Would you rather work 40 hrs/wk for $100k/yr or 70 hrs for $150k?

70/week now. I'm a student, and I've worked those hours doing stuff that I hate. I could kill it for a decade and even without any pay progression, I could have a sizable chunk of money in the bank. Would I want to work like that forever? I don't know, but I think there's something to be said about having enough money/security in your life to not worry about being laid off or having the ability to tell your boss to shove a cactus up his ass and walk out.

I'd add the caveat that this wouldn't even need to be something that I was "super passionate about". I know people that go through the law grind for similar pay, and I can guarantee you that none of them have any level of passion for 80% of what they do.

I'd say the extra 50K even after taxes (so lets say 30K) over 3 years gives me a nice little savings that if I wanted to take a full year off to travel I could do that. So I'm going with 150K working 70 hours a week. It'd also cut back on my expenses since I'd spend so much time in the office.

Neither. Im not doing something for 40 or 70hrs and wasting my life if i dont like it. Especially working 70hrs to push someone else's dream!

40 hours/week for $100K no doubt about it. Extra $50K after taxes is not worth an extra 30 hours/week.

I have reason to believe the people that would rather work 70 hours/week for $150K are most likely students just thinking about the money. Once you are in the workforce for a little bit, you learn how much more valuable your time is compared to your paycheck.

I can't believe people will choose almost dble the hours for 33% more pay.... maybe if we were talking 40 vs 60 then it's a debate... and even then I'm taking the 100k.

Its funny, the answer to this question is a direct function of how many yrs of you've been in the workforce and worked an intense high paying job. All the students/prospective monkeys would obviously go for a 150K offer working 70 hrs/week rather than 100 with 40. After working a PE job and having done banking, I'd happily take the 100k role.

I think any opinions from people who have not worked long hours in the past could just be ignored.

If this were the beginning of my career I'd consider other factors, assuming it's not a binary 40hr/$100k or 70hrs/$150k with all other things equal. Which one is going to allow you to end up where you want 5,10 or 20 years down the road in monetary terms, a career you like and could put you in a position in life that you're happy? Is the 40/100 option a job where you're going to get CPI type of annual raises and a 10-15% bump when you get a promotion and top out in mid-management? If you're happy with that, then I'd do that. If 70/150 (which I'm just assuming is IB) gives you the potential to continue to make much more money with significant possible increases in comp in that job or it can get you another job that potentially could pay more and get you into a career that you want (any of the possible exits) and that's what is going to make you happy that may be the better choice. The latter career choice is a real commitment because it will never be 40 hour weeks-it doesn't get easier as you go higher so throw that misconception out the window. And not everyone makes it even if they want to.

There are also arguments to be made to work for a few years at 70/150 to save up or pay off student loans and then go do something you want. I've know more than a few lawyers who have done this-worked in big law, paid off loans, gave them a financial cushion then went to save the world.

There isn't a right answer, it completely depends on the person. Personally, my main goal was to make money then I found out that I don't mind long hours in an all encompassing profession and I really like doing deals. I wouldn't have been happy if a 40/100 job meant CPI annual raises and I was stuck at a desk as an accountant (or engineer or whatever could make you that type of money-btw, outside of a top programmer I don't think that's a realistic entry level salary for those types of hours) filing TPS reports. There's nothing wrong with that career path though. Most people, and not just on WSO but everywhere, look at senior level finance jobs and see big paychecks but if they actually tried to do this career for a couple of decades they'd realize the insanity of it and blow their brains out. And that's not me bragging or complaining or saying it's better, but it's a very, very different life than what the vast majority of people do. But I wouldn't have been happy going the 40/100 route.

I would also choose $100k and 40 hours but I think the difference between $150k and $100k is fairly significant. Some math: $50,000/yr taxed at 28% = incremental $36,000/yr Assume you work for 40 years (age 25-65) Assume you save all of it and return 6% per annum (50/50 portfolio has averaged ~9% historically) FV = $5,571,431

Seeing how this site is full of mostly college kids to late 20s - their response will likely be $150K.

But once you grow up, start a family, and have been grinding for 10 years, the trade off becomes a much harder question to answer.

