11–20 of 300 posts
That’s a fun grey area where you’re making a lot but not a lot. And the path to making more is paved with leverage, not with hours. You absolutely cannot get to the top 1% by just grinding away.
I can’t find the study right now, but I remember reading that “work for money” tops out at about $400k. The highest average income in USA goes to car wash owners.
So nowhere near the top 10% of income earners. The real top earners don't do much traditional "work", instead earning money thorough investment and/or family income streams. I would also quibble with the definition of "work", as many activities of top earners would not be considered work by the majority of people. I've been to my fair share of "conferences" that we attendees considered work but looked very much like vacation time to the people serving us drinks at the bar.
> Since this group already put in longer hours than the typical U.S. worker—and women at the highest income levels—these high earners had longer work days to trim > Before the pandemic, Eli Albrecht, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., area, says he worked between 80 to 90 hours a week. Now, he says he puts in 60 to 70 hours each week Key lines from the article, which give important context and invert what many people'…
We’re exhausted and there’s little real upside. Makes sense to me to cut back.
Agree. I used to work 60+ hours to make a huge impact on my firm and our revenue. Now I am like fuck it. Down to 30.
We’re exhausted and there’s little real upside. Makes sense to me to cut back.
Agree. I used to work 60+ hours to make a huge impact on my firm and our revenue. Now I am like fuck it. Down to 30.
A lot of people in the medical field (of both genders) I know cut back their hours once they can control their schedule in private practice - if you're still going to be making 3-5x of what would be considered a good salary working 50-75% of whatever is considered full time (usually in the 30-35 hours a week range), it just makes sense. Then again, this applies less to technology and other knowledge work where it's h…
It’s definitely a trade off—work more hours to advance more quickly and make more money—but working 60 to 80 hours per week is cutting your effective hourly wage by 25 to 50 percent.
A search for “statistically significant” yielded no results. So why am I not to assume, especially given the source, that this is more of that “Americans are lazier and less productive” thing that plays out daily in right-leaning media?
> "High-earning men in the 25-to-39 age range who could be described as “workaholics” were pulling back, often by choice" This seems like great news. I know several guys who've recently opted to earn less in exchange for more time off at home with their young kids. They are happier and the kids love it.