Trading Time for Money
nicolasbouliane.com
nicolasbouliane.com
Some of the most rewarding human experiences have zero financial value and subsequently are dismissed or ignored as "irrelevant" by a significant amount of people. It would be fantastic if we evaluated the worth of an activity on its beauty, meaning, or another hundred adjectives other than how much money we're losing by doing it.
There is also a pretty robust history of academic literature arguing that culture, art, religion, and pretty much everything else arises from leisure time. Leisure: The Basis of Culture by Pieper is a good read on this.
As an example: mastering any activity takes years of dedicated practice. Programming, writing, making origami, cooking, you name it. Very rarely does this training align precisely with making a lot, or even any, money. The mastery might itself then lead to actual financial gains, but our current system doesn't optimize for this at all.
I think this is naïve at best, and horribly misguided at worst. Time is money is not just a saying. The fundamental currency, the one thing that ever person needs and wants, is time. That's why it's so tightly coupled with other valuable things such as money. Time and money are essentially the same thing, though of course time is less fungible. And different people with different circumstances are able to expedite their actions with varying efficiency. Time is a more fundamental economic concept than money.
UBI is essentially just socialist redistribution policy in a different guise, and all it will do is obscure (but of course not erase) existing incentive structures.
What about game theory in that situation, tit-for-tat prisoners dilemma? Why should I produce when almost all of it will get taken as tax to support the folks not working? Am I not better off sucking the UBI tit?
Alright fine, in the world where we have infinite energy and resources yeah sure everyone can go off and do whatever the hell they want.
Think horses in the 1900s (ubiquitous) vs now (rare pets mostly, may be used for some farm work). The utility as dairy or meat producer gives them life. Are you sure that they’d be better off not living at all?
And what do you suppose those people would be doing that’ll be better off than being a productive member of the society making dark chocolate?
I am sure you meet a ton of people like me every day - even kids. I am surprised you’re coming away with the assumption that they’re are all full of drive to do something worthwhile and are being oppressed by the world into a day to day job: I think the job provides a lot of structure and purpose for many.
If your assertion is we’d be better off leisuring away our lives like wall-E people rather than working towards a productive albeit excess world, I wouldn’t consider it better off.
Tying this back to my first argument, In asking for a life of leisure + no excess, ironically and contradictorily - you are denying chicken et al the life you seem to want for the people :). Just live it out pottering around until death come.
For example caring for people who need caring for (elderly, children, disabled) is essential work that is mostly done for free. This is a lot of work collectively.
In a system that properly values essential work it would be paid, but it isn't paid because those needing care cannot pay for it, and other people and "the system" are not willing to.
But even if "the system" started targeting all forms of care work, there are countless other things which are valuable but unpaid. It seems utterly implausible that we would ever devise a system that pays for all work that is valuable, if only because people disagree about what is valuable and all the power dynamics that result in the emergent properties we see as capitalism, "the economy", etc.
In your idea, increasing the tax threshold does not solve this problem or even begin to address it. So it's not an equivalent result.
UBI does address it, by removing the power dynamics and gate-keeping for basic resources, letting people figure out themselves what is the best use of their time in each individual circumstance. The very concept of "what is valuable" gets a refresh, away from the systematic biases that emerge from centralised rule-making, power-law power structures, and the error of conflating money-value with human value when humans do not have evenly distributed access to money with which to signal what they value.
The fact a very large number of people put so much time into tiring unpaid work (such as caring), often on top of their paid jobs (if they have any time left for paid jobs, some don't and it sucks), shows that the "UBI fear" that everyone people would sit around idling their whole lives is very unlikely.
It's likely some people would still call it "doing nothing", as they do currently, but they would be wrong.
Not some altruism they would start doing in a hypothetical system.
It's already being done in large quantities, often in addition to having to work to survive. My argument is that since people already do a large amount of unpaid work (in addition to a paid job often), they won't stop doing it on UBI.
That you feel the need to put care work in scare quotes says to me that you probably live in something of a filter bubble about this, because when I think about this issue with regard to the people I know or have met over the years, it seems to be obviously a very large number of people.
However, since you asked for statistics, here are some reports:
> https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/unpaid-carers-need-more...
> Approximately 6.5 million carers in the UK are unpaid with 3 million balancing work with caring responsibilities.
> It’s estimated that unpaid care saves the UK £132 billion a year in care costs but a recent report by Carers UK found that more than two thirds of carers are using their own income and savings to cover the cost of care and two in five say they struggle to make ends meet.
That's 6.5M out of approximately 40M working age population. I can say from experience and familiarity with the field that it's not trivial amounts of time and labour either. If it were paid, it would be a significant second job.
Those figures are pre-Covid. Since the start of the pandemic they have increased:
> https://www.carersweek.org/images/CW%202020%20Research%20Rep...
> There are an estimated 13.6 million unpaid carers in the UK today. Most of these unpaid carers, 9.1 million, were already caring before the coronavirus outbreak. A staggering 4.5 million people have started providing unpaid care since the outbreak. This represents nearly a 50% increase in the number of unpaid carers since the crisis began.
> An estimated 26% of the UK adult population is providing unpaid care to an older, disabled or ill relative or friend – that is equivalent to one in four adults.
The above figures refer only to caring for the ill, disabled and elderly (generally called "carers").
It does not count caring for children which is, of course, also unpaid but valuable work that presumably would continue in a UBI system and is also done by a large number of people.
Based on the above I estimate (very crudely) that the number of people engaged in significant time performing unpaid but valuable labour in the form of care for children, ill, disabled or elderly people is on the order of 30-50% of the adult working-age population in the UK.
I would expect them all to continue doing so under UBI... And the ones who are currently conflicted by insufficient time to do both a paid job and sufficient care work for the perceived needs (there are many people in this tight spot) would, of course, increase the latter form of labour under UBI.
Somewhere out there there are hundreds of thousands of people who could be force-multipliers working as mentors to students. Instead they're working for $20/hour doing rote work that has only marginal or even negative utility.
And then you seem to go all in and level the same baseless accusation about everyone(?) on this planet. That is pretty egotistical don't you think? Perhaps you should try for some humility and perspective before you start demanding that everyone should switch to your values and distorted ethics.
The meme that springs to mind is Cartman screaming "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITIE"
you were handed knowledge and opportunity early in your life. you were gifted opportunity to compute and to learn how to program, and probably some priceless mentorship along the way.
from that, with your own hard work and perserverence, standing on the shoulders of giants, you built yourself a nice little career, and now make a good living putting digital cogs together.
based on a limited viewpoint of a 1x1 gameboard square, ignoring the bigger picture, like a child who just learned to put the A block on top of the B block, you cry out, "all by myself! it was all me!"
and, of course, ignoring all the other contributions to the picture, that statement true.
but from the perspective of someone who grew up without any of those opportunities, without someone else to provide the building and the carpet, and the A and B blocks themselves, it would seem privileged and ignorant of others' lack of opportunity.
of course, maybe i'm just projecting? i've certainly been there.
It is not right to characterise that form of making a living as being handed anything. To achieve that is hard work and just as much a form of trade. The voluntary nature of payments for the objects implies they are more valued by others than ordinary trade where payments are mandatory and creators can "coast" with lower quality products.
Arguably the person doing a regular job for pay is being handed more, as almost anyone can work a basic job for pay and gets the fruits of everyone else's labour. It's almost a freebie in modern society: Do some work get vastly more of what you need for a good life given to you while you produce maybe 1% of it yourself.
From this perspective, a job is 99% handout from the collective to you, 1% contribution from you to the collective.
We already live in a version of this world, minus the leisure. An enormous portion of economic activity is redistributive, shifting wealth from one person to another but not creating it.
People not having to work to survive will just lead to people having kids (or migrating to places where they get free money) until society can not support them all anymore, then we will be back to zero again.
“ The fundamental currency, the one thing that ever person needs and wants, is time.” This is not true of those unfraid of death and at peace with their life choices. Some people reach this at age 18, others 85, and others never.
Being at the bedside of someone who is dying and at peace with it helps one realize time is not the most important thing.
I am unsure I see any correlation with higher output of culture, art, religion etcetera from those on benefits, even though they may have under-the-table income for necessary tools and consumables.
