| |
Main
Date: 31 May 2006 10:48:33
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: A question of values.
|
Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
current position at your place of employment, but were offered a
possible promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and
lest not forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other
things such as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money
for that new bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of
doing, but never had the monetary funds to do.
So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Jun 2006 07:53:42
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
k Hickey wrote:
> "ian.rosenberg@gmail.com" <ian.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yesterday the Italian went riding with us. It was gray and drear and
> >we started late, he was on this occasion coming home from work early
> >and saw us on the road, there was just enough time for him to change,
> >get the bike, and catch up with for the last 6 or 7 kilometers.
> >
> >It's the first time he's been out with us since February, though I
> >understand there have been a few times he's gone out on his own.
> >
> >I covet his bikes. But, given the choice between being a highly paid
> >expat who occasionally has to go to meetings in Europe or being a
> >unpaid student whose biggest commitment is attempting to make it to
> >class by 8am ... well, I know which one I'd choose, and that's even
> >before considering my astonishingly total lack of qualifications in
> >aircraft repair and maintenance.
>
> I've had seasons in my life where I did very little "hard core" riding
> (including the time I lived in Beijing). I knew that any benefit I'd
> get from piling on the miles there would be more than offset by the
> damage I'd do to my lungs (anyone who thinks that the US is ground
> zero for air pollution has never been in Asia). ;-) I did a fair
> number of "bopping around miles" - riding to work and to restaurants,
> bars and shops though - not really "training miles", but fun riding.
I remember, when I lived in Shijiazhuang, smog being so thick I was
unable to see the other side of the sports field in front of my on
campus apartment. But, despite the fact that you couldn't see across
the short dimension of the sports field and despite the fact that I was
wheezing walking up stairs indoors (where the air is cleaner) they
still held the school sports competition.
Now, I go home to Baltimore for the summer and am astonished by the air
pollution (compared to Hainan) but not particularly bothered by it
since the weather is so pleasingly cool.
-M
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 10:17:17
From: marian.rosenberg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Ken C. M. wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com>,
> > "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
> >
> >
> > What's the point of spending money on your dream bike if you never have
> > time to ride it?
> >
> Very well said.
Yesterday the Italian went riding with us. It was gray and drear and
we started late, he was on this occasion coming home from work early
and saw us on the road, there was just enough time for him to change,
get the bike, and catch up with for the last 6 or 7 kilometers.
It's the first time he's been out with us since February, though I
understand there have been a few times he's gone out on his own.
I covet his bikes. But, given the choice between being a highly paid
expat who occasionally has to go to meetings in Europe or being a
unpaid student whose biggest commitment is attempting to make it to
class by 8am ... well, I know which one I'd choose, and that's even
before considering my astonishingly total lack of qualifications in
aircraft repair and maintenance.
-M
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 21:49:11
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"ian.rosenberg@gmail.com" <ian.rosenberg@gmail.com > wrote:
>Yesterday the Italian went riding with us. It was gray and drear and
>we started late, he was on this occasion coming home from work early
>and saw us on the road, there was just enough time for him to change,
>get the bike, and catch up with for the last 6 or 7 kilometers.
>
>It's the first time he's been out with us since February, though I
>understand there have been a few times he's gone out on his own.
>
>I covet his bikes. But, given the choice between being a highly paid
>expat who occasionally has to go to meetings in Europe or being a
>unpaid student whose biggest commitment is attempting to make it to
>class by 8am ... well, I know which one I'd choose, and that's even
>before considering my astonishingly total lack of qualifications in
>aircraft repair and maintenance.
I've had seasons in my life where I did very little "hard core" riding
(including the time I lived in Beijing). I knew that any benefit I'd
get from piling on the miles there would be more than offset by the
damage I'd do to my lungs (anyone who thinks that the US is ground
zero for air pollution has never been in Asia). ;-) I did a fair
number of "bopping around miles" - riding to work and to restaurants,
bars and shops though - not really "training miles", but fun riding.
