Would you work part-time at the expense of reaching FIRE later?

[sizzlinkola]

I have the opportunity to keep my hourly pay at a reduced schedule. After doing some very rough math and a very conservative estimate, it would delay my FIRE date by 5-10 years. That's already on top of my 10 year horizon as a FTE.

That seems like a long delay but I'd be gaining back hours of my life throughout my career. I'd work half-days each day and still have benefits.

I'm pretty conflicted on this and wanted to get others opinions. I took a year off of work and it was the best year of my life. I had a similar part-time scenario also in my career and it was great having some freedom and time again for my life for my passions / hobbies. Would love to do it again but I know I'd be missing out on investing for FIRE and reaching it sooner. Again, a 5-10 delay seems pretty rough...but that's a very conservative estimate.

[Alternatepriorities]

I'd say that is a great opportunity unless you have specific dreams for FIRE that require you to have large blocks of time off.

First off, hours of freedom earlier in life are worth more than hours of freedom later. I've found that I can't physically do some of the adventures I was dreaming about while working in my 20s now that I'm FIRE'd in my 40s. It's been a hard lesson in entropy. I've also found that life changes can seriously disrupt the assumptions I had 10 years ago. For example it simply didn't occur to me when I started working towards FIRE that DW would want to keep working after we'd achieved FI and yet here we are.

Secondly. if you can actually drop to half days now and it doesn't more than double your working time you're spending less time working in total so it's a double win.

[Log]

I agree that unless you aspire to have maximum flexibility for some kind of nomadic life or homeschooling half a dozen children or something out there like that, well-compensated part time work is probably the ideal way to live. Depending on where you're at in the accumulation phase, continuing full time for another few months or a year just to have a faster on-ramp to more powerful compounding might be appealing. But if you've got (pulling a random number out of my ass) ~$100k+ already rolling, going part-time seems very appealing.

The difference between spending half your waking hours at work vs spending a quarter of your waking hours at work is significant. So is the difference between having the structure, meaning, identity, and sense of accomplishment that comes from working, vs... not. Part time is the best of both worlds, imo.

[bacchi]

If you can be sure that you're really half-time, and you're not putting in unpaid hours for meetings or delayed projects, then it's well worth it. Part-time work is very beneficial to work-life balance.

[jrhampt]

I would go for it.  I suppose there is some risk if you think your industry may be likely to have significant layoffs/outsourcing at some point before you are able to retire; in that case you may want to make hay while the sun shines or give some thought to what you would retrain in if your career ended sooner than expected.

But time now is better than time in the future because the future is not guaranteed; in addition to the realities of your own aging discussed above, you may be impacted by other people in your life aging and needing end of life care.  This can be a significant disruption.

[reeshau]

One bubble-bursting question: what does this do to your health insurance?  Insurance often begins at 30 hours or above.  There could be other benefit impacts, too, but unless your estimates in delayed FIRE include health care costs, it might be worse than you think.

[sizzlinkola]

Depending on where you're at in the accumulation phase, continuing full time for another few months or a year just to have a faster on-ramp to more powerful compounding might be appealing. But if you've got (pulling a random number out of my ass) ~$100k+ already rolling, going part-time seems very appealing.

I got around ~$240K right now across my portfolio. But my anticipated FIRE number is $1M-$1.5M, which is why you see that 5-10 year estimate I put in my OP. Hard to predict what my expenses will look like far in the future.

[ChickenStash]

For me, I wouldn't do half-days to extend my FIRE date out that far. I don't see a great enough value in a half day versus a full day to offset the extra years. I'd still be tied to work every weekday so I couldn't get too far. Also, for my profession that would likely mean having to go to a much lower paid position as that kind of setup is very rare in my area.

Now, if it was something like switching to 6-month contracts or the like where I'd still be working half the hours per year but have months at a time free to do whatever I want then I'd be up for that. This is actually my CoastFIRE plan that I'll probably be doing in a few years.

[kpd905]

Depending on where you're at in the accumulation phase, continuing full time for another few months or a year just to have a faster on-ramp to more powerful compounding might be appealing. But if you've got (pulling a random number out of my ass) ~$100k+ already rolling, going part-time seems very appealing.

I got around ~$240K right now across my portfolio. But my anticipated FIRE number is $1M-$1.5M, which is why you see that 5-10 year estimate I put in my OP. Hard to predict what my expenses will look like far in the future.