They often do spend more time on family and friends though.
How many talented artists decided to become stockbrokers instead, simply because they wanted financial stability? Or how many parents encourage their children to follow something "practical" and not what they are truly passionate about? Or academics that love their subject, but don't want to bother with the hassle of adjunct positions and constant relocation. Etc.
A basic income would dramatically affect these sort of situations, IMO.
As much as it would liberate the stuck artists et al from the above 0.1%, my theory is that it would only allow the rest 99.9% to focus their time into consumption of various things rather than production of invaluable goods.
Now we could move the goal post and say, ‘hey, they were born as human and by that they have won the lottery! Why shouldn’t everyone be eligible for the basics?’ - but that’s a different argument than saying this will liberate the arts. I don’t buy that line of argument.
Here is an article in agreement with that point, from a different POV though: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/i-used-to-argue-for-ubi-then-... “[UBI] merely serves as a way to keep the wealthiest people (and their loyal vassals, the software developers) entrenched at the very top of the economic operating system.”.
Ideally I think a UBI appears interesting, however practically I can’t see how it could work.
I’ve digressed from the article topic, because I am interested in why UBI has such zealotry (appears to me at least).
F.ex I think it’s pretty commonly agreed that a safe environment, where failure is not fatal, may promote creativity and innovation better than an environment where failure gets you ousted.
Some would even argue that the same fear is a powerful force in shaping less desirable behavior. F.ex when used as a tool for manipulation.
UBI, some argue, may address a large source of such fears.
Especially in a highly creative group, such as I imagine the hn-audience to be, this may be a strongly felt belief. I think it’s quite natural that it’s a promise that would trigger a bit of zealotry in that group.
You mentioned talented artists, not self actualization. You are calling goods from jobs as invaluable - few may be. An iPhone is expensive but not invaluable. But art from Picasso is.
I think by moving the argument to self actualization - you’re essentially proscribing a wallE like lifestyle - the above talented artists might go ahead and produce greatness, but I don’t think majority is going to be doing any self-actualization. It’s going to be a party of consumption for most. But we are both guessing here.
That argument also assumes a post scarcity world which we aren’t even close to.
Finally succumbing to the myth of everyone chasing their passions while AI keeps up our lifestyle essentially is writing the end of our civilization as it is. If you buy that it ever happens, you should also buy that one day it will turn off. That day humans will be surrounded by magic machines they have no idea how to fix / work and in essence die off. Or at best, they get back to today.
If a (perhaps more fulfilling or “fitting”) life on UBI is to rival that of say a stockbroker, UBI must provide more freedom than one can get by working in that position, while perhaps saving up for early retirement.
The income level will have to be moderate at the very least, to rival that. Since it is supported by tax revenue, it must be part of a balanced budget. This can quite easily be matched by a reasonable income, where a good amount is put into savings each month.
I agree, that this is not an option for a lot of people, as their monthly expenses won’t allow to save like that. But then that isn’t something that UBI will fix - given its “basic” nature. If all else equal, the higher the level of UBI, the higher the price level as demand increases.
I do support some models of UBI. It could help in replacing the myriad of different welfare programmes that are only about money here in Denmark, where billions of USD are either wasted or swallowed by bureaucracy each year.
However, I find it almost fraudulent how UBI is being misused as a “Trojan Horse” by some people and especially by politicians.
UBI, like most other insurance schemes, will only work if most people are net-positive contributors. This makes UBI mostly into a welfare programme - something that’s limited in its use.
But if the idea is that it’s something for everyone, most of the time, I’m hard pressed to answer how it will work on a societal basis, without the use of force.
I don’t believe that is what you argue for, so please don’t take this as a straw man argument against your point.
Have you done that?
If not, why not?
(Though I agree that the targeted poverty relief payment to those with the greatest need for extra dollars would be a better use of the funds)
Preferably instead the IRS could allow tax-free donations that are equally spread across every resident citizen.
I recall there is some wierd statistical winner-takes-all outcome to random payments within a population - maybe something to do with losing your whole stake?
If UBI makes 10% of the population "talented artists", what does that even mean? Who should consume all this art? Doesn't it make "art" much more common and thus, less valuable to society?
