Overtime to full-time as semi-retirement?

[WageSlave]

Random general questions, related to my bigger question:

• For those of you still working full-time, how many hours do you typically work per day or week?
• For those of you who are under 40, with kids, who have retired, and are not doing any for pay-work (i.e., living entirely on investments), what SWR are you using (or, what percentage of your investment portfolio is your annual outlay)?

I've seen here and on other forums, the occasional discussion about "semi-retirement".  That's a non-specific term, but it generally amounts to people giving up their full-time job to work part-time (supplement their investment income).  One further distinction in this category is whether or not the person has to keep some form of for-pay work.

I'm looking at a variation on that: where I go from basically working constant overtime (55 hours/week) to "normal" full-time of 40 hours/week.  Doing so would require taking a new job, and I estimate up to an 85% cut in gross pay.  (Yes, you read that right, 85%.)

Why would anyone consider such a massive pay cut for 15 extra hours per week?  We have a toddler, and another baby on the way.  Wife is a SAHM.  The current huge-paying gig is in a big city about 3 hours' drive away from our hometown (or up to 5 hours in the worst traffic).  Meaning we're 3-hours away from both sets of grandparents and lots of extended family.  Current job is kinda "meh": not miserable, but a little south of neutral.  It's high-stress at times, with an expectation of nearly 24-hours support (meaning: rare but occasional calls in the middle of the night, and usually an hour or two of random stuff on many weekends).

Our expenses aren't as lean as MMM's, but we're doing better than his old colleagues.  Currently, 40% of our expenses are in housing (rent + utilities).  Real estate is dramatically cheaper outside of the big city, and if we moved, we would buy our house outright (immediately knocking off at least 30% of our annual expenses).  I don't see us trimming too much more, as Mrs. WageSlave is a little slower to adopt some of the more radical frugality practices.

By my estimates, if we moved next year, our annual expenses would be roughly 4% of our investment portfolio.  That's FI by many definitions.  But I'm in my mid-30s, and we want to pay for our two kids' college, and 4% SWR is just too optimistic for me.  I've been shooting for a 2% SWR in my planning.  But that would require at least five more years of these long hours and distance from family.

So I was thinking, I could continue to work full-time if we moved ("regular" full-time, i.e. 40 hours/week).  I highly doubt that part-time work would cover our expenses, and I don't want to draw on our investments until our expenses are 2% of our investment portfolio.  But depending on returns, worst-case scenario, I might end up working another 15--20 years before our investments have grown sufficiently.  Compared to an (almost) guaranteed "2% SWR FI" in 5--7 years if we don't move.

The big wildcard is employment in the hometown.  I've been out of that scene for over six years now.  I'm quite confident I could get "a" job, but I might have to settle for something that sucks.  And is it realistic to expect a 40-hour/week job?  If I end up still working long hours for dramatically less pay, and the job sucks---I'm not sure any amount of family time will offset that regret!

I realize there's no easy/obvious answer to this, and ultimately it's a personal decision.  But I thought I'd throw it out there and solicit some comments.

[lauren_knows]

You have the definition of FI right. Whenever your SWR exceed your expenses.  "Semi-retirement" as you've guessed, can mean whatever you want.  You can switch careers entirely, cut your hours, volunteer part of your time, or take the plunge to zero paid work.  Whatever it means to you.

I do not think it's unreasonable to find a job that is *only* 40hrs a week. Be up front about it. It is not a measure of your work ethic to tell an employer that you only want to work X amount of hours. 

I'm lucky in that I'm in a government contracting position where we cannot work more than 40, unless there is a previously negotiated approval (some big uptick in contract activity or a big deadline).

[jpo]

40 hours per week. If I get extra on the weekends, I take it out of the next week's regular hours.

2% sounds like overkill to me. You might want to look at firecalc.com if you buy into the premise.

[velocistar237]

I plan to drop to 20-30 hours before I hit 4%. Remember that the 4% number already has some margin built in.

[TLV]

Excluding lunch breaks, I'm "at work" for about 40 hours +/- 5 each week.

Going from 4% to 2% means doubling your stash. Are you really expecting college for 2 kids to cost as much as everything else for the rest of your life?

