How does one work 50+ hours a week?

[Blackhood]

He won't be working more than a 14 hour week if stereotypes are anything to go by.....

 

[tj100]



There's nothing like being able to teach your kids in lieu of just giving them what you never had. I personally think going thru "the struggle" is something that makes strong individuals and wouldn't give that up for anything. I ride easy now but I can adapt quickly if necessary. More money, more problems. If your kids know the value of a dollar they will be more apt to make better choices than the ones who are "privileged" and put in private schools because "I wanted to give you what I never had" and they largely end up despising you for it or turning to drugs/Appreciation/prostitution/become runaways.

I don't fundamentally disagree with this. The difference though, is that I have the option. FWIW, this isn't a "give my kids what I never had", because I'll never be able to give my kids what my parents gave to me (and it seemed to work out all right for me). If private school is the right thing for my kids, I'm glad to have that option.

You seem to think that having more money means that you won't be a very good parent. I tend to think that good parenting and financial wherewithal are generally independent of each other. I can still teach my kids good values, any if my little girl wants a pony, dammit, I can buy her a pony (j/k).

I agree that continuing to work 100 hours a week and trying to raise a family is probably not going to produce successful outcomes a lot of the time. But that's not the scenario we're in - I continue to reap a lot of the rewards of those 100 hour weeks, but work a lot less.

 

[NORE]



I don't fundamentally disagree with this. The difference though, is that I have the option. FWIW, this isn't a "give my kids what I never had", because I'll never be able to give my kids what my parents gave to me (and it seemed to work out all right for me). If private school is the right thing for my kids, I'm glad to have that option.
You seem to think that having more money means that you won't be a very good parent. I tend to think that good parenting and financial wherewithal are generally independent of each other. I can still teach my kids good values, any if my little girl wants a pony, dammit, I can buy her a pony (j/k).
I agree that continuing to work 100 hours a week and trying to raise a family is probably not going to produce successful outcomes a lot of the time. But that's not the scenario we're in - I continue to reap a lot of the rewards of those 100 hour weeks, but work a lot less.

I don't necessarily think that having money=bad parents. But the formula is there. There are many broke bad parents out there.

It amuses me when my younger son asks for something and when I try to tell him why he should probably save his money for something better he retorts, "but we're rich!". Sure I can get it for you but I want you to know why it isn't such a great idea.

As far as the 100hr weeks, I missed a lot of my older son growing up largely due to the tumultuous relationship with his mother. The older he got the more options I had to spend time with him without her being present. I would come home from work each day change and then take two trains and a bus to get there in time to help him finish his homework and see him off to bed. Back home after midnight each time. But there was a lot I missed and I know he missed me a lot of the time. Think Hugh's character in Swordfish. He is now 19 and has a good head on his shoulders and has never embarrassed or shamed me.

I couldn't imaging something like work taking me away from my children.

 

[Harold falcon]

So how did you get rich not working long hours?


Be careful, this is a trick question.

 

[Blackhood]

There seems to be a comparison between extremes going on. Can someone who works from 6am to 11pm raise a family? Probably not. Is the guy who "only" works from 9am-6pm going to have time for a reasonably good job of it? Sure.

Comparing the people who live and breathe their jobs for 5 years aged 20 with the 30 year olds who work 9-5 jobs is silly. Not to mention the fact that your priorities make a massive difference; I'm 23 and have no kids so if I want to work 24 hours a day it makes no difference. If I had a family that I was neglecting, then maybe you could start telling me to "smell the roses".

 

[tj100]



I'm 23 and have no kids so if I want to work 24 hours a day it makes no difference. If I had a family that I was neglecting, then maybe you could start telling me to "smell the roses".

The argument of NORE is that you could start creating "roses" now, and by waiting, they won't smell as sweet.

Personally, I don't buy it, but to each his own.

I think there are different paths to happiness. Mine has worked out so far for me, and his has worked out for him. Neither is the right one.

 

[Piobaire]

I think the difference here is some are saying, "Each to his own" while others are saying, "Your way is wrong."

 

[TheFoo]



I think the difference here is some are saying, "Each to his own" while others are saying, "Your way is wrong."

Well, I'm not quite so kumbaya. Yes, everyone needs to make their own choices about work/life balance. But I do think a lot of commentary here neglects to seriously consider the additional comfort and security one can gain from early investment in his career. If there is a reliable way to attain those things in equal amounts otherwise, please let me know and I'll switch paths ASAP.

 

[NORE]

Hmmm, 'comfort' and 'security'. I wonder how the folks who lost their savings, etc. recently feel about that.

 

[tj100]

I'd be willing to wager that relatively few people who put in the 100 hour work weeks find themselves having lost all of their savings and future prospects. Seems like more of an issue for the guys who spent their 20s smelling the roses. I know a lot of guys who lost their jobs when Lehman went bust; all of them are doing just fine.

 

[TheFoo]



Hmmm, 'comfort' and 'security'. I wonder how the folks who lost their savings, etc. recently feel about that.

I don't know who exactly you're referring to. But investment banking has always been a somewhat volatile career. Economic cycles go this way and that. Firms downsize, people get laid off. It's not like the financial crisis was the first time people lost their jobs.

 

[NORE]



I don't know who exactly you're referring to. But investment banking has always been a somewhat volatile career. Economic cycles go this way and that. Firms downsize, people get laid off. It's not like the financial crisis was the first time people lost their jobs.

Oh I think you know.

Hey, once again I have nothing against people who have strong work values, etc. But there are folks who equate comfort & security to nice things and a good sized bank account. My earlier point highlights this. I know people who range from those who are on section 8 and use EBT cards like AMEX and those who are millionaires. One thing I have seen is no matter how much you put into education and/or your career, comfort and security are relative and not a derivative of working hard or having money. We are not really in control of what could happen tomorrow or even today for that matter. Think about it.

 

[tj100]



But there are folks who equate comfort & security to nice things and a good sized bank account. My earlier point highlights this. I know people who range from those who are on section 8 and use EBT cards like AMEX and those who are millionaires. One thing I have seen is no matter how much you put into education and/or your career, comfort and security are relative and not a derivative of working hard or having money.

I don't think anybody would argue that, in all cases, money = happiness. There are clearly some people in the world who are made happy by "having stuff". I'm not sure how wholesome that "happiness" is, but if that's what they want, that's cool. On the contrary, I can't think of people who are made happy by poverty. Certainly, many people who don't have much money are happy, but their lack of money is not the cause of their happiness.

I would agree that "comfort and security" are states of mind that are generally acheived independent of actual wealth or income. Where I think you're wrong is in the mutual exclusivity of it. You seem to be pitching that only people without much can be truely happy, and I just don't buy it.

 

[Piobaire]



Oh I think you know.

Hey, once again I have nothing against people who have strong work values, etc. But there are folks who equate comfort & security to nice things and a good sized bank account. My earlier point highlights this. I know people who range from those who are on section 8 and use EBT cards like AMEX and those who are millionaires. One thing I have seen is no matter how much you put into education and/or your career, comfort and security are relative and not a derivative of working hard or having money. We are not really in control of what could happen tomorrow or even today for that matter. Think about it.

What should I think about here? I'm honestly puzzled. Since we are not ultimately in control of random events in reality we should not plan for the future? Not employ deferred gratification? Live on welfare? I'm not really sure what you think you are saying here.

 

[Relentless]

50 hours is a typical US work week.

100 hours - sorry, you're not doing it right.

Smart, not hard guys.

R