RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter
Daily Links: Protestant Work Ethic Edition Print
Thursday, 14th February 2008 (by J.D.)This article is about Spare Change
Take heed! The Consumerist warns that your account is never really closed at Bank of America. This sort of thing makes my blood boil. (Thanks, Sasha!)
Earlier today, JLP at All Financial Matters posted about Brian Tracy’s 40 plus formula to advance your career. This is classic Tracy:
If you work only 40 hours per week — if you work only the number of hours that are required of you — then all you will ever do is survive. You will tread water financially. You will make enough to pay your bills and perhaps a little more besides, but you will never get ahead and you will never be successful. According to the 40 Plus Formula, every hour that you put in over 40 hours on your job, or on yourself, is an investment in your future success.
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I’m not fond of the Protestant work ethic that so deeply rooted in American culture. I feel like it detracts from those things that are really important in life (such as family, friends, and personal development).
On the other hand, after having spent years slacking off at work (at the box factory), I’ve begun spending long hours on a different job (this web site). I’m now seeing first-hand the sorts of things that can be achieved when one actually does focus time and attention on something.
It’s clear that hard work is a key element of success. But it’s also important to be passionate about what you do. If you combine these two things — motivation and industry — you can achieve great things.
Elsewhere, Kimberly Palmer, the Alpha Consumer, wants to know: “If asking a question could put money in your pocket, would you do it?” After reading Ask for It: How Women Can Use the Power of Negotiation to Get What They Really Want, Palmer decided to ask for discounts, and was surprised to find that it worked. GRS readers are vocal proponents of this technique:
- Ask for a better financial future
- Save money by asking for a lower rate
- How to save at the money game
Finally, an AskMetafilter user wants to know:
What’s the best strategy for buying new laptops and selling old ones? I usually buy a new computer once every five years or so and then sell my old one. Say I spend $3000 for a new one and sell the old one for $300. Would I be better off buying a new one every year and selling the old one each year?
I’ve wondered this myself. I used to buy low-end computers and replace them every year. That felt dumb. Eighteen months ago, I bought a high-end laptop and find that I have no desire to get a new one. My desktop computer is now nearly five years old, too, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason to replace it. (However, part of the reason I no longer feel the drive to upgrade is that I spend my day in a text editor instead of playing video games…)
February 14th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I think as more and more applications become web based the need for more powerful home computers becomes less critical for everyday non-gaming computing. Look at the success of the Asus eeepc.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Tim Ferris would say that working a 40-hour week is 36 too many.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I definitely work well more than 40 hours a week. Sometimes I think it’d be ok just to work a normal 40 hour/week job. Then I could concentrate on other hobbies and interests, have free time, etc.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I’ve read a lot of Brian Tracy’s books and have several of his audio programs on CDs. He does have some good stuff, but in my opinion, he is very shallow in most of his approach.
I have to disagree with his idea that putting in more than 40 hours is an investment in your job. It’s an investment in your boss more than anything else. I do work about 55 hours per week, but so does everyone else in my business. Where is the benefit in that?
The key in my mind is to work smarter not harder (sorry for the cliche). If I can set up a system that pays me whether I’m working or not, whether I’m selling or not, whether I’m performing mundane filing tasks or not, I will succeed.
If working more than 40 hours paid off in a linear fashion, we should work 168 hours per week and REALLY succeed, right? But there comes a point of diminishing returns. There comes a point where productivity suffers, where safety issues arise, and where wives put their foot down.
Brian Tracy needs to quit trying to come up with yet another “LAW” or “formula” to sell another book.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Gaaa. I enjoy some of the consumerist’s material but I think the bulk of the site’s material is set forth to breed anti-retail behavior.
I hated working in retail and it was mainly because many of the customers that I helped immediately believed that I was out to “con them.”
February 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Jason has it in spades. Working 40 hours per week, in most cases, is wasting a lot of hours (unless people are only considering working for a wage, in which case that is the only way to make more money!). Ferriss is all about leveraging time, which leads to more efficient living… and also more money. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in his book “The Four Hour Work Week” (lots of people are tied to jobs for health insurance in states where it is prohibitively expensive, for example), but I think he is on to something. I would rather develop 40 different streams of income, ideally!
