6 ms·

I miss vacation so much. I just fly home from the US. And … I still have to work instead of just spending time with my parents that I haven’t seen in years. I

I miss vacation so much. I just fly home from the US. And … I still have to work instead of just spending time with my parents that I haven’t seen in years. I earn more than 200k. ( not west coast ) it’s a decent salary right? Why can’t I have vacation, too? I asked and putted and asked again… All that will accomplish one thing: one day in the next 2 years I will wake up, look at my bank account. And quit. To have actual free time. I told that to my boss in those term, we have a decent relationship. But … he gave me some HR bullshit.

bathtub365 5y ago
If your job is getting in the way of your life goals, why don’t you find one that doesn’t?
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Oh. Thanks, never thought about it that way. Sarcasm aside yes: I’m not gonna keep working in the US for that specific reason.
  - aix1 5y ago
    I could be wrong, but it seems that there's no great shortage of companies offering 4+ weeks of PTO per year in the US. Or are you expecting more vacation than that? (Or are perhaps otherwise constrained as to the choice of employers?)
    - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
      I've got 4 weeks paid vacation. It really doesn't feel like much. That's only 1/13th of your weeks being work-free per year. I personally would like more. I think something like a 20-25 hour workweek plus 8-12 weeks of vacation would be good enough that I would stay in the workforce long term. As it stands today, it seems more feasible to continue working full time, hit FI in a few years and retire early rather than find such a good work-life balance.
nickff 5y ago
How much were you willing to sacrifice in salary in exchange for additional vacation? Was it a net-positive deal for your counter party (employer)? I ask because I hear this kind of thing all the time who want to make the same money, for less time at work.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Of course I would be willing to reduce my yearly salary for 2 or 3 weeks of extra time. Should not be that hard. It’s worth more than the proportional time I would take off. It’s very valuable to me. Like 5k / week would be a good price tag. I have no debt and more stuff than I need. Now let’s me enjoy life while I still can ( and keep working on that job that I actually enjoy ) I’m not sure to understand about the net positive. The response I got was that taking time off without pay would 1) set a bad « example » or something of that sort and 2) make it hard to plan for resource availability. Does that answer your question?
  - nickff 5y ago
    By ‘net positive’ I mean willing to take a cut larger than is directly proportional to the reduction in hours worked. The reality is that reducing each person’s annual work will increase costs for the company overall, as it needs to pay additional overhead and benefits, which are related to employee count, rather than hours worked. I think that everyone is a bit wary of setting difficult precedents in employment situations, as well as the possibility of creating rifts between people with different ‘deals’. That said, I think we should all place a higher priority on coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements.
    - jobigoud 5y ago
      Except that it increases employees morale and motivation and thus productivity, and reduces chances of burnout. There are benefits for the company too.
      - dopidopHN 5y ago
nkssy 5y ago
Yeah if a boss said I couldn't have 4 weeks off per year I'd probably tell them they're functionally incompetant. Its always interesting to see how other people live.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Good for you! I will cash a few years more of that sweat US money and go back retire at home. Where every gas station attendant has 5 weeks of PTO.
  - nkssy 5y ago
    You be you. May you have interesting times in early retirement.
  - ddnb 5y ago
    Don't forget to live your life now as well. All fine and dandy to save for 'later', but if you keep going until you burn out you won't be enjoying your later that much. That or if you get run over by a bus tomorrow it was all for nothing.
- comrad 5y ago
  I've rejected some jobs that offered less than 30 days (in a 5 day workweek) vacation per year.

bathtub365 5y ago

If your job is getting in the way of your life goals, why don’t you find one that doesn’t?

dopidopHN 5y ago
Oh. Thanks, never thought about it that way. Sarcasm aside yes: I’m not gonna keep working in the US for that specific reason.
- aix1 5y ago
  I could be wrong, but it seems that there's no great shortage of companies offering 4+ weeks of PTO per year in the US. Or are you expecting more vacation than that? (Or are perhaps otherwise constrained as to the choice of employers?)
  - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
    I've got 4 weeks paid vacation. It really doesn't feel like much. That's only 1/13th of your weeks being work-free per year. I personally would like more. I think something like a 20-25 hour workweek plus 8-12 weeks of vacation would be good enough that I would stay in the workforce long term. As it stands today, it seems more feasible to continue working full time, hit FI in a few years and retire early rather than find such a good work-life balance.

nickff 5y ago

How much were you willing to sacrifice in salary in exchange for additional vacation? Was it a net-positive deal for your counter party (employer)? I ask because I hear this kind of thing all the time who want to make the same money, for less time at work.

dopidopHN 5y ago
Of course I would be willing to reduce my yearly salary for 2 or 3 weeks of extra time. Should not be that hard. It’s worth more than the proportional time I would take off. It’s very valuable to me. Like 5k / week would be a good price tag. I have no debt and more stuff than I need. Now let’s me enjoy life while I still can ( and keep working on that job that I actually enjoy ) I’m not sure to understand about the net positive. The response I got was that taking time off without pay would 1) set a bad « example » or something of that sort and 2) make it hard to plan for resource availability. Does that answer your question?
- nickff 5y ago
  By ‘net positive’ I mean willing to take a cut larger than is directly proportional to the reduction in hours worked. The reality is that reducing each person’s annual work will increase costs for the company overall, as it needs to pay additional overhead and benefits, which are related to employee count, rather than hours worked. I think that everyone is a bit wary of setting difficult precedents in employment situations, as well as the possibility of creating rifts between people with different ‘deals’. That said, I think we should all place a higher priority on coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements.
  - jobigoud 5y ago
    Except that it increases employees morale and motivation and thus productivity, and reduces chances of burnout. There are benefits for the company too.
    - dopidopHN 5y ago

nkssy 5y ago

Yeah if a boss said I couldn't have 4 weeks off per year I'd probably tell them they're functionally incompetant. Its always interesting to see how other people live.

dopidopHN 5y ago
Good for you! I will cash a few years more of that sweat US money and go back retire at home. Where every gas station attendant has 5 weeks of PTO.
- nkssy 5y ago
  You be you. May you have interesting times in early retirement.
- ddnb 5y ago
  Don't forget to live your life now as well. All fine and dandy to save for 'later', but if you keep going until you burn out you won't be enjoying your later that much. That or if you get run over by a bus tomorrow it was all for nothing.
comrad 5y ago
I've rejected some jobs that offered less than 30 days (in a 5 day workweek) vacation per year.