Skip to main content

The movie "In Time"

For a sci-fi movie set in 2169, "In Time" is remarkably similar to the choices we face today.



The premise

Future humans are genetically engineered to stop physically aging at 25. Then their life-clock (built into their forearm) starts counting down from 1 year. They'll die at 26 unless they add more time to their clock. As Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) describes it,
Time is now the currency. We earn it. We spend it.

While the wealthy have all the time they need, Will lives in the ghetto, where people "just want to wake up with more time than there are hours in the day" because when the clock reaches zero, that's it.

Spending Time

Characters earn extra time by getting paid or by passing it between people. They lose time as their clock ticks down or when they buy things.

So is a purchase worth the time lost? With less than a day on their life-clock is it worth giving up 4 minutes of life to pay for a coffee? Is it worth losing years of life to have a car?

Equally they have to be aware that time is constantly ticking away. Will tells his friends he doesn't "have time to gamble" (anymore). Though he used to win, the winnings don't make up for the time lost in the game.

Henry Hamilton

Henry has over 100 years on his clock. He laments to Will that "there are men with a million years while most live day to day". Realising there's more than enough for everyone, he wants to give away his time.

His question to Will, "If you had as much time as I had, what would you do with it?" is important. Will's answer impresses him and he leaves Will with a century.

"What would you do with it?"

Will gives 10 years to his friend Borel. We later find out that Borel used it to drink himself to death. Borel's wife understandably berates Will for giving him so much time.

It's one things to have the time to spend. It's another to spend it wisely.
(Sidenote: In the real life virus shutdown, many of us have more time on our hands, and alcohol sales have gone up 30%.)

Time zone travel

At one point Will travels from the ghetto to one of the wealthier areas. To cross the border he has to give up a whole year. In the movie this seemed an outrageous cost to be in a nicer area. But then I think of today's property prices. To buy into a 'prestigious' area could easily cost a year's salary or more.

Back to reality

So much of this applies to real life. In theory we pay for things with money, but that money often comes from giving up hours, days or years of our life to work.

Even our daily coffees or takeaway meals can add up to a 6-figure sum. That's a lot of free time wiped off our clock (and transferred to our employer's clock).

Our savings and investments are the opposite. As they grow, we're adding extra years of free time into our lives. A day's wage saved today could grow into a week. A week into a month, a couple of months into a year.

As in the movie, the system does favour the already wealthy. However, most of us have the opportunity to make wiser decisions and become more time-rich. Whether or not we do so is up to us.

Related reading

My day planner for extra home-time during 2020.
Work Optional - this book looks at getting to the point of not having to work, and what to do when you get there.
Time and How to Spend It - how to better spend our time to enjoy it more.
How to waste a year's wages - Do the opposite of this, but it shows how easy it is for a year's effort to slip through our fingers.
More articles about spending

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to waste a year's wages

A friend recently asked me why it is that so many people (on good incomes) are struggling to save. Often the big three money areas are housing, transport and food. In one sense these are necessary items. But what we spend on them is often way more than necessary. I crunched some numbers on how much extra my wife and I could spend on these things - if for some reason we wanted to burn our money. 1. Housing Our apartment is fairly nice, but also cost-effective. I've mentioned how choosing it saves us $1,800 per year , compared to a similar one we saw. The high end of 2-bedroom apartments in our suburb is $305 per week more than our apartment. Not $305 per week. $305 per week more than ours is. I cannot get over that. Sure it's new and modern-looking, but that's a lot of money. It's an extra $15,860 per year above what we pay. 2. Transport The Australian Automobile Association lists the costs of owning and running a car. It includes many often-overlooked c

Don't dump on charities

Netflix causes mass dumping. Here's an alternative. January is usually a big month for physical donations to charity. In 2019 it's been over-the-top (literally) as charity donation bins have been overflowing with items. The Netflix series "Tidying Up" by famous declutterer Marie Kondo (see her book ) has inspired many to declutter their homes. But in the process they've cluttered the streets. What's so bad about donating? When the bins overflow the extra items are thrown away. Having been in the weather, the rain and on the ground, they are classified as contaminated and cannot be sold. To make it worse, much of what fills the bins is not good enough to sell, and is also dumped. Bad donations hurt charities 13 million dollars. That's how much it costs charities to deal with all the junk we dump on them - 60,000 tonnes a year. Lifeline says half its stores have stopped accepting donations. We might think we're helping, but that's a lot

This could all be yours

This cartoon kind of happened to me on the weekend. Joking about death My dad has his own unique sense of humour. Flippantly he joked that when he passes away, the first thing I'll need to do is get a rubbish skip (maybe two) and jam it full with all the junk from the garage. I was reminded of Marie Kondo, who says in her book that we have to deal with items either now or later; so it might as well be now. For people who have retired, I guess there's a third option: Ignore it for a few more decades and let descendants deal with it. Don't get me wrong - my dad has plenty of years left yet. But from his joke I'm guessing he's reasonably happy to let it all sit there while he enjoys retired life. Why not deal with it? I can kind of understand. It's an overwhelming task (even to look at). There's also the "I might need that" factor. Which is fair enough, but even if an item is needed, is it findable in amongst everything else? About half the