Would you give up the money for a better lifestyle ?
If you were offered a 40 hrs a week type of job with 100k-150k all in income, would you take it ? You would also live in a state where you could really stretch your dollar like Texas. Although you would make a lot less (long-term), you would have more time to enjoy life and you would also be able save money due to the low cost of living. Do keep in mind that this would most likely be the ceiling for your income for quite sometime (until you become your own boss or high executive).
So what do you guys think, is the the trade-off worth it, or there's no way?
What are the other options?
It's not about the money...
There are jobs in private banks where you can make $300-700K per year working about 40 hours per week (plus the occasional dinner or sporting event). In many ways, they are the ultimate jobs, albeit they have the risk of being a little boring and not very intellectually challenging.
Isn't private banking sort of hit or miss though and a lot less structured? As in cold calling/high burnout/most people aren't likable enough to succeed at this job.
Depends solely on the bank. Most private banking now is becoming a lot more structured as they try to hire promote organically to prevent high turnover (ie. formalized analyst and associate programs, base salaries the same as IB/S&T, increased bonuses in past years), and senior bankers can make $750K in a year based solely on the revenue of their big book and at that point most new clients are referrals so it can get extremely cushy
No. Money will buy you the ultimate freedom, what else on earth can be more tempting?
Fuck lifestyle. And as a chick, I will never date guys who prefer lifestyle to money.
Women who swear like guys (outside of the bedroom of course) are almost an unattractive as women who smoke.
Also, women like you set your entire gender back a generation
Ok, I have to explain myself here, but it's not because I am guilty - I just don't want to hurt some ppl's feelings. Money > lifestyle, for me, is a family tradition. My dad, for instance, still works very hard in his fifties. For him, career is everything. I only see him once or twice per year, that's it. But I admire his attitude greatly.
The gold digger accusation is the most absurd and insulting thing I've ever heard. A challenge, is what I'd like to consider myself. Not a lot of guys can solve it, but you can try, xoxo.
Btw, I don't swear a lot outside bedroom and I don't smoke, tnx.
true, but there are a bunch of countries women like her are right on par with where their generation is at haha
For the sake of argument, I'll assume you're serious.
As is said in the 4-Hour Workweek, what people really want is the freedom that money buys, not necessarily money itself. But his whole idea is you don't have to be rich to have the freedom of the rich.
Care to reconsider?
This chick is gonna date the biggest boners in the world.
Have fun with your dude, I'll be the guy skydiving, skiing, hitting the gym, wakeboarding and living my life while you're sitting at home alone on a Saturday.
I'm with Cruncharoo. I'll take 50-60 hours and "modest" income (modest on this site, rich in the real world) and enjoy my life a little bit.
huanleshalemei = Daisukidayo = blastoise
= Manti Teo
No, first off I don't find TX or any of the "lower COL" areas attractive, unless you view Miami/South Florida as lower COL. Secondly money is about options, I like having the ability to retire young, travel, live well, that's not as doable on 150 a year.
I'd rather retire at 45 and have worked 60 hours a week than do 40 until 65
This for sure.
no way, i'll retire at my funeral. People that work live longer, have more active brains and a reason to get up in the morning.
Nearly impossible is also a strong word, within front office roles it's def. not impossible, depends how much you need for walking as well.
To retire at 45 you are likely going to need what, ~25 mil at least with a family and in a higher COL city and a good quality of life? Probably more. Very few jobs allow you to save that much in 20 years of work with the costs of graduate education/big cities/families/keeping up with the joneses. Even fewer allow you to work "only" 55-60 hrs for the majority of your career. Even in the front ofice most people aren't going to be able to hack it to get to those coveted high 6 figures low 7 figures jobs. It's not "impossible" but it is "extremely unlikely" so acting like it's a just a "hey, do I want to make millions or work 40 hrs a week" completely mises the point.
Yes everyone needs $25MM to retire @ 45. I really hope that was a typo.
This is a good point. I'm not sure about all firms but there are a few that only pay you up to x of your bonus when you receive it and then %'s thereafter on certain dates and are NOT guaranteed you if you walk away. You may also not be fully vested in your profit sharing/retirement/etc and by retiring will lose out on that money, which can be pretty significant at that level.
