Drive to Increase Income

[Jeddy]

Reading through the Tithing thread, I saw JLee post the below and was also interested but didn't want to derail that thread so I thought I would make one dedicated to the topic:

I agree - increasing income is generally beneficial in all respects.  I will admit that I am intrigued by people who don't have an inherent drive to increase their income, though...I don't really understand that.

Is there anyone out there who really does not have a drive to increase their income?

For myself, I'd say 'sort of' - I aim to make the most amount of money for the fewest hours possible. I will (and have) skipped moving into a position that would require a longer work week, even though it came with an increase in pay. My time away from work is the most important thing for me and it's something that I've decided I generally won't trade for money.

I would never be happy making $300,000 pear year if it came at the expense of 70-80 hour work weeks, even if the hourly pay factors out to be much more.

So I have a sort of 'hybrid' drive for more income, but probably less than others - if 40 hours is all I'm willing to give to a company, I want to make the most amount of money for that 40 hour per week sacrifice. If more money comes at the expense of more hours, I'm not driven to do that. I also factor in how much stress is anticipated and various things like that.

Of course, there is a sliding scale of sorts - $55k for 40 hours is great. $300k for 80 hours is terrible. $125k for 50 is okay

I've always felt I was sort of the 'odd man out' in most circles (I've always been in the financial field, so it could just be the company I kept) - I have a lot of friends who ran off to get their MBA with the dream of making $200k+ per year, no matter the hours required and so when I saw JLee's post and their intrigue, it set my intrigue as well. I imagine most probably have a sort of 'hybrid' approach to it like myself, but I'm definitely curious to see what others think.

I will say that most of my feelings towards work and how much time I'm willing to sell myself for is based on my distaste for what I do - working in an office is a means to an end, so I aim to be there as little as possible.

So like JLee, I want to know - how driven are you? What are your limits?

[Bracken_Joy]

I don't, particularly.

I'm a nurse, and I picked a field that a- serves an underserved vulnerable population, b- pays shit compared to other nursing jobs and c- gives me tons of flexibility in choosing what cases I take and how much I work. I make $13/hr less than if I had gone with a standard hospital job.

I think a big part of it is that, for me, work is not my identity. I plan to have children and only work part time as they grow up. I take a great deal of pride in my cooking, my fitness, my learning, etc. The "do-gooder" side of my work is much more motivating to me than the income. I like knowing that I am not burning myself out, so I can continue to serve my patients as safely as I can. The flexibility is also very motivating. I like having control of my time and energy to pursue other things far more than being paid more.

I'm working 2 12-hour shifts per week right now, and I am loving this schedule. I may add another day starting January, but I'm undecided still.

Now, if my supervisor said, "Hey! We're going to pay you $2 more per hour if you just ask us to!" I obviously would. But I'm not particularly DRIVEN to increase it through other means.

Saving money though? That is where I'm motivated, because for me, it is a creative pursuit.

[Pooplips]

Im with the OP. I am productive and work to gain maximum earning potential inside my 40 hour woork week. I just like spending time with my family too much.

[Jeddy]

I think a big part of it is that, for me, work is not my identity.

I feel exactly the same way - when asked 'what do you do?' I'm much more inclined to answer that I'm a father, dog-lover, gardener, cook, golfer, tinkerer, etc. long before I answer with my occupational title.

I aim for work to be a tiny blip on the overall question of who I am

[Mikila]

Im with the OP. I am productive and work to gain maximum earning potential inside my 40 hour woork week. I just like spending time with my family too much.

What he said.

I follow this forum to maximize efficiency of the income I have.  A monster income is not my goal in life.  To love family ( and I think of love as a verb), serve God, be a positive influence on society-  these are my goals. 

If I chose to double my income, it would require 72 hour weeks.  There is pressure at work to come in for overtime, so the opportunity is there.  But I already work 4 12s, and and enjoy my 4 days off too much to trade them for more money.