I'd probably want to be one doubling or less from my FIRE number before I went to half time.  Otherwise a few years of low returns could have you working way longer than you planned.

[clarkfan1979]

I have the opportunity to keep my hourly pay at a reduced schedule. After doing some very rough math and a very conservative estimate, it would delay my FIRE date by 5-10 years. That's already on top of my 10 year horizon as a FTE.

That seems like a long delay but I'd be gaining back hours of my life throughout my career. I'd work half-days each day and still have benefits.

I'm pretty conflicted on this and wanted to get others opinions. I took a year off of work and it was the best year of my life. I had a similar part-time scenario also in my career and it was great having some freedom and time again for my life for my passions / hobbies. Would love to do it again but I know I'd be missing out on investing for FIRE and reaching it sooner. Again, a 5-10 delay seems pretty rough...but that's a very conservative estimate.

It's not exactly the same thing, but my wife switched from full-time salary to part-time hourly in 2015, about 1 year after coming across MMM. Overall, it was a great decision for us because we had our first and only child in 2017. Her income went from 60K to 20K. However, we honestly don't miss it. We get to travel more on both big trips and small trips. I personally wouldn't like half-days. I would personally want to work 3 days a week (8 hours) to allow more travel.

If you end up not liking it, could you go back to full-time at a later date without any major penalties

[sizzlinkola]

First off, hours of freedom earlier in life are worth more than hours of freedom later. I've found that I can't physically do some of the adventures I was dreaming about while working in my 20s now that I'm FIRE'd in my 40s. It's been a hard lesson in entropy. I've also found that life changes can seriously disrupt the assumptions I had 10 years ago.

But time now is better than time in the future because the future is not guaranteed; in addition to the realities of your own aging discussed above, you may be impacted by other people in your life aging and needing end of life care.  This can be a significant disruption.

To play devil's advocate, if time now is more valuable than later, then you can also say time later is more valuable than time in the far future.

In other words...

Time now > Time later (FIRE 10 years from now if I maintain FT) > Time in far future (FIRE 20 years from now if I go PT the whole way)

So I think one could assume that reaching FIRE earlier is better because you have complete freedom or 40 hours/wk of your life back vs time now with only partial freedom or 20 hours/wk of your life back.

[Alternatepriorities]

First off, hours of freedom earlier in life are worth more than hours of freedom later. I've found that I can't physically do some of the adventures I was dreaming about while working in my 20s now that I'm FIRE'd in my 40s. It's been a hard lesson in entropy. I've also found that life changes can seriously disrupt the assumptions I had 10 years ago.

But time now is better than time in the future because the future is not guaranteed; in addition to the realities of your own aging discussed above, you may be impacted by other people in your life aging and needing end of life care.  This can be a significant disruption.

To play devil's advocate, if time now is more valuable than later, then you can also say time later is more valuable than time in the far future.

In other words...

Time now > Time later (FIRE 10 years from now if I maintain FT) > Time in far future (FIRE 20 years from now if I go PT the whole way)

So I think one could assume that reaching FIRE earlier is better because you have complete freedom or 40 hours/wk of your life back vs time now with only partial freedom or 20 hours/wk of your life back.

I would agree if the things you want to do in FIRE require a large block of time and especially if they require some youth. My personal favorite is thru hiking the PCT which would be nearly impossible with any kind of job that didn't allow an all out sabbatical. It's a lot more likely that I'll be able to do it in 10 years than 20. Although there is the twist of spending the extra time off now staying healthy and how that plays into the chances of doing the hike later. If however what you really want to do it projects around your house, camping in the mountains near by, or lay in the sun and read... well working 20 hours a week would be great for doing them now.

[sizzlinkola]

I would agree if the things you want to do in FIRE require a large block of time and especially if they require some youth. My personal favorite is thru hiking the PCT which would be nearly impossible with any kind of job that didn't allow an all out sabbatical. It's a lot more likely that I'll be able to do it in 10 years than 20. Although there is the twist of spending the extra time off now staying healthy and how that plays into the chances of doing the hike later. If however what you really want to do it projects around your house, camping in the mountains near by, or lay in the sun and read... well working 20 hours a week would be great for doing them now.

Ah, now I better understand what you mean.

