To Work Or Not To Work?

mfd · 05-07-2009, 01:42 PM

I just wrote a post about why I work certain shifts. I ended the post with a question and I wanted to post that question here.

Would you work 80 hrs/week for 10 years or 20 hrs/week for 40 years? In either case you end with enough money to retire comfortably for the rest of your life.

Rickson9 · 05-07-2009, 01:46 PM

I would rather work less per week, so probably the 40 hrs a week for 20 yrs or 20 hrs a week for 40 yrs.

I currently work around 20 hrs a week (hopefully not for 40 yrs

stephenheath · 05-07-2009, 02:22 PM

Wow, that's a bit of a tough call

Before I met my wife, it would have been 80 hours... but of course since that's when you're starting out and getting little pay, it didn't shorten to 10 years

I'd like to work 20 hours a week, but I'm too old now, as 40 years would be until I was 77, and I'm still hoping I'll be able to retire at 67 at the latest.

Guess I'm stuck with 40 hours a week

steve41 · 05-07-2009, 02:26 PM

Hands down... I would rather (if I were a 25year old) work 10 years at 120K per year than 40 years at $30K by a country mile.

The 120K guy will be able to enjoy a maximum lifestyle of 31681 annually, whereas the 30K guy would only attain a 23685 annual lifestyle.

It is a tricky compute, but essentially what happens is that the 120K for 10yrs guy amasses a much larger chunk of capital. The compounding effect is more pronounced than the 30K for 40 year guy.

This was based on a 6% rate, 2% inflation, indexed salary and full CPP/OAS for both. Living in BC.

MGL · 05-07-2009, 02:39 PM

I'd rather front load my leisure time and enjoyment and have to work for a longer period than front load my work and possibly never live to see the benefits.

STone · 05-07-2009, 02:41 PM

Family comes first. The most I would want to work is 40hrs/week. I have 2 young children and I want to be there for them at every opportunity. I actually was given the opportunity to move to a different city a while ago for a sales rep job that would have paid a huge salary (close to double what I currently make), but it would have required a tonne of travel. I just could not do that to my kids. The job I have right now is perfect for a family guy like myself. Very little travel, no required overtime, and the ability to be flexible with my hours if required. I am willing to give up early retirement to make sure I raise my kids right.

CanadianCapitalist · 05-07-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STone

Family comes first. The most I would want to work is 40hrs/week. I have 2 young children and I want to be there for them at every opportunity.

I feel the same way. Young children grow up so fast. Our boys are 3-1/2 now and we were watching the baby videos the other day and wondering where the time went. I'd rather take it easy now, spend some precious time with them and work a bit longer if I have to.

steve41 · 05-07-2009, 02:53 PM

To recap what I said above..... the 120X10 guy will be able to enjoy $8000 per year -every year for the rest of his life- more than the 30X40 guy.

That's $666 a month more (net after-tax) to spend on beer and groceries for the next 70 years. No contest!

That's a 25% reduction in lifestyle. This isn't just a few cases of beer, folks!

The Happy Wanderer · 05-07-2009, 04:07 PM

It is a tough call. Because of my age, I would probably elect to work 80 hours a week for ten years. It would be a long haul, but probably worth it in the end.

However working 40 hours a week for 20 years isn't that bad. I would still only be early 40s.

It really comes down to time. How do you value your time? You cannot make more time, but you can always make more money.

Hmmm

Good question

MoneyGal · 05-07-2009, 05:12 PM

Not particularly by design, but I did the 80/10 thing. I established a very successful sole proprietorship business in my mid-20's; worked very hard for the next 10 years; saved a ton of money; then had kids and now work much, much less.

My spouse also did something similar.

What that has meant is that we have a very decent financial position although neither my spouse nor I work full-time (well, to be fair, he works a 'regular' 40-hour week or so. But he doesn't work the 60-hour weeks of many of his peers). I feel very lucky that things worked out this way for me.

