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

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...