I would take the 70hrs a week assuming you can predict the hours. What's toughest about banking isn't the # of hours worked, it's that you have no visibility at all into what one, two, three, or four weeks out your schedule will be. And if you have something planned but then work comes up, tough shit.

70 hours a week means you're working 8am - 10pm on average during the weekdays, ie you're a corporate slave

This isn't a very far-fetched scenario. Job A ($100k/40 hours) could be any number of post-MBA F500 jobs, while job B could be any number of post-MBA consulting jobs (more realistically it's $110k/45-50 hours vs. $160k/70 hours). I chose option A and couldn't be happier with it, but I have many friends who went with option B and some seem quite happy as well. I have time to get dinner with friends, go to the gym 3-4 days a week, get drunk at lunch on Saturday if I feel like it, etc. Am I swimming in money? No, but I have a good apartment in a great neighborhood and there's not much I really want to do that I can't afford. I can still go out and drop $200 on dinner once in a while and it's not a big deal, and I can say yes to the occasional sports game. Meanwhile most of my friends doing 70 hours/week are counting the months until they exit to a job with better work/life balance. A major caveat is that I happen to love my job, which makes everything better.

While my mind was fairly made up on Job A before I started my MBA program, there was something that happened at bschool that I think is worth sharing. During the last day of one of our core classes, our professor distributed to the class the reminiscences of previous classes which they had written down at their 10-year, 20-year, 30-year, etc reunions. He had us break up into groups, read through these statements and then share with the class the key points. The people who wrote these ranged from middle managers at F500 companies to PE partners, multi-millionaire entrepreneurs and consulting partners. The one overwhelming takeaway from each set was "spend more time with those you care about and less time at work". While the expression varied ("I'm so glad I left consulting when I had a kid", "I stepped back from running the company to spend more time with my wife"), the sentiment was always the same. I found it striking then and I still remember it quite clearly over 2 years later.

i wrote a long reply to this.. and then deleted it. i want u guys to be misled by ignorance. press below for monkey shitz.

Would go with 70/$150. If this is a three-year thing and you save the extra $50k/year, let it compound at 7% for 40 years, that another ~$2.2 million at retirement.

The assumption of different "levels" of jobs (as far as exit opps) makes the argument opaque. Either we're talking all else equal or it's pointless. I'd go into banking for $60k a yr for the exit opps before operations at the $100k/40 hr a week number. Love all the dudes here talking about compounding till retirement like life at 60+ is as fun (for lack of a better word) as 25+.... those extra 30 hours at 22-29 can be put to much use that may be unavailable when your're old, which is another factor not guaranteed.

"you wouldn't be doing something you are super passionate about"

40/week then. If I ever feel like going the extra mile to challenge myself, I could just pump it up to 50-60 or even 70 for a while. The other while, I'm just going to find some hobby to spend my free time.

Jeez no one here is thinking like a boss, you take the 150k job working 70 hours a week then you just outsource 90% of your work to someone you pay 75K a year and reap 50% of the reward for doing 10% of the work. Come one people this is how its done!

40hrs and it's not even close

100k for 40 hrs, 150k for 70hrs is just not worth it, if its 300k for 70/80 hrs, then thats a different story.

This is a great way to weed out the idiots. 1.5x the pay for 1.75x the hours? Who in their right mind takes $150K/70 hour weeks all other things being equal? Pretty simple answer being $100K/40hr weeks.

It should either be $150K for 60 hour weeks, or $175K for 70 hour weeks to be a fair comparison.

I'd take 40hrs.

also, whoever's saying you can invest 50/50 stocks/bonds and get 9% is high, and I would like to know where you get your drugs because they appear to be amazing.

the 10y return on the S&P (as of 2014) was 7.6% (geometric, not arithmetic), the 50y return was 9.84, and since 1928, it's 9.6. the 10y returned 4.9, 6.7 and 5 during those same time frames, so unless I'm missing something mathematically, a 50/50 portfolio should get exactly half of each of those indices' returns, which is less than 9%.

finally, the likelihood of a 30y bull market for both stocks AND bonds like we had beginning in the early 80s is unlikely. maybe once we get back to valuation levels we saw in that part of history, but not until then.

christ, if it was that easy, AM wouldn't be a multi trillion dollar industry.