- March 4th, 2024, 5:19 pm
#457455
If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.
Right now, if someone offered to give me literally a billion dollars, but to have it I would need to work 50 hours per week every week for the next ten years, I would say no.
I'd rather have that 50 hours per week than have the billion dollars.
(Needless to say, the exception of course would be if the "work" I was getting paid to do is something I would do anyway, because that's functionally equal to getting paid for nothing and working 0 hours to make that money. Instead, the idea is that you are selling yourself into a quasi-slavery in which you let someone else use your body/time/labor to do with it something you absolutely would not do it if you were not being paid the amount you are paid.)
For reference, a billion dollars for 50 hours per week for 10 years works out to an hourly rate of $38,461 USD. That's over thirty-eight thousands dollars per hour worked. But I would absolutely confidently turn down such an offer in an instant. That is, assuming I am not allowed to work less hours per week or quit the job partway through (at least without giving up the billion dollars). I might work one hour per week at the $38,461 USD per hour rate, but I definitely would not commit to work 50 per week at that rate. In other words, there's an increasing marginal rate to the value of my time as I sell more of it for money. I'm also extremely confident in my ability and tendency to increase my skills and earning potential over time, such that I would sell an hour of my time today for less than I would pre-sell an hour of my time in 5 or 10 years. In other words, I am confident that the market value of an hour of my time will continue to increase exponentially year over year like it has for the past decade.
There is no single right answer that applies for everyone if given that choice. There's several factors at play in that kind of decision, most notably the following two factors:
(1) how much you currently make per hour of work and how much you predict to make per hour of work over the next ten years. For example, if you get paid only $5 per hour and already work 50+ hours per week at that rate, and predict that you will still only be getting paid $5 per hour and still working 50+ hours at that low rate in ten years, then it would become effectively a no-brainier to accept the offer, as you'd be working the same hours but making way more money per hour. Likewise, in a contrasting example, if you are getting paid a $50,000 dollars per hour worked currently, and predict you will continue to get paid that much per hour worked, then it would be a no-brainer to refuse the offer because you would only be losing money if you took it. However, most people are in the middle where it isn't a no-brainer to go either way but rather a choice between having much more money but much less time or (potentially) much more time but less money.
(2) how much someone values their time, especially roughly speaking in terms of what's called "free time". There's a reason some people retire early while others who have just as much money and are just as able to afford it don't. Some people prefer to be richer, busier, and more stressed while others prefer to give up some (or a lot of) financial riches to enjoy a more retiree-like lifestyle. Again, there's no wrong easier; it's just a matter of personal preference, like preferring peanut butter sandwiches to tuna fish or vice versa.
For me personally, the only reason I'd be interested in a billion dollars (e.g. pick up a billion dollar bill off the ground rather than walk past it) is because of the fact that time is money and thus I can use that billion dollars to preserve or buy more time for myself, namely in terms of (1) not having to work for money to live and in terms of (2) being able to delegate more easily by paying other people to do work, chores, and tasks that I would otherwise spend time doing. For instance, with a billion dollars I would never spend another minute doing my own laundry ever again, since I could so easily pay someone else to do it even if I had to go way above typical market rates to do it.
If I have to sell 50 hours per week over ten years to get the billion dollars, that defeats the purpose. It would be worse than self-defeating actually: it would be counter-productive. I'd be forfeiting any chance of getting 50 hours per week back anytime within the next 10 years.
That 50 hours per week (26,000 hours over 10 years) is worth wayyyyy more to me than a billion dollars.
What about you? This is not a rhetorical question because we all have different situations and different priorities, and likewise there is no wrong answer. It's just a matter of what you want and prefer, in addition to the other unique aspects of your personal situation. So with that said, I curiously and poltely ask, if today you were given the one-time opportunity to take a job that would pay you one billion dollars upfront but you had to work 50 hours every week for the next 10 years (26,000 hours total) without the option to quit or work less, would you do it?
To make the math easier for you, that would be a rate of $38,461 USD per hour, meaning you would be getting paid $38,461 per hour to take the job, but you would have to work a full 50 hours every week for the next 10 years. Quitting or working less would not be an option. What would you choose and why?
With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott
---
Money is something we have to invent, like inches.
So, you remember the Great Depression when there was a slump? And what did we have a slump of? Money. There was no less wealth, no less energy, no less raw materials than there were before. But it’s like you came to work on building a house one day and they said, “Sorry, you can’t build this house today, no inches.”
“What do you mean no inches?”
“Just inches! We’ve got lumber, yes, we’ve got metal, we’ve even got tape measures, but there’s a slump in inches as such."
---
- Alan Watts
USD.jpg (125.24 KiB) Viewed 2469 times
---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.
