Michael wrote:Arthur Dent wrote:Michael wrote:So my rhetorical, and totally not douchey, question is - can you make more money without inflating your lifestyle and making yourself miserable?
I mean, maybe, but also "try to make more money" is not exactly an original idea.
Edit: My feeling is that a better scheme, to the extent it exists, is to accept lower pay for a lower stress job you enjoy rather that take a high stress one accompanied by an extreme program. As to trying to make more money, I have the perfect solution: my wife gets a better job! Seriously, in her case getting back into the profession she is trained for after years in exile has been a huge happiness boost totally independent of the pay.
I'm going to challenge you a bit here. In many situations (maybe not yours) a better paying job does not have to mean less free time or more stress. In my opinion, it's a false dichotomy many people make. Some of the most highly compensated people I know work the least amount of hours. How does your compensation compare to the rest of the market with your skillset? Do you ever press your management for larger raises? Have you considered moving somewhere else?
That said, if you're happy with your job that's great and you shouldn't make waves. I'm just making the point that another way to move your financial independence date is to make more money while keeping your expenses static. It's a weird message to give, but there you have it.
FTR, there's nothing wrong with your tone. My comments were about the tendency in general and some of it representations, not your posts on the topic, which I enjoy. The taboo about discussing personal finances is mostly bad, and it's good, though tricky, to be more open.
Regarding you comments here, I largely agree. There's not necessarily a trade-off and obviously the jobs with the lowest pay also have some of the worst working conditions. I guess my point here is that I think that it makes much more sense to try and find decent work and working conditions in the present rather than doing crazy gyrations that prioritize amassing a huge savings in hopes of exiting.
Personally, my work conditions are currently above average for the industry, and I am close with my colleagues. Alternative positions are heavily concentrated where cost of living would more than wipe out any salary bump. Those factors and therefor my choices will likely change with time, but my current view is that the realistic range of higher paying positions for me would not be worth sacrificing much, if anything, to get. I already have a high saving rate and throw any bonuses/raises into that bucket to lessen my dependence on the whims of bosses and the labor market. That won't get me exit in my 40s but it does give me options which seems to me a healthier, more balanced goal.
On the larger situation, which is maybe neither here nor there for this discussion, it should go without saying that this concept only works if it's confined to a narrow slice. If national savings rates were actually 70% or even 25%, returns on investment would go way down, probably negative. The individualist response to pervasive social dysfunction screams out at me reading this stuff. Bad work conditions, poor job security, and excessive housing costs are social problems. We all have to do our best to make our way in this fallen world, and all that, but this is not really an answer.