View Poll Results: What would you rather work
80 hrs/week for 10 years	6	23.08%
40 hrs/week for 20 years	15	57.69%
20 hrs/week for 40 years	5	19.23%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

05-07-2009, 01:42 PM	#1
mfd Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 192	To Work Or Not To Work? I just wrote a post about why I work certain shifts. I ended the post with a question and I wanted to post that question here. Would you work 80 hrs/week for 10 years or 20 hrs/week for 40 years? In either case you end with enough money to retire comfortably for the rest of your life. __________________ My Findependence Day My Wealth, Savings and Investing Goals to Reaching Financial Independence Last edited by mfd; 05-07-2009 at 03:22 PM. Reason: I altered the question a bit

05-07-2009, 02:39 PM	#5
MGL Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 29	I'd rather front load my leisure time and enjoyment and have to work for a longer period than front load my work and possibly never live to see the benefits. __________________ Chris aka the Money Grubbing Lawyer http://www.moneygrubbinglawyer.com

05-07-2009, 02:53 PM	#8
steve41 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: BC Gulf Islands Posts: 395	To recap what I said above..... the 120X10 guy will be able to enjoy $8000 per year -every year for the rest of his life- more than the 30X40 guy. That's $666 a month more (net after-tax) to spend on beer and groceries for the next 70 years. No contest! That's a 25% reduction in lifestyle. This isn't just a few cases of beer, folks! Last edited by steve41; 05-07-2009 at 04:23 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-07-2009, 01:46 PM	#2
Rickson9 Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Mississauga, Ontario Posts: 702	I would rather work less per week, so probably the 40 hrs a week for 20 yrs or 20 hrs a week for 40 yrs. I currently work around 20 hrs a week (hopefully not for 40 yrs

05-07-2009, 02:22 PM	#3
stephenheath Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 135	Wow, that's a bit of a tough call Before I met my wife, it would have been 80 hours... but of course since that's when you're starting out and getting little pay, it didn't shorten to 10 years I'd like to work 20 hours a week, but I'm too old now, as 40 years would be until I was 77, and I'm still hoping I'll be able to retire at 67 at the latest. Guess I'm stuck with 40 hours a week

05-07-2009, 02:26 PM	#4
steve41 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: BC Gulf Islands Posts: 395	Hands down... I would rather (if I were a 25year old) work 10 years at 120K per year than 40 years at $30K by a country mile. The 120K guy will be able to enjoy a maximum lifestyle of 31681 annually, whereas the 30K guy would only attain a 23685 annual lifestyle. It is a tricky compute, but essentially what happens is that the 120K for 10yrs guy amasses a much larger chunk of capital. The compounding effect is more pronounced than the 30K for 40 year guy. This was based on a 6% rate, 2% inflation, indexed salary and full CPP/OAS for both. Living in BC.

05-07-2009, 02:41 PM	#6
STone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 14	Family comes first. The most I would want to work is 40hrs/week. I have 2 young children and I want to be there for them at every opportunity. I actually was given the opportunity to move to a different city a while ago for a sales rep job that would have paid a huge salary (close to double what I currently make), but it would have required a tonne of travel. I just could not do that to my kids. The job I have right now is perfect for a family guy like myself. Very little travel, no required overtime, and the ability to be flexible with my hours if required. I am willing to give up early retirement to make sure I raise my kids right.

05-07-2009, 04:07 PM	#9
The Happy Wanderer Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 8	It is a tough call. Because of my age, I would probably elect to work 80 hours a week for ten years. It would be a long haul, but probably worth it in the end. However working 40 hours a week for 20 years isn't that bad. I would still only be early 40s. It really comes down to time. How do you value your time? You cannot make more time, but you can always make more money. Hmmm Good question

05-07-2009, 05:12 PM	#10
MoneyGal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,045	Not particularly by design, but I did the 80/10 thing. I established a very successful sole proprietorship business in my mid-20's; worked very hard for the next 10 years; saved a ton of money; then had kids and now work much, much less. My spouse also did something similar. What that has meant is that we have a very decent financial position although neither my spouse nor I work full-time (well, to be fair, he works a 'regular' 40-hour week or so. But he doesn't work the 60-hour weeks of many of his peers). I feel very lucky that things worked out this way for me.