And this just made getting back on the bike "in anger" even sweeter,
and fresher than before I moved to China. I don't think a sabatical
from the bike is necessarily a bad thing in that respect - if it makes
you appreciate it more when you DO get back on.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 01:57:52
From: Ron Wallenfang
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
> Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>
> If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
> current position at your place of employment, but were offered a possible
> promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and lest not
> forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other things such
> as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money for that new
> bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of doing, but never
> had the monetary funds to do.
>
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
> Ken
> --
> New cycling jersey: $49
> new cycling shorts: $39
> Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
The easy answer is that time is more important. but it's more complicated
than that.
Work may involve professional obligations that require a great deal of time.
The added money is nice, but the duty to clients and resulting personal
satisfaction for a job properly done is also a factor. Work is about more
than money!
And time is about so much more than biking! Besides work, there is a
spouse, children, extended family, Church, charities, civic events,
professional sports ....the list goes on and on, even without considering
the time wasters - TV, crossword puzzles, so duko (sp.?), participating in
Newsgroups, reading the political blogs.
Why not just cut out the work and have more time for all the other things?
Not such easy question, because it's far from clear that it's the other
"good" things that would benefit.
Bottom line: it's not a false question, but dramatically oversimplified.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 01:20:36
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:48:33 -0400, "Ken C. M."
<dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote:
>Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>
>If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
>current position at your place of employment, but were offered a
>possible promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and
>lest not forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other
>things such as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money
>for that new bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of
>doing, but never had the monetary funds to do.
>
>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
You do not know the amount of time you will have, but it is finite and
unrenewable. Money, on the other hand, is something that it *may* be
possible to manipulate either to make less go farther or to acquire
more. To me, then, the answer in such an instance is simple; time is
worth more than money, at least in many cases.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 06:55:08
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:48:33 -0400, "Ken C. M."
> <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>>
>>If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
>>current position at your place of employment, but were offered a
>>possible promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and
>>lest not forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other
>>things such as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money
>>for that new bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of
>>doing, but never had the monetary funds to do.
>>
>>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
>
> You do not know the amount of time you will have, but it is finite and
> unrenewable. Money, on the other hand, is something that it *may* be
> possible to manipulate either to make less go farther or to acquire
> more. To me, then, the answer in such an instance is simple; time is
> worth more than money, at least in many cases.
Money is something that can be manipulated. Humans have not yet
discovered how to manipulate time that has passed by already. More time
can be created in the future by doing less thereby increasing 'free' time.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 21:33:35
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
> You do not know the amount of time you will have, but it is finite and
> unrenewable. Money, on the other hand, is something that it *may* be
> possible to manipulate either to make less go farther or to acquire
> more. To me, then, the answer in such an instance is simple; time is
> worth more than money, at least in many cases.
Very well put. I have always thought that I was making decisions where I was
opting for less money and more time. I have not always been right about the
choice. But even having time to waste (it isn't really wasting) is valuable.
On the other hand, I have often managed to find jobs that I really like and
so they didn't seem like work. It is certainly true that I wouldn't be doing
them if I didn't have to but they were enjoyable nevertheless.
So to answer your question, I would not choose the "better" job and trade
time for money either.
Jeff
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 09:56:55
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Ken C. M. wrote:
> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > Time. No question. Both my husband and I have made career choices that have
> > hobbled our advancement and earning ability, in exchange for a saner and
> > happier life.
> >
> Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
I agree, but you realize this is downright unAmerican. You should covet
the largest SUV, expand the size of your house, have a manicured lawn,
send your kids to preppy colleges, and of course ride a $6000 bike to
the coffee shop in your half hour of leisure time each week.
Art Harris
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 13:02:26
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Art Harris wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>>Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>>>Time. No question. Both my husband and I have made career choices that have
>>>hobbled our advancement and earning ability, in exchange for a saner and
>>>happier life.
