Advice request

How about option 4: stay where you are but work 4 or 4.5 days a week. Obviously this would require the agreement of your bosses.
 
Chris Beard said:
This was useful, thank you
Click to expand...

So many people want it all. Constantly these days you see imagery and articles on how you must try and do everything all the time and you can achieve anything. You can to an extent. I'm a huge fan of having lofty ambitions, working hard and driving to be the best you can be. But everything in life is a compromise. The harder you work and the more you apply yourself then perhaps there are compromises with less impact to you but there will still be some. The person who has the houses, the cars, the holidays, the trophy spouse etc perhaps has no time to see his or her parents or kids who've been shipped off to boarding school. The zen like content yoga teacher living off the land in the woods perhaps can't afford to go private when a serious illness comes up.

I would not criticise anyone who took any of the options you outlined. If you did it in a considered manner, thought about what was important to you and whichever you took you worked hard on your family and your work life then you've done the right thing. And as your life evolves (kids get older say) then it's also OK to change your priorities too.
 
Generally in life you have to choose between free time or money. Annoyingly having more of the former usually means less of the latter.

Personally I only had to do UK based travel a few days a month and I hated it. Staying in hotels on your own away from creature comforts gets old fast, I don't know how you can stay away from home 4/5 days a week.

So for me if we could still survive on the pay cut it would be option 3, enjoy some time with the kids while they are cute :p bedtime stories and bath time chaos.

In a few years you might find a new career path anyway.
 
I'd go 3 unless 1 could give me enough cash to clear the mortgage and go part time before the kids were teenagers. Then it would be something to weigh up.

I have kids (8 & 5), it's bad enough being out of the house 8-6.30 every weekday. Would be **** not seeing them all week.
 
I do number one and I have a wife to be and a 2 year old boy at home. It can be hard. I can be away for 3 weeks then home for 3 days then away for a couple weeks it’s a constant cycle of always working and never being at home trying to book time off when I can for birthdays etc. I don’t get to book holidays in December so I missed last Christmas but got the one before, but we live comfortably like I seem you do also in your current job?
Think what effect a 20% cut would do to you if you picked one of the other options, of it wouldn’t effect you much then that’s good you have choices.
Personally I’m sticking at doing what I’m doing for another 2 years until my boy starts going to school then I will be looking for a job at home so I can be at home every night enjoying my family.
 
Reading between the lines, sounds like you personally would be better off with option 3. Go with what you want, not what society wants or expects.
 
My son in law had lots of presents from his Dad who spent all his time abroad and they don't have a very good relationship because of it.
My kids had me every day and adore me.
My 2p worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom