Asklemmy

44186 readers

1104 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

122

Remote or hybrid workers, would you rather work a 4 day week on site, or WFH completely for 5 days a week, for the same pay? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

136 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know this will vary a lot, so hypothetically let’s say you currently WFH/work remotely at least 3 days a week. Your commute to work takes an hour max (door to door) each way. If you were given the choice of a 4 day week working onsite, or a 5 day week WFH (or as many days as you’d like) for the same pay, which would you choose?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Basically earn a bunch of money, invest smart, and retire early.

A bunch of people want to act like it's some secret new method and treat it like a fad diet, but people have been doing it forever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks! Sounds like calories in - calories out in weight loss.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's overly simplified to the the point you're missing out on valuable details.

Like, if just "spend less, save more" was easy, everyone would do it

[–] ramblinguy 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the original FIRE was much more radical- basically the plan is to save up only like 700k or so, move to a low cost of living area, spend less than 20k a year, and try to live off of stock increases and interest.

But honestly that life sounds kinda shitty, so people stopped talking about FIRE what all the other conditions and it just became more "save, invest, retire eventually"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

basically the plan is to save up only like 700k

Oh, that's it?

I'll knock this out this afternoon and let you know how well it works