Take the raise? = stress, but get to FI in 1/2 the time

[Exhale]

I'm being offered a raise at work that would allow me to cut my FIRE date in half (from 6 to 3 years). So of course I'm tempted. However, it might be a bad choice for me due to the stress. Advice is needed!

The new job would be doing about 25% less of what I do now and adding supervision to my duties. (Note: My current job is one that I mostly like and can do with ease. So, staying put won't be a problem though it does mean six more years of FT work.)

I'm wary because I know from my experience in this workplace and past supervisory experience that, for me, I'll experience stress from:
1) The main FT staff person I'll be supervising. This person is nice, but manages to get away with only 50% work and has successfully resisted all other supervisory attempts (it's one of the reasons they're willing to give me a raise, no one else wants to deal with this person). It'll be additionally challenging given that I'm someone who works hard and is very conscientious - a personality and belief system totally different from the potential supervisee
2) Being responsible for the entire unit (versus just my piece of it). A unit in which half the staff (there are just two of us) is not interested in doing the work. I'd be sure to get something in writing from my bosses about how my job performance would be measured, but it would still be stressful for me to be in charge of a unit that was delivering sub-par work.

Question:
1) Take the new position and deal w/ the frustration and stress knowing it's for "just" three years?
2) Stay with what I have and enjoy the lack of stress and pace myself for six more years of work?

Thank you all!
---

UPDATE

Thank you to everyone for helping me get clear on how I wanted to move forward. After much reflection, I was willing to do it (with the self-understanding that I'd do my best, but wasn't going to lose sleep over it and would keep my focus on achieving FI in three years). 

Here's what happened...

I went to the Big Meeting with administrator and director. The administrator tells me that, oh by the way, they just can't afford to offer me what they had originally quoted (it was still a raise, but nothing like the original quote). He assured me that I'm a valued member of the team and they look forward to offering me more advancement opportunities in the future. I almost laughed out loud at this, but instead just silently thanked my lucky stars that I don't need a raise or their advancement opportunities. I thanked them for considering me for an expanded role in the organization, but declined the offer.

So, there you have it, yet another reason to live below one's means and achieve FI as soon as possible!

[JLee]

I would do it for three years, if you have an HR department that'll back you when it comes to disciplining your 50%-work employee. If you're able to replace that employee, you could dramatically increase productivity for your unit and also retire three years early.

[Exhale]

I would do it for three years, if you have an HR department that'll back you when it comes to disciplining your 50%-work employee. If you're able to replace that employee, you could dramatically increase productivity for your unit and also retire three years early.

Thank you JLee! I'm really needing MMM community feedback on this since my personal support community is evenly split on the question.

[BlueHouse]

I would definitely do it.  It sounds like a great challenge to see if you can motivate this employee better than others have done and if not, to see if you can maintain the required workload for the team. 
But first, I'd need to know: 
what happened to previous supervisors?  Are they gone because the other guy won't do his work?
Would there be any financial penalty if you can't make your goals because of the other guy?
Can you negotiate a severance package up front in case the position just doesn't work out? 

[JLee]

I would definitely do it.  It sounds like a great challenge to see if you can motivate this employee better than others have done and if not, to see if you can maintain the required workload for the team. 
But first, I'd need to know: 
what happened to previous supervisors?  Are they gone because the other guy won't do his work?
Would there be any financial penalty if you can't make your goals because of the other guy?
Can you negotiate a severance package up front in case the position just doesn't work out?

Tangent to this point - is this problematic employee "protected" somehow, i.e. a CEO's relative? That may make it more difficult to work with.

I would do it for three years, if you have an HR department that'll back you when it comes to disciplining your 50%-work employee. If you're able to replace that employee, you could dramatically increase productivity for your unit and also retire three years early.

Thank you JLee! I'm really needing MMM community feedback on this since my personal support community is evenly split on the question.

Think of it this way- let's say you weren't planning on retiring and they said if you did this job for three years, they'd give you a three year vacation with pay, would you do it?

It also depends on your personality. Some people do not do well with conflict, some people can manage it well, some don't want to deal with it at all. I come from a law enforcement background so general workplace conflict (I am in IT now) may not stress me out as much as some people (that whole "relative stress" thing, haha).