February 14th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
* Ask for a better financial future
* Save money by asking for a lower rate
* How to save at the money game
And exactly whom would one ask for a better financial future?
February 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I think asking for money and negotiating is very important for women to do, especially when it comes to extremely large purchases/sales (houses, cars) and one’s salary. In my last year of college, I narrowed down my choice of job offers and then negotiated to get a better salary. I had read so many books on the subject of careers, interviewing, resumes, negotiating salary, etc. I figured I may as well negotiate the highest salary possible while I am in hot demand as a recent graduate with two years worth of internships under my belt. I was so proud coming out of a meeting with a manager who thought he could intimidate me into accepting a low offer. I asked for (what I thought was an outrageous amount of money) in the hopes that we could come to a mid-point of what I thought I was worth.
I ended up going with a company whose recruiter immediately offered me more money from a quick question asking for more, and then went to the hiring manager to see if he could get more (and he did). I didn’t pick the company just for the money, but you do learn a lot about the company in the way they treat you through interviews and negotiations. If I was going to work for the company, I figured I may as well go for the highest salary possible. As all raises seem to be a percentage increase and many bonuses are done as a percentage of salary, it seemed I ought to start out as high as possible.
My mother’s response? “Well, you don’t NEED the money.” Wow, with an attitude (and support) like that, is it any wonder that women tend to be paid less than men in the same job?
I am still with the same company ten years later! And guess what… they still treat me well.
PS - Last year I worked the least amount of hours I ever have in my career, and got paid the most salary ever. I’m not just “surviving financially” or even in my career. By continuing to cut expenses and not raise my lifestyle along with my salary, I feel ridiculously wealthy.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
With respect to computers, I would consider a laptop with a solid state drive. The drive is usually the first to fail, either that or the battery.
For serious work, get a desktop. Put the most money into a large quality screen. This could last a decade. The rest is not as important, but sadly I see a lot of computer workers with overpowered computers and tiny screens (such are mostly sold for gaming and not for looking at 10 point fonts all day long).
February 14th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
“Ask for a better financial future”
That post has stayed in my mind for the past month and half since it was published here.
It’s one of the best financial posts I’ve seen because it impacted me so deeply; I’ve begun noticing opportunities around me to negotiate (usually painlessly) and taking advantage.
I’ve started small–asking restaurants if they’ll honor coupons that are out of date (last time I asked, they did)–but it’s reshaping my mindset to always see if I can get a better price on everything.
There are some big savings out there, sometimes simply for the asking.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:16 am
The important question though, is is the amount of time you would need to sacrifice worth advancing your career?
February 15th, 2008 at 3:51 am
I’d go ahead and say this- her saying that you need to work more than forty hours a week in order to invest anything in yourself or your future is totally ridiculous, because it doesn’t take into account- at all- how much you’re making per hour, or if you’re at a saleried job that perhaps doesn’t require more time from you.
If you’re not making enough per hour, you could work an eighty hour week and still be scraping by. I work fifty hour weeks because I really need the overtime money (I’m working on paying $40000 worth of debt making $13 an hour) and because my job justifies it, but if I was making a lot more per hour, or if all of my debt was paid off, I wouldn’t be missing out on anything working a forty hour week- I could focus that much more on making money from my artwork, and finishing my novel and finding an agent for it. It’s all in how you look at things, and how much money you feel like you need.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Why is doing a day’s work for a day’s pay considered lazy in our culture? I complete my tasks, and I work the number of hours I’m assigned. If I’m supposed to work more hours, put it in my job description and pay accordingly. These unspoken rules are all mind games. Having to work more hours to “get ahead” forces employees to compete with each other for the lowest hourly pay.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I agree with Michelle #13. I work a full-time job that I hate. I have taken on a second, part-time job that I also hate. I am doing this to SAVE money.
I’ve always been fairly frugal. I don’t buy many extravagances (and don’t eat out very much), but still, working as professional has only gotten me from one paycheck to another, and if I ever hope to own a home, or have a child, or get married, I’ve got to SAVE.
The weekend is the only time I have to job-hunt or send resumes, and it’s the last thing I want to do after sitting at a computer for 60 hours a week working!
I’ve been at this for two years and no luck so far finding a single job that can pay me a pittance more so I am not working 60 hrs/week.
