Support NeoGAF

[Earthbound64]

That's not nearly incentive to lose 15 hours a week. None of that adds up to 15 hours either.

15 hours per week extra for 10 years.
40 hours per week free for 20 years
Savings: ~33,800 hours gained over 30 years

 

[Violater]

I already work more than 55 Hrs a week.
Still get the same pay, salaried no ot sucks.

 

[dc3k]

55hrs @ $300k until I can buy a home, then quit and work for myself. This is already my plan regardless of not making $300k

 

[Thaedolus]

I'd take the 300k, have my wife stay at home when our future kids are young, quit after 5 years or so and work freelance shit and send her back to work.

11 hour days aren't bad if you got someone else handling the other shit that needs to get done.

 

[kingsamj]

In a lot of US cities 100k is fine but not enough to have the classic "middle class" accommodations like a house/big enough condo with enough left over to put into retirement funds.

I'd take 300k/55hours without a second though. Somewhere between 100k and 200k you start to run out of things (within reason) to spend money on and everything left over can be saved for retirement or invested. That money will grow quickly and you'll be able to retire sooner, or have a bomb ass life in your later years.

 

[VistraNorrez]

15 hours per week extra for 10 years.
40 hours per week free for 20 years
Savings: ~33,800 hours gained over 30 years

Life isn't a math equation.

My time right now is important. Life is for living today. I don't know what the fuck will happen in 10 years. Something personally catastrophic can happen 5 years from now and make the rest of my life miserable to live. Not to mention the daily job stress would make my current personal time less enjoyable.

I'll work a decade or 2 longer and balance my life day to day much more easily.

 

[dhlt25]

300k for sure. I'm making ~100k right now and to be honest I can barely make it, buying a house is an impossible dream for me. With 300k I can invest, buy a house and retire 20 years earlier.

 

[Fuzzery]

20 hours a week at 300k

I'd prolly get bored and work on other things though

 

[pablito]

55/300k

Move as close to work as I possibly can. Save up and retire earlier.

 

[Lumination]

100k makes you a wealthy person in a more rural area. You're basically confined to outside of cities.

300k makes you wealthy and able to live in luxury pretty much in 99% of the US.

 

[Just_myles]

I would work the extra 15 hours. It's really not that bad when you think about it. So you have to work 9.5 - 10 hours a day. Fairly decent trade off.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

I'd work the 55 hours for two or three years and then retire. I could live and die with that much money easy.

 

[compo]

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.

I only have like 4 hours to myself on any given weekday. An extra 3 hours of work would mean that I have virtually no free time Monday-Friday. That just sounds really depressing to me.

Plus, $100k would easily cover all my expenses now, in addition to fully funding my 401(k) and Roth IRA. And I'd still have a ton of expendable income for hobbies and whatever else.

Also, early retirement doesn't really seem that appealing to me. You'd have to hang out with a bunch of old people at coffee shops or something until all your friends get out of work.

 

[K-Gun]

How the hell are some of you retiring after a "couple of years"? That's pretty hard to do.

Edit: To answer the question, I'd definitely do the 55 hours. Do 10 a day, plus 5 on Saturday (be done in the afternoon), all good. Hell, most of us do this and we don't get anywhere near that kind of cash.

 

[FUBAR McDangles]

With a young family, a strong desire to see them and spend time with them, and the desire to also coach and volunteer...55 hour work week sounds dreadful. 100k for 40 hours easily. Cant imagine doing 55k unless you live alone or dont care about seeing your kids grow up.

 

[numble]

Life isn't a math equation.

My time right now is important. Life is for living today. I don't know what the fuck will happen in 10 years. Something personally catastrophic can happen 5 years from now and make the rest of my life miserable to live. Not to mention the daily job stress would make my current personal time less enjoyable.

I'll work a decade or 2 longer and balance my life day to day much more easily.

Your salary decisions should be math equations, actually. Would you be satisfied with 25k at 10 hours/week?

 

[TheTurboFD]

I already do 55hr weeks now so doing it for 300k would be cake.

