Unqiue retirement question

[al_123]

Hello all,
I'm faced with a unique situation. I'm in my mid-30's, with 300k saved. No debt, no mortgage, no kids.

Two scenarios are open to me:
A) Save 10-20k per year in a non-hectic business (self-employed) in an area I like until age 65. This would require 10-20 hours of work per week.
B) Save 100-200k per year (self-employed) in an area I'm not overly fond of for 5-10 years. This would require 40-50 hours weeks to begin, lessening to 10-20 hours after the first 3 years.

My question really comes down to age and perspective. In either scenario, I end up with enough for retirement.

At 34, it feels like time for a break-yet I'm no where near having enough for retirement. Would you keep grinding 5-10 more years, or start to slow down a bit in my shoes?

Which scenario would you choose, and why?

[TBH]

I'd take option A. As long as you're staying on track for retirement and earning enough to support your lifestyle, why not work less? If you decide in 5-10 years that you want to go back to a higher-earning job, it's not too late to do that.

I'm in my mid-thirties also and have a close friend with a terminal illness. Life is short and you never know what will happen. If you have an opportunity to do something you like and enjoy yourself without screwing up your finances, take it.

Also, total idleness doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather work less for longer than work hard and then stop working entirely.

I'm assuming you have fun, meaningful plans for your extra time. If not, get some.

[bjl584]

What are your life plans? Do you always plan to be single and without children, or do you plan someday to have a family? The answer to that may be the deciding factor.

But that aside, based on the info that you gave I would take option A. Both A and B get you to the same place, so take the easier path.

[al_123]

Follow-up

To follow-up, I'm married, but we will not be having children (personal choice).

[mcfroggin]

If both get you where you want to be, it comes down to what you prefer.

[disneysteve]

I respectfully disagree with TBH and bjl584.

If the choices facing me are 31 years of part time work before retirement or 3 years of full time work and then 2-7 years of part time work followed by the ability to retire if I choose, I'm going with option B.

I would personally put a lot more value on the early retirement that comes with option B. You'd be no older than 44 by your description vs 65 with option A.

[snshijuptr]

I would really sit down and assess what I would do with my retirement. Would you:

1) work a low paying dream job?
2) spend a bunch of money traveling?
3) volunteer?
4) start a business?
5) go back to school?
6) pursue a hobby?
7) sit on your butt playing video games?

It really depends on what you want to do with your retirement. Before you make any big decisions, really sit down and plan out your retirement. Make a week plan of your activities. Even take a staycation to practice your retirement lifestyle. This may be a time to change your life for the better be that through quitting work or just changing what work means to you.

[Redraidernurse]

I agree with Disneysteve, I'd choose option B and retire early and travel.

[MonkeyMama]

I'd lean towards A, though may choose some middle ground. Just for example, many of my relatives in their 50s are having trouble finding employment in this economy. So I may aim to retire in my 40s or 50s. (Aim a little early for the "what ifs" of life).

Nothing appeals to me about wasting 10 years of my life with something I didn't enjoy. Maybe a few years to get a head or make a goal. I think 5-10 years is a bit much.

I'd rather do what I like and have less money, personally. I'm 34 and we chose the slower path a decade ago. Life is good.

[Shewillbemine]

I wouldn't spend more than 1 year at a job I didn't like, let alone several years.

[frugalgirl]

I thought the OP mentioning an "area" to perhaps mean a location not a job. Which is it?

If it's a job area that you are not overly fond of, I'd do option B. I worked a job I hated for 3 years. I would have stayed longer if it meant I would have been able to save 100 - 200k/year! I just made the most of the parts of the job I did like.

If it's a location you don't like, I would probably still do option B but it depends. There are certain places that would make me miserable to have to live there even short term.

[disneysteve]

an area I'm not overly fond of

I thought the OP mentioning an "area" to perhaps mean a location not a job. Which is it?

If it's a job area that you are not overly fond of, I'd do option B.

If it's a location you don't like, I would probably still do option B but it depends.

Good point. In either case, though, "not overly fond of" doesn't sound like "I hate it" but rather "it wouldn't be my first choice."

If I could save 100K-200K/year and retire in 5-10 years, I would definitely take that option.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Option B no questions asked. work short term and live short term in a undesirable locatino with money is my answer. Been there and done that. and it hasn't been great, 6 years and counting the days, but long term it was the right choice. Not an easy choice but the right choice.

[al_123]

Location

Clarification on the "area" part of the question. This references location. The area isn't somewhere I'd choose naturally, but it's not "horrible".

Great perspective so far-some really useful advice!

[MonkeyMama]

Interesting clarification.

From personal experience, not sure you can really rate an area until you live there. (Well, assuming this is an area you have not lived before?)

Meaning, option B might be worth a chance because you might like it. If not? Fall back on option A?