Where is your ideal income to workload balance?

[Cuda1447]

Had a conversation with a coworker. It seems she values income waaaay more than me. To the point where she is willing to spent most of her time/energy working, in pursuit of just income. It got me to thinking, what is the proper balance. A few examples.


1. 40k for 30 hours a week. 50k for 35 hours 60k for 40 hours 70k for 45 hours 80k for 50 hours 100k for 60 hours


2. 40k for 20 hours 60k for 30 hours 80k for 40 hours 100k for 50 hours

3. 50k for 20 hours 75k for 30 hours 100k for 40 hours 150k for 50 hours

4. 60k for 20 hours 90k for 30 hours 120k for 40 hours 180k for 50 hours

and

5. 80k for 20 hours 120k for 30 hours 200k for 40 hours 400k for 50+ hours



Just a little thought experiment.


For me it goes

1. 60k for 40 hours
2. 80k for 40 hours
3. 75k for 30 hours
4. 90k for 30 hours
5. 80k for 20 hours


Where do you guys fall?

 

[brianmanahan]

these numbers make no sense

but this is atot, so the minimum amount of money anyone would consider is 100$k

 

[Cuda1447]

these numbers make no sense

but this is atot, so the minimum amount of money anyone would consider is 100$k

The numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but they make sense... at least to me. They are meant to represent different levels of satisfaction with life, and how much extra you're willing to work to have that much 'better' of a life.


For instance, my ideal satisfactory income is somewhere in the 70-90k range. That is sufficient to meet my needs and provide me with a very nice/happy life style. Would i take more if I could get it, sure. But I don't know that working a lot extra would be worth it. To me an ideal work load is around 25 hours a week. Enough to keep you busy, but not to much to where you are burned out or always looking forward to a vacation.

At 25ish hours a week you are talking 5 days of 5 hours a day. Or... better 4 days of ~6 hours a day. So... in to work around 10am. Lunch at noon to 1. work till 5. Let's you get plenty of sleep and wake up in the morning without rushing to work. Sufficient lunch and get done with plenty of time to enjoy your evenings. Additionally, 3 day weekends give you a much better 'weekend' than the all to short 2 days.


It's not very realistic for most people, obviously. But that's why I said ideal.

 

[lxskllr]

As little as possible for $40k-$50k.

 

[DAGTA]

Ideal, for me, would be being independently wealthy and working on my own projects / businesses whatever days and times I choose.

 

[brianmanahan]

my ideal is save as much money as i possibly can for the next 10-15 years, so i can retire at 40ish

i would be willing to work 40-50 hours in order to do that, with 60-70 hours a week infrequently at crunch times

 

[JimmiG]

As little as possible for $40k-$50k.

Same here. Basically, for me personally, my time is worth more than any company would be willing to pay for it. So I would be better off giving them as little of my time as possible even if that meant selling it cheap.

What are you going to do with $200k when all you have time for when at home is sleep? You can buy the best bed available, but then what?

 

[Murloc]

I would probably not work more hours to go above 120k$, assuming a linear increase. It's a comfortable middle class wage and is probably enough to buy a decent house that isn't too small and/or in a cold and shadowy area.

 

[hans007]

I actually like working usually. For me the office politics and turf wars are really what kill it.

So it depends . I worked at a startup before and we were launching products that I owned and cared about. I probably worked 50 hours a week average for 80k the first couple of years and I had a good time.

I make a good deal more now and probably barely work 40 and don't really feel motivated. Hell I'd work more for same pay if it was a product I cared about and management let us just do what we do best.

I'd say on a fatigue level it starts to wear on you if you consistently do 55-60 hours for say 4 months. But its not that bad unless its physical labor

 

[Geekbabe]

I can't give you an exact hour/time number but can tell you my day seems to fly air faster when I am working for myself. Something about having a lot of freedom in my schedule and how I do things makes the actual work a lot more pleasurable.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

As a salaried corporate worker, I can tell you that I gave up regularly working 40+ hours years ago. Sure, I was getting good reviews and awesome raises, but I was doing the jobs of 2 or 3 people and wasn't really being compensated accordingly and it was starting to have bad effects on me. The funny thing is that when I got a life (girlfriends, hobbies, etc) and only started working 40 hours, my reviews and raises were still good despite the fact that I started saying "No" to my management at work.

I just got a new job where I'll be working from home, making well into the six figure range, and since my hours are billable, I'll also get paid for any hours over 40 hours I work. That's a huge change for me since I've been a salaried corporate worker my entire career. I'm excited and plan to bust my ass and prove myself quickly. I think this is an opportunity for me to really grow my skill set and increase my marketability. If I find I don't like it, I'll just go get another job -- I interviewed with 3 companies and got job offers from all 3 recently so that gave me confidence to try out a new, "stretch" position.

So I guess there is no set rule that I can give you from my own personal experience. I do know that I won't ever involuntarily work over 40 hours again on a regular basis; sure, I'll have to do it when deadlines approach and maybe if I want to make some extra money and have no other plans, but that's it. I'm not one of these martyrs (or, as I call them, suckers) who brag about working 60+ hours every week, nor am I one of those lamers who claims "If I won a huge lottery, I'd still go to work every day." On the contrary -- I couldn't quit fast enough and my goal in life is to work as little as possible while making enough money to pursue my true passions.

