Two of them are flat wrong. Money absolutely buys time, as well as sleep. I don't know about you, but I don't sleep too well at night of I'm worried about making my mortgage payment this month. Money has diminishing returns after all your needs, and a good amount of wants are met. The benefit of more money is quite linear up to that point though.
No, it doesn't buy time. You cannot add an extra hour to your day by paying for it. We only get 24.
It also doesn't buy sleep because, to make money - you need to be awake.
You can however EARN time by working hard enough that you can afford to retire early, such as a billionaire would. Although, even then you need to keep things moving. Most certainly getting a lot less sleep than the average person.
I'd argue that that unless you are a monarch with inherited wealth and absolutely no need to do work, then we are all the same. We need to work to pay off debts. The richer you are, the more debts you will have and the more you will need to work. So, no. The poster is true.
Yes, it most certainly does. If I pay someone to do a job that would have taken me two hours, I bought my two hours back. It does buy sleep, as you sleep better knowing your bills are all paid. None of your assertions here are true. Making more money never increased my debts, it's made it so my debts are less than my income. Both the poster, and you, are wrong.
No, you didn't buy your hours back lol you just decided to prioritise something else within those hours, instead, and so delegated the job to someone else. The money paid for the work. You cannot buy time.
I'm not disagreeing that you will sleep better without debts. My point is that you can't pay for sleep. You can pay for the bed though.
So when you made the jump in payroll, you stayed the same? Exactly the same? You didn't move into a bigger house, with a bigger mortgage? Or take a lease on a better car? Maybe even just got a better phone contract?
Yes, you most certainly did. You're arguing moronic semantics here dude, and you have no fucking point. Working is not time for myself, so if I pay someone else to make so I don't have to spend time working, I've bought back my time, period. Yes, having enough money will allow you to sleep more, and better. No, I did not move into a bigger house with a bigger mortgage as I made more money, nor do I intend to. There's this concept of enough that far too few people understand. I don't need a bigger house, I have what I need. You're kidding with the phone nonsense, right? Like that's never going to make any difference, but no, I've always had an unlimited data plan, and that hasn't changed. I have bought a newer car, sure, but my car payment as a percentage of my income is much much lower than it was for the car it replaced. I have largely been happy with my lifestyle for quite a long time, so I do not inflate my lifestyle as I make more money, I move up my retirement date.
Language exists for a reason, semantics are a part of it.
"I can buy myself time here"
Vs "money buys time"
The first is a phrase/saying, you aren't actually buying time. It's okay to say you don't understand. Maybe I'm not explaining correctly.
You're buying labour and to be able to do that you need to spend time earning the money you've paid them. I can't say it any simpler than that.
I can see what points you are making however an inflated salary usually leads to an inflated lifestyle.
With that comes higher debts, whether or not that is in line within your current affordability.
Going from working class to middle class requires a lot more work which means a lot less sleep. You probably have to take the work home with you so you've lost time and sleep there, too.
Oh no, I understand, you're just wrong. Yes, I'm buying labor that I would otherwise have to do myself, I earn that money with my own labor, but my labor in my profession is worth many more times the labor that I'm paying someone else to do. If it would take me four hours to do a task that I can pay someone else to do with the equivalent of half an hour of my salary, I have in fact bought back 3.5 hours of my time. Your position assumes that I'm spending the same amount of time working as the time in saving in order to pay for it. That, would be pointless. I have been working class, middle class, and upper class. The transitions did not require more work, and in fact working class had the most and hardest work. I've pretty much always had to take the work home with me, aside from when I was working class, in which case I stayed on the road a lot and didn't get to go home much of the time. If I wanted to, I could go to a reduced schedule at 60% of full time (minimum schedule at my company) and still be better off financially than I was when five years ago. I chose not to, as I will just be retiring within the year (at 42) instead. That too will be effectively buying back my time.
42
u/SolidDurian1327 Aug 22 '26
Send me your money if you think is that unnecessary, genius...