I would figure out how much you want to save for college, subtract that from your stash total, then consider yourself FI when your expenses are 4% (or 3.5%, or 3% if you're really conservative) of the remainder.

[DoubleDown]

Going from 4% to 2% means doubling your stash. Are you really expecting college for 2 kids to cost as much as everything else for the rest of your life?

I would figure out how much you want to save for college, subtract that from your stash total, then consider yourself FI when your expenses are 4% (or 3.5%, or 3% if you're really conservative) of the remainder.

+1

In your case, if you are already at or near a 4% SWR when moving to the place you love, I would suck it up and stick it out at your current job and save bat-shit crazy for another year or two to build up that safety margin. Then call it quits or go to part time in your less expensive home town. Save up that extra amount for college as TLV has said, then you can confidently go to a great part-time gig in the place you love. I would not hang it up just yet and lose 85% of your pay, or have nagging fears or regrets that you've made the jump too soon. But I agree with the others that 2% is overly pessimistic.

[twinge]

+1 with the vote to keep it going with your high-paying job another year or two. To be honest, your situation sounds pretty plum to me:  3-5 hours from extended family sounds CLOSE to me  :).  We're much, much farther than that.  AND you are able to have a SAHM so it's a lot easier to do long hours than if both people are working.  We have both people working.  My schedule is flexible but averages 50+ hours a week (about 1/3 can be done from home).  But it gets really stressful when kids get sick etc.   So, not begrudging you your good fortune, just recommending you keep at it a couple of years before making it REALLY great.

2% SWR is really low.  3% is considered conservative.
And it's not like you can never work a little bit again or slightly cut expenses if your investments waver for a year or two.

[TheDude]

Lifes to short if you want out start looking and get the fuck out. There has to be something in the town you want you can do. You don't have to settle for something that sucks. Start looking while you still have a job then there is no pressure.

I realized at the ripe old age that  work life balance is important to my well being.  I would never drive three hours to work I would never work over about 42hrs. It just not worth it.

[RoseRelish]

I can 100% relate to your situation, other than my smaller stash. My wife and I decided living in our hometown, literally down the street from both sets of parents, is best for us and our future kids. I *could* continue to work at my current job in the big city, if a 2-hour commute each way didn't kill me, but am open to giving it up. We already bought a house back home.

I'd say your 2% SWR is way too conservative. Punch yourself in the face for being so scared. Plan for 4% and let your part-time work make your realized withdrawal rate closer to 2%. Congrats on the great level of savings.

[twinge]

I would never drive three hours to work

I don't think the OP is saying he drives 3 hours to work--just that he and his wife live 3 hours from their extended family.  I would never drive 3 hours to work either! BUT if I only had to work at my job 2-3 more years to ensure an early retirement indefinitely and I was only "meh" about that job, not miserable, I would stick it out.

[tooqk4u22]

I am not sold on the 4% SWR for early retirement but 2% may be a tad conservative.

And my experience is that 55 hours a week for a high paying professional non-government job is not that crazy.  High pay = high demands.

Work a few more years, cut the budget and tell your wife that if the goal is to move closer to parents then this is the way it has to be. 

[Jack]

My full-time salaried job is 38 hours per week right now, including lunch... but I'd happily trade places with you for 6x the pay!

[WageSlave]

I do not think it's unreasonable to find a job that is *only* 40hrs a week. Be up front about it. It is not a measure of your work ethic to tell an employer that you only want to work X amount of hours.

My current employer would vehemently disagree, and I think tooqk4u22 is implicitly disagreeing:

And my experience is that 55 hours a week for a high paying professional non-government job is not that crazy.  High pay = high demands.

I'm not really arguing either way.  But my gut feel is that most people (outside government) probably don't have truly 40-hour/week jobs.  I could be wrong, but that's why I asked.  A very informal survey of sorts.

Every now and then, someone comes in and talks about how their employer let them cut their hours in proportion to a pay cut.  E.g., people working only four days a week, etc.  I wonder how common that is?  That's the kind of situation I'd like to be in.

2% sounds like overkill to me. You might want to look at firecalc.com if you buy into the premise.

One of many comments about my 2% SWR.  Despite what MMM says, I disagree with the 4% rule, at least for early retirees.

Several months ago, I spent a lot of time on FireCalc.  First of all, I only care about scenarios that have a 100% chance of success based on historical data.  And using a 40-year period seemed to result in the most adverse outcomes (30- and 50- year periods generally fared similarly, and more success scenarios).  My takeaway from FireCalc was that you needed a 3% SWR to be 100% sure of not running out of money in a 40-year period.  You can do this now: leave all FIRECalc parameters at their default, except for the "Start Here" parameters.  Spending=33k, Portfolio=1mm, Years=40.  Going any higher in spending (i.e. over 3% WR) results in a less than 100% chance of success.

Now, the default Firecalc computations are based on a 75/25 stock/bond mix, which fairly close to what I'm doing (more or less a classic Boglehead-style portfolio).  The biggest driver of those returns are the stock portion.  IOW, increasing the percentage of bonds actually made results worse.  But here's the thing: I just finished reading William Bernstein's The Four Pillars of Investing, and he thinks that the long-term advantage that stocks have had over bonds will be reduced by a percent or so.  In other words, going forward, knock a whole percentage point off whatever long-term stock returns you expect.  He even talked about the 4% rule, and said the more conservative approach is to plan on (IIRC) 2.5 to 3.5% SWR.

I agree, 2% is probably a bit over the top, but I think 2.5% falls into the realm of ultra-conservative-yet-reasonable.

Making all this kind of moot is, at the end of the day, I won't sleep well with anything beyond a 3% WR.  I might be convinced (in time) to "settle" for 3% (instead of 2%).  But it's kind of like the pay off mortgage early or invest debate: you can't really put a price on the peace of mind of having your house paid for.  I'm already trying to mentally steel myself to "stay the course" during the inevitable period of lousy equity returns that will happen sometime in the next 50+ years.  Wars, technology, politics, taxes, peak oil, terrorism.  There are simply too many huge, paradigm-changing things that are certain to happen before I kick off.  No one knows what all that will be, but I am certain to see some kind of major market disruption at least once during the rest of my life.  (Note that I'm not so paranoid as to plan for a Mad Max-style post apocalyptic scenario.)

I would never drive three hours to work

I don't think the OP is saying he drives 3 hours to work--just that he and his wife live 3 hours from their extended family.  I would never drive 3 hours to work either!

That is correct, commute is about 30 minutes (walking + train).  Extended family is 3+ hours away.

[chucklesmcgee]

you can't really put a price on the peace of mind

This is very true. And if your withdrawals are too conservative, it's far easier to adjust upward than downward in your later years.

[travelbug]

Going from 4% to 2% means doubling your stash. Are you really expecting college for 2 kids to cost as much as everything else for the rest of your life?

I would figure out how much you want to save for college, subtract that from your stash total, then consider yourself FI when your expenses are 4% (or 3.5%, or 3% if you're really conservative) of the remainder.

I agree.

If it were me I would stay at the current until I hit whatever SWR I was happy with and then move. It's frustrating to be so close, I know.
We are technically FI now but are pulling the pin in July this year. I am 37 DH is 40, our children are 3 and 5. So lots of life to live yet!

Our situation is a bit more complicated than a SWR though as we have invested in our business and will still draw a wage from that, but be hands off.
We also have cash invested, a share portfolio and real estate.

Our income spend is around 25-30% of our income stream as it stands. If we sell any of our assets etc this will change, but it's what we are counting on, for two-three years anyway. During that time we will save heavily, the other 75% of our earnings, and then re-assess then.

Being retired/FI does not, for us anyway, mean that we cannot change our strategy or work again. It will just depend on what we decide, but it will be our choice and that's what's important to us.

Good luck OP.

[arebelspy]

I'm of the opinion that this community is far too blasé about the 4% SWR, and for a retirement of 40 or more years, one should be shooting for closer to a 3% SWR.

2% is probably a little conservative even for me, unless you built it up we loving your job, and have no reason to spend more in ER. Then more power to you.

Going from 55 hrs. to 40 per week and taking an 85% cut (did I read that right?  So you'll only be getting 15% of what you would working 55?) sounds like an extremely poor decision.  Working for one year at 55 hours would give you the same amount of money as working like 6 and 1/2 years at 40 hours.  Um, the former please. 

[James]

I'm of the opinion that this community is far too blasé about the 4% SWR, and for a retirement of 40 or more years, one should be shooting for closer to a 3% SWR.

2% is probably a little conservative even for me, unless you built it up we loving your job, and have no reason to spend more in ER. Then more power to you.

Going from 55 hrs. to 40 per week and taking an 85% cut (did I read that right?  So you'll only be getting 15% of what you would working 55?) sounds like an extremely poor decision.  Working for one year at 55 hours would give you the same amount of money as working like 6 and 1/2 years at 40 hours.  Um, the former please.

I agree, it seems kind of obvious given "Current job is kinda "meh": not miserable, but a little south of neutral."  Stick it out and retire when you have the money you believe you need.  I agree that 3% seems much more reasonable than 2%, but it really depends also on what sort of income you can manage if needed.  For me I'm happy if I reach 4% because I know I could pick up work if needed to keep from dipping into principle on down years.  If you don't have that option you might want higher savings, but 2%?


Hope you find something that works for you, obviously it's a tough decision when looking at such a dramatic pay cut.  But on the bright side, you have done very well to bring about such a dilemma...  :)

[Another Reader]

+1 on the 3 percent SWR.  Not sure the markets, especially the US markets, can deliver the same compound rate of growth over the next 50 years as they did over the last 50 years so I'm not a huge believer in Firecalc as predictive of future success.  But I don't believe in decumulation anyway.  Spend from your net rental income, dividends and interest, but leave the capital assets intact.  If you can't make a satisfactory income doing that, you aren't paying enough attention.

[meadow lark]

A 40 hr workweek may look great now, but when you actually do it you will discover you still feel like you are working full-time.  The biggest negative is the opportunity cost.  When you work full-time you can't do much else.  I've worked several different amounts - currently 3 twelve hour shifts a week.  A lot of it has to do with how many days you have off.  Something magical happens when you work fewer days than you have off  in a week.  3 twelves feels like part-time to me. 4 nines is full-time.  2 twelves rocks.  1 twelve is more fun for me than not working at all (since I can't really travel right now.)

[lauren_knows]

I do not think it's unreasonable to find a job that is *only* 40hrs a week. Be up front about it. It is not a measure of your work ethic to tell an employer that you only want to work X amount of hours.

My current employer would vehemently disagree, and I think tooqk4u22 is implicitly disagreeing:

And my experience is that 55 hours a week for a high paying professional non-government job is not that crazy.  High pay = high demands.

I'm not really arguing either way.  But my gut feel is that most people (outside government) probably don't have truly 40-hour/week jobs.  I could be wrong, but that's why I asked.  A very informal survey of sorts.

Every now and then, someone comes in and talks about how their employer let them cut their hours in proportion to a pay cut.  E.g., people working only four days a week, etc.  I wonder how common that is?  That's the kind of situation I'd like to be in.

2% sounds like overkill to me. You might want to look at firecalc.com if you buy into the premise.

One of many comments about my 2% SWR.  Despite what MMM says, I disagree with the 4% rule, at least for early retirees.

Several months ago, I spent a lot of time on FireCalc.  First of all, I only care about scenarios that have a 100% chance of success based on historical data.  And using a 40-year period seemed to result in the most adverse outcomes (30- and 50- year periods generally fared similarly, and more success scenarios).  My takeaway from FireCalc was that you needed a 3% SWR to be 100% sure of not running out of money in a 40-year period.  You can do this now: leave all FIRECalc parameters at their default, except for the "Start Here" parameters.  Spending=33k, Portfolio=1mm, Years=40.  Going any higher in spending (i.e. over 3% WR) results in a less than 100% chance of success.

Now, the default Firecalc computations are based on a 75/25 stock/bond mix, which fairly close to what I'm doing (more or less a classic Boglehead-style portfolio).  The biggest driver of those returns are the stock portion.  IOW, increasing the percentage of bonds actually made results worse.  But here's the thing: I just finished reading William Bernstein's The Four Pillars of Investing, and he thinks that the long-term advantage that stocks have had over bonds will be reduced by a percent or so.  In other words, going forward, knock a whole percentage point off whatever long-term stock returns you expect.  He even talked about the 4% rule, and said the more conservative approach is to plan on (IIRC) 2.5 to 3.5% SWR.