I suppose if we were in financial straights I would act differently.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

[StetsTerhune]

Of course, there is a sliding scale of sorts - $55k for 40 hours is great. $300k for 80 hours is terrible. $125k for 50 is okay

I love this sliding scale. A little extreme, but I love the concept.

Everyone talks purely in terms of "hours." For me (as basically a programmer) the amount of hours worked is almost irrelevant. Sometimes an hour of intense effort can get more done than a week. But an hour of intense effort wipes me out. I'd take 60 hours a week of a no stress/no effort job over a 30 hour a week difficult/stressful job.

[jfisher3]

I'm with you on the hybrid view.

One difference is, frequency of time worked. My normal check is based on 40 hours. I'll gladly work a Saturday that would otherwise be spent not doing much to earn 1.5x my hourly rate... but I refuse to work every weekend for 4 months in a row again. The money was nice, but I hated life.

I'm very VERY lucky to have a job where it is illegal to force me to work more than my standard work day, all federal holidays are paid days that I can choose to work for 2x hr rate, and I earn an acceptable amount of paid time off with no restrictions to take them.

I value my job and the work I do, but I also value my time at home, so I'll work a few hours extra if it means the project gets completed and the purpose we serve is fulfilled, but there very much so is a sliding scale as well.

[big_slacker]

Isn't the time spend to increase income a false assumption though?

Job A pays $100k/yr and is 40 hours. Mid level responsibility and skill.
Job B pays $175k a year and is 40 hours. Higher level responsibility and skill.

If you have what it takes to do job B why would you not? I posted in another very similar thread that in my career it's always been about wanting to live up to potential and do the fun/challenging work and pay being an aside.

I think if you have an eye towards mastering your craft and an eye towards lifestyle then you'll make more without killing yourself.

[Jeddy]

Isn't the time spend to increase income a false assumption though?

Job A pays $100k/yr and is 40 hours. Mid level responsibility and skill.
Job B pays $175k a year and is 40 hours. Higher level responsibility and skill.

If you have what it takes to do job B why would you not? I posted in another very similar thread that in my career it's always been about wanting to live up to potential and do the fun/challenging work and pay being an aside.

I think if you have an eye towards mastering your craft and an eye towards lifestyle then you'll make more without killing yourself.

I think this is answered by the 'hybrid' approach that myself and others have mentioned

For the same time invested per week, of course I'd shoot for the higher pay (assuming equal or close stress involved, etc.). Usually you don't get more pay without getting more 'something' along with it - responsibility (fine), stress (not okay, in my mind), hours involved per week (definitely not okay, in my mind), or some combination of the three.

I won't sell my personal time for an extra 75k, unless I only have to give up very little. If I have to sell a bunch of my personal time for an extra $75k, it's not worth it to me at all. Everyone is different though.

[TheAnonOne]

I tend to shoot for more money AND hours.

As a .NET consultant the optimum goal is highest rate and highest hours at almost any cost.

I make more than most on this forum because I will sacrifice personal time at the job and outside of the job training. I do not know how long I will be able to keep up the pace but, I have for the past 5 years. I generally work around 2500 billable hours and training and/or consulting firm meetings are in addition to that.

This is about 50 hours a week with no vacation, but ends up being more like 55ish hours and I try to get away 2-3 times a year on long weekends. If I could get a second client and crank the hours up to 60-70 avg, I would (and have in the past).

Not everyone wants that, and that is A-OK.

The same mentality doesn't necessarily mean I will FIRE faster, simply that my FIRE requirements are a bit higher... I also generally like, or can withstand my job without much mental degradation so I don't know if I will fully FIRE, though I may scale back hours when I notice the benefit is lessening.

I am probably the 'outsider' on this forum in this regard.

[arebelspy]

We did extra side gigs to earn income to FIRE, but within our field we enjoyed (teaching).

I considered various other ways to make lots of money, but it wasn't worth doing something I didn't want to. Monetarily it would have been worth it, but not personally.

In other words, sure, more money would have been nice, but not at the expense of doing something I didn't enjoy.  That priority came first.

