So depressing......

accountingsucks

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
346
Today I figured out how much time I spend at work during my waking hours:

Assume on average a 10 hour workday (this includes my time travelling to work) for 225 days per year calculated as 12 months X 21 days a month - 27 days for vacation and stat holidays = 2250 hours per year.

Waking hours are 16 hours X 365 days = 5840 hrs

Percentage of time at work = 39%

uggghhhhhhh
 
You remember that old joke "doctor it hurts when I do -this-" (wag your arm funny)

"Then stop doing that!".

So...STOP DOING THAT!
 
Jennifer 8 said:
You remember that old joke "doctor it hurts when I do -this-" (wag your arm funny)

"Then stop doing that!".

So...STOP DOING THAT!

Nice to say in theory but it's not really possible if I want to meet my goal of retiring before 50 (I am 30 now). Also I think these numbers are average for anyone working nowadays.
 
accountingsucks said:
Nice to say in theory but it's not really possible if I want to meet my goal of retiring before 50 (I am 30 now).  Also I think these numbers are average for anyone working nowadays. 

Good point, and I think I have seen it discussed before. Do you work for X number years at a good paying job you don't like to get ER or as an alternative find work you enjoy that may not pay as well. My wife is a teacher and is really not all that interested in things financial. She is willing to live simply and expected to teach to a very old age. She is retiring in June at 58 courtesy of a fully employed husband. But she will probably "work" just as hard in volunteer teaching jobs.
I'm somewhere in between. I don't love my job but I do like it. And it doesn't pay great (Fed govt) but it pays OK. So I have made a decision I am satisfied with.
But I would find it very hard to work for very long in a job I really disliked even if it paid very well.
 
Perhaps. In most of the cases I've seen of overwork, the driver was the employee who felt that they were the only ones who could do the work, or that they'd lose their job if they didnt do twice the work for half the money.

Someone else can do it. And if you have to work 40% of your life in exchange for a 40 hour salary, perhaps a new job isnt that bad of an idea...

But if you're convinced this is the best and fastest way to your objectives, good luck!
 
4 years ago I was working 12-14 hour days at work...not counting 45 minute commute each way and an additional 2-3 hours a night working at home. Add in a few Saturdays and enough stress to kill a person and you have a toxic and potentially fatal situation. I made my choice. Instead of sticking it out to age 55 I got out on a special early retirement at 50.

If I were still there I would be dead. I am working in a similar field but in a different city, state and company. My next ER is July 31, 2007 of sooner depending on how I feel about w*rk in a given day. I paid a high price to get to FI by age 50 starting deep in a well of debt only 10 years before I had my life-changing epiphany.

Sure you have to save for FIRE but as CFB said, you don't have to kill yourself getting there. If you can find a less stressful job even if it pays less (like I did) you may have to w*rk a little longer but you will surely live longer and be happier while you are working. I used to think I had to stick it out to get the best pension I could expect by working until 55. The problem was the caustic environment and the high expectation for lots of hours with very little additional incentive (no more $$$) for doing so.

You can do both, you can still save for ER and be happier in your job. It is not an either-or situation. Sure I make less that I did before by over 20% but my work life is so much less stressful most of the time. It was worth it for me.
 
my philosophy is simple.

those who work until they drop are "crazy and stupid".

back in the old country, seems like everyone retired at 50. how and why? live a simple live, u can almost live only 30-50% of your income if materials stuffs is unimportant to you.

enuff

my 2 cents
 
accountingsucks said:
Today I figured out how much time I spend at work during my waking hours:

Assume on average a 10 hour workday  (this includes my time travelling to work) for 225 days per year calculated as 12 months X 21 days  a month - 27 days for vacation and stat holidays = 2250 hours per year. 

Waking hours are 16 hours X 365 days = 5840 hrs

Percentage of time at work = 39%

uggghhhhhhh

I agree with your name. Accounting sucks.  :(
 
I agreed with Ronald Reagan on very few things.

One of which, when he said:


Hard work never killed anybody, but why take the chance.


:D
 
Funny, it's all a matter of perstpective, I was thinking just yesterday that starting next year I get 5 weeks off from work, and adding that to weekends (104 days + 25 days) gives me a third of the year off! I'm almost semi-retired now!

I agree with others, find a job you like, even if it extends the re date a couple years. I can't imagine working something that held no interest to me.
 
