Two choices, time or money - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Sylvanfan · 10-07-2004, 08:47 PM

So Imperial Oil comes to town and offers you one of two jobs.

Job 1 you work your 40 hours a week, get your 3 weeks holidays every year and it pays $50,000 a year plus benefits. You have minimal responsibility, but less chance for advancement, and don't get any OT or ever have to work any extra hours.

Job 2 you likely average around 50 hours a week, but it's not scheduled so some weeks you'll pull 60+ and others you'll work the usual 40. You will have a lot of responsibility, and will be held accountable for other peoples work. You will be compensated for it by being paid a $50,000 base plus OT and bonuses so you'll likely earn $80,000 plus per year. Still you'll be required to give up weekends on occasion, and have to pull the occasional 16 hour day without warning to satisfy the job requirements.

Which position would you chose and why? I'd likely still pick choice number 2, but at this point in time job 1 appeals to me a lot more than it did 5 years ago. Recently I'm starting to see that time is invaluable and being able to free your time from your job can isn't all that bad even if it means less money. If I had kids, I'd likely choose choice one for sure. I don't know if it has anything to do with age, but I'm starting to change my mindset to believe that time is more important than money is. Mind you it's happening very slowly. Thoughs?

JiriHrdina · 10-07-2004, 08:51 PM

At the risk of not answering your question i say neither. What important to me is that if I'm going to spend 40 or 50 hours at a job I better darn well enjoy it. If you enjoy your job you don't notice it, and as long as you make enough to live then your usually pretty happy.

However, to answer the above question. I'll take the cash for a few years, but once I get a little older I imagine time would start being more important.

Wow. I still didn't answer it did I?

Sylvanfan · 10-07-2004, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Oct 8 2004, 02:51 AM
At the risk of not answering your question i say neither. What important to me is that if I'm going to spend 40 or 50 hours at a job I better darn well enjoy it. If you enjoy your job you don't notice it, and as long as you make enough to live then your usually pretty happy.

However, to answer the above question. I'll take the cash for a few years, but once I get a little older I imagine time would start being more important.

Wow. I still didn't answer it did I?

Likely because it's a tough choice to make. It's also imposible to know you made the right decision for yourself until you try both jobs out. Still I agree that whatever you do you need to enjoy the work.

Weiser Wonder · 10-07-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sylvanfan@Oct 7 2004, 07:47 PM
So Imperial Oil comes to town and offers you one of two jobs.

Job 1 you work your 40 hours a week, get your 3 weeks holidays every year and it pays $50,000 a year plus benefits. You have minimal responsibility, but less chance for advancement, and don't get any OT or ever have to work any extra hours.

Job 2 you likely average around 50 hours a week, but it's not scheduled so some weeks you'll pull 60+ and others you'll work the usual 40. You will have a lot of responsibility, and will be held accountable for other peoples work. You will be compensated for it by being paid a $50,000 base plus OT and bonuses so you'll likely earn $80,000 plus per year. Still you'll be required to give up weekends on occasion, and have to pull the occasional 16 hour day without warning to satisfy the job requirements.

Which position would you chose and why? I'd likely still pick choice number 2, but at this point in time job 1 appeals to me a lot more than it did 5 years ago. Recently I'm starting to see that time is invaluable and being able to free your time from your job can isn't all that bad even if it means less money. If I had kids, I'd likely choose choice one for sure. I don't know if it has anything to do with age, but I'm starting to change my mindset to believe that time is more important than money is. Mind you it's happening very slowly. Thoughs?

Well, I would take number one if I had some money saved up. If not I would take option number 2.

Five-hole · 10-07-2004, 08:59 PM

I had imagined this being a little more abstract question than it was, but for the record, I'd pick job #1. (Disclaimer: college student. Disclaimer #2: college student in music for god's sakes.)

If I had to pick between unlimited time and unlimited money, I'd certainly pick time.

BlackArcher101 · 10-07-2004, 09:07 PM

#2, I hate having a slack job that doesn't challenge me, and doesn't make it interesting. A non-interesting job is more likely going to make me quit.