I think a lot of people on this site greatly overestimate how much money the average finance person in their 40's makes. And on top of that, the way most finance people spend money, people overestimate by an even larger factor how much money people have in the bank. I'm in private banking and a lot of our clients are MD's in IB or run groups in S&T at several BB's in NYC and Chicago (think GS/MS/JP), and these guys make between $750K to maybe $1.25MM in a fantastic year. They get to this position around age 40 if they are lucky. I look at their personal balance sheets, and they have maybe $3MM-$5MM total net worth, and that's with a $2MM house included. After taxes they take home $400-700K a year, and some of that is in stock they can't touch for a while. You throw in a few fancy cars, a decent mortgage, private school for the little ones, maybe a nanny and a modest vacation home, and some one or two vacations a year and they barely save any money relative to what they make or what most people would expect. Granted, they are still in the top .5% or better, but it's not like they are anywhere close to being able to retire in their 50's unless they are willing to greatly reduce their lifestyle.
xoxo
xoxo
My favorite thing about these types of threads, it's full of undergrads who have absolutely no understanding of what life is actually like. It's also hilarious because most of you, even the ones who get BB IBD, will wash out before you make any supposedly "real" money.
Absolutely Agree
It appears the general consensus is money > lifestyle. I personally am on the fence on this one but would have to say I'm slightly leaning towards the lifestyle side. Time is the most valuable commodity that no money can buy. Your 20s and 30s (to an extent) are your best years and to spend them working 60-90 hrs rather than enjoying life doesn't make sense to me. With that being said, it also makes sense to work hard while you have the energy and relax afterwards while driving this http://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/008-2014-porsche-911-turbo-800x600… and living here http://www.extravaganzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Paradise-Valley-…......
Anyone who doesn't say it's a mix of money and lifestyle is either an idiot who will end up twice divorced, or some sad sap from China who needs a numerical reason to have self worth (I make more money = I'm better)
Am I the only one saying money > lifestyle in this thread?? I may meet someone special and he completely changes my belief, it's possible. But for now, thnx for the 'love' guys.
http://katiedozier.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/haters-gonna-hate.jpg
Also, I need to know what my options are to answer the question. $100-$150k (I'm assuming you mean after taxes by "all in income?") for 40 hours seems legit but what is it compared to? 100 hours a week for $300k? 60 hours a week for nigh-unlimited commission potential?
I'm in a similar position now (but I'm leaving soon), in a similar state, but more on the lower end of your salary spectrum, although I could absolutely reach the higher end in the next couple of years if I stayed.
And, honestly, it's extremely boring (both professionally and personally), and therefore, I am leaving to go to back to the grind of long hours in a more exciting firm with more career options in a more exciting city.
Having free time and money in a city that is boring is not all that its cracked up to be. Particularly if in the city you're working, the people are uneducated and uninteresting, for lack of better terms.
Money and free time are not everything, if you can't enjoy the free time or enjoy the money. I take a lot of misc. trips away from here, but I would rather be working longer hours and having a more established, better living environment with people who are interesting, educated, and more like me.
idragmazda, I'm in the exact same situation. 33 years old, ~3rd year associate salary on 50 hours a week, and bored out of my friggin mind with nowhere to go professionally. People massively undervalue the elements of intellectual stimulation and working with interesting people. By most standards, I have a great gig. Ironically, this is actually a knock against me in interview, "why in the world would you leave?"
The trade off totally depends on what you value. If you want to be very stable, well off by local standards, and probably bored to death, it's' worth following my path. I need a new challenge with upside and something that will prepare me for the next step in my career.
I'll take the middle road to be honest. I'll work the 50-60 hour week and take the 200-300k range. 10 hours a day is 7-5 and you still get out in time to play almost 18 holes, weekends to yourselves with enough money for a nice lake house and family time. 40 hours a week is almost too laid back and to be on the grind with 70-80 is a bit much once you have a family in tow.
I'm sure you know this, but this is pretty easily achievable by 30 if you start as a pre-MBA consultant. Just make Director at a Fortune 500.
I wouldn't want to retire at 45. Maybe not bust my ass anymore if I was loaded, but the people who live long are the ones who keep their mind active. I wouldn't mind coming in at 10 instead of 7:30 or never working a Friday again, but if I legitimately didn't have a job? Gag
Bottom line for me is that I don't really have that many incredibly fulfilling things that I could do with the extra 30 hours or so a week. The unpredictability is annoying, but you can train the people around you to deal with it (yes its a downside). Most of my hobbies aren't really things that can be done locally in a few hours (I don't count running/working out) and they tend to need serious cash outlay. I still manage to volunteer fairly regularly. And the upside to all that time at the office is more incremental learning (this assumes you are in a job where the marginal hour comes with some marginal learning and aren't putting pitchbooks together or cold calling 24/7).
Do not worry.
Most of you who end up working in finance will not be able to cut it, and then you'll be working 40-45 hours a week at a $100k/year job (still much, much better than the vast majority of Americans are doing by the way) by default.
Far more relatively-wealthy people are products of small business and real estate investing than of high finance.
A lot of people here seem delusional. Especially considering that half of you can't string together a coherent sentence, yet somehow expect to be making millions.
what about balance? I think after you work 5 (or 5.5) days a week, and past 12 hours per day, those extra hours better be well compensated for.