Since there was limited opportunities to create more income in the fields I did enjoy, I ended up having no drive to increase my income.

[JLee]

I am currently salaried, so I strive to stay as close to 40 hours as possible. If I go over, I try to balance that off with shorter days (or comp days off). My employers (both current and my last one) have been ok with this.

I remember earlier in my IT career, discussing work/life balance with one of my peers. He said that working 50+ hours a week is normal, because if you aren't willing to do it then someone else will. I argued that I disagree; somewhere there has to be a company that treats employees well instead of working them until they burn out and quit (which is basically what my previous employer did, at ~20% under market salary rates).  Fast forward a couple of years and I found what I was looking for. Fair pay, fair hours, low-stress environment. Funny how it can work out when you set expectations for yourself and limit the amount of BS you are willing to tolerate. :-)

The sliding scale idea is excellent, and is similar to how I view my time. I don't like working long hours, and I view my work time as when I leave home to when I get back.  If I found a job that paid another $10k/yr but added two hours a day in commuting, it isn't worth it since I see that as $20/hr plus drastically increased commuting costs. Given that pushes me well past my 40hr baseline, I'd want to calculate that as OT..which makes it an effective hourly rate of ~$13. Not interested. :P

If I was hourly and was paid overtime, my mindset might change.  I am still striving to move up into higher knowledge / higher paid positions - because if I have to be here for X amount of time, I might as well get paid as much as possible while I'm here!

[reader2580]

I could possibly increase my pay by $5,000 to $10,000 by going to another IT job.  However, my hourly rate would probably stay the same or go down because I would probably be expected to work 50+ hours a week.  It seems the more pay and the higher the title in IT you end up working more hours.

[big_slacker]

Isn't the time spend to increase income a false assumption though?

Job A pays $100k/yr and is 40 hours. Mid level responsibility and skill.
Job B pays $175k a year and is 40 hours. Higher level responsibility and skill.

If you have what it takes to do job B why would you not? I posted in another very similar thread that in my career it's always been about wanting to live up to potential and do the fun/challenging work and pay being an aside.

I think if you have an eye towards mastering your craft and an eye towards lifestyle then you'll make more without killing yourself.

I think this is answered by the 'hybrid' approach that myself and others have mentioned

For the same time invested per week, of course I'd shoot for the higher pay (assuming equal or close stress involved, etc.). Usually you don't get more pay without getting more 'something' along with it - responsibility (fine), stress (not okay, in my mind), hours involved per week (definitely not okay, in my mind), or some combination of the three.

I won't sell my personal time for an extra 75k, unless I only have to give up very little. If I have to sell a bunch of my personal time for an extra $75k, it's not worth it to me at all. Everyone is different though.

We're all saying the same thing. :)

Yes there are other metrics than pure pay. I also value time/freedom more than additional money. I make enough money, I don't have that much time.

I'd say about the small point of people not expecting something for nothing that it's important to know that from job to job, business to business, there can be vastly different expectations for the same pay. FI Amazon pays about the same (maybe less?) than what I make now for the same position but expects you to kill yourself for it. Where I work it's almost a pure 9-5, much more relaxed. It's still a high level of work maybe involving more responsibility and expectation than a lower paid job but it's far and away less stressful and all consuming than other businesses.

I think aiming for that sweet spot in terms of best lifestyle for best time for best pay, is something that a lot more people should do assuming they can demand it of employers.

[TheAnonOne]

I could possibly increase my pay by $5,000 to $10,000 by going to another IT job.  However, my hourly rate would probably stay the same or go down because I would probably be expected to work 50+ hours a week.  It seems the more pay and the higher the title in IT you end up working more hours.

Depends on what you do in the IT world.

Software development can have lots of hours, but you can work hourly in that world too. You could land a job that requires 50+ hours a week and doubles your pay, would that be worth it?

I think generally, going for the most money and hours is a decent option in the accumulation phase. It also sets you up to work hard when you FIRE as well, though, more-so on your own projects.

I do think that people here are predisposed to not enjoy working. I tend to find it an enjoyable activity.