 

[brianmanahan]

I just got a new job where I'll be working from home, making well into the six figure range, and since my hours are billable, I'll also get paid for any hours over 40 hours I work.

nice! is that more of a development job or a management job, or combination of both?

if its primarily dev then i am super jealous, because ive only been able to increase salary by taking positions that require me to manage other people, which i dont enjoy at all.

 

[manimal]

As a salaried corporate worker, I can tell you that I gave up regularly working 40+ hours years ago. Sure, I was getting good reviews and awesome raises, but I was doing the jobs of 2 or 3 people and wasn't really being compensated accordingly and it was starting to have bad effects on me. The funny thing is that when I got a life (girlfriends, hobbies, etc) and only started working 40 hours, my reviews and raises were still good despite the fact that I started saying "No" to my management at work.

I just got a new job where I'll be working from home, making well into the six figure range, and since my hours are billable, I'll also get paid for any hours over 40 hours I work. That's a huge change for me since I've been a salaried corporate worker my entire career. I'm excited and plan to bust my ass and prove myself quickly. I think this is an opportunity for me to really grow my skill set and increase my marketability. If I find I don't like it, I'll just go get another job -- I interviewed with 3 companies and got job offers from all 3 recently so that gave me confidence to try out a new, "stretch" position.

So I guess there is no set rule that I can give you from my own personal experience. I do know that I won't ever involuntarily work over 40 hours again on a regular basis; sure, I'll have to do it when deadlines approach and maybe if I want to make some extra money and have no other plans, but that's it. I'm not one of these martyrs (or, as I call them, suckers) who brag about working 60+ hours every week, nor am I one of those lamers who claims "If I won a huge lottery, I'd still go to work every day." On the contrary -- I couldn't quit fast enough and my goal in life is to work as little as possible while making enough money to pursue my true passions.

Congrats on the new job ICF!


Ideal balance would be living off dividends and investment growth. Mind you I would still work doing a mixture of family time, charity work, fund raising for charity work, travel, racing, neffing and what ever direction my muse takes me.

 

[ponyo]

I just had to make this decision last week. I chose less work and more free time over money. I dropped and walked away from 6 figures annual net income contract. It's not that I don't like working or making money. But this wasn't my primary contract, and I picked it up for supplemental work. But this particular contract was more demanding and took up more of my time than all my other contracts combined. So it really wasn't worth it. After working 80 days straight including holidays and weekends and not being able to spend time with my daughter or go on a vacation this summer, I decided something had to change. So I dropped it and booked 3 nice vacations for later this year with the family. I will miss the extra money but extra leisure time and reduced stress will more than make up for it.

I admit I've gotten lazier since becoming debt free. But priorities change and spending time and being there for my growing daughter is more important than extra money right now.

 

[Tiamat]

I now have nearly the optimal work/life/salary ratio for me at my current job. I telework 32 hrs per biweek an also have a flex schedule without core hours. When I want to work more, I can earn comp time and overtime. When I want to work less, I can spend my Comp time and accrued leave freely without supervisory intervention.

However, it wasn't always like this... had to work my ass off and my work/life ratio started at almost no life outside of work to get to here.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Ideally? A brazillian dollars for staying out of your way.

I work about 60 hours a week now. Dropping the PT job (1/3rd of my hours) would drop my pay by about 25% though. I'd like to cut back, and I know I'm not getting my "money's worth" out of the second job.

But I really enjoy the perks of the extra income.

 

[88keys]

As little as possible for $40k-$50k.

This.

Life is too short to bust your ass your whole life. I once read that the biggest regret of the dying is "I wish I hadn't worked so hard". Not advocating nihilism, but working your whole life to for money that you'll never have time to spend is asinine.

I knew some people who spent their whole lives working 60 -70 hours a week to have a grandiose retirement only for them to die shortly before they were eligible.

I plan on a modest, early retirement because you just don't know how much time you have left.

 

[CountZero]

As a salaried corporate worker, I can tell you that I gave up regularly working 40+ hours years ago. Sure, I was getting good reviews and awesome raises, but I was doing the jobs of 2 or 3 people and wasn't really being compensated accordingly and it was starting to have bad effects on me. The funny thing is that when I got a life (girlfriends, hobbies, etc) and only started working 40 hours, my reviews and raises were still good despite the fact that I started saying "No" to my management at work.

Maybe the most important lesson I learned after college, saying "No" isn't a bad thing necessarily. The only caveat is that you have to be able to explain the no. The best reviews I got at my last company were the years I said "No" to lots of stuff to concentrate on doing what I did own in the best way possible. I still did 40+ during crunch but I wasn't killing myself the rest of the time to finish multiple assignments.

 

[Billb2]

my ideal is save as much money as i possibly can for the next 10-15 years, so i can retire at 40ish

i would be willing to work 40-50 hours in order to do that, with 60-70 hours a week infrequently at crunch times

I did exactly that. Retired at 42, 24 years ago.

