Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Time or Money: Not Both

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Time or Money: Not Both

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Good morning,

If you had to choose between one of these two scenarios, which would it be? Which more accurately reflects your values and desires; those of a philosophical mind that's considered his or her existence?[INDENT]Option 1: You have your basic needs provided. You are given basic housing; but it's not fancy and requires work to keep up. You are also given sufficient sustenance; nutritionally sufficient but just sufficient. In this you have baseline health care insurance (with rather high deductibles), a vehicle (you can't go terribly far, but far enough for your basic needs). You haven't money for movies, travel, parties or toys (gadgetry, etc.), but you can occasionally snag a book. You also have basic television. In this option you have the vast majority of your time as your own.

Option 2: You work 40-80 hours a week and have quite a bit of extra money. You can provide for your needs as you want, but you'll only spend about half of your waking hours away from your job. There isn't any vacation time, but you do have weekends free (usually). In this option you're not filthy rich, but for the most part you can buy what you want for what little time you have to yourself. Clothes, medium-end toys, foods, entertainments and automobiles are within relatively easy reach.
[/INDENT]Which would you choose, if given these parameters. you had to? Any thoughts? Which way would you go if you couldn't have both time and money?

Thanks

@Khethil,

heh, I was expecting to go for option 1, but the barely sufficient food and lack of money for movies etc gets me. What use is time if you can't spend it how you want?

I'd take the job option, 40 hours isn't so bad and maybe it'll be something I like ok.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;168530 wrote:

heh, I was expecting to go for option 1, but the barely sufficient food and lack of money for movies etc gets me. What use is time if you can't spend it how you want?

I'd take the job option, 40 hours isn't so bad and maybe it'll be something I like ok.

Yea, Job Satisfaction is a HUGE factor - excellent point.

When ya like your job (or find it satisfying), it can obviously make up for a lot. Of course, 40 hours isn't SO bad, but the range is 40 to 80.

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil;168528 wrote:

Good morning,

If you had to choose between one of these two scenarios, which would it be? Which more accurately reflects your values and desires; those of a philosophical mind that's considered his or her existence?[INDENT]Option 1: You have your basic needs provided. You are given basic housing; but it's not fancy and requires work to keep up. You are also given sufficient sustenance; nutritionally sufficient but just sufficient. In this you have baseline health care insurance (with rather high deductibles), a vehicle (you can't go terribly far, but far enough for your basic needs). You haven't money for movies, travel, parties or toys (gadgetry, etc.), but you can occasionally snag a book. You also have basic television. In this option you have the vast majority of your time as your own.

Option 2: You work 40-80 hours a week and have quite a bit of extra money. You can provide for your needs as you want, but you'll only spend about half of your waking hours away from your job. There isn't any vacation time, but you do have weekends free (usually). In this option you're not filthy rich, but for the most part you can buy what you want for what little time you have to yourself. Clothes, medium-end toys, foods, entertainments and automobiles are within relatively easy reach.
[/INDENT]Which would you choose, if given these parameters. you had to? Any thoughts? Which way would you go if you couldn't have both time and money?

Thanks

Both................................

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;168535 wrote:

Both................................

... wouldn't we all. But, say hypothetically you had to choose one or the other. C'mon... play along.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;168535 wrote:

Both................................

Neither.................................

@Khethil,

i used to live option 2, but i was frustrated and had no job satisfaction. now i live option 1, i don't work, but i don't have to, and i gotta say i'm happier. i ride my bike, i play chess, i hike. all those things are free. there is a downside, too much time on my hands does make me a bit off, and lack of purpose does make me feel off sometimes, but i'm getting used to it, and overall, i'm happier.

so...option 1.

@harlequin phil,

Im going with 2. I dont think I would spend much of my money on gadgets thoguh; maybe a laptop and car. The rest would be for necessities and saving up so I could do and read philosophy.

@Khethil,

Option one for me. I go to school for 35 hours a week, so 40-80 would be way too much. I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable.

@Khethil,

Khethil;168528 wrote:

Good morning,

If you had to choose between one of these two scenarios, which would it be? Which more accurately reflects your values and desires; those of a philosophical mind that's considered his or her existence?[INDENT]Option 1: You have your basic needs provided. You are given basic housing; but it's not fancy and requires work to keep up. You are also given sufficient sustenance; nutritionally sufficient but just sufficient. In this you have baseline health care insurance (with rather high deductibles), a vehicle (you can't go terribly far, but far enough for your basic needs). You haven't money for movies, travel, parties or toys (gadgetry, etc.), but you can occasionally snag a book. You also have basic television. In this option you have the vast majority of your time as your own.

Option 2: You work 40-80 hours a week and have quite a bit of extra money. You can provide for your needs as you want, but you'll only spend about half of your waking hours away from your job. There isn't any vacation time, but you do have weekends free (usually). In this option you're not filthy rich, but for the most part you can buy what you want for what little time you have to yourself. Clothes, medium-end toys, foods, entertainments and automobiles are within relatively easy reach.
[/INDENT]Which would you choose, if given these parameters. you had to? Any thoughts? Which way would you go if you couldn't have both time and money?

Thanks

All depends on the job. If I found it worthy of my time.
If I had a job that was 40-80 hours a week and I enjoyed it even better.
If I felt my place and job was worth something I would not care if I were paid bucket-loads, I would be happy of the purpose.
But would I turn down the extra money?
No I would not turn it down.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 10:15 PM ----------

I would be willing to spend all my time if I felt I was spending it well.
I would be willing to be paid for my time if I felt I had something well to spend it on.