@rogersterling: Wow, really interesting perspective. The hardest thing to do when you start making good money is to live below your means.
Hours vs. Pay (Originally Posted: 07/24/2012)
Would you guys rather work a job that pays 300k/year @ 50hrs/week vs. 500k/year @100hrs/week?
300k and 50 hours, ceteris paribus. The marginal value of leisure time increases as hours worked increases...here you have hours double for a less than 2x pay increase.
The 300k should be less than 250k for this to even be a valid comparison
With that, I'd take 175k/50 hr over 500k/100hr. I'd pick 125k/40hr over both
nahhhhh, 50 a week is cake.
yeah, sign me up for the 175/50. I'll absolutely work an extra 10 hours a week for 50k. In response to your first question, I question the values behind anyone who would prefer the 100 hour scenario.
At that point, definitely 50 hrs. 300k a year is enough to do about 95% of what I want to do, so the extra 200k is not worth that much.
If it was 100k for 50 hrs and 300k for 100 hrs, might be a different story.
earn an extra 200k with no time to use it, seems brilliant
... my thoughts exactly
At what point do the hours slow down in banking? Post Associate? And what is the downtime during the job actually like when people are supposedly surfing the web, etc?
Let me tell you man. This job is not all it's cracked out to be. If you are even thinking about hours, look for a different industry. If you are not extremely gun-ho with money being your number one motivation, this just isn't the right place for you. There is a ton of downtime spent while waiting for things to be reviewed. It's not efficient at all. The work is monotonous. If you can survive an analyst stint, then it will open doors. But the job sucks.
I'm just asking because I was admitted to a good MBA program and IB will be an option, not something I had considered but now that I am reviewing my experience it seems it would be one of the higher paying/higher probability options coming out of school. I want to get into ER but I might consider IB as a backup, and if I can use the "downtime" productively I might not mind it.
$300k hands down with the hours you listed.
I would consider 300k a year for 50hrs/week better than 500k at 100 hour a week. Would u work an extra 50hours a week for the extra 200k a year? double the work, for less than double the income? doesn't sound fair enough.
the answer is too obvious for this question so let's re-do this one... 300k @ 50 hrs or 150k @ 25 hours ??
25 hours and then I'd feel like I'm worthless, I wouldn't be rich enough to justify sitting on my ass all day.
i'm lazy
I wouldn't consistently work 100 hours a week for any money. No point having it if you can't spend it. For me, the maximum "comfortable" working week would be around 70 hours.
I prefer a job where you participate in the deal upsides (e.g. carried interests, ownership stakes) in a substantial manner instead of having your total comp restricted to such arbitrary levels like 300ks or 500ks/year.
I would imagine that would increase the amount of work you 'take home' dramatically.
Aut quas sunt omnis doloribus. Ipsa deleniti ut voluptates et.
Commodi explicabo ratione possimus delectus. Vel unde sunt asperiores molestiae dolores at laboriosam. Fugit aspernatur enim sunt sed rem.
Exercitationem sit ex molestiae ullam eum. Quas vero sint non. Accusantium quo sed amet minima quaerat eligendi nisi. Eaque ut quisquam provident voluptas placeat sequi ut qui. Deserunt inventore ipsum et nemo ipsam ea.
Illum id ut qui tempora et eius similique. Hic et qui odit dolorem ullam optio odio voluptas. Commodi id quisquam iure laborum qui explicabo perspiciatis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Repellendus veniam molestiae amet magni. Explicabo at eum repellendus sed et qui occaecati et. Ut neque aliquid numquam doloribus in sint expedita.
Ut neque non suscipit quo voluptatum. Placeat voluptas est sapiente eveniet nihil accusantium eum ad. Eos ut laboriosam expedita reiciendis modi voluptatem. Vel nam est numquam a omnis id. Et maxime delectus veritatis corporis quam voluptatibus eveniet. Temporibus praesentium tempore eos nihil culpa unde error. Voluptates culpa rerum sed laudantium dicta vel.
Rerum enim placeat fugit facilis. Dolore culpa porro tenetur. Quia adipisci praesentium voluptas suscipit maxime.
Quos commodi vel et natus non iusto cum. Asperiores architecto sed aperiam autem praesentium rerum iste. Omnis dolorum molestiae est fugit veritatis harum.
Tempore officiis consequatur et quaerat est reiciendis eum dolor. Esse perspiciatis incidunt aut alias pariatur reiciendis et. Qui laborum iusto aliquam ad esse. Veritatis et iste fugit aut perspiciatis sapiente est. Consequatur dolores blanditiis sunt. Consequuntur sed repudiandae quo et.