Popularity or consumption is irrelevant. If someone is satisfied by writing books that no one reads, why is that a problem? Surely we all have hobbies that we enjoy for themselves, not for their social consequences.
There is a much bigger cohort, that is retirees.
Basic income is about giving everyone a "no-catches" income that's enough to actually live on, rather than merely survive on.
How do we know receiving UBI will not be stigmatized? It can also vary from place to place (it is cultural).
At least in one country I know unemployment is 60% of your previous salary. This could be enough to survive or to live a very comfortable life, depending on your income.
I agree with you, though, with unemployment benefits being conditional on finding a job, plus the limited time they can be provided in full.
UBI is given to everyone, but I suppose it's true that those that live on UBI without also working might be made to feel marginalised.
> At least in one country I know unemployment is 60% of your previous salary. This could be enough to survive or to live a very comfortable life, depending on your income.
I'm in the UK, and have no experience of or knowledge of systems like this, but on the face of it, it sounds pretty good.
Give us some ballpark number please.
Danish unemployment benefits are not that low. It depends what you earned before. But it can be DKK 19300 ($3100)/month.
That is taxable income, so the state get some back. On the other hand people on unemployment benefit also get many other benefits.
So multiplying that with 4.8 mio adult Danes we get 1 trillion DKK. The BNP is 2.3 trillion DKK (most likely a lot less after UBI). So what would a post UBI budget look like? You could cut pensions, kindergardens, special support for children, housing support, etc. But that would not be enough.
There have been some experiments. But they all have very little to with UBI. They are not even trying. They usually only last a couple of years and the participants are few and poor.
It would be more interesting with with a 20 year experiment that gave UBI to
* Totally randomly selected citizens * University graduates * People in low or middle income jobs that are boring. (Dilbert Land) * Nurses
I think someone is just scared that they would end up giving $3000/months to some investment banker, that use it to slightly expand his wine cellar.
Unemployment runs out in a few months and requires you to be actively looking for work. It isn't a stable position where you'd be able to be creative.
Instead of giving people free money, wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics? Is there any indication that UBI would work better than guaranteeing affordable food, housing and healthcare?
Nobody addresses themselves to the most reasonable interpretation of the thing they respond to, and that's the primary mechanism that pushes the quality of comment sections down. And I think we've got another datapoint in support of that here.
I hear this argument a lot but I don't think it necessarily follows:
- The supply of low end goods (the sort which you can afford with your UBI) is highly automated and will increase rapidly for any small price increase, making their pricing fairly inelastic.
- The demand for these goods won't rise greatly (except for low end luxury / status items, for which UBI makes the difference between people buying and not) since anyone living above a subsistence level is already buying roughly as much as they need (they're just feeling more financial stress now by doing so).
So overall I'd expect we might see a small price rise but nowhere near enough to cancel out the UBI.
It is true that with UBI people have the option to move somewhere where housing is inexpensive, but I don't think it's desirable to have people already dependent on UBI move to places with lower economic opportunity - cementing their dependence on it.
That being said, expensive housing is a problem that exists with or without UBI, even if it would interact with it in an unfortunate ways.
Exactly. One important piece of evidence is how housing became more expensive when families got double incomes.
It'll be interesting to see how a combination of UBI and increasingly available remote work affects the geographic distribution of property prices. We're not short on land area to build houses, after all - we're only short on land nice and close to economic centers.
It would be a bit different from the current inheritance based land value extraction since it would go to everyone instead of the lucky owners. I think it could be positive change though.
> wouldn't it make more sense to heavily subsidise the basics?
Breaking this down a little:
Industries with monopolist practices can be expected to raise their prices to capture more of this new income. I agree, that seems likely.
In my mind, this would likely include housing/land ownership.
By proposing to subsidise housing instead, you're proposing to effectively give this money directly to landlords instead of to everyone to have their own negotiating power and make their own decision.
But, won't the cost still just rise accordingly, by your theory - won't landlords just pocket that money and demand even more?
It seems more effective to trust people with their own money.
And what if it did? What if we gave every person the money and assets equivalent of the richest man on earth, 113 billion dollars [1]. Now Bezos would only be about twice as rich as the average person. Instead of being 1.13 million times as rich as the average household in the US [0]. Surely the prices would skyrocket, but now we're at a more even playing field.