 

[chimaxi83]

I'm not really sure what a good balance would be for me personally, other than maybe only working 40 hours a week and making the same money. 40 hours probably won't happen with my job, but I'm hourly so I get paid for all overtime. I'm doing about 50 hours a week and am just over 84k with overtime (with pretty good benefits), so I guess I can't complain. I'm a field tech for the local telco.

I'm thinking of working more for a few months at a time, 70-80 hours a week, just to fatten the savings. I'm 29 and still don't have a 6 figure bank account :'( heh

 

[mistercrabby]

Boys, it ain't just about the money. I understand the point and all, but if you're doing that kind of math, you might want to think about doing something else. I make good bank, and i have a lot of responsibility and work >40 hours. But with that i get to have input to the vision of the company, do work I like, mentor people coming up and work with a solid leadership team. I look at the clock a bit, but that's more to coordinate with family responsibilities.

It was the same when I was making chickin feed as an Army grunt. Some days we'd work 12 hours, some days didn't do shit, some days work three weeks straight, sleeping on the ground for an hour or two if we wus lucky. But, I got to jump our of perfectly good aircraft, fire all sorts of cool weapons, kill commies, and didn't have to do much paperwork. hooah!!!

When i hear people talk about "work-life balance" or trying to square their hours with their pay, it smacks of some kinda Frenchy, non-productive, just puting in the time, complacent, affluen-za, not living up to your potential horse feathers.

Our grand parents and great-grands and theirs had no idea what a 40 hour week was, and they built the modern age.

What are you building? A 401K? Yeesh.

 

[Engineer]

I did exactly that. Retired at 42, 24 years ago.

I wish I would have done that.

 

[jumpncrash]

Boys, it ain't just about the money. I understand the point and all, but if you're doing that kind of math, you might want to think about doing something else. I make good bank, and i have a lot of responsibility and work >40 hours. But with that i get to have input to the vision of the company, do work I like, mentor people coming up and work with a solid leadership team. I look at the clock a bit, but that's more to coordinate with family responsibilities.

It was the same when I was making chickin feed as an Army grunt. Some days we'd work 12 hours, some days didn't do shit, some days work three weeks straight, sleeping on the ground for an hour or two if we wus lucky. But, I got to jump our of perfectly good aircraft, fire all sorts of cool weapons, kill commies, and didn't have to do much paperwork. hooah!!!

When i hear people talk about "work-life balance" or trying to square their hours with their pay, it smacks of some kinda Frenchy, non-productive, just puting in the time, complacent, affluen-za, not living up to your potential horse feathers.

Our grand parents and great-grands and theirs had no idea what a 40 hour week was, and they built the modern age.

What are you building? A 401K? Yeesh.

Just responding to your post because of your frenchy comment. I currently work for a french company and theyère a bunch of lazy "good enoughs" they annoy me to no end

 

[IndyColtsFan]

nice! is that more of a development job or a management job, or combination of both?

if its primarily dev then i am super jealous, because ive only been able to increase salary by taking positions that require me to manage other people, which i dont enjoy at all.

It is a SharePoint architect consulting position.

Congrats on the new job ICF!

Thanks! I hope it works out well for me. I just had to get away from my current company, as it was just soul crushing and one of those environments where we got new management and anything with talent and skill is leaving as soon as they can. They'll just be left with deadweight of mediocre (or less) talent pretty soon.

 

[Cuda1447]

Boys, it ain't just about the money. I understand the point and all, but if you're doing that kind of math, you might want to think about doing something else. I make good bank, and i have a lot of responsibility and work >40 hours. But with that i get to have input to the vision of the company, do work I like, mentor people coming up and work with a solid leadership team. I look at the clock a bit, but that's more to coordinate with family responsibilities.

It was the same when I was making chickin feed as an Army grunt. Some days we'd work 12 hours, some days didn't do shit, some days work three weeks straight, sleeping on the ground for an hour or two if we wus lucky. But, I got to jump our of perfectly good aircraft, fire all sorts of cool weapons, kill commies, and didn't have to do much paperwork. hooah!!!

When i hear people talk about "work-life balance" or trying to square their hours with their pay, it smacks of some kinda Frenchy, non-productive, just puting in the time, complacent, affluen-za, not living up to your potential horse feathers.

Our grand parents and great-grands and theirs had no idea what a 40 hour week was, and they built the modern age.

What are you building? A 401K? Yeesh.

I get what you're saying. But you talk about what are we 'building'. A lot of people aren't building shit, regardless of how many hours they work. For most people they are simply making their parent company more money. Assuming you aren't one of the leading guys at your company, the work hours you put in really don't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of the world.

If you want to work 70 hours a week to make your division of Apple, or Microsoft, or Siemens or Tyson Chicken or whatever other corporation you work for. Fine. But when you're on your death bed are you going to be proud of building Apple into a powerhouse in the cell phone market during the mid early 2000's? (And let's be honest, the impact you had is probably pretty minimal).


You speak of our grandfathers that worked their asses off to build the modern age. So what about that grandfather that worked his ass off for Ford for 25 years. Was it worth it? He helped build Ford into the company that it is today. Does that really matter though?