I agree, 2% is probably a bit over the top, but I think 2.5% falls into the realm of ultra-conservative-yet-reasonable.

Making all this kind of moot is, at the end of the day, I won't sleep well with anything beyond a 3% WR.  I might be convinced (in time) to "settle" for 3% (instead of 2%).  But it's kind of like the pay off mortgage early or invest debate: you can't really put a price on the peace of mind of having your house paid for.  I'm already trying to mentally steel myself to "stay the course" during the inevitable period of lousy equity returns that will happen sometime in the next 50+ years.  Wars, technology, politics, taxes, peak oil, terrorism.  There are simply too many huge, paradigm-changing things that are certain to happen before I kick off.  No one knows what all that will be, but I am certain to see some kind of major market disruption at least once during the rest of my life.  (Note that I'm not so paranoid as to plan for a Mad Max-style post apocalyptic scenario.)

I would never drive three hours to work

I don't think the OP is saying he drives 3 hours to work--just that he and his wife live 3 hours from their extended family.  I would never drive 3 hours to work either!

That is correct, commute is about 30 minutes (walking + train).  Extended family is 3+ hours away.

I may be in government contracting, but I know several people outside that world that "only" work 40hrs.  All I'm saying is, if that is something that you specifically want, ask for it.  If an employer can't promise that, move on.  Work/life balance is important to a lot of people.

As for asking your employer to cut hours for an equal cut in pay, my wife did that last year when our son was born.  She's working 60% the hours for 60% pay.  Funny though, her "full-time" job was always 50-55hrs.  But, after going to 60%, she made it damn well clear that if she was only getting paid 60% of full-time, that she was only going to work 60% of 40hrs.    It's worked out so far.

[Jack]

A lot of it has to do with how many days you have off.  Something magical happens when you work fewer days than you have off  in a week.  3 twelves feels like part-time to me. 4 nines is full-time.  2 twelves rocks.  1 twelve is more fun for me than not working at all (since I can't really travel right now.)

If you have to work a full 40 hours, four 10-hour days is pretty nice!

[velocistar237]

My employer has let people go part-time, though it's usually for people near normal retirement age, or to let someone do independent contracting in a way that benefits the company. I'm not sure they'd like someone in their 30s or 40s going to 20 hours/week. I'll find out in a few years. Right now, I work 40 hours, but I know other people who work more.

Yes, a straight-up 4% withdrawal rate is risky for early retirees, but when you retire early, you can pick up other income or find new ways to reduce expenses. Just look at MMM. To test the effect, I put $825K savings and $33K/year expenses (4%) into FIREcalc, then tried to find how much you would have to earn per year for the first ten years of early retirement in order to get 100% success over all time horizons. The answer was about $16K/year. If you plan on earning anything during retirement, it might be worth leaving even a high-paying job, especially if you already have kids.

You can put a price on peace of mind. For you, that value is 4/3.3 times your current savings, and that seems like a lot. I don't see why MMM's mantra of getting the middle class lifestyle for less couldn't apply here, too. You can get peace of mind in other ways besides initial retirement net worth.

I'm of the opinion that this community is far too blasé about the 4% SWR, and for a retirement of 40 or more years, one should be shooting for closer to a 3% SWR.

I remember you saying the opposite, that 4% had a large margin built into it, and that you could find other margins of safety to counteract market downturns.

[arebelspy]

I don't count needing to earn extra income as being FI.  MMM, and many others here, do.

If you earn extra money from your hobbies, great.  But having to do so is semi-ER, to me (lest you accuse me of being retirement police, making money in ER is fine. But if you're having to do it, rather than choosing to, then no, that's not ER to me).  And then you're not at a true 4% SWR, and saying you're using a 4% SWR but earning extra money as well isn't accurate, IMO.

I'm of the opinion that this community is far too blasé about the 4% SWR, and for a retirement of 40 or more years, one should be shooting for closer to a 3% SWR.

I remember you saying the opposite, that 4% had a large margin built into it, and that you could find other margins of safety to counteract market downturns.

The only time I can remember saying anything close to that was when presenting an article about how the 4% SWR is a worst case scenario historically (in the U.S.) and most of the time you'll end up with far more than necessary.  So yes, the 4% SWR will often have more of a margin than necessary, however that's on a 30 year time frame, and what about the times it doesn't?