@mister kitten,

mister kitten;168721 wrote:

Option one for me. I go to school for 35 hours a week, so 40-80 would be way too much. I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable.

Maybe you would be happy with option 2. It all depends. Option 2 doesnt say that you will be unhappy or miserable.

option 2 sounds like upper middle class living.

@Ding an Sich,

Ding_an_Sich;168734 wrote:

Maybe you would be happy with option 2. It all depends. Option 2 doesnt say that you will be unhappy or miserable.

option 2 sounds like upper middle class living.

Option one doesn't say I'll be happy either.
Maybe I'd rather be poor in general...
-------------------------------------edit
I'd rather have time. To spend time to make money while not having much time to enjoy the money is a waste of time.

@Khethil,

Khethil;168533 wrote:

Yea, Job Satisfaction is a HUGE factor - excellent point.

When ya like your job (or find it satisfying), it can obviously make up for a lot. Of course, 40 hours isn't SO bad, but the range is 40 to 80.

Thanks

Well, the question you are asking is: what is work worth? Right?

If I worked 80, I would probably be able to retire fairly young. At a slightly higher standard than option 1. I think that is the plan of most people who work 80, at least I hope so.

But I have a feeling that the meager subsistence of option 1 might very well lead to 30 or so hours a week of boredom--which is like a job already, hmm?

I do think that free time is undervalued compared to salary.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;168740 wrote:

Well, the question you are asking is: what is work worth? Right?

Yea, pretty much.

I ask others this as I was thinking about my own situation. Of course my view is tainted in that my head's filled with all the details of my lot; details when combined, brought me to the decision I made. Even so...

... I felt rather 'lucky' - in a philosophical sense - that life presented me with this option. Quite literally, it was "Lots of Money" -vs- "My Time is My Own"

I think it paradoxical that to attain so much of what we want in western society, one needs a lot money. Yet if you spend the time - career wise - to attain this money, you'll likely not have much time to enjoy those rewards.

The difference - Functionally - between a Want or Need often has no more difference than a perceived value to the person in question (this should be banal). But this is significant in that we put forth massive amounts of effort, expense and resource depletion towards what we see as a need. Over time, there comes the potential that we're sacrificing way too much for things that really aren't that important. I would not have know or discovered this had I not made the jump I did. Truth be told, I didn't see this 'revelation' coming - it caught me quite by surprise in many ways.

Working for someone else to get money to provide for your needs and wants is a reality of life for most (?) humans. I don't begrudge this; most organisms spend the largest chunk of their time attaining nutrition and shelter.

Even so, it feels "enslaving", as half of my waking hours - time being perhaps the most valuable and limited resource available to me - was being spent in labor doing something that was not of my choosing.

Long story short I was miserable (and have spoken of this before here). I often look back at my decision and re-examine how wise it was; or how its turned out (now after 2.5 years). I'm rather poor now; I live in a home that's not "nice" at all, but its quite clean and well kept. We can't ever eat out (including take out) but we don't go to bed hungry. Renting movies, going to movies, buying CDs or DVDs, recreational equipment, games, gadgets and traveling are all out; Completely off the Table. But we can TiVo television shows and have so-so internet. Its funny, I've never been in this good of shape physically (just because my wife and I keep busy working on the house, the yard, repairs, walks, etc.). I always thought that if I stopped working for a living, I'd get as fat as a house: Its actually turned out quite the opposite.

Still: It makes me think about others; what would they do had they this same choice? We've become so mired in the value of being productive to purchase things through working that sometimes I fear we've lose sight of the 'freedom' this has been purchased with: The freedom to choose what you do with your time.

I realize there are a lot of sides to this: many ups, down, advantages, disadvantages, pitfalls and mitigating circumstances. Notwithstanding: I believe it a value exercise to examine:[INDENT]1. How much of your life you're giving up for your necessities

2. How much of what you're buying is necessary or just wants

3. All these things we purchase having sold our time: Are they really that good or desirable?
[/INDENT]I keep coming back to something I read a while ago (and have referred to since): The simple life, in the U.S., left when we got the idea that electricity, appliances and automobiles were essential to every day life. When this happened, our lives changed inexorably in that these 'things' required "feeding" (utilities, insurance, gasoline, bills, etc.). This is fine since its the only course we know at present (I make no judgments here): Only that we examine just how much of the one irreplaceable resource we're spending for these things: Our time

Thanks for the indulgence folks

@harlequin phil,

harlequin;168612 wrote:

and i gotta say i'm happier. i ride my bike, i play chess, i hike. all those things are free.

Thank you.

.......

@Soul Brother,

Khethil--thanks for sharing. I've often thought about this subject myself.

Quote:

Still: It makes me think about others; what would they do had they this same choice? We've become so mired in the value of being productive to purchase things through working that sometimes I fear we've lose sight of the 'freedom' this has been purchased with: The freedom to choose what you do with your time.

It seems ludicrous on the face of it.

Think of having a car with which to drive to work, to the grocery store, to wherever. That is a huge leap up from not having a car. Any teenager who gets their first car knows that. It can be had rather cheaply. Not cheap but not that expensive. Now compare that to having a "luxury" car. What do you get for 6-10 times the money? What do you get for 6-10 times the amount of hours of your free time, your life? Very little.

I can feel the appeal of it. My guess is that people aren't trying to buy a better car, they are trying to buy happiness. Which is obviously worth 6-10 times the money. When people tie happiness and their personal identity/values into what they purchase, their spending shoots up.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Time or Money: Not Both

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Time or Money: Not Both

Quick Links

My Account

able2know