In my case, the activity that would require most of my youth would be climbing. There are folks who climb well into their older years though. And I'm not much of a climbing for sport (e.g. trying to climb the most difficult ones) and moreso climbing for fun / exploration. Don't really care about climbing the toughest things.

But other than that, I'm not doing anything that requires long blocks of time like thru hiking the PCT or any goals like that. It's definitely much more the latter.

[pasadenafr]

I was going to say no, because FIRE is like my #1 priority right now and it can't come fast enough.

But then I realized that.... I'm seriously thinking of doing something similar in a couple of years. If I need $X and the rule of 55 to retire early, but I reach $X a couple of years before that, I will probably go back to my home country to be with my aging parents. This means taking a lower-paying full-time job back home, and working longer (because I won't have access to my 401(k) and not enough money in taxable to sustain me until age 59.5).

So I guess the answer is... it depends on your priorities. If someone wants more time NOW for any reason, it makes sense.

[SpareChange]

Depending on where you're at in the accumulation phase, continuing full time for another few months or a year just to have a faster on-ramp to more powerful compounding might be appealing. But if you've got (pulling a random number out of my ass) ~$100k+ already rolling, going part-time seems very appealing.

I got around ~$240K right now across my portfolio. But my anticipated FIRE number is $1M-$1.5M, which is why you see that 5-10 year estimate I put in my OP. Hard to predict what my expenses will look like far in the future.

I'd probably want to be one doubling or less from my FIRE number before I went to half time.  Otherwise a few years of low returns could have you working way longer than you planned.

My gut agrees with kpd905. I'd want to be further towards FI before going PT. I think I was around 70-80% to FI when I went PT in 2019. Hard to say there's a right answer though. :)

[GuitarStv]

I would agree if the things you want to do in FIRE require a large block of time and especially if they require some youth. My personal favorite is thru hiking the PCT which would be nearly impossible with any kind of job that didn't allow an all out sabbatical. It's a lot more likely that I'll be able to do it in 10 years than 20. Although there is the twist of spending the extra time off now staying healthy and how that plays into the chances of doing the hike later. If however what you really want to do it projects around your house, camping in the mountains near by, or lay in the sun and read... well working 20 hours a week would be great for doing them now.

Ah, now I better understand what you mean.

In my case, the activity that would require most of my youth would be climbing. There are folks who climb well into their older years though. And I'm not much of a climbing for sport (e.g. trying to climb the most difficult ones) and moreso climbing for fun / exploration. Don't really care about climbing the toughest things.

But other than that, I'm not doing anything that requires long blocks of time like thru hiking the PCT or any goals like that. It's definitely much more the latter.

I've kept very active through my 20s, 30s, and now into my 40s.  I can still do all the stuff I used to do, and I can go close to as hard at it as I used to (my max weights have dropped roughly 10% for lifting, and I can't really do 3 hrs class/sparring sessions in BJJ like I used to but 2 hrs is fine).  What I find the most difficult though is recovery.  I'm sore for longer.  I develop fatigue when doing multiple hard days in a row that I never would gave before.  It takes several days now for me to feel OK after a 160 km bike ride.  I can't do heavy weights and a hard sparring BJJ class both in the same day.  What I consider a good workout week has had to really change a lot.

If you're looking to stay active and healthy, then I'd expect that you can do so well into your 60s and 70s at most activities provided you're willing to step things down a little when your body tells you to.  If you want to be physically competitive or to really tackle challenging physical tasks you might be better off trying to do them earlier on.

[trollwithamustache]

This was my plan before finding out about FIRE and back where I needed up after contemplating FIRE. I had a target $$ amount that if I had that saved away by age 40 I didn't need to save any more $$ and I could retire at 60. Market average returns assumptions, blah blah blah.

Personally, I actually like working as an engineer.  As a contractor doing projects, no one wants me to attend any of the BS meetings and for the most part I don't have to deal with any corporate BS.

[Metalcat]

This all depends on your relationship with work.

I retired a few years ago due to medical issues, I had to leave work entirely. But I ended up taking on a lot of volunteer work because that's what I enjoy. So for me, "work" is a key part of my best life. I'm just very, very picky about the work I do.

My spouse and I had many talks for a long time about what the best use of my work energy would be, and we ultimately decided I would retrain to be able to be paid extremely well for my part time work that I would be doing anyway.