[0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-your-net-worth-and-h... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires
edit: Which kinda makes it a bad comparison to UBI I guess. Maybe what we need is more than just money for UBI, but also a distribution of assets.
I think you are very wrong about money.
If you like birdwatching , awesome, but where ppl object is having to pay for your hobby
The most rewarding human experiences I've felt in my life so far have had financial value attached... In fact, they usually involve me receiving some kind of money. Receiving money is the most valuable human experience, especially if I get it for free (the less work I do, the better). Brings tears of joy to my eyes.
The worst human experiences are related to spending money. Especially on overpriced depreciating assets and consumables. The worst is giving money to other people for free. Nothing makes me feel emptier.
Also, when central banks print units of my hard-earned currency and give it for free to other people (without my consent), that infuriates me. For me, it's the human experiential equivalent of getting raped on a daily basis and everyone else cheering on the perpetrator.
if ( outsourcing_cost * alpha > opportunity_cost ) {
outsource();
}
Does HN have any thoughts about living a smaller life by doing fewer things and having more time to just live and enjoy life? If spending time figuring out how to optimize money/time in more complicated ways could produce a more efficient path, wouldn’t such knowledge spread quickly and become common knowledge?
In other words, are there any real life hacks that are not obvious that result in significant quality of life improvements?
How to lose weight is open knowledge, but that doesn't make it easier, doubly so if you are also fighting other battles. Sometimes there is a solution, but it's just not attainable for everyone.
> are there any real life hacks that are not obvious that result in significant quality of life improvements?
I didn't want to make this post about my own lifestyle, but it might qualify as an answer:
1. I reduced my expenses. You don't need to earn the money you don't spend. I've always been frugal, but I recently took more drastic steps with point #2 in mind. For instance, I cut my rent by 42% by moving to the edge of the city into an older apartment. Well, actually 30% because I have a garage - a lifelong dream of mine.
2. I went freelance to have more control on how much time I sell. I didn't think this was possible, until a contractor at my old job said he took 3 month vacations between contracts. The more you earn and the less you spend, the longer you can go between contracts. At the average rate [1], I could cover my expenses in 3 months. The 4th month pays for a nice trip.
3. Decouple your income from your time. I built a website, and it grew enough to pay the bills. Now I live from it. I spend 20-30 hours a month on it (though it requires about 10). This was a stroke of luck. I couldn't reproduce that if you asked me.
That's about it. I'm well aware that this could only happen in specific conditions with a healthy amount of arbitrary luck. However, it did result in significant quality of life improvements. Anyone can appreciate the value of having so much free time. It's only a matter of using it well.
I don't know if there's any wisdom to extract from this, but I hope it helps.
[1] https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/freelance-developer-rate
This is a fantastic quote - you could write whole essays on how it relates to open sourcing a software project.
Health insurance is tightly regulated in Germany. It's not free, but it's very, very unlikely to bankrupt me.
Sadly my experience with professionals is the quality of their work is basically random. Sometimes I pay a lot and the quality is terrible. Sometimes I pay very little and it turns out great. And at the end of the day I don't have the time or strength to do everything I could possibly learn and do myself. So my experiments will continue until the neglect from the previous owners is fully repaired.
I heartily recommend it.
Get off the "keeping up with the Joneses" carousel, reduce your living expenses and enjoy both having your money stretch much further as well as building up savings. I invest a sustainable amount of my monthly income into climate-friendly mutual funds, as I expect climate change to drive massive innovation in that field. I do not invest in any other segments, for moral reasons.
We prefer to live a frugal life and try to avoid buying unnecessary things. In our current living situation, we are lucky enough to not need a car on a daily basis (bicycles and public transit work great here), so we've joined a nonprofit car sharing service (dedicated cars, not people's personal cars) for the occasions where we do have to go outside of practical public transit reach.