[Exhale]

I would definitely do it.  It sounds like a great challenge to see if you can motivate this employee better than others have done and if not, to see if you can maintain the required workload for the team. 
But first, I'd need to know: 
what happened to previous supervisors?  Are they gone because the other guy won't do his work?
Would there be any financial penalty if you can't make your goals because of the other guy?
Can you negotiate a severance package up front in case the position just doesn't work out?

Great questions:
- The two most recent supervisors are still here, one has a new role and the other has simply given up on this person
- No financial penalty (and I'd be sure that it was in writing re: exactly what I would be judged/measured on)
- I was thinking about proposing a one-year trial (at the end of the one year me or my boss can choose to: 1) keep going, 2) make new changes that are acceptable to all or 3) return to the exact job and pay that I have now.

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights!

[Exhale]

Tangent to this point - is this problematic employee "protected" somehow, i.e. a CEO's relative? That may make it more difficult to work with.

Yes, it'll be near impossible to "fire" this person (seniority and organizational inertia) so the hope is to try and get a little more work out of them in 6-8 years before they retire. (I know, craziness...)

[Exhale]

Think of it this way- let's say you weren't planning on retiring and they said if you did this job for three years, they'd give you a three year vacation with pay, would you do it?

No, I'd only do it if I knew I was permanently free after enduring the experience.

It also depends on your personality. Some people do not do well with conflict, some people can manage it well, some don't want to deal with it at all. I come from a law enforcement background so general workplace conflict (I am in IT now) may not stress me out as much as some people (that whole "relative stress" thing, haha).

It's not the conflict that gets to me. It's my annoyance at the sheer and utter waste of time that this staff person is creating and consequently depriving the young people we're supposed to be serving of the organization's skills and resources. They're willing to take 100% pay, but only see the need to work 50% and at the expense of the young people who need us. Again, this person isn't bad, they just don't see that they have any responsibility so they do the minimum and then leave (often early, of course...)

[JLee]

Think of it this way- let's say you weren't planning on retiring and they said if you did this job for three years, they'd give you a three year vacation with pay, would you do it?

No, I'd only do it if I knew I was permanently free after enduring the experience.

It also depends on your personality. Some people do not do well with conflict, some people can manage it well, some don't want to deal with it at all. I come from a law enforcement background so general workplace conflict (I am in IT now) may not stress me out as much as some people (that whole "relative stress" thing, haha).

It's not the conflict that gets to me. It's my annoyance at the sheer and utter waste of time that this staff person is creating and consequently depriving the young people we're supposed to be serving of the organization's skills and resources. They're willing to take 100% pay, but only see the need to work 50% and at the expense of the young people who need us. Again, this person isn't bad, they just don't see that they have any responsibility so they do the minimum and then leave (often early, of course...)

If that's the case, I may not want to do that. An employee who you can't discipline and who doesn't have to follow any rules is going to be hell to supervise.

[Reepekg]

It's not the conflict that gets to me. It's my annoyance at the sheer and utter waste of time that this staff person is creating and consequently depriving the young people we're supposed to be serving of the organization's skills and resources.

I would seriously advise you consider not taking the role. You seem like a nice person who genuinely cares about doing a good job and the success of your organization. Being responsible for this person is likely to bring you down.

The instances where I've seen people succeed managing substandard employees is when the manager is a) a hardass who likes being in charge or b) a sociopath who can compartmentalize seeing substandard work/company failure and sleeping perfectly well at night next to his or her new $$$

[Thegoblinchief]

I wouldn't do it. I'd still be looking for other ways (side hustle, lower expenses) to cut time to FIRE, but a jack-off I can't discipline? No thanks.

[MDM]

1) The main FT staff person I'll be supervising....
2) Being responsible for the entire unit (versus just my piece of it). A unit in which half the staff (there are just two of us) is not interested in doing the work....

Following answer assumes there are 3 main people involved:
 - You
 - The other staff person, currently your peer but now would be your direct report
 - Your boss (although you do say "bosses" so I don't know if you mean your boss's boss or if you report to multiple people)

Good plan to "...get something in writing from my bosses about how my job performance would be measured," although there is always room for interpretation so the trust factor is even more important than the written word here. 
With the problem employee, there is the issue of the quality/quantity of work and there is the issue of the employee evaluation.  If you, your boss, and the employee all see the evaluation being consistent with the actual work then the stress should be low.  I'm guessing you don't expect such consensus - where in particular do you expect divergence?