Now I'm back to paid work part time and it's great.

So it all depends on whether work is cock-blocking you from doing something else you would prefer doing.

If it is, then putting off access to that quality of life may not be a good trade. But if your best life includes taking on a lot of challenging projects that create value, then it may be absolutely ideal to stretch out the years where you get paid for doing so.

For me, it's so ridiculously obvious to keep paid work in my life. The more years I keep income flowing in, the more years compounding can work on my 'stache, and the fewer years I need to worry about SORR, etc.

But I'm not "putting off" my ideal retirement. I've been retired since 2020, this really is my best life. I'm just back to getting paid for what I was doing for free.

Hilariously for me, as long as I'm getting paid well to do something, it's actually easier for me to have stricter boundaries and not let the work take over. When it's volunteer work and there's literally no one else with my skills able to take over, it's very easy for the sense of obligation to take over and let the work seep in more than is optimal for me.

I basically need to have a paid job to keep myself out of trouble and keep me from working too much, lol

Examine closely what you see if missing from your life. What unmet needs are motivating you to FIRE, and can those needs best be met by hunkering down and putting off your happiness for a full retirement, or can they be best met by finding a way to generate income in a highly balanced life?

No one can answer this for you.

But I can tell you that for me, figuring out how to generate income doing the kind of work I love as part of a rich lifestyle feels like life on easy mode. It's also exactly what I took as inspiration from MMM's life choices.

I had little interest in his story pre-FIRE and was far more fascinated by the fact that he made the bulk of his money *after* retiring, by focusing on his ideal lifestyle.

I think a lot of folks write that part off, but to me, it really resonated. I don't really see him as being someone who saved a lot and then retired on a modest, frugal budget. I see him as someone who saved more than enough FU money to start building the life he really wanted.

What does that life look like for you? Do you even know? What exactly is currently acting as a barrier?

[strongmag]

Damn @Metalcat - I've seen some great responses from you elsewhere on this forum, but I found this one is particularly awesome.

OP - I work 24 hours a week as an engineer and have for the last 7 years. I did this to make my life less crazy and spend more time with my two young kids, so not really analogous to your situation, but figured I would weigh in on working part time = having more time for your life outside work. Working part time has been excellent for me to be able to do the kinds of activities I want to do with my kids while they are still young enough to want to hang out with me, so the time now vs. time later trade off has been well worth it to me. I have worked those 24 hours as either partial days 5 days a week or full days 3 days a week, and both options have their pros and cons depending on what your goals are, so if there is flexibility for the hours per day consider which type of schedule would work best for you. The partial days 5 days a week feels much more like a regular job vs. 4 day weekends every week, but from a job perspective it's also much easier to keep up with project teams and issues that come up inside my work hours because I am available at least part of every work day. On a 3 day a week schedule, I had more time creep into my two days off if a ball needed to keep rolling.

Best of luck on your decision.

[Alternatepriorities]

I would agree if the things you want to do in FIRE require a large block of time and especially if they require some youth. My personal favorite is thru hiking the PCT which would be nearly impossible with any kind of job that didn't allow an all out sabbatical. It's a lot more likely that I'll be able to do it in 10 years than 20. Although there is the twist of spending the extra time off now staying healthy and how that plays into the chances of doing the hike later. If however what you really want to do it projects around your house, camping in the mountains near by, or lay in the sun and read... well working 20 hours a week would be great for doing them now.

Ah, now I better understand what you mean.

In my case, the activity that would require most of my youth would be climbing. There are folks who climb well into their older years though. And I'm not much of a climbing for sport (e.g. trying to climb the most difficult ones) and moreso climbing for fun / exploration. Don't really care about climbing the toughest things.

But other than that, I'm not doing anything that requires long blocks of time like thru hiking the PCT or any goals like that. It's definitely much more the latter.

I've kept very active through my 20s, 30s, and now into my 40s.  I can still do all the stuff I used to do, and I can go close to as hard at it as I used to (my max weights have dropped roughly 10% for lifting, and I can't really do 3 hrs class/sparring sessions in BJJ like I used to but 2 hrs is fine).  What I find the most difficult though is recovery.  I'm sore for longer.  I develop fatigue when doing multiple hard days in a row that I never would gave before.  It takes several days now for me to feel OK after a 160 km bike ride.  I can't do heavy weights and a hard sparring BJJ class both in the same day.  What I consider a good workout week has had to really change a lot.