For an early retiree, 3% is the number I'd target (barring other things, like pensions, rental income, etc.). 

Not everyone has carpentry hobbies or things that pay a bunch of money, nor are in a profession where "consulting" later is an option.  I think someone who doesn't research for themselves and comes on here and finds people saying a 4% SWR is fine and they can always earn money in ER may find themselves in a tough spot in 20 years, mostly unemployable with dwindling funds, and having to take a very low paying job.  They may also have a portfolio double what they started with in real terms.  Who knows.  But I think a 4% SWR makes the former much more likely than a 3% SWR.

EDIT: I did go back and reread that thread I think you're referencing, and yes, it does look like I'm advocating for the 4% SWR, since I was presenting an article that was more optimistic on the 4% SWR.  I'd personally take those stats as a reason to be optimistic, but not rely on.  I.e. hope for the best, plan for the worst.  I don't personally believe we will have 15 more years of flat returns, such is necessary for the 4% SWR to fail.  Would I bet my retirement on it?  Nope.  It will all depend on when one ERs and their comfort level.  And, of course, if they are planning on making money in early retirement.

[twinge]

I don't count needing to earn extra income as being FI.  MMM, and many others here, do.

If you earn extra money from your hobbies, great.  But having to do so is semi-ER, to me.  And then you're not at a true 4% SWR, and saying you're using a 4% SWR but earning extra money as well isn't accurate, IMO.

I agree, BUT I do think you can factor in "earning extra income" as part of the "Peace of Mind" quotient.  If you think you just might be being hindered by an overactive need for "peace of mind" that actually blocks you from living out the life you want ("I'll just work one more year, just in case...") a good way to turn it off is to recognize all the subtle ways you can and will adjust your plan as needed over the years, including picking up extra income if needed.  When I hear someone say they need a 2% SWR when they are someone who also worked in a career where they were able to amass a good deal of wealth by an early age AND support a SAHM and kids, my gut tells me they may be in that mental frame.  But of course I could be wrong.

[tooqk4u22]

I don't count needing to earn extra income as being FI.  MMM, and many others here, do.

If you earn extra money from your hobbies, great.  But having to do so is semi-ER, to me (lest you accuse me of being retirement police, making money in ER is fine. But if you're having to do it, rather than choosing to, then no, that's not ER to me).  And then you're not at a true 4% SWR, and saying you're using a 4% SWR but earning extra money as well isn't accurate, IMO.

+1 x 100. 

I would also add that half of MMM's passive income comes from rental properties that have a 10%+ return on the initial investment and in the most recent vacation post he says he can cover living expenses from this alone.  Point is it is easy to be comfortable with a 4% rule if you have a 10% return.  Rentals are probably the only investment where you can get this kind of return but even then this rate of return is only available in a few areas (many of which got whacked hard by the housing downturn).  Rentals in my area are 4-5% cash on cash.  If I could find a couple of 10% then I would be FIRE or damn close and while it is my choice I don't like the idea of managing/owning properties that I can't drive by. So alas for now I am limited to marketable investments and I am not comfortable with a 4% SWR for that.

The only time I can remember saying anything close to that was when presenting an article about how the 4% SWR is a worst case scenario historically (in the U.S.) and most of the time you'll end up with far more than necessary.  So yes, the 4% SWR will often have more of a margin than necessary, however that's on a 30 year time frame, and what about the times it doesn't?

Also keep in mind that the 4% SWR premise over 30 years is based on not running out of money and implies that you will deplete principal - this is not good for an early retiree.

[tooqk4u22]

I don't count needing to earn extra income as being FI.  MMM, and many others here, do.

If you earn extra money from your hobbies, great.  But having to do so is semi-ER, to me.  And then you're not at a true 4% SWR, and saying you're using a 4% SWR but earning extra money as well isn't accurate, IMO.

I agree, BUT I do think you can factor in "earning extra income" as part of the "Peace of Mind" quotient.  If you think you just might be being hindered by an overactive need for "peace of mind" that actually blocks you from living out the life you want ("I'll just work one more year, just in case...") a good way to turn it off is to recognize all the subtle ways you can and will adjust your plan as needed over the years, including picking up extra income if needed.  When I hear someone say they need a 2% SWR when they are someone who also worked in a career where they were able to amass a good deal of wealth by an early age AND support a SAHM and kids, my gut tells me they may be in that mental frame.  But of course I could be wrong.