>>>
>>
>>Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
>
>
> I agree, but you realize this is downright unAmerican. You should covet
> the largest SUV, expand the size of your house, have a manicured lawn,
> send your kids to preppy colleges, and of course ride a $6000 bike to
> the coffee shop in your half hour of leisure time each week.
>
> Art Harris
>
It may be un-american then again america is becoming un-american.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 09:25:29
From: Ken Bradley
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
HI Ken,
The fact that you ask this questions tells me you already know the
answer!
another, Ken
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
> Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>
> If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
> current position at your place of employment, but were offered a possible
> promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and lest not
> forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other things such
> as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money for that new
> bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of doing, but never
> had the monetary funds to do.
>
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
> Ken
> --
> New cycling jersey: $49
> new cycling shorts: $39
> Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:50:17
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Ken Bradley wrote:
> HI Ken,
> The fact that you ask this questions tells me you already know the
> answer!
> another, Ken
Well I know the answer for me. I just wondered if other recreational
cyclist had the same values.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 10:58:56
From: Z
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
> Ken
> --
It's a matter of balance. Think about how much money you have, what kind of
obligations you have taken on, and how much time you have left then perhaps
you can determine the proper balance. There's always a price that must be
paid for one or the other.
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:48:40
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Z wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>>
>>Ken
>>--
>
>
> It's a matter of balance. Think about how much money you have, what kind of
> obligations you have taken on, and how much time you have left then perhaps
> you can determine the proper balance. There's always a price that must be
> paid for one or the other.
>
>
Proper balance is important for all things. Probably more so with money
vs. time. I have read many accounts of people going a little nuts when
working to much. Take postal workers for one example.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 10:32:55
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
In article <IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com >,
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote:
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
What's the point of spending money on your dream bike if you never have
time to ride it?
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:46:06
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com>,
> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
>
> What's the point of spending money on your dream bike if you never have
> time to ride it?
>
Very well said.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 May 2006 20:33:48
From: Jonathan Kaplan
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Time. No Question. I've been doing a 24 mile daily commute that runs
anywhere from 50 minutes to 2 hours every day each way. I'm on the verge of
leaving a six year job to take a new one that is 3 miles from my house and
will allow me to bike to work in less than half the time of my former
commute. This will give me 40 minutes a day of exercise just by going to
work.
I figured out that I have spent over 3000 hours in the car, arriving home
too late to do anything and grouchy and exhausted from the traffic. My
health is beginning to deteriorate because of lack of exercise. I've now
decided that I need to take back my life and arrive home at a normal hour.
Hopefully the new job will also be as good as the increase in my time.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 06:51:36
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Jonathan Kaplan wrote:
> Time. No Question. I've been doing a 24 mile daily commute that runs
> anywhere from 50 minutes to 2 hours every day each way. I'm on the verge of
> leaving a six year job to take a new one that is 3 miles from my house and
> will allow me to bike to work in less than half the time of my former
> commute. This will give me 40 minutes a day of exercise just by going to
> work.
>
> I figured out that I have spent over 3000 hours in the car, arriving home
> too late to do anything and grouchy and exhausted from the traffic. My
> health is beginning to deteriorate because of lack of exercise. I've now
> decided that I need to take back my life and arrive home at a normal hour.
> Hopefully the new job will also be as good as the increase in my time.
>
>
Well I hope it works out for you. For what it's worth, I think time
traveling in the car is time "wasted", you can't really do anything else
but drive.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 16:27:59
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Ken C. M. wrote:
> Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>
> If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
> current position at your place of employment, but were offered a
> possible promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and
> lest not forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other
> things such as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money
> for that new bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of
> doing, but never had the monetary funds to do.
>
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
If it's a choice between an adequate bike on a 2 week tour or a dream
bike on a 2 day one, I'd go for the first (assuming the weather's nice!).
Touring needn't be expensive in funds, it's often expensive in time.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:43:28
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>> Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>>
>> If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
>> current position at your place of employment, but were offered a
>> possible promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and
>> lest not forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other
>> things such as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money
>> for that new bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of
>> doing, but never had the monetary funds to do.