If you're looking to stay active and healthy, then I'd expect that you can do so well into your 60s and 70s at most activities provided you're willing to step things down a little when your body tells you to.  If you want to be physically competitive or to really tackle challenging physical tasks you might be better off trying to do them earlier on.

One of my regrets in life is "temporarily" sacrificing some healthy physical activities in life to achieve other goals. In my 20's I could get away with it and bounce back pretty quickly, in my 30's it was harder, and by 40 it was a stupid mistake I should have known better... I've been trying to regain the fitness I lost from "one quick and fun job" (spoiler it was neither) for more than a year now. Granted, adopting an infant a couple weeks before the job wrapped up did me no favors on that front. I really hope I can get back to 80-90% of what I could do in my 20's but I am not as confident now as I was.

[Metalcat]

I would agree if the things you want to do in FIRE require a large block of time and especially if they require some youth. My personal favorite is thru hiking the PCT which would be nearly impossible with any kind of job that didn't allow an all out sabbatical. It's a lot more likely that I'll be able to do it in 10 years than 20. Although there is the twist of spending the extra time off now staying healthy and how that plays into the chances of doing the hike later. If however what you really want to do it projects around your house, camping in the mountains near by, or lay in the sun and read... well working 20 hours a week would be great for doing them now.

Ah, now I better understand what you mean.

In my case, the activity that would require most of my youth would be climbing. There are folks who climb well into their older years though. And I'm not much of a climbing for sport (e.g. trying to climb the most difficult ones) and moreso climbing for fun / exploration. Don't really care about climbing the toughest things.

But other than that, I'm not doing anything that requires long blocks of time like thru hiking the PCT or any goals like that. It's definitely much more the latter.

I've kept very active through my 20s, 30s, and now into my 40s.  I can still do all the stuff I used to do, and I can go close to as hard at it as I used to (my max weights have dropped roughly 10% for lifting, and I can't really do 3 hrs class/sparring sessions in BJJ like I used to but 2 hrs is fine).  What I find the most difficult though is recovery.  I'm sore for longer.  I develop fatigue when doing multiple hard days in a row that I never would gave before.  It takes several days now for me to feel OK after a 160 km bike ride.  I can't do heavy weights and a hard sparring BJJ class both in the same day.  What I consider a good workout week has had to really change a lot.

If you're looking to stay active and healthy, then I'd expect that you can do so well into your 60s and 70s at most activities provided you're willing to step things down a little when your body tells you to.  If you want to be physically competitive or to really tackle challenging physical tasks you might be better off trying to do them earlier on.

One of my regrets in life is "temporarily" sacrificing some healthy physical activities in life to achieve other goals. In my 20's I could get away with it and bounce back pretty quickly, in my 30's it was harder, and by 40 it was a stupid mistake I should have known better... I've been trying to regain the fitness I lost from "one quick and fun job" (spoiler it was neither) for more than a year now. Granted, adopting an infant a couple weeks before the job wrapped up did me no favors on that front. I really hope I can get back to 80-90% of what I could do in my 20's but I am not as confident now as I was.

That's my biggest regret.

I pushed myself because I had a financial goal. Now I've had a migraine 24/7 for 5 straight years because of irreversible spinal damage.

[Spruit]

Happily working parttime, as is a large percentage of people in my country. Even though it is very common here to be working 3 or 4 days, there is still the risk of work creeping in on the days off. I imagine that is a larger issue where the culture leans more towards fulltime. People are expected to be on call, come in for 'important' meetings etc on their own time. Unless you actively guard your boundaries and are clear about it. So be sure to discuss what is expected of you on your days off, so they are really your own. I for instance do not pick up the phone for workcalls, do not open email etc. I have one 'overflow' day at home where I do things for work and plan any chores and sports while the kids are at school or daycare. It is an unpaid day, but I use it basically to do anything allowing me to be home earlier on my actual workdays. 1 hour worked on overflow day= -1 hour to work on a full workday. I keep track. This way I can avoid traffic and smoothen the domestic logistics of picking up kids etc. My other 3 days off are really workfree, which means time for family, nature, activities, gardening, repairs, etc. Would not want it any different, this allows me to keep my kids close, my physical and mental health in good order too.