<< Back to all Blogs
Login or Create your own free blog
Layout:
Home > Overtime festivities
 

Overtime festivities

December 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am

Have I mentioned how much I love overtime? Only the umpteenth time? Heh.

This week has been nothing but overtime. It's almost sickening, sometimes getting home with just enough time to shower and then go to bed.

But I'm not complaining! In fact, I wish I could work overtime more often.

On a separate note, what do you guys think of this? Here's his rather provocative opening quote, "The wrong way to think: 'spend less than you earn.'"

Basically, the author believes that we should focus on earning more rather than spending less, because there's always a limit on spending less.

But to me, it's like debating that one arm is more important than the other arm. Why? Aren't they BOTH important? Shouldn't we all do BOTH? Earn more AND Spend less?

To me, it's almost as comical as the popular Miller beer commercial, where people argue over which is more prominent, "Tastes Great" or "Less Filling". Only, these blog authors are actually serious. Personally, I don't see why such hair-splitting is even necessary.

I don't know, what do you guys think of it?

14 Responses to “Overtime festivities”

  1. Ima saver Says:

    I certainly do agree with you!

  2. monkeymama Says:

    I agree earning more is more powerful. I agree with you, that you should do BOTH!!!!!

  3. creditcardfree Says:

    Both...and earning is more powerful. We've doubled our income from a few years ago and I don't wish to go back. It's much more comfortable where we are. Of course, we still try to spend less...otherwise less to invest!!

  4. Broken Arrow Says:

    Just for fun, freemoneyfinance.com is making the opposite argument that even those who earn quite a bit don't know how to keep it (thus concluding that "spend less" is more important). Here's an example article, though the whole blog is peppered with them.

    I mean, I don't mind if people want to argue that one way is more important than another. I just think that they should qualify that it's for them and not for everyone. Or at least qualify that everybody should focus on both. It'd also help to not use earning extremes (people who earn less than 20k or more than 200k.)

    I think the whole thing is rather amusing though.

  5. princessperky Says:

    cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    I think spending less is more important, but there is something wrong with forgetting either.

  6. Analise Says:

    There are too many people I know who spend more just as soon as they earn more. Simply earning more will not increase your wealth.

    It is easier to build wealth if you live below your means AND increase your earnings over time but without increasing your spending significantly.

    But if I had to say which is the more important to me, it is to live below your means. Saving is easier when you live below your means... it kind of reminds me of the tortoise and the hare. Slow and steady can win the race.

    But I do agree there is no one strategy suitable for all, so BOTH are good goals: live below your means and continue to try to increase your earnings.

  7. merch Says:

    I think you hit the nail on the head, BA. It's not how much you make or spend. It's the difference between the 2 that counts. I have had friends who making $40k a year that has more money laying around then friends making $250k.

    And there are 2 ways to increase that number more income or fewer expenses. You have to focus on both. If you but a gun to my head and I had to make a choice, I would choose lowering expenses. The only reason I chose this one is because if you can live below your income, you can always save and invest.

    But this like someone saying "which arm do you want to lose?"

  8. Caoineag Says:

    Both are important but learning to live on less is more important to me. I have a variety of reasons for that but the main is that income tends to increase with stress and I am a big no stress type of person. Life is just too valuable to work myself to death.

  9. gruntina Says:

    Right now I am spending less than I earn but practically have to do this by just having the bare necessities. At this point for me I want to be able to spend more money (planning a baby in the future) and thus an increase in pay would be the way to go as I already stripped down as much as I can on our current salary. We live in HCOL area so our income only goes so far. We do not earn anywhere near local household average incomes. We do really well with what we already have in our current situation but I do not want to live this way for the rest of my life.

  10. monkeymama Says:

    Funny, I had never really thought much about it. But yeah, I find it kind of silly to argue one way or the other. Then it just becomes personal preference.

    If you really want to shelter yourself from financial hardship, you would focus on both areas. IF not, you clearly take on more financial risk. May be your personal choice, but it is more risky.

    Since I am adverse to financial risk I find pretty equal importance keeping up job skills, keeping myself marketable, AND living well below my means. & I wanted to be clear - I am no workaholic career woman. BUT I would not feel comfortable if I didn't focus a lot of my energy to job stability. I mean, I could be a bookkeeper and do a lot of the same work for half the pay. Personally, I think that is pretty risky. I'd rather do the same work and get paid twice as much as a certified accountant. In the long run my goal is to work part-time for a pretty average full-time salary. I could never have that flexibility if I didn't aim for the higher paying jobs. & all the saving in the world isn't going to help if you have a low paying job that is also volatile. Personally, I Would find that way more stressful than just keeping up my skills and focusing on my career.

    I just had to add that, to be clear. I could take it to the extreme and want to always make more money. Climb the career ladder really high. But because I don't value working quite THAT much, you know, I kind of found some middle ground. My dad was a GREAT role model in that regard. He has never been a manager but he makes bank. He's also never been jobless any length of time. That's the way to do it, if you ask me! Strangely, I have ended up on a very similar path, though I am in a completely different field.

  11. Ms. Pearl Says:

    they are both important but like others said, I would not want to make what I did 10 years ago. By the way, I got 2 hours of overtime this week! Thanks to a few meetings.

  12. baselle Says:

    LOL. These days there is definitely a limit on earning more, at least in your main salary. The guy has a point, but the one classic way of making passive money is to invest your savings. Make your money earn the extra money, for pity's sake. Hopefully we are all not saving money and putting it in 0% interest accounts. Try, for laughs, to invest in stocks that pay dividends and reinvest the dividends. I'm getting about $150/quarter off of my Drips (how many sold DVDs will that take?). Right now since the share price is lower, those reinvested $s are working harder.

  13. scfr Says:

    Your thoughtful musings prompted me to write my own blog entry on this topic:

    http://scfr.savingadvice.com/2008/12/13/quickie-book-review-...

  14. Broken Arrow Says:

    Baselle, you bring up an interesting point, because I've spent hours and hours trying to learn to trade stocks. Granted, it's way too risky perhaps, but idea is still basically the same: Make more money.

    Anyways, that's a very good point that passive income is an important source of earning income.

Leave a Reply

(Note: If you were logged in, we could automatically fill in these fields for you.)
*
Will not be published.
   

* Please spell out the number 4.  [ Why? ]

vB Code: You can use these tags: [b] [i] [u] [url] [email]