What would you choose?

[blahblahblah]

Lets say you are forced to make a decision in life. You can choose either decision because you have tons of ability and you have the means to do either one. However, you can only choose one. Once you make a decision, it is impossible to switch to the other one at a later time.

1) Working 60 hours a week or more (emphasis on "more") in a challenging career. Your starting income is very comfortable. However, you will always work 60 or more hours per week, but you can earn loads of money later in life. However, if/when you choose to start a family, you will not be able to spend much time with them. Or even have much spare time for that matter.

2) Working 40 hours a week in a less challenging career. Your starting income is alright. You are not struggling for money, but you don't have much spare income. Later in life you will earn more money, but you will never be rich. However, if/when you choose to start a family, you will be able to spend time with them because you only work 40 hours a week. You may even have some spare time to enjoy some hobbies.

What one would you choose, and why?

 

[joule]

Hhmmm...that is a tuffy.

I'd choose to work 40 hours a week for less money because I want to have lots 'o' time to play Half-Life 2.

Why? Are you stuck in this predicament?

 

[Edge]

Work more.. for more money. Idle time kills ones ability to dream.

 

[Ames]

If there are vacations, then the top one.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Depends on when "later in life" is in the first one really.

I would choose the their option of mkaing my money early, and starting a family in my late twenties

 

[blahblahblah]

Depends on when "later in life" is in the first one really.

Late 30's, early 40's.

If there are vacations, then the top one.

Yes, 2 week a year once you have been working for 5 years. However, taking vacations is "frowned upon" in option one. All benefits, vacation, sicktime, etc. are equal between the two options.

Why? Are you stuck in this predicament?