>>
>> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
>
> If it's a choice between an adequate bike on a 2 week tour or a dream
> bike on a 2 day one, I'd go for the first (assuming the weather's nice!).
>
> Touring needn't be expensive in funds, it's often expensive in time.
>
> Pete.
Well one of my dreams is to do the cross country thing here in the U.S.
And if I am still able and have the money Europe as well.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 15:24:54
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
Time. No question. Both my husband and I have made career choices that have
hobbled our advancement and earning ability, in exchange for a saner and
happier life.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:41:21
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Claire Petersky wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
>
>>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
>
>
> Time. No question. Both my husband and I have made career choices that have
> hobbled our advancement and earning ability, in exchange for a saner and
> happier life.
>
Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 May 2006 19:21:27
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote:
>Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
Depends on a lot of variables... Say, for example, that you make $X
per year now, and can save 10% of that toward your retirement (sadly,
that's more than most people do).
Now say you change jobs for one that pays $X times 1.3, but you have
to work 50 hours a week instead of 40. Sounds like you'll end up
working a lot more, doesn't it?
Maybe not.
Presuming you don't suddenly blow the difference on double lattes
every waking hour, you can now put away 4 times as much toward your
retirement. The end result is that you might cut quite a few working
years off the end of your career, more (maybe much more) than making
up for the extra hours you're working.
So to some, working a less stressful job with great hours is actually
a ticket to a later retirement.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 06:49:05
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
k Hickey wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
>
>
> Depends on a lot of variables... Say, for example, that you make $X
> per year now, and can save 10% of that toward your retirement (sadly,
> that's more than most people do).
>
> Now say you change jobs for one that pays $X times 1.3, but you have
> to work 50 hours a week instead of 40. Sounds like you'll end up
> working a lot more, doesn't it?
>
> Maybe not.
>
> Presuming you don't suddenly blow the difference on double lattes
> every waking hour, you can now put away 4 times as much toward your
> retirement. The end result is that you might cut quite a few working
> years off the end of your career, more (maybe much more) than making
> up for the extra hours you're working.
>
But one variable that cannot be know is how long your retirement will
be. If you think you will be dead ten years after retirement but you
live longer then you will need more $$$.
> So to some, working a less stressful job with great hours is actually
> a ticket to a later retirement.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 19:49:33
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Ken C. M. wrote:
> k Hickey wrote:
>> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
>>
>>
>> Depends on a lot of variables... Say, for example, that you make $X
>> per year now, and can save 10% of that toward your retirement (sadly,
>> that's more than most people do).
>>
>> Now say you change jobs for one that pays $X times 1.3, but you have
>> to work 50 hours a week instead of 40. Sounds like you'll end up
>> working a lot more, doesn't it?
>> Maybe not.
>> Presuming you don't suddenly blow the difference on double lattes
>> every waking hour, you can now put away 4 times as much toward your
>> retirement. The end result is that you might cut quite a few working
>> years off the end of your career, more (maybe much more) than making
>> up for the extra hours you're working.
>>
> But one variable that cannot be know is how long your retirement will
> be. If you think you will be dead ten years after retirement but you
> live longer then you will need more $$$.
>
>> So to some, working a less stressful job with great hours is actually
>> a ticket to a later retirement.
>
> Ken
I would have to go with the job that payed less but allowed me more time
for family, exercise, and whatever. I did the cubicle thing long enough
to know that if that making money is your only concern then when you are
ready to retire you may have already had a heart attack or two. Having
made it to 57 I damn well want to be in shape to enjoy getting my money
back at either 62 (probably) or 66 (only if I love my job). $$$$ does
you no good at all if you have already ruined your health making the $$.
I would prefer to live on a budget and be healthy than be wealthy and in
a nursing home, or underground.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Jun 2006 08:32:54
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Bill Baka wrote:
> Ken C. M. wrote:
>
>> k Hickey wrote:
>>
>>> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Seems to me that less work = better quality of life. Just my opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Depends on a lot of variables... Say, for example, that you make $X
>>> per year now, and can save 10% of that toward your retirement (sadly,
>>> that's more than most people do).