Screw the protestant worth ethic, man. I am NOT LAZY but something is seriously messed up when hardworking people who do everything they’re “supposed to” (so says whom?) are working themselves to the bone just so they don’t have to rely on credit cards. And something is screwed up when that’s seen as a GOOD thing or something for this country to be proud of.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I guess it’s what you decide is “success.” Where you put your time indicates reflects what you value. One could just as easily write:
If you only spend 8.3 hours per week with your kids [one figure I found for fathers] then all you will ever do is survive. You will tread water as a father. You will spend enough time with them to keep them in school and out of jail, but you will never really know them and you will never be a truly successful parent.
I’d rather be successful at things other than work, but that’s probably because I’m not passionate about my work…
February 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
When I hear stuff like this, I’m always reminded of the Robert Frost quote:
“The difference between a job and a career is the difference between forty and sixty hours a week.”
Or, you work hard for 8hrs/day so you can get promoted to a manager and work 10hrs/day. Then you work hard for 10hrs/day so you can get promoted to a director and work 12hrs/day.
This kind of thing really bothers me. I guess I’ll have to go the J.D. route, and start working for myself.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
There is always an equilibrium between cost and performance on computer hardware. At a certain point the prices increase exponentially for moderate gains in speed. Find that cross over point and keep the computer until it no longer does the job you need it to do.
My old PC still runs Firefox plenty fast for all my surfing needs and MS Office works just fine too. I don’t care what the specs are, only what work I can/can’t do that needs to get done. When 2 GB of RAM is not enough to run XYZ program I need I will buy a new computer, and not until then.
I was on the gadget treadmill until about two years ago when I got fed up with the costs. If you buy your computer as a toy (like for games as I did) you will be locking yourself into an expensive 6 month cycle of upgrades. I had to buy a new component for my gaming rig every 6 months to keep from getting behind the technology. Now I only need something new if the old one breaks or a new piece of business software requires higher specs.
As for 40+ hour work weeks, I think that there are some careers that require it, some that it is optional, and others (like mine) where it is frowned up except for short term burst of productivity when it is needed. What matters to my boss is that I make his life easier, provide good service to the customer, and make decisions wisely. If i were working 60 hours a week he would be asking why I was not being a team player and letting others help me accomplish the task. My extra effort can then be spent on other ventures (which are important too). The person that does not feel the drive to have other ventures and isn’t willing to clock more than 40 hours from time to time may not be ambitious type and that’s okay too (but not for me).
February 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Speaking as a salaried employee, my salary is based on a 40/hr week. I get paid the same whether I work 40, 60 or 80 hours. The only stipulation is that I get paid LESS if I dip below 40 hours.
It’s always been my approach that I am robbing myself monetarily if I work more that 40 hours. If I put in up to 45 hours occasionally (and I do, occasionally and voluntarily in order to keep on top of things), I don’t worry about it.
But if I am routinely required to put in more than 45 hours, either due to mandatory overtime or due to sheer inability to get my work done in less time, I have a problem with that. Particularly if it’s happening not through my own fault, but because of inadequate planning on the part of management (which IT projects are full of.) Every hour I work in excess of 40 hours is driving down my rate of compensation.
And, face it. If I weren’t being compensated, I also wouldn’t be showing up to this job. Plus, having been on the short end of a layoff, I have no illusions that a company would have any qualms to cut my job or salary in the name of their bottom line. Well, my bottom line is that I’m not willing to compromise my rate of compensation on a routine basis.
Reading/studying outside of work to keep my skills up-to-date is a different matter. That I will do in my off-time.
db
P.S. — Oh, and I have heard it all. At my last company they kept slashing our salaries over the course of two years, so that when they laid me off in the last batch before the company closed for good I was earning about 35% less than my hiring salary, despite a promotion and huge increase in responsibility. During the “sorry to let you go” speech, the CEO had the audacity to throw in this kicker: “We’d really appreciate it though if you’d just keep showing up for work and work for free for us for a while while you’re drawing unemployment. It would help us get this company back on its feet.”
Yeah right.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I think Brian Tracy’s comment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You can keep working your butt off and still only be earning minimum wage.
In my opinion Tracy’s comment is based on a false belief - a belief we were all taught at a very young age: “Work hard, get a good job and the company will take care of you”
There is nothing wrong with working hard but you also have to work smart. Consider learning a financial viable skill to skyrocket your income.(ie marketing, sales, etc) There really is no cap on your income if you can continually make the company more money.