True but when you need it most you may not be able to find that extra income job due to economic or physical or whatever reasons.  Just like when you don't need a loan they are easy to get but when you do they are hard or impossible to get.  For me, you can't bank on it.

[BlueMR2]

With the lose of my part time job this year and having quit several volunteer jobs last year, I'm now down to just my full-time job.  I'm salaried, so that's 50 hours a week.  More than I want to do, but there's no scaling back option.

[SunshineGirl]

I'm 45 and the parent of kids ages 12 and 14, and I sense you're feeling a bit of "this age is so precious" stuff going on. Which it totally is, but let me assure you that every age with kids is awesome and unique in its own way, and the older kids get, the better it feels to be financially secure and available for them. If you keep doing what you're doing, when they're in school, you'll be able to be at every school function, off for every school holiday, etc.

My advice -
Keep working the job and hours you presently do.
Use sick time and take vacation days. You don't need to go anywhere, but rather be home or visiting family for an extra day or so.
Read The Four Hour Work Week for ideas on limiting your hours while still presently employed.
To help your wife, which I'm sure is also part of your concern, a housekeeper or Mother's Helper could go a long way in you not feeling guilty for your time away from home from THAT perspective. Also, if there is a YMCA nearby that you could join, that would allow your wife to have childcare while she exercises. 

Why not post a few numbers?

[WageSlave]

Going from 55 hrs. to 40 per week and taking an 85% cut (did I read that right?  So you'll only be getting 15% of what you would working 55?) sounds like an extremely poor decision.  Working for one year at 55 hours would give you the same amount of money as working like 6 and 1/2 years at 40 hours.  Um, the former please.

Pretty much.  Basically, the assumed 40-hour job is a typical IT/programming job (possibly lower management) for someone with 10--15 years experience, located in a smallish midwestern town.  I don't have anything specific in mind, but with those parameters anyone can get a reasonable approximation for expected salary.  Also to help with my own personal estimates, I can use my pay when I worked in said hometown before moving.

Basically, I left my hometown to join what was a startup that my friend co-founded.  It's done quite well.  My base salary is fairly typical for someone in this city in a similar position.  What bumps me up dramatically is an annual bonus, paid in the first quarter.  So if I stay a little over a year, I'll collect two more bonuses (this year and next).

A 40 hr workweek may look great now, but when you actually do it you will discover you still feel like you are working full-time.  The biggest negative is the opportunity cost.  When you work full-time you can't do much else.

Agreed.  In the back of my mind I know it to be true.  That is, 40 hours would seem like "part time", but only initially.  Then I'd adapt, and probably be back in the same position I am now.  I just needed some face-punching to acknowledge my intuition.  Afraid I'm falling for the "grass is always greener" trap.

I think someone who doesn't research for themselves and comes on here and finds people saying a 4% SWR is fine and they can always earn money in ER may find themselves in a tough spot in 20 years, mostly unemployable with dwindling funds, and having to take a very low paying job.  They may also have a portfolio double what they started with in real terms.  Who knows.  But I think a 4% SWR makes the former much more likely than a 3% SWR.

That's the situation I want to avoid.

Especially once both kids are in school, the wife and I will almost certainly work part-time.  But they will be "hobby jobs", where the emphasis is on doing fun and interesting things, and pay (if any) will be a perk, rather than a requirement.

If you think you just might be being hindered by an overactive need for "peace of mind" that actually blocks you from living out the life you want ("I'll just work one more year, just in case...") a good way to turn it off is to recognize all the subtle ways you can and will adjust your plan as needed over the years, including picking up extra income if needed.  When I hear someone say they need a 2% SWR when they are someone who also worked in a career where they were able to amass a good deal of wealth by an early age AND support a SAHM and kids, my gut tells me they may be in that mental frame.

I may well be in that frame.  I certainly am at times, anyway.  It ebbs and flows.

Keep working the job and hours you presently do.
Use sick time and take vacation days. You don't need to go anywhere, but rather be home or visiting family for an extra day or so.

Not an uncommon response, and the rational part of me fully agrees.