Yes. I have to have a semi-firm idea of what I want to do with in the next 4 months or so.

~~~

To give some firm numbers.

If Option 1
- Start out earning $38,000 USD a year
- Caps around $85,000 USD a year

If Option 2
- Start out earning $33,000 USD a year
- Caps around $60,000 USD a year

I should also add that Option 2 is a more stable job choice.

 

[Dedalus]

free time is worth more than money. (in my opinion)

 

[Foxtrot]

Easily 40 hours a week, what is the point of having money if you have no time to enjoy being rich?

 

[Parrot of doom]

Money isn't everything. Then again, I only work about 2.5 - 3 days a week over the year, and am pretty well off

 

[HunterSeeker]

IMO money is not that important, as long as you get enough money to afford your hobbies (assuming they are not uber expensive like collecting cars or assembling military aircraft, or something).

 

[Alig]

I'd choose to work 40 hours a week for less money. Infact the job i applied for the other day it asked how many hours a week i'd prefer to work and i put 32 hours a week I'm a lazy bastard.

 

[CyberSh33p]

depends how fast the money will accumulate. if you can collect like a million or so you can pretty much live off bank interest.

 

[ShadowFox]

Depends on the job really. If it is something like accounting, then no doubt the 40 hours. But if it were being a hockey player or something like that, then I would take the 60 hours.

 

[blahblahblah]

Depends on the job really. If it is something like accounting, then no doubt the 40 hours. But if it were being a hockey player or something like that, then I would take the 60 hours.

It is accounting, lol.

 

[lePobz]

Money isn't everything in life - i'd work as much as I needed to, to make sure I have enough to cover what I need (mortgage/food/family/life). Time is something you can't buy, and to spend your life working to get more money would probably just give you a worse life.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Money isn't everything in life - i'd work as much as I needed to, to make sure I have enough to cover what I need (mortgage/food/family/life). Time is something you can't buy, and to spend your life working to get more money would probably just give you a worse life.

yup.
it all comes down to how much u value time really.. and perhaps the fact that it depends on whether it bothers u missing out on hobbies etc.. i mean u can perhaps catch up later on in life on these things.. but it certainly isn't the same as doing them in ur younger years.

 

[ShadowFox]

It is accounting, lol.

Well, whatever floats your boat.

 

[CrazyHarij]

40 hours a week. There are much more important things in life than money.

 

[SLH]

Work more.. for more money. Idle time kills ones ability to dream.

Interesting view, i'd have said the opposite. If i had no time to act upon my dreams i probably wouldn't make any and even if i did, what's the point if i'm only gonna be annoyed at not being able to act on them.

 

[Hazar]

why only 2 choices?

surely there are more than two jobs out there.

I pick option 3, 10 hours a week, $100,000

 

[Tinneth]

I'd do the 40 hours..probably because im a lazy git.

 

[Narcolepsy]

It would seem that both choices are pretty good, all things considered. Many people would kill to be in such a predicament.

Interesting thread, by the way.

 

[Letters]

If you can make good use of your free time, the 40 hour one... if you find yourself bumming around, though, sometimes working harder can be a good thing.

 

[Wraith]

once you buy a house, a computer, and a car, all you have to worry about is bills. you dont need to make any more big purchases. and you only live once, so i would pick 40 hours so i could have time to spend with my girlfriend (who by then will be my wife) (and also hl2 :-D)


ps the career i am going to school for now is 3 days per week, 12 hours per day, thats 36 hours per week, at $1,040 per week after taxes, and 4 days off in a row. seems like a nice combination of the 2 choices.

 

[JimmehH]

Money isn't everything. Then again, I only work about 2.5 - 3 days a week over the year, and am pretty well off

Where can I get your job?

 

[nick_t]

40 hours for less money. Money is pointless to persue if you don't have time to enjoy it or share it with others. Plus, striving for materialism to fill the void in your life won't get you anywhere.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

40 hours, 60 hours is nutz!!

 

[Phisionary]

40.

besides, if I had to work 60 hours a week as an accountant, I'd end up as a suicide statistic later in... um. life.
so to speak.

seriously, Americans work more hours than in just about any industrialized country. Why? I dunno. greed maybe? It's just money...

Edit: Then again, I'm a lazy bastard also. I know people who work 60 hours and seem pretty content with it. Not enough sleep of course 'cause they haven't given up their life.
Me,... I can't do that.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm lazy, but yes I'd take the 40 hours option because then I'd have time to do all my hobbies. This might, however, be because I have a lot of hobbies.

 

[Pogrom]

I'd take whatever option had the job that interested me more.

40 hours a week doing a job you hate would be much worse than 60 hours a week doing a job you love.

Just do the job you love and everything else will work out.

But if the jobs were fairly equal, then I'd take the 40 hour one.

On a side note... 5 years before your first vacation!!?!?!

WHAT SORT OF SLAVE LABOUR SYSTEM IS THAT?

:shiver:

 

[RRunner]

I choose 1. when i was younger, made alot of money. Life was a constant party.. now i have kids, i shifted to the 2. Why? well you wrote so your self, all good points.

 

[Pogrom]

I choose 1. when i was younger, made alot of money. Life was a constant party.. now i have kids, i shifted to the 2. Why? well you wrote so your self, all good points.

Yes, but it is dependant upon the person whether or not they can save the money they earn when they are young.

More commonly, as the pay goes up, so too does the cost of living (the lifestyle, in other words).

So when you do want to settle into a more relaxed pace of life with a family, you may not have anything to show for it except the experience of working really hard.

 

[Neutrino]

It would only depend on what kind of work it is and whether I would enjoy it.

Money does not matter to me besides as a useful tool to provide for myself and any family I might have. As long as both options would supply me with enough to meet my needs it wouldn't be a consideration for me. But if the only factor was money than I would choose the 40 hour option.

However, I would really make the choice based on what kind of career I would like and how much I enjoy what I do. If really like it and the longer work week would be required to advance in that career than I would go for that.

I'm an engineering myself so I expect that I'll probably have some pretty long hours in order to achieve the career goals I have.

 

[scully]

ive just come to that point in my life, me and my mrs are expecting our 1st child in january. Ive had to make some changes in my career.

i was working most nights of the week, earning a good wage, but it meant i was out all night and slept all day. my mrs works weekdays, so we sorta didnt get alot of time together.

now shes pregnant ive cut back my nights and have decided to get a day job. Its a hard decision as i know i probably wont earn as much in the day and plus i could spend time with my new child and mrs.

only problem was, i didnt think it would be so hard to find a good day job lol.. so i may have to go back to nights now anyway!

if i had the choice.. i would earn less and have more time, but only if it was enough to keep all 3 of us happy :bounce:

 

[Bad^Hat]

The easier job. Primarily because I'm lazy, but being rich has never really been an ambition of mine. On top of that what you're looking to be earning on 40 hours a week is around what my parents earn collectively, and we (mum, dad and three growing kids) get by okay.

I guess what you have to think about is what you're more likely to regret later in life. Less money, or less time?

Edit - Okay, so maybe a little more than what one parent earns, I got the conversion wrong... but once it tops out this is still true.

 

[RRunner]

Yes, but it is dependant upon the person whether or not they can save the money they earn when they are young.

More commonly, as the pay goes up, so too does the cost of living (the lifestyle, in other words).

So when you do want to settle into a more relaxed pace of life with a family, you may not have anything to show for it except the experience of working really hard.

I Admit my hard work about 300 hours a month when i was younger, was "wasted" about the same time as i earned the money. BUT, theres alot of good memorys attached to that spending, memorys you will NOT be able to get, when you have kids (well by my standards, you cant drink, smoke, travel like a madman when you have kids). So i have alot to show for my hard earned cash i would say, nope i dont have a big house nor 100k in the bank, but i do have a very broad horizon of most of life´s up´s, down´s and hey´s i did that too.