# To Work Or Not To Work?



## mfd (Apr 3, 2009)

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 (Apr 9, 2009)

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 (Apr 3, 2009)

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 (Apr 18, 2009)

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 (Apr 6, 2009)

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 (Apr 17, 2009)

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 (Mar 31, 2009)

STone said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2009)

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 (May 7, 2009)

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 (Apr 24, 2009)

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.


----------



## AshleyT (May 1, 2009)

MGL said:


> 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.


Sounds good now, but maybe we should ask you again in 10 years. Time is precious, no doubt, but 10 years goes by one way or another, and as Steve41 has highlighted, you would be much further ahead in 10 short years, than working half time for 40 years. 40 years is a really long time. How many people on this board have been alive for 40 years, let alone working for 40? 

I like to work, but someday I would like to not "have to work" if I choose. There are also risks to employability to consider such as restructuring, job loss, elimination of demand for your skills, disability etc. The longer your working career, the greater the risk. Better to bank the savings early. Less risk, more disposable income, more freedom.



STone said:


> 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.


No doubt. However, I have girlfriends who say that they enjoy going to work while the kids are young. It gives the kids the parents a break from each other, gives the parent some daytime adult interaction, and refreshes the relationship between the parent and child. You appreciate the little ones that much more when you see them again. Plus, many kids love daycare/caregivers. I have noticed that my girlfriends who have gone back to work at least part time seem much happier and more well-adjusted to motherhood than those that stay home 100%. My observation only. Besides, doing a good solid week's work is great for the self-esteem, mind, and soul. No need to be shy about a little hard work.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I feel compelled to say that moms who stay at home with their kids are absolutely doing a solid week's worth of hard work each and every week.


----------



## AshleyT (May 1, 2009)

Agreed.....but I didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary (she quickly adds in earnest, but also in an effort to keep the discussion on topic )


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Another good reason to concentrate on the high salary over the shorter time is that your net worth gets to grow much larger, faster. This will appeal to your advisor/broker of course because... _well, I think you know why_.

I might just start up a thread on the value of inclusive financial planning vs the simple "know your net worth" metric. When you go to see your advisor, and all he asks is the simple-minded _'how much can you afford to plunk in your RRSP this year'_ and immediately launches into the "let's look at your investments", then you know he really isn't into full financial planning.


----------



## Kathryn (Apr 10, 2009)

I voted 20 hrs/week for 40 years. That way I feel semi retired all the time!


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

20hrs for 40 years for sure. 

In my 20's, no way I would have given up the backpacker lifestyle we enjoyed, travelling to over 20 countries. No regrets there that I would be wealthier now, but poorer in life experiences that are best had when young.

Now in my 30's, no way I'm giving up my time with my two young kids to work more for later gain. 

Steve's calculations are likely correct, but doesn't change my mind one bit.


----------



## markievicz (Apr 11, 2009)

Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?


----------



## Assetologist (Apr 19, 2009)

I personally decided to cut back to about 50-60 hours a week from about 70-80+ and it has made a huge difference in my quality of life. 
Now I have most weekends and most evenings free as well as 12 weeks of holidays each year.

I plan to sustain this level for another 10-15 years then work 'part-time' for another 5-10 depending on my interest.


----------



## mfd (Apr 3, 2009)

markievicz said:


> Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?


 A lot of people who start their own business work long hours to get the business up and running. Once its establishe they hire employees and cut back on their hours worked...potentially to the point where they only work a few hours a week.


----------



## Rickson9 (Apr 9, 2009)

markievicz said:


> Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?


I do and I'm in my 30s. For me there are no significant financial benefits to working more.

I posted about this career in the Frugal section.


----------



## Jon Chevreau (Apr 4, 2009)

I voted for 40 hours. Long ago I wrote a column about working a four-hour day, which is consistent with this approach. The idea is that creative types really only can produce 4 or 5 hours a day of true creative production, and it's best done in two two-hour segments. I applied this to executives and corporate employees, and said that the four-hour day can work within the usual 9 to 5 structure, provided you do at least two two-hour sessions a day of THE WORK YOU'RE ACTUALLY PAID TO DO. 

That leaves three or four hours for lunch and what Don Tapscott calls "social notworking," which may include Twitter, Facebook and sites like these!

www.financialpost.com/fd


----------



## furgy (Apr 20, 2009)

I didn't vote because none of the options fit my lifestyle.

I'm self employed and always have been , I work whatever hours I have to to make it pay for six months of the year (summer months).

The other six , I do as I please and go where I want , it's a great lifestyle.

I would say it all depends on how much you like your chosen occupation.


----------



## jambo411 (Apr 6, 2009)

It would be nice to have the choice. My first 19 years at my job I averaged 6days a week except for a short vacation. The last 6 years have been an average of 5 per week and it has been great. Noting comments above I did miss the kids growing up even though we all lived in the same house. Shift work sucks and the money isn't worth it.

However, with the current crunch my employer bought out 10% of our national workforce and we are looking at going back to overtime, which is not voluntary. It is cheaper to pay overtime than keep adequate staff. 

It would be sweet to spend my last few years working 20 hours a week after experiencing the alternatives over the years, but that ain't going to happen.


----------



## Bullseye (Apr 5, 2009)

markievicz said:


> Maybe I don't get the question and am being no fun, nothing new there, but this all seems very silly and theoretical to me. Do those of you "voting" for 20 hours over 40 years actually live that lifestyle? Maybe you do, but I literally know no-one in their thirties who does even if they have the option. And how many of us who nominally work 40 hours actually work that few on a given average week? Or will be able to escape it after 20 years?


I'm in my thirties, and have been doing 25-30 hours per week now for almost 4 years. I'm in a temporary blip right now where I'm doing more, but it's the first time, and won't last long. My wife has worked 20-25 hours per week for the past 4 years. So it IS possible.

I agree that very few Canadians could get away with this, though, even if they wanted to. Most professions don't allow for it, and most entrepreneurs are far too busy. We're in the minority, my wife is a nurse (easy to do part time), and I'm an accountant (not easy, but possible).


----------



## Rickson9 (Apr 9, 2009)

Bullseye said:


> I agree that very few Canadians could get away with this, though, even if they wanted to. Most professions don't allow for it, and most entrepreneurs are far too busy. We're in the minority, my wife is a nurse (easy to do part time), and I'm an accountant (not easy, but possible).


One could also do it when they are in pharma sales.


----------



## The_Number (Apr 3, 2009)

I voted 40hrs x 20 years, but I honestly like my work and I have no problem foreseeing myself working for 40+ years. Having said that, I still want the option of not having to work. For me, saving for retirement is not so much about freeing myself from "labor slavery" (Perhaps it's still too early to tell, but I feel I am being treated very well at work with excellent worker protections) but more about having a comfortable security blanket (peace of mind).


----------



## promod (Apr 6, 2009)

*What happens after your working years?*

_I don't think of work as work and play as play. It's all living.
-- Richard Branson_

None of the choices fit, but I voted for 40 hr/wk for 20 yrs. 

We're living ever longer. That means we need money to last longer and things to do with our time. If you enjoy what you're doing, are you really working? Once you stop working, what will you do with your time?

Is the goal to stop working or to have a life that combines work with other priorities?


----------

