Increase of pay to relieve cost of living pressure
Decrease in work hours (but not pay) to increase your work/life balance
I know for me it’s the latter but that comes from a position where cost of living, while putting a bit of pressure on me financially, isn’t my biggest concern. I’ve lived frugally before and can do that but seeing my hours slip away while companies make big profits off of my work isn’t fun.
On average, I’d guess it’d be 2 for most people who already got into the property market and are comfortable with what they have. 1 for people who are starting out/trying to buy things.
I’d rather the prices of things stopped getting insane so we didn’t have to try to keep up with huge pay rises though, in general. I don’t know how the world can turn this around and things can get better. All of the systems around the world are effectively just ‘made up’ so I feel like the world as a single unit could just decide to make it a better place for most at the expense of annoying those profiting most from the current system, but that’s some John Lennon Imagine style daydreaming and I think the days of things being good for the masses is over and just going to get worse.
I would love for the highest paid in a company to have their wage proportional to the lowest wage (ie. 30x), enshrined in law, so there is still motive for increasing profit but it benefits everyone.
At the moment I’d go with increased pay. Not so much for cost of living pressures, but to put towards retirement which will give me a really good work/life balance by cutting out the work aspect entirely.
Increase in pay. I mean I’d love to be able to work 4 days a week, but I think money is my main issue. The only thing work/life balance would achieve is I’m not spending an extra $20 to go to and from work.
Same here although I’d love it if the profits made by the company were evenly distributed downwards to all of us, especially us at the bottom of the ladder.
(I know this is from yesterday but thought I would reply anyway - sorry for the lateness)
That whole life admin piece is the real kicker, huh? Especially when family is to be considered - whether it’s older or younger family members, those that need that little bit of extra time (as in, anyone that isn’t fully independent) really does end up chewing into the other time you would use to do things like, you know, live life. That’s what I don’t understand about a lot of the debates going on around the world where the birthrate is dropping - people don’t feel they have the adequate time to raise a family. Couple it with the other side of the sandwich where you also have to help out older family members who aren’t nearly as independent as they were when we were younger, and suddenly you’re caught in the middle.
At this point I’m going with 2 because of burnout and I’ve long since given up on the idea of buying property - my time and sanity is more important atm. As long as I can cover my basic expenses I’m fine. For me, part of cost of living pressures come from discretionary expenses borne out of the stress of FT work; in some way I can save money doing PT hours by accessing cheaper and more sustainable improvements in well being.
It’s a fine balance though. Depends a lot on the actual $ offered and the nature of the job
If you had the choice, what would you go for:
I know for me it’s the latter but that comes from a position where cost of living, while putting a bit of pressure on me financially, isn’t my biggest concern. I’ve lived frugally before and can do that but seeing my hours slip away while companies make big profits off of my work isn’t fun.
On average, I’d guess it’d be 2 for most people who already got into the property market and are comfortable with what they have. 1 for people who are starting out/trying to buy things.
I’d rather the prices of things stopped getting insane so we didn’t have to try to keep up with huge pay rises though, in general. I don’t know how the world can turn this around and things can get better. All of the systems around the world are effectively just ‘made up’ so I feel like the world as a single unit could just decide to make it a better place for most at the expense of annoying those profiting most from the current system, but that’s some John Lennon Imagine style daydreaming and I think the days of things being good for the masses is over and just going to get worse.
Yay now I’m sad.
I would love for the highest paid in a company to have their wage proportional to the lowest wage (ie. 30x), enshrined in law, so there is still motive for increasing profit but it benefits everyone.
At the moment I’d go with increased pay. Not so much for cost of living pressures, but to put towards retirement which will give me a really good work/life balance by cutting out the work aspect entirely.
its all a balancing act I guess. I’d absolutely take 2, but not if its going to increase financial stress.
Increase in pay. I mean I’d love to be able to work 4 days a week, but I think money is my main issue. The only thing work/life balance would achieve is I’m not spending an extra $20 to go to and from work.
My work/life balance is pretty good at the moment, so I’ll take the extra $$$ all day.
Same here although I’d love it if the profits made by the company were evenly distributed downwards to all of us, especially us at the bottom of the ladder.
I’d take the increase pay first if I had a choice then move to better work life balance once things were better.
I think being away from work more could increase expenses whether that be by utilities or going out.
Probably 2. I had a pay rise not long ago but family circumstances mean I think I’m going to need more time for life admin.
(I know this is from yesterday but thought I would reply anyway - sorry for the lateness)
That whole life admin piece is the real kicker, huh? Especially when family is to be considered - whether it’s older or younger family members, those that need that little bit of extra time (as in, anyone that isn’t fully independent) really does end up chewing into the other time you would use to do things like, you know, live life. That’s what I don’t understand about a lot of the debates going on around the world where the birthrate is dropping - people don’t feel they have the adequate time to raise a family. Couple it with the other side of the sandwich where you also have to help out older family members who aren’t nearly as independent as they were when we were younger, and suddenly you’re caught in the middle.
Thankyou for this thoughtful and well considered comment… it encapsulates it all in a very familiar way!
At this point I’m going with 2 because of burnout and I’ve long since given up on the idea of buying property - my time and sanity is more important atm. As long as I can cover my basic expenses I’m fine. For me, part of cost of living pressures come from discretionary expenses borne out of the stress of FT work; in some way I can save money doing PT hours by accessing cheaper and more sustainable improvements in well being.
It’s a fine balance though. Depends a lot on the actual $ offered and the nature of the job