Right now, if someone offered to give me literally a billion dollars, but to have it I would need to work 50 hours per week every week for the next ten years, I would say no.
I'd rather have that 50 hours per week than have the billion dollars.
(Needless to say, the exception of course would be if the "work" I was getting paid to do is something I would do anyway, because that's functionally equal to getting paid for nothing and working 0 hours to make that money. Instead, the idea is that you are selling yourself into a quasi-slavery in which you let someone else use your body/time/labor to do with it something you absolutely would not do it if you were not being paid the amount you are paid.)
For reference, a billion dollars for 50 hours per week for 10 years works out to an hourly rate of $38,461 USD. That's over thirty-eight thousands dollars per hour worked. But I would absolutely confidently turn down such an offer in an instant. That is, assuming I am not allowed to work less hours per week or quit the job partway through (at least without giving up the billion dollars). I might work one hour per week at the $38,461 USD per hour rate, but I definitely would not commit to work 50 per week at that rate. In other words, there's an increasing marginal rate to the value of my time as I sell more of it for money. I'm also extremely confident in my ability and tendency to increase my skills and earning potential over time, such that I would sell an hour of my time today for less than I would pre-sell an hour of my time in 5 or 10 years. In other words, I am confident that the market value of an hour of my time will continue to increase exponentially year over year like it has for the past decade.
There is no single right answer that applies for everyone if given that choice. There's several factors at play in that kind of decision, most notably the following two factors:
(1) how much you currently make per hour of work and how much you predict to make per hour of work over the next ten years. For example, if you get paid only $5 per hour and already work 50+ hours per week at that rate, and predict that you will still only be getting paid $5 per hour and still working 50+ hours at that low rate in ten years, then it would become effectively a no-brainier to accept the offer, as you'd be working the same hours but making way more money per hour. Likewise, in a contrasting example, if you are getting paid a $50,000 dollars per hour worked currently, and predict you will continue to get paid that much per hour worked, then it would be a no-brainer to refuse the offer because you would only be losing money if you took it. However, most people are in the middle where it isn't a no-brainer to go either way but rather a choice between having much more money but much less time or (potentially) much more time but less money.
(2) how much someone values their time, especially roughly speaking in terms of what's called "free time". There's a reason some people retire early while others who have just as much money and are just as able to afford it don't. Some people prefer to be richer, busier, and more stressed while others prefer to give up some (or a lot of) financial riches to enjoy a more retiree-like lifestyle. Again, there's no wrong easier; it's just a matter of personal preference, like preferring peanut butter sandwiches to tuna fish or vice versa.
For me personally, the only reason I'd be interested in a billion dollars (e.g. pick up a billion dollar bill off the ground rather than walk past it) is because of the fact that time is money and thus I can use that billion dollars to preserve or buy more time for myself, namely in terms of (1) not having to work for money to live and in terms of (2) being able to delegate more easily by paying other people to do work, chores, and tasks that I would otherwise spend time doing. For instance, with a billion dollars I would never spend another minute doing my own laundry ever again, since I could so easily pay someone else to do it even if I had to go way above typical market rates to do it.
If I have to sell 50 hours per week over ten years to get the billion dollars, that defeats the purpose. It would be worse than self-defeating actually: it would be counter-productive. I'd be forfeiting any chance of getting 50 hours per week back anytime within the next 10 years.
That 50 hours per week (26,000 hours over 10 years) is worth wayyyyy more to me than a billion dollars.
What about you? This is not a rhetorical question because we all have different situations and different priorities, and likewise there is no wrong answer. It's just a matter of what you want and prefer, in addition to the other unique aspects of your personal situation. So with that said, I curiously and poltely ask, if today you were given the one-time opportunity to take a job that would pay you one billion dollars upfront but you had to work 50 hours every week for the next 10 years (26,000 hours total) without the option to quit or work less, would you do it?
To make the math easier for you, that would be a rate of $38,461 USD per hour, meaning you would be getting paid $38,461 per hour to take the job, but you would have to work a full 50 hours every week for the next 10 years. Quitting or working less would not be an option. What would you choose and why?
With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott
Money is something we have to invent, like inches.
So, you remember the Great Depression when there was a slump? And what did we have a slump of? Money. There was no less wealth, no less energy, no less raw materials than there were before. But it’s like you came to work on building a house one day and they said, “Sorry, you can’t build this house today, no inches.”
“What do you mean no inches?”
“Just inches! We’ve got lumber, yes, we’ve got metal, we’ve even got tape measures, but there’s a slump in inches as such."
---
- Alan Watts
USD.jpg (125.24 KiB) Viewed 2469 times
---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Signature Addition: View official OnlineBookClub.org review of In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
View Bookshelves page for In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
View Bookshelves page for In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
- By Sy Borg
- By Fried Egg