[Retire-Canada]

I would take the job/raise and tell your boss that unless their are some negative consequences for the problem employee nothing will change.

They will either:

- agree and give you the raise without expectation you are really going to solve anything at which point any stress is self-inflicted
- agree and let you start disciplining/performance managing the guy in which case have fun with it
- decide not to give you the raise and you go back to your normal job

-- Vik

[mxt0133]

Consider the scenario where you turn down the raise.  Will you still be working with this person?  If so then if one of you is only doing 50% who will be responsible for doing the other 50% not being done, will it be you? 

The point is if you do turn it down and you end up doing their share of the work anyway then I would take the raise, and do your best to get the person more productive.  Telling them to be more productive with a stick obviously hasn't gotten anywhere with the previous managers, so try doing it with a carrot.  Genuinely try to make their job easier so they can be more productive.  Just the fact that you are showing interest in trying to help them might change their attitude.  If that doesn't work then you have to manage up and push to hire another person.

[Cwadda]

Maybe you could look for another job altogether to get the best of both worlds? You seem to have the skill set, value, and earning potential.

[andystkilda]

My choice would be to take the promotion/raise.

I think three years of your life is worth more than the added stress, and you can focus on ways to decrease your stress levels to offset the new role - like better efficiencies/relationships at work, taking more time out to relax yourself outside work hours etc.

Having said that, it's a very individual choice, and there are a lot of jobs I wouldn't do myself even if it meant getting to FI 3 years faster.

[Ricky]

Sound's like you'd be accepting something similar to a Retail Management position - which is a dead-end, soul sucking, relentless title. There's nothing more stressful than trying to control someone who doesn't give a shit about being there or is just lazy.

You already deal with this guy on a daily basis, though, so I'd accept the raise and at least try it. You could always go back to doing what you were if it becomes a huge headache.

Do you mean it's overall 25% less work or that its 25% less work plus the management duties making the position just as demanding or more?

[neil]

Since you aren't looking at this as a career builder, I am not sure if you will actually have more stress.  Some people would rather avoid the situation entirely because they aren't good with people who behave atypically.  This person might be fully committed to always doing the minimum.  But if your "evaluation" of your success as a supervisor is irrelevant to your future, I could see it as being an easy pickup of a larger paycheck.  It may even be possible for you to be more candid with this person because of your position.  Someone looking for further promotion would be far more hesitant in this situation because the negative feedback will hurt them even when management acknowledges the source of the feedback.

You have to decide for yourself if you will take personal burden for stuff that is not really under your control.

It is also very easy to take a new role and not actually reduce the time you spent on your old one.  If you are the type to do this, you should really think about it as being an additive requirement to your job and decide if you can really do that for a few years. 

[Exhale]

Thank you everyone!

I work at a state school (not in retail, thank goodness) and love the aspect of my job that entails direct service to the students. (In fact, I'm likely to continue doing that PT for a while after FI because it's my calling.) I know I can be a good manager, even getting work out of people that everyone else had given up on (but that takes a lot of work). However, since I'm more of an introvert, managing is tiring at the best of times, much less with an "employee who you can't discipline and who doesn't have to follow any rules" (to quote JLee).

Ricky, the job is supposed to reduce some tasks by 25% so that 25% supervision can be added. However, the reality is that I'll be working more than 40 hours/week (something I could handle for three years, but - like andystkilda - not more).

neil and mxt0133, great questions about workload. The way it's set up now is that my co-worker and I have separate areas of focus so it's very clear who is delivering and who isn't. Therefore:
1) If I do not take the raise, I will not have to take on the co-worker's unfinished work.
2) If I do take the raise, I'll be responsible for all of the deliverables. And, even though I won't be dinged for it by my boss, I'll still have to interact with the fact that all that could/should be done is not happening. And that could, as Reepekg wisely pointed out, bring me down.

Cwadda, I've been invited to apply for other jobs at the school so that's definitely an option.

Vikb, I think the situation is either going to be #1 or #3 - I'll know after the meeting next Friday.

MDM, the divergence will be that the work will still not get done, but this time it'll be me who has to nag this staff person about it (rather than the supervisor who currently does it, albeit to little/no avail) and find ways to get it delivered (either by being a patient and compassionate hardass (which is how I got results from previous underperforming staff) or doing it myself.