In general, we try to buy second hand when possible and repair our things ourselves. Most of my clothes have one or another kind of fix or slight modification at this point, aside from t-shirts, which are just hopeless in that regard. Men's shirts take repairs so much better. One thing you learn quickly is that tightly-fitting clothes wear our a lot quicker, especially those with elastic fibers added. Looser-fitting clothes last significantly longer. Tightly-fitting synthetic athletic wear does last pretty well (probably due to the reduced friction), but we are trying to avoid synthetic fibers.
It also becomes a hobby in its own right, as I'm writing this I'm adding suspender buttons to some nice thick cotton twill pants that I found recently, because it beats the hell out of belts for comfort. It's hard to find anything but dress pants with suspender buttons these days and clip suspenders chew up the waistband.
On the occasions where we do have to buy something brand new, we try to find the locally (Europe, in our case) produced products, both for the environmental impact and for the worker protections factor. Organic and sustainable production is something we prefer to seek out, as well.
It's not hard to live frugally and you don't have to take it to extremes, if you don't want to. Just learning to repair things instead of throwing away and buying new, is a great first step.
I recognize that we are privileged in that we can actually choose to live like this and have the services around us that make it practical, but I think most people would feel a lot less stressed if they slowed down and lived in a more frugal fashion.
The culture in the US seems to be that 'new' is always best. Pollution and slave labor are just boring details, meant only for Dateline specials.
Rating the personal benefits you get from government at $0 usually means you are freeloading IMHO.
Get a comfy bed. Buy comfortable shoes. Spend more money on things that make you happy and less money on things that others tell you should make you happier. Housing is a great example, there is a lot of evidence that housing size doesn't improve happiness but living close to work and minimizing commute time increases happiness significantly.
Willpower and a natural inclination are the key elements here. It's common knowledge that smoking is bad for you, but that doesn't mean that it will be the main force behind people's choices to smoke or not. This applies to almost every other aspect you could think of that requires some degree of effort or interest.
An example of a non-obvious life hack would be Anki. It works exactly as intended, meaning that it makes remembering things far easier than before. But the catch is that you have to do the cards everyday. Therefore only a minority will actually use it. There is no free lunch.
You can generally try to optimize your life, but this sort of Less Wrong style ideology inevitably butts up against some awkward truths about existence, mainly that it has a free-form and serendipitous side to it that can't be gamed so easily or by reason alone. You can't power your way to an interesting life just by the mechanical application of hacks as it requires some luck, some feeling for things, and some intuition. Even if you do manage to attain an artful way of living that exploits your personal circumstances really smoothly, you are not safe from a change in your mindset or any aspect of the house of cards that will suddenly make it all crash down.
So, solution is to earn more or learn how to live more frugal? Of course it is not possible to reduce some expenses, and some expenses are in % (as taxes) so more you earn you will pay more.
At one point you could get to the point you do not think how much are your expenses, but for most of the people until that time you will realized that you sold so much time that your life has passed in front of your eyes.
Anyhow, it is good advice to find something you love and do it, as often 300 hours of unpaid hobby can give more joy and satisfaction than, all the money in of the best paid job in the world you could earn during that same time.
... or 5 star holidays along the Mediterranean.
You don’t sell “time” for money. You sell labor. To do that you need a buyer. Most buyers purchase in bulk, and in many fields, want “requirements agreements”—you’ll produce as much as we need. Selling a little bit of labor power is often like trying to sell one bean. Doesn’t work that way.
That’s all you need.
Do you live on rice and beans? That sounds like you're trading enjoyment for money. We (2 adults) spend about US$150 a week on groceries, and still eat out about once a week. Those groceries include three meals a day, with the leftovers of the night before being taken for lunch the next day. How on earth do people eat healthily and only spend $5 a day?
Carbs and fat are both cheap, and protein can be in the form of chicken and eggs. Vegetables are kinda expensive so I go with mostly broccoli, cabbage, and stuff from the Asian supermarket.
As for groceries, things like hygiene and cleaning products bring up total "grocery" bill, but $5 a day is very possible if it's pure food expenditure.
German groceries are quite cheap actually. When I visited, I bought a kg of sauerkraut for 1 euro and a liter of soy milk for 1.5.
My family of 3 spends around 100 to 130 Euros per week on groceries. We don't really are trying to save on groceries and usually buy what we want. We eat not much meat and usually cook fresh instead of using convenience food. We try to buy medium to high quality, local and seasonal food. So it's a tad more than 150€ per person but not that much.