Feel very lucky. If you were born in Asia you would be working much harder.

I just vacationed in Thailand and would see girls (like 12-14) working stands (selling fruits/comics/gum, etc). They would be there at 6am and when I was going back to my hotel at 11pm, day after day after day - standing - they never sat down. On Sundays they cut out early at 5pm. Not sure how long after11pm they were there. I did not want to know and wanted to forget but your 39% ugg post brought that memory back.

39% is not that bad.
 
SteveR said:
....Sure I make less that I did before by over 20% but my work life is so much less stressful most of the time. It was worth it for me.

Steve,

You might be making more now if you included the extra hours and weekends for the previous job.

Spanky
 
I've done that same calculation in explaining to starry-eyed, newly-minted lawyers who never seem to get it. They see the $125k+ salary they're going to get, without taking into account the number of hours required to get it. In the end, they're actually making about $45 an hour. Those who worked before going to law school see that number and realize they were making more per hour in their prior careers. At that point, they look very depressed. :(
 
Spanky said:
Steve,

You might be making more now if you included the extra hours and weekends for the previous job.

Spanky

I would agree that my hourly rate has gone up. :D

But real income has sadly gone down. :(

Since I have no way to modify my income to my hours worked (paid extra hours) it does not matter how many hours it takes to do the job. The pay is the same.

The benefit is obvously in the quantity of my personal life hours that are now mine and not the company's. :D
 
Jay_Gatsby said:
I've done that same calculation in explaining to starry-eyed, newly-minted lawyers who never seem to get it.  They see the $125k+ salary they're going to get, without taking into account the number of hours required to get it.  In the end, they're actually making about $45 an hour.  Those who worked before going to law school see that number and realize they were making more per hour in their prior careers.  At that point, they look very depressed.  :(

Depressed about $45 an hour? That's 3 times more than I make. I work 37% of my life and i'm not sitting in front of a computer, I'm actually working. I'm standing on cement wearing steel-toed work boots in a factory for 12 hrs/day for 40k/yr. Only 30 years left ::)
 
aaronc879 said:
Depressed about $45 an hour? That's 3 times more than I make. I work 37% of my life and i'm not sitting in front of a computer, I'm actually working. I'm standing on cement wearing steel-toed work boots in a factory for 12 hrs/day for 40k/yr. Only 30 years left   ::)

My hat's off to the blue collar working man. :)

On the other hand, the folks I've spoken with are older law students (e.g., 30-35 years old) who borrowed $100k+ to get their law degrees. One would think that after 4 years of college, 3 years of law school, a prior career, and the maturity from a little life experience, that they'd be worth more than $45/hr. The firm bills them out at $250/hr and they see less than 20% of that at the end of the day.
 
For a 40 hr week, which I'll bet they are billing more, that is $93,600 a year plus benifits. Not bat for a 30 year old! My guess the remaining $205 an hour goes for such things as rent, employees, advertising, political contributions and yes a health cut to the senior partners who built the law firm and take the majority of the financial risk.
 
Rustic23 said:
For a 40 hr week, which I'll bet they are billing more, that is $93,600 a year plus benifits. Not bat for a 30 year old! My guess the remaining $205 an hour goes for such things as rent, employees, advertising, political contributions and yes a health cut to the senior partners who built the law firm and take the majority of the financial risk.

It's a very healthy cut. The usual rule of thumb is 1/3 -- 1/3 -- 1/3. That is, 1/3 to the associate, 1/3 to overhead, and the remaining 1/3 to the partners as profit. However, $45 doesn't quite equal 1/3 of $250 (that would actually be almost double, namely, $83/hr). The $45/hr figure takes into account that roughly 75%-80% of a young lawyer's time is billable, with the rest written off as either non-collectible or non-billable (even then the share to the associate should be $66/hr).

As for $93k/yr being not bad for a 30-year old, you're right. But add in the average law school graduate's debt of $85k (which works out to $775/month for 15 years), along with the costs of supporting a family, mortgage, cars, etc... and it's not as nice a salary as you might think.
 
As for $93k/yr being not bad for a 30-year old, you're right. But add in the average law school graduate's debt of $85k (which works out to $775/month for 15 years), along with the costs of supporting a family, mortgage, cars, etc... and it's not as nice a salary as you might think.