>>>
>>> Now say you change jobs for one that pays $X times 1.3, but you have
>>> to work 50 hours a week instead of 40. Sounds like you'll end up
>>> working a lot more, doesn't it? Maybe not.
>>> Presuming you don't suddenly blow the difference on double lattes
>>> every waking hour, you can now put away 4 times as much toward your
>>> retirement. The end result is that you might cut quite a few working
>>> years off the end of your career, more (maybe much more) than making
>>> up for the extra hours you're working.
>>>
>> But one variable that cannot be know is how long your retirement will
>> be. If you think you will be dead ten years after retirement but you
>> live longer then you will need more $$$.
>>
>>> So to some, working a less stressful job with great hours is actually
>>> a ticket to a later retirement.
>>
>>
>> Ken
>
>
> I would have to go with the job that payed less but allowed me more time
> for family, exercise, and whatever. I did the cubicle thing long enough
> to know that if that making money is your only concern then when you are
> ready to retire you may have already had a heart attack or two. Having
> made it to 57 I damn well want to be in shape to enjoy getting my money
> back at either 62 (probably) or 66 (only if I love my job). $$$$ does
> you no good at all if you have already ruined your health making the $$.
> I would prefer to live on a budget and be healthy than be wealthy and in
> a nursing home, or underground.
> Bill Baka
Well my I will probably go with the job that pays a bit more. The hours
will probably only amount to about 5 extra hours per week, which I can
get back by cutting back on other activities, like reading news groups.
My work is probably not as bad as driving a cubicle as far as stress
goes. It probably tends to be a little more active, which is sort of
like exercise, just not as relaxing as riding.
And I don't want to live to be 115 anyway. So if I have a heart attack
while I am out on a good ride, I think that's probably a better way to
go than in a nursing home somewhere waiting for death.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2006 21:44:14
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com > wrote:
>I would have to go with the job that payed less but allowed me more time
>for family, exercise, and whatever. I did the cubicle thing long enough
>to know that if that making money is your only concern then when you are
>ready to retire you may have already had a heart attack or two. Having
>made it to 57 I damn well want to be in shape to enjoy getting my money
>back at either 62 (probably) or 66 (only if I love my job). $$$$ does
>you no good at all if you have already ruined your health making the $$.
>I would prefer to live on a budget and be healthy than be wealthy and in
>a nursing home, or underground.
But Bill - hard work won't kill / maim / destroy most of us (no more
than hard riding will). And I don't plan on working 'til I'm 66 (by a
long, long shot) or even 57 for that matter. Statistics show that
those who retire early tend to live a lot longer than those who wait
'til "retirement age" to quit working, which is at odds with your
assumptions.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Jun 2006 08:40:14
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would have to go with the job that payed less but allowed me more time
>>for family, exercise, and whatever. I did the cubicle thing long enough
>>to know that if that making money is your only concern then when you are
>>ready to retire you may have already had a heart attack or two. Having
>>made it to 57 I damn well want to be in shape to enjoy getting my money
>>back at either 62 (probably) or 66 (only if I love my job). $$$$ does
>>you no good at all if you have already ruined your health making the $$.
>>I would prefer to live on a budget and be healthy than be wealthy and in
>>a nursing home, or underground.
>
>
> But Bill - hard work won't kill / maim / destroy most of us (no more
> than hard riding will). And I don't plan on working 'til I'm 66 (by a
> long, long shot) or even 57 for that matter. Statistics show that
> those who retire early tend to live a lot longer than those who wait
> 'til "retirement age" to quit working, which is at odds with your
> assumptions.
I think the "hard work" that could kill someone depends on the work. And
the person. I have seen / known people that have had severe heart
attacks in their late 20's because of stress. On the other hand I know
people that do physical labor 5 days a week and have never had much more
than a cold. And the opposites of those are also true.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| |
Date: 31 May 2006 11:02:55
From: recycled-one
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
> Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>
> If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
> current position at your place of employment, but were offered a possible
> promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and lest not
> forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other things such
> as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money for that new
> bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of doing, but never
> had the monetary funds to do.
