Most of us work some form of a full-time 9-5 job, with a specific amount of days off available because that's how employers prefer it.
Knowing that the rest of your pre-retirement years will be spent in such a configuration you'd want to spend additional time initially on getting better, advancing your career etc., because if you can't do anything about the amount of your free time, at least you can influence its quality by earning more.
I for one would be happy to work part-time, but the lowest engagement I ever managed to negotiate was 90%. Best I've seen was 80%. 50% is only ever available for short-term gigs.
But then again, most middle-aged people have a family that needs to be feed etc. You simply don't have that many options. Best thing that can happen thus is that your passion becomes profitable.
yes, but 'for you' being the operative word. Your time is worthless to me. Your time, if you used it to do something _I_ wanted done, would be worth something to me. Therefore, it is true for people to say time is money.
I think i do make enough money but there is no way to know for sure. There are way too many uncertainties to know for sure.
1. might not have a job soon a) age-ed out of tech job b) offshoring/wfh trend c) automation d) cognitive decline.
2. unknown future health expenses
3. unknown expenditures for kids
Plant a tree. Have a child. Animate a short?
Yes. Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree with the author's conclusion.
Money is not the only thing which provides options; time does too. As you age, you tend to have fewer and fewer options.
People usually think that freeing up time at the expense of a cushy salary is an enormous opportunity cost.
But it is much rarer for us to think of freeing up money at the expense of time as a huge opportunity cost, even among people who make enough that they don't need to work 2000+ hours every year.
I wonder why. After all, how often do we say things like "time is money" to each other?