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.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twice the money. Forty hours a week really isn't all that much when you don't have any other huge responsibilities like kids.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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!
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half the hours. Then I could write my novel. Or i could make twice the hours for a while... hmm
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Architraz Warden, suppose you were not allowed to work more than 30 hours a week. What would happen to your productivity then?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For now I think I would go with doubling my income, I could really use the money to pay off some debts.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