Want to learn more? Check out,
The Big Lie About Money
http://www.stephenmartile.com/?p=31
Stephen Martile
Personal Development Made Simple
http://www.stephenmartile.com
February 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
There have been a lot of studies about work hours vs productivity vs happiness. They have often shown that less actually work hours doesn’t decrease productivity and increases employee satisfaction and happiness.
And as others have pointed out, working 60 hours a week at 8 dollars an hour isn’t going to make that huge a difference. But thinking about hourly costs can help put things in perspective. For example, the other day my job called and offered me an extra shift because someone else was ill. I had plans with friends and hadn’t gotten much sleep. I weighed the money (about 90 dollars after taxes) for the shift vs the loss of happiness from being tired, cranky, and missing out on being with people I care about. Guess what? I turned it down. Sometimes I don’t. It just depends.
and DB- that’s just crazy. I hope you told them where to shove it.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Of course I told them where to shove it — I was so ready to be done with them!
The follow up was the week afterwards, when they shut down the business. (Astonishingly nobody was willing to keep working for free…)
They emailed all us laid-off employees at home and offered to sell us the furniture and computers, etc. for what they’d paid for them. HAH! HAHAHAHA! Piece of work. (I’m not making this up.)
February 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I don’t remember where I read this but both employees and the business benefits when an employee can either figure out ways to cut costs or to increase revenue. Then, the employer values the employees contributions and often that translates to higher pay.
-Christa at frugalmomla.blogspot.com
February 16th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I would rather adopt a frugal lifestyle and actually get to live my life, than work tons of hours per week to get “ahead.”
There’s nothing wrong with hard work. But, as I see it, life’s too short to spend your days slaving in a cubicle for someone else’s gigantic profits.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I think its more important to be invested in your career than the number of minutes spent or number of dollars earned.
I have been working the same job at the same place since college. For the first 5 years or so, my attitude was “Its just a job, I’ll put in my 40 hours a week until I have enough to retire”. Since about 2005-2006 I have found myself becoming more personally invested in my job. I actually care whether we are doing well or not. I come up with thoughtful suggestions and I make my opinion known about crucial things having to do with how we do business. I care about my job and try to do it in the smartest and best way I can.
And you know what? I am finding that that sort of thing is actually paying off. People higher up actually listen to what I have to say, and sometimes even implement my ideas at an organizational level, which is somewhat outside the scope of my actual job. Last year I took on more responsibility and noticed a direct correlation to size of my annual pay increase as well
The best part: I’m not working any more or any less hours. I still put in about 40 a week, but caring about what I do has made me way more productive, and happier as well.
Just my 2 cents.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Gosh, I only “work” a few hours a year.. everything else isn’t “work” because I love it..
So from the POV of someone who doesn’t know WHY I do what I do, sometimes I “work” 80 hours a week, but from my POV I’ve been “retired” for years and only work when I want to (except for those very few times when I get forced into doing something I didn’t want to do).
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 am
Re: the laptop, I’m not sure why you would buy a new, top-of-the-line model. Wouldn’t this be akin to buying a brand new luxury car? If you are concerned about the money aspect, then get a mid-grade model refurbished.
For example, when the MacBooks first came out, the top model was about $1800 or so (I think). The mid model had all the perks except a smaller screen (which was a substantial difference) but with 2 GB memory, was about $1500. I waited a few months until the newer models came out, bought one on clearance from Apple for $900, and upgraded the memory a few months later for $75.
I think with technology, you have to look at it like sunk costs. Unless you are constantly upgrading for work purposes, in which case a PC constructed of upgradable parts would probably be more cost efficient.
I do agree that the 40+ hour work week can be too much. My dream job would be 20 hours in an office and 20 from home. Or even fewer hours if I could contract at a higher wage. It’s just disappointing that traditional careers require more hours and higher stress levels as you climb the ladder instead of more freedom.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Hi JD,
I think a good work ethic is the only way to achieve the success you want in life. Even if that work is towards better relationships and self improvement. Work is simply the amount of effort it takes to get things done. And relationships, by far, take the most amount of work.
Cheers,
Jeremy