Imagine going into work tomorrow and being told that your hourly wage was being doubled. Assuming that all of your insurance and benefits would be unchanged, would you rather work the same number of hours you're used to and take home twice the money, or would you rather make the same amount of money and cut your work week in half?
And those are the only two options. None of this working 3/4 time for 150% salary or anything like that. It's either half the hours or twice the money.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Twice the money. But then again I work seven twelves in any given two week period.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Half the hours. I'd much rather be home with my kids and my cross stitch.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
Half the hours. That would solve my time juggling problems with work and school.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Right now I'd take the money, but I'd do it with the intention of saving up so that I could quit the job and go back to school in a couple of years.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Twice the money. Forty hours a week really isn't all that much when you don't have any other huge responsibilities like kids.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This is a really tough question... I'd prolly HAVE to take the double wages but I think I'd rather have the half time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ditto, Pix. It would be very hard to turn down the possibility that I might be able to afford to buy a house after all . . . but I would rather have the time.
Are you sure we can't talk you into a 50:50 split? Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Further thought...
I have 112 waking hours a week. 55 of which are sucked up from the time I wake up and start getting ready for work to the point I come home at night.
That's literally half my waking hours.
And a lot of my job is physical so when I get home from work, *frequently* the rest of my day is shot because I'm exhausted.
If I went back to my hourly schedule (M-1/2W-F), work would consume about 25 of my waking hours per week. (adjusted for differences in traffic time, the fact I would be working 8hrs/day instead of 9hrs/day, etc)
So I'd have 30 more hours to myself. We already own our home. I'm thinking half time for same money.
Pix
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I like my job, so I'd take the money.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Win win either way. If I take the money I get more money if I take the time I get more time to freelance so I still get more money!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'd take twice the money, but I'm self employed, so I already work the hours I want. It would be awesome to get a 100% raise though Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Definitely half the hours.
(Though I already get paid very well - so this pay for half my hours would be unbelievable!)
I've had the experience of time-rich cash-poor and cash-rich, time-poor (this last 10 1/2 months) and I much, much prefer the former.
That's why I'm going back to uni next year.
[ August 13, 2006, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Squish (Member # 9191) on :
Half the hours. It'd be easier since I want to go back to school.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I'd probably take the money because I can't pay my bills now.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The money now, because I'm in school and planning to go on to grad school. Once I get a real job, though, I'd definately go for the time.
I'm only working 10 hours a week though. If it were 40, I would choose differently.
[ August 13, 2006, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Half the hours. Then I could write my novel. Or i could make twice the hours for a while... hmm
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:would you rather make the same amount of money and cut your work week in half?
Half the hours. No question about it. I wouldn't even hesitate. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Half the hours.
I would hesitate, though.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Being single, and assuming the question only applies if I'm happy about the job already, then I'd take the money. It's highly situational, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The only reason I might consider taking twice the money would be if it meant I'd be able to afford a quality housekeeper/nanny.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Double the money. But that's only because I work 30 hours a week already. I wouldn't get anything done if I only worked 15. If I worked 40 or more hours a week I'd halve the time, no question.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I work usually around 40 hours a week. But with time going to and from work that's more like 50 hours. I would love to have 25 hours of that back!
The other consideration for me is given my tax bracket, twice my gross pay now is not in fact twice my take-home pay: far from it. (Although even if the scenario was double net pay, I still would take half the hours in a heartbeat).
(Actually, if I could work it, I would work half the hours for half the money. But I can't.)
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
And the employer would allow half the hours? It is harder to work on projects when you are only in 20 hours a week.
There are other factors to consider as well. What would be the chances for a future raise if I took 20 hours vs 40? From a practical standpoint, being absent 20 hours while everyone else is at work will make me less significant because it would mean other people would be making more of the decisions or working on key projects that need to be finished quickly.
But I don't like my job a whole lot right now so I would welcome the extra 20 hours in order to work on other skills so I can get another job. In fact, I'm already taking time off for exactly that purpose.
If I liked my job, it would seem really irresponsible to not work 40 hours, or at least 32. Someone posted a blog that said that a 32 hour week is as productive as 40.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I am far more productive per hour at my current job (at 30 hrs/wk) than I was at my previous job (40 hrs/wk). In fact, I'm considerably more productive overall. But this has to do with a number of factors that aren't directly related to how much time I spend at work, so my situation isn't a very useful datapoint.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: If I liked my job, it would seem really irresponsible to not work 40 hours, or at least 32. Someone posted a blog that said that a 32 hour week is as productive as 40.
I agree with the concept that after a certain number of hours worked in a given week, your productivity per minute will decrease. I don't agree with the hypothesis that your productivity will simly stop or revert though, and that 32 hours will net the same results as 40. Then again, this could be because I've been working 50 hours a week for many months now, and my boss on this project has been topping 60. While my 50th hour may not be as productive as my 30th, there is no way I was as close to getting to a measureable point at 30 as I reached at 50.
Oh, and I'd take twice the money because quite simply, half the hours simply isn't possible in my line of work. Even if it were, due to my lack of outside responsibilities, twice the money would still likely win out.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Architraz Warden, suppose you were not allowed to work more than 30 hours a week. What would happen to your productivity then?
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
For now I think I would go with doubling my income, I could really use the money to pay off some debts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Half the hours. I'd be back in school in a flash.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Double the income, as long as weekends are off. I don't have anything at the house to look forward too. I get only 4 or 5 hours of sleep anyway, so that wouldn't really change.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
human and architraz, I think the hypothetical is meant to imply such a situation where everyone has to chose one or the other. In other words, being worried about being passed over for promotion or not getting your work done aren't valid objections because your entire industry will be held to the same standards.
I could be wrong, though. As for me, I have no idea. I could use both time and money about equally.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Right now I'd take twice the money. A lot of that money would go toward a good retirement plan so I can retire earlier, though.
If I was making about $10k more than I am now, I'd probably be okay with that and take half the hours instead.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
The money, no question.
I have school to pay for and I would love to be able to buy a place (probably an apartment).
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
The money. No...it wouldn't even be about the money. Horse farms have a routine, and it's confusing to come in in the middle or leave in the middle of something. I always get all discombobulated on the weekends, when all I have to do is feed.
Ni!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'd rather have the time. Preferably, I'd work six or seven hours a day (30 or 35 a week), but if I had to choose between half the time or twice the money, I'd definitely take the time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I really don't know.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
What TomD said.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Twice the money: that way I can really appreciate my vacations and weekends.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I'd work 1/2 the hours at my current job and pick up a side-job that's the more rewarding type which don't pay well.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)