Skip to main content

Weekend Do-over

A friend shared this on social media.


My first reaction was "of course you can". I do that every weekend. I work Wednesday to Friday. So Monday and Tuesday are my 'second weekend'.

Sadly though, not all employers offer 3-day-a-week jobs. And it is sad.

Sub-consciously we realise that we are spending a lot of time working and not so much time enjoying the benefits of that work.

As a result we start to resent the work that we do (even though it's our chosen line of work) because it takes up so much of our time.

Sometimes the standard weekend is barely enough to recuperate from a stressful week and catch up on household chores and then it's back to work again.

We hunger for more time to actually live life and enjoy it.

So how can we do it?

1. Hope that employers realise this great opportunity. Offering a diversity of work options can help them compete for the best employees. Working 3 days per week is also more productive.

2. Team up. Where I used to work there was a pair of people who actually applied for their job as a pair - each working 2.5 days per week. Again this relies on the employer being smart enough to realise that they are getting two brains for the price of one.

3. Take breaks between jobs. If we're in the position to do so, sometimes a break between jobs (kind of like a mini-gap year) can be a good opportunity to escape the grind and enjoy life. So many of us don't use up our annual leave. That pay-out can help you have some time-off at the end.

4. Set your own hours. If you're self-employed you can sometimes set your own hours. A tradesman was recently telling me how he moved to four days per week to spend more time at home with his kids.

5. Be more selective with spending our money. Most of these options also mean getting by on less income than before. But do we really need that much money for a good life? That's a question worth asking.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Adam ruins work

The TV show Adam Ruins Everything took a look at the workplace - and the 40 hour work week. It confirms my thoughts that the 40-hour work week (or at least it's relevance today) is a figment of our imagination. Very enlightening. Watch it now . The first 7 minutes are the most relevant. There were some astonishing stats coming out of it. For example, we spend only 45% of the work week doing our actual job (not including meetings etc). That's about 18 hours per week. Interestingly, that's what experts predicted. With rises in productivity, the 1950s brought talk of a 4-day work week. By 2030 they reckoned we might work just 15 hours per week. But instead we work longer hours. That results in more mistakes and safety mishaps. It also reduces brain function. We might think that it's being productive but Adam points to countries that have as much prosperity as America while working much shorter hours. A classic case of 'less is more'. PS. for the basis of ...

My mug shot

This is every mug I own. How many did I buy? Zero. They seem to just appear. I don't even drink tea or coffee. In winter I have might have a hot chocolate or cocoa. So 9 mugs seems like a lot. How does this happen? I reckon most mugs are gifts. There are two reasons for this. 1. It's a safe bet. People need to drink. It's kind of like buying your dad socks for father's day. But the difference is that socks wear out and need replacing. Cups don't. One of these mugs i received as a kid in the 90s. It still works fine. Now it has 8 friends. 2. It's often for what's on the mug. It might be a greeting card-style message, or a sports team logo, or something humorous. It's a good thing that something functional can also provide an inspiring message or pleasant memory as you use it. But the problem comes when we have too much. If I use the cup my sister gave me at Christmas, then I'm not using the 'awesome brother' one she already gave m...

Investing Less, Earning More

Could investing $13,000 be better than investing $70,000? In this case, the answer seems to be yes. In Making Money Made Simple , Noel Whittaker compares two hypothetical investors: Person 1: Invests $ 1,000 a year from age 18-30. Person 2: Invests $ 2,000 a year from age 30-65. You might think that person 2 would be better off, but here's how it goes (in chart form): Person 1 stops investing at 30, but their investment keeps growing. At that point, person 1's yearly growth is more than person 2's yearly contribution. That's why person 2 never catches up. Person 1 ends up about $ 150,000 ahead, despite investing about one-fifth of what the person 2 invested. What if growth isn't so good? These calculations assume 10% growth. What if it isn't that high? Fair point. I've run the numbers at lower rates of growth. At 9%, person 1 is still better off. At 8% it's close, and person 2 comes out slightly ahead. But that's not really the poin...