Extend the Day or Make more Money?

[cbrunny]

Obviously hypothetical.

If you had to choose to either accept:

1) A normal 24-hour day is extended to 30 hours with no involuntary change to your work commitments

or

2) Your salary increases by 50% with no involuntary change to your work commitments

which would you choose? Do you want to have more time or more money?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Obviously hypothetical.

If you had to choose to either accept:

1) A normal 24-hour day is extended to 30 hours with no involuntary change to your work commitments

or

2) Your salary increases by 50% with no involuntary change to your work commitments

which would you choose? Do you want to have more time or more money?

Increase salary, suckle on that teat for a few years, then retire and do whatever I want with my 24 hour days for the rest of my life?

 

[deadlyapp]

If my day was changed to 30 hours there's way more that comes into play - I can't stay awake more than 12-14 hours so it doesn't really gain me anything other than a longer year.

I'd 100% take the salary increase.

 

[purbeast0]

#1

I already make pretty good money, although making 1.5x what I make now would be very nice, but then I still wouldn't have the extra time to enjoy the extra money. With more time I'd go on more vacations and definitely do a 4/10 work schedule and have 3 long ass days off every weekend.

But it does matter if this hypothetical also means we still only have to sleep our "normal" hours and we won't get extra tired because we're awake 6 more hours a day.

 

[dullard]

I assume #1 is the Earth slows it's movement around the sun without problematic temperature changes; giving us an equivalent of 6 extra hours per day. 2 of those would need to be spent sleeping, so it is 4 hours per day of extra leisure. 28 hours of leisure per week.

The math says 28 hours of leisure is worth more than the equivalent of 20 hours of work (50% more pay of the typical 40 hour work week). If that isn't true for you, then you need to work more hours as it is.

I say more time for that reason and because I honestly have enough money to enjoy my life the way that I want to.

 

[cbrunny]

More often lately I'm wishing the days were longer. Money would be nice. Enough money to not have to work would be the best b/c then my day would be that much longer of not-work. But given the options, I'd take the time right now.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I voted #1, but upon further reflection I'm torn.

On one hand I agree with dullard. Time is valuable. I wake up at 6am and come back home anywhere from 4 to 5pm. After doing all the mandatory life stuff like chores and cooking, I barely have 1 hour a day to myself, 2 hours if I'm lucky. And I don't even have kids. Getting 6 hours to do whatever I want such as reading, biking, working out, tinkering with my PC? Why would I say no to that?

On the other hand, for 50% higher salary I could hire people to do stuff for me so that I would have more free time, and I could use extra income for house improvements/fixes, new car (mine is 12 years old), or vacations...

Both options are appealing, and both are just a pipe dream, so back to work for me I guess. No time for daydreaming.

 

[zCypher]

As a single person with little responsibility, I'd take the pay. Were I a family man with more responsibilities, then the extra time might weigh in more heavily for me.

The only way I'd take the extra time over the 50% pay hike at this point would be if I could magically make use of all that extra time with no downside, which is impossible in reality. In practice there'd have to be some kind of trade off, and that would suck. No downside to just having 50% more income.

 

[repoman0]

Time. I'd probably even consider working half time for half pay, if not now then in the future.