Yes but those voluntary hours are necessary signaling to justify one's place in the contemporary social order. Without them, someone's peers might think them undeserving of their salary and/or status. So they wouldn't want to be the one VP at the company who has adequate leisure time, fulfills family obligations, and regularly gets a full night's rest. Or if they are somehow that person, they keep quiet about it!

I began typing this intending it to be sarcastic, but at its conclusion, I am no longer certain about that.

According to what? Just because you're not in survival mode in the truest form of the word doesn't mean you aren't trying to maintain whatever you have. Expectations can still be set, email doesn't turn off, and personal relationships (kids, family, friends) continue on, along with personal goals, health, increased cost of living, etc.

Just because it's 'voluntary' doesn't mean it's not work or it's not stress or it doesn't affect you.

my point is there’s a lot of people who complain about work that could in theory never work another day in their life again but do for non-financial reasons anyway

Sounds edge case-y (and only decreasing as wealth inequality increase)... but as you said, there are other reasons that keep them going. It’s not about “survival” in the most basic sense. That doesn’t make it any less real to those people.

$1M savings should last a life time if aggressively invested. If you have no dependents then 5-10 in a managerial class role should get you there

I don’t understand your point. 39% of the country would have to borrow to cover a $400 surprise medical expense. Not many have $1MM in savings to “aggressively invest” (what does that even mean? Risky investments? Which means sometimes the luck will run out?). I also don’t know many ordinary managers with $5-10MM in savings. That’s quite some income, and those people must not be married with kids.

Regardless, none of this negates that they can still feel valid pressures no matter what their success is. Typically having such success invites even more pressure as one is expected to keep it up, either by others or themselves. Few make it to such largess without overworking themselves.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...

I mean you’re proving my point exactly. People who have the savings to not work convince themselves that their identity is their job and do it to “keep up.” My point is that is all in your head, and if you’re going around complaining about how busy you are you then you’re doing it voluntarily and not because you will literally be homeless if you stop.

$1M in a high quality REIT can generate 12% dividends, which is $120K. A single person could easily live off half that.

>> $1M in a high quality REIT can generate 12% dividends, which is $120K.

Are these 12% dividends normal or sustainable? Have they continued over the years? Could you name a couple of sample names/tickers?

>> A single person could easily live off half that.

True -- perhaps not half but you are forgetting taxes!

You can live off $60K pre tax as a single person even in a high cost city. I don’t spend more than $3.5K a month total right now in a normal month in SF.

Taxes are not that high at that level of income.

I'm assuming you're speaking about the US.

If your health insurance coverage denies any procedure you consider necessary (which they do not), you're looking at 6 figure bills. These balloon with age. I'd agree on the $1M figure, but only without the monkey wrench of US healthcare.

How many is 'a lot'?

I don’t know but I think a lot of people (no dependents) could live off $1M in invested savings for the rest of their life.

5-10 years in a managerial class role nets many that much.

I see these types of comments here quit a bit, and I'm guessing they're mostly from folks with no kids or ever having kids.

Certainly there is an argument to be made for working less and living with less, but for most people $1M invested doesn't check out. If you're relying solely on returns from that investment, then conservatively you can only safely withdraw 3-4%, which works out to 30-40k a year. That's close to full time on minimum wage in some states. While that's enough to survive, not sure if that'd be a fulfilling life for most, even while single. What happens if you have a family later?

EDIT: Also not sure how many can actually save that much in 5-10 years. That's 100k - 200k of savings after tax. Even with compound interest, that's pretty tough for most I would think.

There are REITs that generate 12% dividends you can easily buy, which would be $120K before tax. 3-4% is extremely conservative and you could certainly withdraw more.

It’s also less about “never making another dime working” and more that you don’t need a traditional 9-5. You can and should figure out other sources of income.

There are investments that return 10+%, but that doesn't mean that's how much you should take out every year. The 3-4% (usually 4% for retirement savings) is to buffer for years where you get negative returns. I've never seen anyone recommend withdrawing 12% a year with plans to have the nestegg last a long time.

I was suggesting 6% not 12%. You can live off $60K as a single person even in higher cost cities pretty easily. Taxes aren’t actually that high even in CA at that level.