For reference, if you earn 20k a month, your grocery expenses will roughly stay the same to earning 5k a month. They won't be 35% of your income (that would be 7000€ of groceries for 20k of income). Working more hours does not result in higher grocery costs.
Insurance is also a static cost past a certain income. Income tax is progressive. You still consider those. It just makes the gross/disposable income relationship non-linear.
There are specialist oil changers in my town. I drive in an 30 mins later I drive out. Paying about 150% of what it would cost me to do it.
Not a criticism, though - I'm very much in the same 'place' as you - trying to find a better balance of what to do myself vs. outsource... and I fear I often get the balance wrong, on the side of not outsourcing enough.
Case in point: I recently changed my GF's car wheels, over to the winter wheel/tyre set. Ahead of time, it's an easy calculation: a few minutes per wheel (I've got good tools including an impact wrench already) saves her a decent amount of money, plus the time to/from/waiting at the garage. But it's easy to underestimate: it may well be 10 minutes-ish per wheel, but this ignores the time spent wrestling the 8 wheels from/to their storage space, plus the relative hassle of having to have somewhere to store them at home. I should have probably not interfered: she'd not really have missed the money, and I could have spent that hour+ doing something more fulfilling (maybe).
I prefer to do some repairs myself, because I don't like waiting for my mechanic. Replacing the brake pads took less time than driving to the mechanic and returning home with public transit. Hell, I spent more time in their waiting room than changing my oil.
There's no standard oil filter location; in my car it's at the front of the engine and accessible just by popping the hood and removing the engine cover – no tools required (although a wrench is useful for the filter housing).
It's definitely more work to access the oil pan plug, but not so much that I'd rather schedule an appointment somewhere, drive there and wait and drive back (and pay extra for the same oil and filter).
Of course, it also assumes that people can choose exactly how many hours they work at their regular hourly rate, which isn't usually the case, but that's a separate quibble.
After-tax income makes sense when income is what you’re taxed by; the day job creates the income and the tax.
But the day job shouldn’t be laden with all costs of living: only the costs of the day job.
The author must know either way more economics than me or way less.
There's a whole section of the article that argues that this is not possible. You can't scale your income up and down on a whim.
> Of course, it also assumes that people can choose exactly how many hours they work at their regular hourly rate, which isn't usually the case, but that's a separate quibble.
It doesn't. There's a whole section just about it. Have you read the whole post?
> You can't look at your fixed expenses in terms of a fixed amount of each hour's wage if you're increasing the number of hours worked.
There isn't a linear relationship between your gross income and your disposable income, but that doesn't invalidate the calculation.
You could say the same about health insurance and income tax. The former is capped (in Germany) to a certain amount, so it becomes a fixed expense past 56250€ per year. The latter is a progressive tax, so it doesn't grow linearly with your income.
It can be the case, but then the trade-off is even worse:
This article suggests calculating your net income as an average rate across all your hours worked.
If you have chosen to increase your hours, you are taxed at the marginal rate on these increased hours, i.e. the highest possible tax rate. Your net income per hour is reduced - as such, you are undervaluing your own time.
For example it may vary in 10x+ times between entrepreneur/nomad in low tax jurisdiction and hired worker in high-tax jurisdiction. Maybe it's smarter to choose country (state in US case) with lowest taxes/highest return than suffering from 30%+ cut.
I agree with the author about skills in general, but not every thing we do apart from the job bring us joy and satisfaction. Sometimes it's more convenient to just pay for the work.
When you pay someone else, they,re bound to cut corners as soon as you turn your head.
The choice is obvious to me.
may you find work-rest-play balance which works for you in thw near future )
You can check it with your calculator if you’re skeptical.
$20-$10 = + number so $20 is grater
$5 - $10 = - number so $5 is less
For exemple, it says that you spare money by doing the things and that this money will buy you time later.
But if you still work, and do not pay someone to do your chores, you will have to do them in week end and free time. So you lose free time now for potential free time later.
Also, it does not make any sense to compare fixed personal costs like groceries and co with the difference in costs between what you earn with your work compared to paying someone half of your salary.