Damn, now Part of me wants #1 because I have so much I want to do with my life. Crap... tough choice. I would say #2 for about 4 years so I can pay off school debt and buy some toys, then #1 after that so I can relax a bit more and have fun.

Incinerator · 10-07-2004, 09:07 PM

Agreed with Five-hole, Job #1, that $30G extra isn't worth working yourself to death

Lanny_MacDonald · 10-07-2004, 09:09 PM

Time. Speaking from experience, time is always more valuable than money. If you have a lifestyle that you are comfortable with at $40K, take the time and enjoy your life. You never know when your time is up, so enjoy life while you have it.

Tron_fdc · 10-07-2004, 09:13 PM

Depends on your personality.

Personally, I would take #2, then find some peon within the company who can handle my excess workload and delegate my upper managerial ass off so I can have the hours of #1.

CaptainCrunch · 10-07-2004, 09:14 PM

Whats my secretary look like??

Cowperson · 10-07-2004, 10:07 PM

There's a reason people start looking to drop out of the rat race at about 40 years of age, becoming monument builders in hippie kingdoms like Nelson, BC where there's no pressure.

So . . . . . you're right on schedule for the laid back look.

If you're younger, you'll probably take option 2. As time marches on, option one looks better and better.

Cowperson

Sylvanfan · 10-08-2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Oct 8 2004, 03:14 AM
Whats my secretary look like??

We'll just say that if she places the palms of her hands on her shoulders and walks towards a wall, it won't be her elbows that contact the wall first. The catch is that she'll think you're a nazi and be far more likely to flirt with your subordinates who make $50k a year and can leave a steaming cup of coffee on their desk for 2 days without being noticed.

Frank the Tank · 10-08-2004, 07:37 AM

I'd have to go with option #2 because it sounds more challenging. Nothing worse than being bored stiff at work, no matter how much time off you have.

CrzyCanuck · 10-08-2004, 07:59 AM

Your at work all day anyways, why not take the one that pays more?

duncan · 10-08-2004, 08:10 AM

I work what they call a continental shift, 12 hour shifts that rotate 60 hours 1 week, 24 the next, with a week off every 12 weeks (not including holidays). I could work an extra shift on the 24 hour week or during my scheduled weeks off, and make over $100G. With two small kids, I don't work overtime, because my time with them is far more important than money.

Sylvanfan · 10-08-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CrzyCanuck@Oct 8 2004, 01:59 PM
Your at work all day anyways, why not take the one that pays more?

Because one job can basically force you to stay at work til 2 in the morning even if you had previously made plans whereas the other allows you to leave at the same time every day no matter what is happening. Essentially both jobs require you to spend 8 hours a day at work, but job number 2 requires you to spend more than that on average, and gives no warning for what days those will be. I hardly think 8 hours a day, is "all day" at work. I find if I only work 8 hours that I can really make good use of the extra time that I lose if I work a 10 or 12 hour day.

the_only_turek_fan · 10-08-2004, 08:43 AM

At this point in my life, I would take option #2.
I am looking to build a financial foundation, and this is one way to get it.

Plus it would keep me busy, which is always a good thing.

I have a lifestyle that would suit 40K, but a little more money is not a bad thing.

Fobulous · 10-08-2004, 08:46 AM

I would go with option number 2.

Its always good to have a little challenge in your life.

I-Hate-Hulse · 10-08-2004, 09:20 AM

Pffft... $50,000? That wouldn't pay for my dog's food for a month.....

Signed, Mike Modano

Cheese · 10-08-2004, 10:03 AM

50 - 60 hours is a lot? :unsure: Wow I thought that was a NORMAL work week!

Knowing you as I do mr Sylvanfan Id suggest you take the money now...no kids = time to make dough. Once the kids arrive youll need all that extra cash for thigs like education funds, diapers, baby food, medicine, toys, candy, school pizza days, school trips, vacations for 3 or 4 instead of 2, an additional car, insurance, bail money....