4 ms·

I've always disliked how widely accepted this argument is. I agree, if you have a family or really value time outside of work for some reason, money has a seri

by nscalf 6y ago

I've always disliked how widely accepted this argument is. I agree, if you have a family or really value time outside of work for some reason, money has a serious diminishing effect. However, even if I'm totally satisfied with my wage, having more of it means I HAVE to work for less years in my life. Giving me 500k/year versus 100k/year means I have to work roughly 4 less years per year I work now. That is EXTREMELY valuable. I don't exclusively value money, and there are trade offs that I won't make, but lets not pretend like making more money isn't very impactful for nearly everyone.

pc86 6y ago
Exactly - there's a reason you can find a good number of stories of physicians retiring or going to very part-time work in their 40's. It's because they made $500k for a decade (for some specialties), didn't spend like a drunken sailor, and now they don't have to work. The economics are different for software developers for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that we don't have a cartel protecting our licensure, but you give me an extra $350k a year and it definitely will raise the bar on what I'm willing to put up with. But a decade in, I'd be willing to give up more than $350k for more of the intangible valuables.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  I agree with this thread. There really isn't a diminishing return. I'd even argue that the return gets even better. Beyond the point where your basic needs/expenses are covered, every extra $N reduces the amount of time I need to continue working before retiring, and my goal is to retire as quickly as possible. So there's really no upper limit where I could say "more money doesn't help". If you offered me like $500K more for a year to work 16 hour days, sacrifice my mental health, family life, and social connections, I'd do it because that probably cuts 10 years off my retirement date. What an amazing trade: temporary pain for an extra decade.

by nscalf 6y ago

pc86 6y ago

Exactly - there's a reason you can find a good number of stories of physicians retiring or going to very part-time work in their 40's. It's because they made $500k for a decade (for some specialties), didn't spend like a drunken sailor, and now they don't have to work. The economics are different for software developers for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that we don't have a cartel protecting our licensure, but you give me an extra $350k a year and it definitely will raise the bar on what I'm willing to put up with. But a decade in, I'd be willing to give up more than $350k for more of the intangible valuables.

ryandrake 6y ago
I agree with this thread. There really isn't a diminishing return. I'd even argue that the return gets even better. Beyond the point where your basic needs/expenses are covered, every extra $N reduces the amount of time I need to continue working before retiring, and my goal is to retire as quickly as possible. So there's really no upper limit where I could say "more money doesn't help". If you offered me like $500K more for a year to work 16 hour days, sacrifice my mental health, family life, and social connections, I'd do it because that probably cuts 10 years off my retirement date. What an amazing trade: temporary pain for an extra decade.