I wish I could be paid more for "just" taking on a few more tasks, but not supervision of this person (basically the side hustle approach suggested by thegloblinchief, except the "side" hustle would be at my current job). That way I'd make it to FI faster, but minus the supervision headache. However, the only way to get paid more is to add supervision (or budget management or IT) to one's job tasks.

Thanks again everyone. This has been an extremely helpful conversation.

[Daffy]

This is an interesting one!

Personally, I really like your one-year trial idea, if you can get that in writing.

Sadly, a lot of corporations are filled with these 50% effort people. At my wife's job, she is able to complete more projects than several other people COMBINED. She's new there and already known by management as a superstar. She's very smart, but also her work ethic is solid. Meanwhile, a lot of people she works with tend to goof off.

If you can somehow manage to take the new promotion and keep your stress minimized, then it's worth it. But be really honest with yourself! If you're going to hate your life for the next 3 years, it's NOT worth it. You like your current job and you're not guaranteed another day on this planet. Don't spend it in misery.

Let us know what happens!

[lpep]

It's not the conflict that gets to me. It's my annoyance at the sheer and utter waste of time that this staff person is creating and consequently depriving the young people we're supposed to be serving of the organization's skills and resources.

I would seriously advise you consider not taking the role. You seem like a nice person who genuinely cares about doing a good job and the success of your organization. Being responsible for this person is likely to bring you down.

The instances where I've seen people succeed managing substandard employees is when the manager is a) a hardass who likes being in charge or b) a sociopath who can compartmentalize seeing substandard work/company failure and sleeping perfectly well at night next to his or her new $$$

How does compartmentalizing work to stay at work make someone a sociopath? Especially when it's all organizational lethargy that's keeping one person from being replaced, which can't be changed? Why do people owe their sleep at night to the company they work for?


I say take the new role. Apparently everyone is aware of this person's faults, but he/she can't be removed for some made-up reason? That's not your fault. It sounds like you'll have to deal with some of the consequences, but if you're able to compartmentalize, and your boss will understand (which sounds likely), it'll be fine.

[madamwitty]

If you're going to hate your life for the next 3 years, it's NOT worth it. You like your current job and you're not guaranteed another day on this planet. Don't spend it in misery.

Amen!

[MDM]

I work at a state university...with an "employee who you can't discipline and who doesn't have to follow any rules."

...the work will still not get done, but this time it'll be me who has to nag this staff person about it...and find ways to get it delivered (either by being a patient and compassionate hardass (which is how I got results from previous underperforming staff) or doing it myself.

Wow.  Seems to lend credibility to the stereotype of "good enough for government work."  So far outside my experience that useful commentary may be impossible....

Ever hear of S.M.A.R.T. goals?  For this person, the Specific, Measurable, and Trackable aspects would be most pertinent.  There's also a concept called "two level review" - you review this person's goals with your boss upfront so all three of you agree up front.  Then, assuming past will indeed be prelude, when this person comes up short then the low rating will be no surprise to anyone. 

Presumably the world won't come to an end, but just what would happen if nobody picked up this person's slack?

[Exhale]

Presumably the world won't come to an end, but just what would happen if nobody picked up this person's slack?

Ah, good question - already happens, but this time a VIP has been annoyed by it and, therefore, the suggestion about me being the supervisor. (Yet another reason why I can't wait for FIRE - escape office politics.)

[a1smith]

Maybe you can get the VIP involved in setting up an early retirement package for your esteemed colleague!  :-)

[Exhale]

Maybe you can get the VIP involved in setting up an early retirement package for your esteemed colleague!  :-)

LOL!

Wait a minute, that might actually be a possibility since it'd be cheaper in the long run. Or perhaps reducing that person's hours a bit. Hmmm...

[JLee]

Maybe you can get the VIP involved in setting up an early retirement package for your esteemed colleague!  :-)

LOL!

Wait a minute, that might actually be a possibility since it'd be cheaper in the long run. Or perhaps reducing that person's hours a bit. Hmmm...

There you go! Early retirement package, hire in someone new, done :D

[chasesfish]

Take the job.

Have the conversation with both your new supervisor and HR that you plan on holding all your employees equally accountable and will need their support handling any issues.

