Would you rather work...

[CptMitta]

125K for 20 hours a week? Yes please. I make 13K a year working 40 per week atm, so yeah.

[muto]

I think I like a couple peoples suggestion to make the question more interesting.

A better question like a couple said would be "would you rather work 20 hours a week for a 30k-35k yearly salary?", or "would you rather work 40 hours a week for a 60k-70k yearly salary?".

[Deleted]

40 hours for $250K. I would work 40 hour weeks anyway. Ofcourse depends if the job is so physically demanding that 40 hours is just too much.

[Daws001]

20hrs/wk. $125,000/yr is more than enough for me. Way more.

[bekilrwale]

20 hours with $125k. I could live VERY comfortably off 125k and 20 hours is nothing, I work that in a weekend.

[Itisamuh]

$125 thousand is more than enough to live on, and 20 hours a week is almost nothing. That would be perfect.

[BowwJob]

Here is an excellent quote from the Dalai Lama on the subject

Man.
Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money.
Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health.
And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present;
the result being that he does not live in the present or the future;
he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

This is directed at the people who say make all the money and retire early.

[Lagwin]

done a conversion for pounds sterling ...$125k equates to about £77k and the average wage in the uk full time at 40 is hours is about £20k most don't even get that and will earn about 12k a year and you can live off that quite well if you don't wast your money or crap...so yeah i would work 20 hours and have the time to enjoy some of my money before i got to retirement

[Deleted]

I definitely go with 20 hours a week with earning £125,000 a year. Plenty of free time and £2.4k a week is more than sufficient to get by and still be able to spend a fair amount.

[slime]

geez id take either - no real preference. this all sounds very gangnam style to me.

[vindicatorx]

Lol? I suppose if I worked the 40 I could retire a lot sooner but meh I think the 2o hours a week would be just enough for me to not be bored yet have the income and free time to do whatever I really wanted.

[Maelle]

Since I'm not (or ever have been) in any kind of "career" type work that means I have to work my way up a ladder, or have any real incentive to do extra hours... I will always choose the least hours I can do to live nicely on.

Currently I work about 30 hours a week. I value my free time immensely!

So the first option for me

[Martinussen]

125k for 20 hours a week? Insane.... I'd definitely pick that. Its more then enough money for what i need to survive and be happy. 4 hours of work each day is nothing.

[Mexa]

Well, i took a year of before going to college to work, and i worked 60 hours a week, 12 hours a day. So if i were to choose between those 2, it would easily be 40hours a week, any less would be pretty pointless if u ask me.

[melodramocracy]

20 / 125, without a single hesitation.

Free time has no price tag, and it's something you simply can't have too much of.

[Decagon]

I'm cheap, so everything I would buy would be cheap even if I was rich, so there is very little benefit beside status to having a very high paying job. Plus, 125,000 is still quite good and I'd have lots of time to play on the Internet and harass more of you here if I only had to work 20 hours a day.

However, if it was a job I REALLY loved and actually enjoyed, I'd go with the 40 hours just because I could retire sooner and would still enjoy my life before retirement.

[Powerogue]

I could probably stomach 40 hours a week for the doubled salary. It depends a lot on how those hours are distributed though.

[Terahertz]

40h/per week 250k/per year.

That means I'll (considering my cheap life-style) have enough money in 4-5 years to stop working in total. If I would make more money after that I'd have even more money to help my family out with.

[Klutzington]

I would work for 40 hours. With that money, I can retire much sooner and I would rather work a regular work week. To some, less time at work may be good. . . but once you are away from work for a long time, you start to feel like you are missing something from your life. It may seem boring once you stop doing a monotonous thing like working.

I would rather work 40 hours in a hospital than 20. As a doctor, you usually work 10-12 hours per shift (sad, but true), so realistically you would work roughly only 3 days per week.

---------- Post added 2012-09-26 at 10:14 PM ----------

Here is an excellent quote from the Dalai Lama on the subject

Man.
Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money.
Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health.
And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present;
the result being that he does not live in the present or the future;
he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

This is directed at the people who say make all the money and retire early.

Or you know. Some people are goal oriented and make good choices while still young, so they can retire young. Don't always trust the stereotypical retirement plan @ 65. Someone who does extremely well can retire at the age of 40.

[raechuul]

I work 20-30 hours a week and make $8,000-$10,000 a year. I'll take the 20 hours option for now and go up to 40 when I get out of college.