What is the appropriate compensation? Should it be based on number of years of training or the amount of money spent on the education?

Here are some numbers on college debts for graduate studies according to this article (http://www.nelliemae.com/library/research_10.html):

“Students attending graduate school borrow, on average, an additional $31,700 beyond their undergraduate borrowing, an increase of 51% since 1997. The median debt level for graduate school borrowing is $23,700, an increase of 72% since 1997. Those borrowing for professional study, particularly law and medicine, drive up the average graduate level of borrowing. Law and medical student borrowers report an average accumulated debt from all years (undergraduate and graduate study) of $91,700 while the average combined debt for all graduate students is $45,900.”

If pay is based on the years of spent in education, a PHD graduate should receive the same pay as a lawyer, doctor or dentist. It may be true that a person with a PHD makes more than a person with a BS degree in the same field. However, a person with an MBA from a prestigious college will make a lot more than a person with a PHD. This suggests that the correlation between pay and level and education is low despite countless studies indicate the contrary. Pay or compensation is solely dependent on what the job market is willing to bear. It has nothing to do with how much money, efforts, or sacrifices one have to endure to get the job.

People will always complain that they are not receiving adequate pay commensurate with their experience or education. Doctors will say that they should deserve higher pay because of the years of training, the level of college debts incurred, the low pay during residency, the longs hours, time away from their families. That’s silly. If they ever thought that the compensation isn’t worth the time and effort, they would not have entered medical school or simply have discontinued the pursuit albeit some physicians are truly passionate about medicine and oblivious about the pay.

The bottom line is that pay is based on supply and demand. As long as society depends on the legal means or litigation to resolve conflicts as more complicated or conflicting laws are enacted, the demand for lawyers will continue to rise and therefore the compensation for the legal profession will accelerate accordingly. This is also true for all other professions that are in demand, i.e., doctors, dentists, money managers, top athletes, talented performing artists, gifted managers and so on.
 
Spanky said:
The bottom line is that pay is based on supply and demand.

Well put. Just because one chooses to spend a fortune on school does not mean they are entitled to recouping that expense. Supply and demand determines the wage in the work place. Starting teachers are making more now than 50 years ago, why, smaller class size, more opportunities for women in the work force, the historic source for teachers, thus increase demand. Could it be there are too many lawyers and supply and demand is working? There are pilots in the airline industry that do not have college degrees, they have been there for 30 years, they fly really big jets, and are very well compensated.
 
Paying huge bucks to get a degree from MIT in underwater basket weaving will not pay any better than getting one from Whatsamatter U.

Like the others have said..it is not the schools so much as the demand for your degree. The exceptions would be law firms, business executives, and maybe surgeons, plus a few others here and there.

If you get a degree in an area that has a glut of workers with few openings you are not going to get an above average wage. If you pick a career that has lots of jobs but no one to fill them then you can punch your own ticket.

Disclaimer: Exceptions are the rule to every example.
 
I haven't had a chance to check the responses until today to my post, but I'm kinda surprised that people are saying this is a lot of hours.

I get in at 8 AM and work until about 5 and I work through lunches. This gets me to 9 hours a day and I estimated that I put in about 20 hours of OT a month, so I added an hour to round out to 10 hours a day. Are most people at a job putting in much less than this? If you were all to work out the math I'm sure your numbers would be just as high in terms of time spent at work. Also, I get 3 weeks vacation whereas many take 1 or 2 weeks off per year rather than 3.

My current job has much less OT than my old job and that is why I left. I generally only have to work OT one day a month when I close the books for a large publicly traded company and that takes about 14 hours on a Saturday, plus I put in some other OT at year end and at quarter ends..........besides that I have no OT. I normally also get a day off in lieu for doing the month end close.

Also I don't really hate my job, but I don't really like it either. It's simply a paycheque to me and I truly do not have the motivation to climb the ranks to make more money for some additional stress as I feel I am fairly well compensated at my supervisor level.
 
So the the original post by accoutingsucks is accountingsucks before coffee, and the last post by accountingsucks is accountingsucks after coffee? :)

I'd say that accounting is a heck of a lot easier way up the corporate ladder than engineering. In accounting, your work (if it's good) gets noticed by important people. In engineering, your work (if it's good) gets noticed by fellow nerds who have little pull.
 
Back
Top Bottom