Then have fun....it can be exciting to go in and hold people accountable

[toodleoo]

Since you aren't looking at this as a career builder, I am not sure if you will actually have more stress.  Some people would rather avoid the situation entirely because they aren't good with people who behave atypically.  This person might be fully committed to always doing the minimum.  But if your "evaluation" of your success as a supervisor is irrelevant to your future, I could see it as being an easy pickup of a larger paycheck.  It may even be possible for you to be more candid with this person because of your position.  Someone looking for further promotion would be far more hesitant in this situation because the negative feedback will hurt them even when management acknowledges the source of the feedback.

I agree...if retirement was three years away I personally wouldn't care if anyone thought I was doing a good job or not. Don't care = a lot less stress.

[Exhale]

Thank you to everyone for helping me get clear on how I wanted to move forward. After much reflection, I was willing to do it (with the self-understanding that I'd do my best, but wasn't going to lose sleep over it and would keep my focus on achieving FI in three years). 

Here's what happened...

I went to the Big Meeting with administrator and director. The administrator tells me that, oh by the way, they just can't afford to offer me what they had originally quoted (it was still a raise, but nothing like the original quote). He assured me that I'm a valued member of the team and they look forward to offering me more advancement opportunities in the future. I almost laughed out loud at this, but instead just silently thanked my lucky stars that I don't need a raise or their advancement opportunities. I thanked them for considering me for an expanded role in the organization, but declined the offer.

So, there you have it, yet another reason to live below one's means and achieve FI as soon as possible!

[Ricky]

Nice, glad it worked out. Sometimes we just need a lack of options. Too many options can lead to confusion and stress. So even if somewhere deep down you wanted the raise, you can be more at ease knowing its not even an option now so it doesn't matter :)

[madamwitty]

Here's what happened...

I went to the Big Meeting with administrator and director. The administrator tells me that, oh by the way, they just can't afford to offer me what they had originally quoted. He assured me that I'm a valued member of the team and they look forward to offering me more advancement opportunities in the future. I almost laughed out loud at this, but instead just silently thanked my lucky stars that I don't need a raise or their advancement opportunities. I thanked them for considering me for an expanded role in the organization, but declined the offer.

Thanks for sharing the outcome. Kudos for not laughing in their faces :-)

[Exhale]

Nice, glad it worked out. Sometimes we just need a lack of options. Too many options can lead to confusion and stress. So even if somewhere deep down you wanted the raise, you can be more at ease knowing its not even an option now so it doesn't matter :)

To be honest, I'm annoyed at how they wasted my time with this bait-and-switch tactic. If they'd just been honest up front with what they were really going to offer I wouldn't have spent all this time mulling it over (not to mention wasted MMM Forum members time).

On the other hand, it has served the purpose of freeing me emotionally (e.g., no more feelings of loyalty, etc.) because I've seen that, while I may be a fantastic worker and add quantifiable value to the organization, they'll still try to overwork and underpay me.

[nobody123]

Why not take the extra money, regardless of the amount?  The only risk in that is if you are somehow recategorized as a supervisor and easier to fire, unlike your do-the-minimum coworker, and you're worried that they might actually hold you accountable for the slacker's lack of productivity.

Are they going to fill the supervisory position otherwise?  If yes, you are now blocked from advancement (not that you seem to care about that).  If no, you will be doing the extra work anyway, so why not get something for it?

[Exhale]

Why not take the extra money, regardless of the amount?  The only risk in that is if you are somehow recategorized as a supervisor and easier to fire, unlike your do-the-minimum coworker, and you're worried that they might actually hold you accountable for the slacker's lack of productivity.

Are they going to fill the supervisory position otherwise?  If yes, you are now blocked from advancement (not that you seem to care about that).  If no, you will be doing the extra work anyway, so why not get something for it?

Great question - thank you for asking it. The utter headache of what the job would be is not worth it for less than a significant raise. (For example, I've only just now managed to lose the weight I gained in my first three years on the job - a common reaction staff who work here to the stress/overwork). And, no they have no plans to hire a supervisor. We'll just limp along in the same way as before. They're not bad people, but seem to have the mentality that any raise is a good raise, not matter what the added stress will be.

Another outcome of my Friday experience is that I'm now actively looking for other positions on other separate teams of this (very large) organization. If I can earn a higher salary (but not have too much stress) and get to FI faster, I'll make the move.

