Would You FIRE If the Standard Week Was Less Than 40hrs?

[moneyandmillennials]

I would definitely still strive to FIRE.

The freedom of wanting to work vs having to work is quite better.

[MsRichLife]

I've always joked that I think we should all work 24/7. 24 hours a week for 7 months of the year. I think the 40 hour week should be a thing of the past, but unfortunately it's not.

[Monkey Uncle]

I wish just 40 hours a week was the norm.  For salaried professionals it is not at all unusual to be expected to work 45 to 60 hours a week.  My brother used to work at a place where everyone was told that 45 hours is the minimum expected for salaried employees.

I might be able to make more money at another employer if I switched jobs, but my hourly rate would likely go down as I am reasonably certain I would be working more hours.  It seems like the more you make in my profession the more hours you are expected to work.  I would be happy to work 45 or 50 hours a week if I could work from home to skip the time and cost of commuting.

+1.  I'd certainly be happier if I could get by with 40.  I've done 45 - 55 hrs/wk for my entire 22 year professional career.  For nine years prior to that, I worked "part time" at a menial job, which meant anywhere from 15-20 hrs when school was in session (on top of a full time course load) to 50-60 hrs during school breaks.  Currently no one is forcing me to work unpaid overtime and forgo my annual leave, but I do it just to keep up.  I work for a federal agency that is known for its "can do" attitude, which means everyone is expected to find ways to do more with less every time the budget gets cut.  We talk a good game about work-life balance, but the work load will never let that happen except for those who are content to stay at the bottom of the ladder.

Would I delay FIRE if I could get by with 20 hrs/week?  Maybe, but there is no chance of that happening at anything like my current job and current pay.  So I'd basically be looking at semi-retirement with a low-paying part-time job.  I might be forced into that type of arrangement if my numbers don't work out according to projections.  I would consider that outcome preferable to continuing the professional pressure cooker for another 15 years.  But I would definitely consider it a sub-optimal outcome.

[boarder42]

My fire plan has me going to 4/8s when we have our first child in about a year or 2. My wife plans to go to 4/10s. I can see my work having an issue with this bc its not a norm for a guy to reduce his hours when he has a child. But I'm planning to. It doesn't even really delay my fire plans.  I have to work until a certain date to maximize my company ESOP. So cutting my hours only adds months not years. And these are months I planned to work anyways.

[Shandi76]

Yep. Though I'm more interested in the FI part than the RE part.

When I was FT (50+ hours a week) I was very keen on the RE part, but cutting back on hours makes it more sustainable. I am happier in my work now that I'm on a fractional contract and only work 4 days a week rather than 5 (I also moved to a different employer and have a much easier commute, both of which were beneficial), but I'm still keen on having the freedom to work because I choose to, not because I have to in order to survive.

[CryingInThePool]

I don't think so,  I'm pretty sure that it would just make my OMY syndrome worse.  I'm already FI so that would still be a focus/given.  As for RE if I can't manage to quit a job that has slowly creeped from 60hrs down to 45hrs a week not sure that going to 20hrs a week would change anything.   

Or maybe it would? Maybe with all that found time I would end up developing a life that chaffed against any type of career time commitments.

[WYOGO]

I could see myself being quite happy with a professional wage, 20-30 hours a week, and 6-8 weeks of vacation.  Not many of those around though.  I might spend some time in FIRE looking around though.

I am in this exact situation, a professional salary wage with tons of autonomy, freedom and associated perks. My personal costs would increase if I FIRED at this point. 25 hours is typical and sometimes reaching the low 30's occasionally depending on what is going on/due, 5-7 weeks of fully compensated days taken off each year. Vanguard managed and matched 401K with all institutional index rate funds, a portable pension, full healthcare and disability. It is a real dilemma. Any jobs even most basic part time jobs are a poor substitute at this level and would be more work. The trade-off currently is the location which is a bit rural and remote for my taste and requires significant investment to travel out of. Financially, few places are better, but that is only one part of a far more complex equation unfortunately. I consistently save greater than 75% of my salary until I can determine the next steps.

[WYOGO]

...not sure that going to 20hrs a week would change anything.   

Or maybe it would? Maybe with all that found time I would end up developing a life that chaffed against any type of career time commitments.

I am currently trying to build the structure needed to successfully make a transition. My personality requires productive activity to feel satisfaction. I am learning a lot about myself in this current position.

[sea]

I want FI, not sure when the RE part will come in since I like my current job quite a bit. And it's several years off in any case.  I work 36 hours a week (4 - 9s), and telecommute at least once a week.  I get comp time for any overtime I do for special projects and can telecommute for that too.  I get 4 weeks of PTO + holidays + can purchase up to 2.5 more weeks.  It feels like a good balance.  I've taken a few mini-retirements and those were great, so I'll have to see how I feel closer to my net worth goals.