 

[Spartancarver]

I regularly work 65-80 hours a week so 300K for 55 hours a week sounds like a breeze.

 

[GitarooMan]

id go 100k time is incredibly valuable

 

[Elandyll]

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.

Actually those 3h mean you don't get to play/ interact with your kids all week.

It's an enormous difference if you want/ have a family.
Plus those extra 15h per week will increase your stress and probably coffee/ energy booster/ crap food consumption, diminishing your life expectancy.

40h/ 100k is a no brainer for me actually, and allows to live comfortably (outside of places with insane cost of living like SF)

 

[voOsh]

For me it would depend most on what age I was offered this.

At 32, as I look back on 10 years in the workforce I would have certainly taken 300/55 in my early 20s. Even now I'd likely take it depending on the job circumstances. But at 40+ I wonder if I'll feel the same way.

 

[Raylan Targaryen]

I’d take the 100k. 15 hours extra isn’t much but I don’t even like working the 40 hours a week. Now you’re telling me I either need to work 11hrs a day or work 6 days 9hrs a week? Fuck that. What’s the point of having all that money if I can’t enjoy it? Retirement is nice but I could get in a car accident tomorrow so why live at work and possibly not be able to even experience that? 100k is still enough to live comfortably while being able to spend time with my family on 40hrs a week.

Lastly time is worth more. You can always make more money, you can’t make more time

 

[Earthbound64]

Life isn't a math equation.

My time right now is important. Life is for living today. I don't know what the fuck will happen in 10 years.

If that's your approach / outlook, that's fine.
But saying "None of that adds up to 15 hours either." is false.

And, saying "Life isn't a math equation" when you said "None of that adds up to 15 hours either." ("adds up to" is Mathematics terminology) is odd.

 

[BassForever]

Do I have flexibility of where that extra 15 hours a week go? If so I'm probably do it since I'd work 5 ten hour days and a 5 hour saturday.

 

[Dunlop]

55hour/300k no brainer

My workweek is 35 hours at the moment but about another 10 with the commute.

With that kind of salary I would just more closer to downtown and save a ton of time

 

[numble]

I only have like 4 hours to myself on any given weekday. An extra 3 hours of work would mean that I have virtually no free time Monday-Friday. That just sounds really depressing to me.

Plus, $100k would easily cover all my expenses now, in addition to fully funding my 401(k) and Roth IRA. And I'd still have a ton of expendable income for hobbies and whatever else.

Also, early retirement doesn't really seem that appealing to me. You'd have to hang out with a bunch of old people at coffee shops or something until all your friends get out of work.

How does 40 hours/week translate into 4 hours of free time per day? If your commute is too long, you could move closer to work for a $300k salary, right?

 

[justjustin]

300k 55hr/week. Hire people to do all my chores, and retire early with money to take care of family.

 

[bionic77]

55 hours is not a ton of hours to work to earn a 100k.

To get 300k from that is a pretty good deal.

To answer the OP's question though, I work way too many fucking hours so I personally would rather take the 40 hour job and cut back on my lifestyle.

There is something to be said for having some free time. Especially when you have a family.

Also, the question is unrealistic in America. They will MAKE you work 55 hours and most likely pay you shit and you will like it.

 

[Guzim]

I'm a teacher so making 100k a year would be awesome, but 300k for 55 hours a week? That's nothing.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

This is absolutely a no brainer given I already put in about 50 a week. The only way to make this a contest is to reduce the amount for 55/wk to $150K and even then it’s a 50% increase for only 38% additional work.

 

[compo]

How does 40 hours/week translate into 4 hours of free time per day? If your commute is too long, you could move closer to work for a $300k salary, right?

My commute is long (half hour in the morning/hour in afternoon because DC traffic), but I could move on my current salary. I like my neighborhood. Plus, replacing commute time with work time isn't a time save, anyway.

But I also have cooking and exercise time, which I consider a chore, and not free time.