[gt7152b]

I'd take the raise. Stress in the workplace is mainly a state of mind. Personally, I make too many mistakes and cannot work efficiently when I let stress creep in. I can understand how supervising a low productivity worker could be more challenging than your current job but you make the decision whether you allow this to create stress, be a fun challenge, or regard it with total apathy. I recommend a combination of the last 2 options. One idea that came to mind is to give this employee some incentive for working harder. Let him/her know that you won't be here for many more years and you'd like to mentor/groom them for taking your position when you leave. Even if there is no hope and you really hate being in a supervisory role I think your stress will be greatly reduced with the horizon of FI much closer. Maybe you'll do a great job which leads to another quick promotion which shaves another year off.

Edit: Saw your update about lowballing you on the raise. That is completely unprofessional and I'd be making a job change as soon as I could. You were definitely right to turn it down. I would have told them I was on the fence with what they previously offered and the new offer just wouldn't be worth it.

[nobody123]

I personally would've taken the money.  The context of why you rejected the offer of more responsibility and a pay raise will be lost in a few months, and the next time an opportunity arises, you'll be passed over for the offer because there will be a one-sentence note in your file that you turned down the last offer.

That might not be important to you given your desire to FIRE, but it might hamper your opportunity to transfer to other areas.  Think about it from the perspective of a supervisor who doesn't know you who pulls your file as part of your request to move to his / her team.  All they see is that you turned down an offer to advance in your own workgroup; they might infer that you will only do the bare bones in their group and won't interview you.  If you even get the opportunity to interview and explain that choice, if you tell the truth that you didn't want to supervise a 'hopeless' employee and the raise didn't justify the headache, that implies you would have done it if they paid you more than management deemed necessary.  Now you're viewed as a someone who will only do difficult things if they are overcompensated to do so AKA "not a team player".

The goal of any career-driven person is usually to identify and groom their replacement so that they can in turn be promoted.  Hiring someone who won't readily accept the challenge of more responsibility especially when offered more pay is a red flag.  It might not be an insurmountable red-flag, but it will be a hurdle.

If you are going to shop around anyway, why not accept the promotion?  Either it turns out you like it and it ends up being a great decision, or you can use it as an excuse as to why you want to transfer out.  You could say something like: "Being a supervisor isn't what I imagined, I would like to go back to be a worker bee, but would feel uncomfortable staying in the same department..."  It seems like nobody is ever held accountable for your coworker's slacking, so why should you care about it / be punished for it?  Be as apathetic toward it as everyone else has been.

[Exhale]

I personally would've taken the money.  The context of why you rejected the offer of more responsibility and a pay raise will be lost in a few months, and the next time an opportunity arises, you'll be passed over for the offer because there will be a one-sentence note in your file that you turned down the last offer.

Luckily, there wasn't a formal offer so there won't be any record in my file. Also, I wasn't looking for this raise so there's no regret at not getting it. In fact, I have my six-year FIRE plan in place, enjoy good work/life balance and like the work I do - life is good. However, I will say that, given the weirdness of their bait-and-switch behavior, I do have my eyes peeled for a possible move, but would only do it if the new job was as good as/better than my current one.

[arebelspy]

I almost laughed out loud at this, but instead just silently thanked my lucky stars that I don't need a raise or their advancement opportunities. I thanked them for considering me for an expanded role in the organization, but declined the offer.

So awesome, I love it.  Thanks for following up!

[nobody123]

I personally would've taken the money.  The context of why you rejected the offer of more responsibility and a pay raise will be lost in a few months, and the next time an opportunity arises, you'll be passed over for the offer because there will be a one-sentence note in your file that you turned down the last offer.

Luckily, there wasn't a formal offer so there won't be any record in my file. Also, I wasn't looking for this raise so there's no regret at not getting it. In fact, I have my six-year FIRE plan in place, enjoy good work/life balance and like the work I do - life is good. However, I will say that, given the weirdness of their bait-and-switch behavior, I do have my eyes peeled for a possible move, but would only do it if the new job was as good as/better than my current one.

Formal or not, there are always notes in a file.  My organization (and I can't imagine we're a special snowflake) devotes a lot of time at the management level identifying folks who should be promoted / retained / replaced.  It might not show up on your annual review, but someone made a note of it somewhere.

I do think it's awesome that you are sticking to your guns as far as work-life balance goes.  Best of luck navigating your last few years before FIRE.