[burnoutgal]

Do you worry about being hit by a bus before you have FU money? Personally I'd rather work half time for twice as many years than try to race to retire.

A lot of responses seem to be focused on high cost-of-living areas, which is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If you want to be a moderately checked out person, living in a smaller city and stretching your giant bay area salary is the way to go. If you want to be aggressively careerist, you have to be face-to-face in the bay networking.

More input and more interesting problems both feel like more responsibility for the same comp, imo, which might be appealing for some people but is anathema to me. The people higher up got there by being more argumentative, or backstabbing, or ingratiating themselves, and instead of going along with them now you get to fight them. No thanks.

[bluGill]

My todo list will keep me busy until I'm 3000 years old. I might not be hit by a bus, but I have no reason to think I will ever get to the end of that list. Money can buy things required for the list that are not on the list, but I have to work to get them. In many cases I spend less time working then I would just doing it. I could make a canoe from scrap wood and row to New Zealand, but in a week at work I get enough money to pay for a plane ticket, while paddling across the ocean would take months (people have taking canoes across the ocean so I know it is possible - though I'm not sure how risky it is)

[sokoloff]

I’d rather work twice as many hours per year for half as many years. It’s not that one choice is obviously dominant over the other across all people.

[ryandrake]

Yes, given "getting hit by a bus" is a probabilistic event that is independent of my working hours, I would rather make 2x for half as many years, all other things being equal. I'd also rather make 3x for a third as many years, and so on, if it were possible. Given time value of money and compounding interest, it's always better to front load your working time and make Nx for 1/N as much calendar time worked.

And for the controversial part: The above is why I think it's insane to, for example, take 1-2 years of not working, early in your 20s, to go see the world and "find yourself." Those 1-2 years, if spent earning, could mean retiring an extra 3-6 years earlier.

[sokoloff]

I agree with your conclusion, but I think there’s a fair argument to say that an extra week of leisure in your 20s is worth more than an extra week of leisure in your 50s or 60s. That is even more true if you’re working 48 weeks/year in your 20s and zero weeks in your 60s.

[happimess]

I think it's insane to, for example, work at an office early in your 20s, to put a couple grand in your 401(k). Those 1-2 years, if spent exploring, could mean finding a happier and more thoughtful way to progress through the latter 70% of your life.

[spacemadness]

I think this points out a difference in viewing everything in life as an efficiency problem focused on retirement age and overall wealth. Makes sense for a forum of engineers to see it this way I suppose.

[ZephyrBlu]

Early on the money is probably the least important part. Momentum seems like a lot more important.

If you finish uni and take 1-2yrs off, that puts you wayyy behind someone who goes straight into a job. If you take 1-2yrs off your knowledge won't be fresh and you'll not really be a new grad anymore.

[burnoutgal]

"getting hit for a bus" is a hyperbolic example meant to stand in for a catastrophic event. It really means you (or a family member like a parent, partner or child) has a major health event, for instance. Some things are random, some things tend to become more likely with age. Even just chronic pain or other health issues might make retirement less fun than travelling in your 20s (speaking as someone with chronic pain from surgical implants).

Besides health there's a lot of reasons why being certain about doing something now might be preferable to putting it off for 10+ years.

[Hermitian909]

> Do you worry about being hit by a bus before you have FU money?

No. I don't work that hard, and my work is generally enjoyable, I've made a lot of good friends, and get to live in the area I grew up in near my family.

> A lot of responses seem to be focused on high cost-of-living areas

Well, my response was to a poster asking "why do you care about making more if you make 200k?" and the answer for some people making that amount of money is that they are only able to find work paying 200k+ in a high COL area.

> More input and more interesting problems both feel like more responsibility for the same comp

The thing driving more interesting problems and more input is a title bump, which in my neck of the woods means a 50% or greater pay bump, so I would say that's not for the same comp. Whether it's more responsibility is variable, but I know engineers two levels above senior who more or less have the same responsibilities as a senior engineer except their project is "harder" and more important to the company (this does not mean the more senior engineer is actually working more hours though).

Perhaps a meta point here is also useful. Once you're senior, most engineering work available is not interesting and does not help you grow as an engineer. Engineering work that helps you grow as an engineer often makes you more valuable. Companies usually give interesting work to their best engineers. If you can quickly climb the ladder to where your job feeds you interesting work you can enter into a "winners-win-more" sort of feedback loop. This is a strong incentive to front-load your career growth by working really hard for your first decade in industry (or at least years 5-10).