The Time vs Money Dilemma: What Would You Choose?
I stumbled across an interesting workplace dilemma online recently that really got me thinking. Someone had been offered a choice between 10 extra days of annual leave (that doesn’t expire and can be cashed out) or an ongoing 0.5% superannuation increase. They were earning around $180k and genuinely torn about which option to take.
The responses were fascinating and really highlighted how differently people value time versus money. The mathematical minds quickly jumped in with calculations - the leave being worth about $6,920 if cashed out versus the super contribution of $900 annually. On paper, it seems like a no-brainer, right? Take the leave, cash it out if needed, and you’re significantly ahead financially in the short term.
But then the conversation took some interesting turns. People started pointing out that the super increase is permanent - it keeps giving year after year. Others suggested clever workarounds like taking the leave, cashing out part of it, and making voluntary super contributions to get the best of both worlds. The tax implications got thrown around, with some noting that super contributions are only taxed at 15% versus the marginal tax rate on cashed-out leave.
What really struck me though were the comments from people who’d experienced loss recently. One person mentioned losing someone close to them in their 30s, which made them acutely aware of how finite our time actually is. That perspective really cuts through all the mathematical calculations, doesn’t it?
This whole discussion reminds me of conversations I’ve had with colleagues over the years about whether to work overtime for extra pay or head home to see the family. The IT world is particularly notorious for this - there’s always another deployment, another urgent bug fix, another “quick” project that needs finishing. I’ve seen too many people burn out chasing the next promotion or pay rise, only to realise they’ve missed out on actually living their lives.
The thing is, most of us are pretty terrible at valuing our time properly. We’ll spend ages hunting for the cheapest deal on something we barely need, but we won’t think twice about working unpaid overtime or sacrificing our weekends. We treat time as if it’s unlimited, but we obsess over every dollar in our bank account.
From a broader perspective, this dilemma reflects something quite troubling about our work culture. The fact that someone earning a very comfortable salary still feels torn between time and money suggests we’ve created a system where even well-compensated professionals feel they can’t afford to prioritise their wellbeing. When did we become so focused on accumulating wealth for retirement that we forgot about actually enjoying the decades leading up to it?
I’m not advocating for financial irresponsibility - super is incredibly important, and compound growth over decades is powerful stuff. But there’s something to be said for recognising that life happens now, not just when we’re 67 and finally allowed to access our retirement savings.
If someone offered me that choice tomorrow, I’d probably take the leave without much hesitation. Sure, I could run the numbers and figure out the optimal financial decision, but what’s the point of being financially optimal if you’re too stressed, tired, or burnt out to enjoy it? Ten extra days to spend with my daughter before she becomes a proper adult, or to finally tackle that reading list, or even just to do absolutely nothing - that feels pretty valuable to me.
Maybe the real lesson here isn’t about which option is mathematically superior, but about taking a step back and thinking about what we actually want from our working lives. Are we working to live, or living to work? It’s an old question, but one that’s worth revisiting every now and then, especially when life presents us with these clear-cut choices between time and money.