dinner, spend some time in front of the computer/TV and then it's back to bed and off to work again. No thank you.
I'd be amazed if you couldn't find 15 hours of tasks you do outside of work you don't enjoy that couldn't be contracted out for less than the difference in cost.
Cleaning your house, raking up leaves, being able to afford to live within walking distance of work, making healthy meals every day, grocery shopping, ironing. These are all things you no longer have to do and give you time back.
VistraNorrez
Member
Well if we are adding any conditions we want, what if you die in 20 years of starting the 300k job, but die in 60 years of starting the 100k job?
Earthbound64
Banned
It depends. If I actually like and enjoy the job then sure give me the 300k/55hr. If not then I'll take the 100k/40hr. For me, money never has been that important. Finding a career I'm passionate about and enjoy is more important than the money. I'm one of the weird people that work to live and I enjoy it.
But if you earn $300k/55hr for 10 years, you can do whatever you want for 20 years without needing to earn anything at all, which gives you far more freedom.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'd take the 300k. 100k might not be enough when you have a spouse and kids.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
40 hr work week. Actually one of the biggest things I am struggling with now. I want to go back to school, but I want to come out and have a job that pays reasonably well and doesn't expect me to work like 70 hrs a week.
VistraNorrez
Member
I'd be amazed if you couldn't find 15 hours of tasks you do outside of work you don't enjoy that couldn't be contracted out for less than the difference in cost.
Cleaning your house, raking up leaves, being able to afford to live within walking distance of work, making healthy meals every day, grocery shopping, ironing. These are all things you no longer have to do and give you time back.
If I made 100k I could afford to pay for many of those things. Lawn Care would be trivial, a maid would be affordable, grocery delivery would be affordable (although I like doing that), cooking can be fun.
That's not nearly incentive to lose 15 hours a week. None of that adds up to 15 hours either.
I'll take the 300k for a year, live modestly, quit my job and travel/chill the entire next year.
After that I'll gladly take the 100k job. In fact, I'd even take a 60k/32h job. That'd be the dream.
Don't have kids at all?
After that I'll gladly take the 100k job. In fact, I'd even take a 60k/32h job. That'd be the dream.
300k easily. 15hrs a week more?
Think of all the things you can get back that waste time
1) Cooking - 1 hrs every day (if you eat healthy)
2) Better quality food (you dont have to eat cheapie/processed fast food)
3) Cleaning
4) Laundry
5) Childcare - Nanny
Don't have kids at all?
PanicFreak
Member
Three times the salary with 37.5% more effort? I'd go that route.