Money or time?

$750K for 10 years, then retire and take the $100
 
So, this is something studied all the time in microeconomics. Not so much the choice individual people make, but what the average person's preference for leisure vs. labor. More specifically, how people are able to maximize their utility given their budget constraints.

And that is also how they figure out what a kind of entitlement amount for certain welfare programs will incent people not to work at all vs. the amount that will provide them enough money to actually help them.
 
This is a nice fantasy world scenario but who's going to pay you 90-100K to literally do nothing for them? That's still a really good salary for most people and that salary will require you to still work a lot of hours.
 
ill take the 100k. 70 hours a week is way too much. imagine you earn a few million working the 750k a year job and then suddenly die. lol that would suck.
 
Tell me how to make $100k/year with no work please. This is a no brainer.
 
You're not being specific enough with your scenario. Is there a timeframe I have to work if I take $750k? At what age? What will I be doing for 70 hrs a week? Can I work 15 hour days? Can I choose where I want to work at that salary? How much time off do I get working that job? Also am I taxed if I take the $100k/year? (I assume yes). No benefits?

If you're talking right now at $750k/year and I had to do so for the next 20 years or up until retirement I would say hell no. Not at 70 hrs per week. However if you're talking something I can do temporary and start in my early 20s, then hell yes. It would be a no brainer. $100k/year for doing absolutely nothing is a great gig too. I would still work my current job.
 
I realize that this isn't quite the conundrum for others that it appears to be for me (although I'm certainly not working 70 hours a week or making $750k a year). <Eek2.0>

I think I overestimated the extent to which people identify with their work. So many conversations I have these days are about status of work on the career ladder and how hard any of us are working to climb that ladder. It was really 2 conversations that led me here.

I was talking with a lawyer who had recently made partner at a big firm but was working pretty hard to get there then I ran into another lawyer who wanted to sent his kids to an expensive private school and make sure they had no college debt and was working pretty hard to make that a reality.

$100k/yr is great but it doesn't make some of those economic desires a reality. You're not buying a Bugatti on $100k/yr (if that's your thing). You're not paying for Harvard out of pocket without really cutting back somewhere else.
 
I'm old. Time is the most important thing to me.
 
100k a year is more than enough. I've never made that kind of money. work my ass off to make 40k a year


it's my own fault though. I was a dipshit in my younger years and didn't get an education.
 
Easily take the $90-$100k. Your living good in Tx with that kind of pay.
 
panamaican said:
So a random conversation had me thinking.

Is it better to work 70 hours a week and make $750k/yr or not work at all and make $90-100k?

Where you live is your choice, whether or not you're married is your choice. Kids? Also your choice. Spouse works...your.choice.

I think I lean towards not working but mostly because I'd rather have cash generating projects over a regular job. I couldn't sit home and do nothing all day, it would drive me crazy. But I have things I'd like to sink cash into if I had more time.
Click to expand...
I need some sort of productivity or ill go crazy, can I use my free time to work on my own projects?
 
Easy, give me the 100k with no work. Ive noticed that the more I make north of 100k, most of it goes to uncle sam anyway, so fuck it. Also, since I have kids, the time just gets away from me. Fuck work; work is just something I have to do to pay for camping and doing shit with my kids. TIME!
 
$750k in a job i find interesting @70hrs/week?
-I'd take that for 10-15years, retire early and travel quite a bit.
--couple that revenue with some solid investments and semi-modest living, it sounds good.
<13>
 
70 hours a week for 3/4 of a mil.

Why? Job like that usually comes with paid time off and shit then I can use the money to go have fun.
 
panamaican said:
So a random conversation had me thinking.

Is it better to work 70 hours a week and make $750k/yr or not work at all and make $90-100k?

Where you live is your choice, whether or not you're married is your choice. Kids? Also your choice. Spouse works...your.choice.

I think I lean towards not working but mostly because I'd rather have cash generating projects over a regular job. I couldn't sit home and do nothing all day, it would drive me crazy. But I have things I'd like to sink cash into if I had more time.
Click to expand...

what kind of work? i think that's a huge factor.
 
SidJustice said:
Time easily.

Especially with that kind of money. Work to live and all that.
Click to expand...

this is what i lean more towards, but if the job were to be a travel writer, i'd take the job, since that's what i'd be doing on my time-off, anyway. all depends on the type of work.
 
xhaydenx said:
um. The 750k year obviously. You do that for three years and you've made over 2 million dollars wheras the other option only nets you 300k.

So after three years you can retire and do whatever you want while the 2 mil makes money for you. Otherwise, it'll take you you, what, 20 years to make the same money if you're not working and getting 100k each year.
Click to expand...


Maybe you die while still working 2 years into that 3. When you could have at least lived more life during that 2 year stretch while not working.


Tomorrow isn't promised bud.


I'd take the 100k a year and no work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,460,121
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top