>
> So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
Depends on how much time, how much money. I can be bought but I'm not
cheap...
In my workplace the employees tended to two extremes: those who would grab
any overtime opportunity available - I'm talking about 15 - 20 straight 12
hour shifts if they could - and those who never wanted to work any OT.
At first I worked a lot of OT - partially to pay off student loans and have
enough to invest etc etc. I found you get addicted to the larger paycheques
to the point that getting a 'normal' one seemed like not enough.
Eventually I got my finances where I wanted them, loans paid off, debt free
and enough in the bank so I pretty much stopped working OT. I found that
equally addictive. I really didn't want to sell my time for time-and-a-half,
double-time... ok Id still go for the triple-time stat holidays.
To bring it back to cycling this process coincidentally paralleled my
interest in riding so that I'd much rather do that than go to work. Another
parallel was the increasing amount I considered acceptable to spend on
cycling. I used to gape at thought of bikes in the $1000-$2000 range.
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:39:06
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
recycled-one wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:IpadnaGD49JfMeDZRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
>>Some recent events have set this question pondering about in my mind.
>>
>>If you made enough money to support yourself and your family in your
>>current position at your place of employment, but were offered a possible
>>promotion that would mean more responsibility, more hours and lest not
>>forget more pay, but would leave you with less time for other things such
>>as riding, would you take the promotion to save more money for that new
>>bike or for that long tour that you’ve always dreamed of doing, but never
>>had the monetary funds to do.
>>
>>So to simplify the question. Which is more important time or money?
>
>
> Depends on how much time, how much money. I can be bought but I'm not
> cheap...
>
> In my workplace the employees tended to two extremes: those who would grab
> any overtime opportunity available - I'm talking about 15 - 20 straight 12
> hour shifts if they could - and those who never wanted to work any OT.
>
Sounds similar to my workplace.
> At first I worked a lot of OT - partially to pay off student loans and have
> enough to invest etc etc. I found you get addicted to the larger paycheques
> to the point that getting a 'normal' one seemed like not enough.
>
Yeah when you get that BIG check, followed by smaller ones you wish they
were larger.
> Eventually I got my finances where I wanted them, loans paid off, debt free
> and enough in the bank so I pretty much stopped working OT. I found that
> equally addictive. I really didn't want to sell my time for time-and-a-half,
> double-time... ok Id still go for the triple-time stat holidays.
>
Sounds like you got the plan together.
> To bring it back to cycling this process coincidentally paralleled my
> interest in riding so that I'd much rather do that than go to work. Another
> parallel was the increasing amount I considered acceptable to spend on
> cycling. I used to gape at thought of bikes in the $1000-$2000 range.
>
Cycling is an addictive activity. I would prefer to ride as well. Or
better yet have a job were I get paid to ride (like that will ever happen).
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:50:34
From: recycled-one
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
"Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:2pidnWVVC_Y2W-DZRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Cycling is an addictive activity. I would prefer to ride as well. Or
> better yet have a job were I get paid to ride (like that will ever
> happen).
I don't know about that. The assumption is that it's best that your job is
something you love doing but what if the fact of it being a job reduces the
enjoyment?
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 May 2006 12:53:57
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: A question of values.
|
recycled-one wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <dontspam-kencmjr-spamblock@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:2pidnWVVC_Y2W-DZRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>
>
>>Cycling is an addictive activity. I would prefer to ride as well. Or
>>better yet have a job were I get paid to ride (like that will ever
>>happen).
>
>
> I don't know about that. The assumption is that it's best that your job is
> something you love doing but what if the fact of it being a job reduces the
> enjoyment?
>
>
>
Perhaps you have a point. But I think it would be fun to be a group
leader on a supported tour or something similar to that.
Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
|
|