 

[Earthbound64]

Plus, replacing commute time with work time isn't a time save, anyway.

So:
Next 10 years: "No time saved."
Following 20 years: 40+ hours/week saved.

 

[ramparter]

Id go for 20hours a week 50k.

.

 

[RMI]

what? yes of course i'll take the 300k . My standard of living won't change, and i'll just retire younger.

My commute is long (half hour in the morning/hour in afternoon because DC traffic), but I could move on my current salary. I like my neighborhood. Plus, replacing commute time with work time isn't a time save, anyway.

But I also have cooking and exercise time, which I consider a chore, and not free time.

cooking I understand but you are exercising wrong if you're not having fun.

 

[RSTEIN]

Problem is as you start making more money you spend more money. I've never met a person who keeps their lifestyle/expenditures constant while their salary rises over time. You buy a larger house, a nicer car, send your kids to private school, buy a cottage, better wardrobe, go out to eat more often, buy more booze, vacations, buy insanely priced golden age comic books (ok, that maybe that's just me), etc. etc.

So it's not like yes, 3x salary and I get to retire sooner! In reality its 3x more salary = 3x expenditures, too.

 

[Nipo]

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.

Ah, it must be very dependent on where you live then. Here 100k will get you a house within an 30-60 drive but 300k you can afford a 10 minute walk. That alone saves ~7 hours a week. Not to mention the costs associated with a family like daycare (which includes pick up drop off etc) vs having a live in nanny.

 

[chrisPjelly]

Jesus Christ that's a tough choice. On one hand, you'd basically struggle to have a life of your own, on the other, your salary would increase THREE FOLD. I'd do some research on the work environment if possible.

 

[Dreamgazer]

lol


Have you worked 55hrs/wk?

You have to remember we Big 4 accounting people are the outliers of this society lol.

 

[n00bsauce87]

I'll still take the 100k. Compared to what I'm making now, it'll feel like diminished returns. I'll pay off my loans/bills quicker and pay off my house quicker as well. So I can have more money on hand to do other investments and saving.

I'll still want to take my vacations when I want them

 

[Biske]

Yeah 200k is kind of a lot more. Would be worth it.

 

[Pagusas]

200k more for 15 extra hours...sign me up

its 200k more for 750 extra hours, not 15. It's a yearly salary.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I'd much rather have free time while I'm young and in my physical prime. No thanks to constantly working so that I can have free time once I'm 50+. 100k please.


Pro-tip: more money does nothing for your happiness or level of contentment after you're already earning enough to live comfortably. It's been proven in several studies.

 

[DOWN]

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.

Smart

 

[Kevin]

$300,000 and sock most if it away into savings for retirement. An obvious choice!

 

[mullet2000]

I'm pretty surprised that 300k/55h is the most popular answer.

That's a large time difference guys. Would you really be that much happier with the 300k vs 100k, which is still a pretty damn good salary?

9pm to 8pm every weekday + commute. You basically wouldn't have a life 5 days a week. It's a lot of money obviously but I don't feel like it's worth it.

 

[Earthbound64]

That's a large time difference guys.

Yeah, it's a large time difference being able to retire 20 years earlier.

 

[Piecake]

I'd much rather have free time while I'm young and in my physical prime. No thanks to constantly working so that I can have free time once I'm 50+. 100k please.


Pro-tip: more money does nothing for your happiness or level of contentment after you're already earning enough to live comfortably. It's been proven in several studies.

Use that extra 200k to retire in 5-10 years.

Then you'll be a whole lot more happy because you can use your time to do whatever you want to do instead of working at a job you probably hate for 40 hours a week until you are 65

 

[Pagusas]

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.

Wouldn't it just suck if you died in year 9. All that wasted time trying to gain time in the future and you wind up dead having wasted the time you had on earth.
Its a gamble.

 

[Fuzzery]

You have to remember we Big 4 accounting people are the outliers of this society lol.

Seriously, I couldn't imagine doing meaningful work that many hours in a row, tbh. Productivity just drops off until you're refreshed again.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

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