25 Hour Work Week? Yes or No?

[beckie.c]

Definitly an interesting idea, but I think it would be a waste of time, especially if we are talking working M, W, F and having Tues & Thurs off and then the weekend...
I would rather put in the time now, and celebrate later by retireing early and taking my FT vacation (3 weeks per year) to travel for longer periods of time than just a weekend or 5 days...

Nope, with all that spare time people will spend more and our bosses will expect the same done in 40 hours as 25 and sometimes 40 isn't enough for what they want done.
They are also looking at a full year 4 day school week for provinces, that will be a mess too - good luck getting day care for that one day a week

My school district in SK was part of the 4-day program for at least the 10 years I was there (graduated 2007). It was actually great (in a small town maybe this works better than it would in a big city?). We went to school M-T and had all extra curricular activities on Fridays, occassionaly if Monday was a holiday, we would go to school on Friday... The BIG BENEFIT was I was able to participate in more extra curricular sports, because I didn't have to miss classes for track meets, badminton tournaments, curling bonspeils, provincials, etc. I really found that a lot of my friends and I were more active. It also meant when I was old enough, Friday was a day that I could "work", I babysat for friends of the family, who needed childcare for that day, and eventually worked PT at a restaraunt in town [I worked and paid for my first trip to europe in grade 11 with my friends ]....

That's totally just my experience, and like I said, maybe in a bigger place it would harder, our town and most towns in the area only had about 1200 people. The really funny thing our area has since switched back to a 5-day week, and the parents are complaining because they can't go to extra-curricular activities, plan doctors appointments on non-school days, and there are more "teacher professional days" throughout the year where kids aren't in school anyways, if you add all of those days up, does it not equal close to the amount of "Friday's off"?...

[Shwa Girl]

Nope, with all that spare time people will spend more and our bosses will expect the same done in 40 hours as 25 and sometimes 40 isn't enough for what they want done.
They are also looking at a full year 4 day school week for provinces, that will be a mess too - good luck getting day care for that one day a week

The school part - I think Whitby has year round schools. Something like 2 months on and 2 weeks off.

Four days per week won't work for working families.

[Shwa Girl]

i rent

I think you found the secret, before the "researchers" did their work.

Personally, I would LOVE a 3 day work week, and work longer past "retirement age", whatever that is.

[frugal50]

But that insinuates that you were working more than 25 hours a week until that point. With all things being equal, would you have been able to sustain your lifestyle if you worked 25 hours a week since out of high school? I know in my community, someone working 25 hours a week can't afford to leave home unless they're paid consultant fees.

i've worked off and on most of my life in part-time dead end jobs!

to be honest, i don't think i ever worked full-time for more than six months my entire life!

[Shwa Girl]

You know, I'm starting to get suspicious when an outfit that profits from RRSP deposits tells me people won't afford to retire unless they save more. Yes, there's a poll, but it's self-serving. They're the ones that predict customers will need X million of dollars to live comfortably and people are believing by assuming they'll want the same lifestyle they live now.

You found out their scam!
No, people don't need millions to retire - unless you plan a cruise or two PLUS some luxury trips of 3-6 months in a nice warm climate. Even then 3-6 months in the right warm climate, living modestly and eating healthily and frugally, is still doable.

Some friend started the RESP for their child at birth, for college. RESP!?! We worked every summer during high school, went to local colleges and universities, took public transit, brought our lunch to school and worked every summer + took elective courses in the summer post graduate semesters. We bought used text books, borrowed some texts from the school library, read texts on Google and had time for some entertaining with friends and family.

Freedom 55 is a myth for most.
Freedom = working when you want and stopping when you want.
Freedom = being able to work part time or full time, past 65 (if you want) in an occupation that you really like.

IMHO.

[The Heretic]

Who says that working 40 hours a week for a salary even guarantees you a good retirement?

Oh yeah, the people telling us to put all of our money in RRSPs and Mutual funds...the same people who were responsible for us being in the state we are right now.

I like the comment above about how you can get work done in 25 hrs if you are away from the office. I totally agree with that. 25 hours of focused time on something you are passionate about and that brings value to people, then time for your family and friends and what not. It's healthier and happier, and at least as good a strategy as hoarding whats left of your 40 hr work week salary away in a mutal fund for which you aren't even the one making the profits.

[princessjen]

So now, some Canadians are saying that they won't be able to retire until 66

http://www.montrealgazette.com/busin...944/story.html

They have bumped the retirement age for my generation to 67. (I could be dead before then)

Nowadays, most of us will have to work until were 80 anyways, unless your lucky enough to land a job with a pension. Or win the lottery.

[Shwa Girl]

They have bumped the retirement age for my generation to 67. (I could be dead before then)

Nowadays, most of us will have to work until were 80 anyways, unless your lucky enough to land a job with a pension. Or win the lottery.

I think you have better odds of getting a job with a pension faster than winning the lottery.

[vesper]

In the 60's and 70's when all these retirement schemes were modernized, 1 in 7 folks were elderly.

When the baby boomers all retire, it will be 1 in 3.

Further, people only lived to 68 back then.

Now they live past 80.

In 10 - 15 years, govt budgets are going to be under a lot of pressure.

Might be working past 70!!!

[Kelly5]

What's really frustrating is that so many people are finishing university with huge loans and no jobs. They leave and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans. If they are fortunate enough to find a job it usually isn't a career, it's something in fast food or other low end job. That's not going to pay back loans and start saving for retirement. If it takes 2-3 years to find a career, plus 15 years to pay back student loans then they can't even start saving for retirement until they're in their mid-30s. By that time they'll probably be married and having kids, so the extra money goes to kids and other expenses, not retirement. Finally, when they're in their 40s they might be able to save. So, what is the chance they'll retire when they are 65? I'm thinking it's pretty low.

[Shwa Girl]

What's really frustrating is that so many people are finishing university with huge loans and no jobs. They leave and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans. If they are fortunate enough to find a job it usually isn't a career, it's something in fast food or other low end job.

This may be true. Some have to move to where the jobs are. They may not be where they grew up.

That's not going to pay back loans and start saving for retirement. If it takes 2-3 years to find a career, plus 15 years to pay back student loans then they can't even start saving for retirement until they're in their mid-30s. By that time they'll probably be married and having kids, so the extra money goes to kids and other expenses, not retirement.


This is going to be a tough statement. If people are not in a good financial state, should they be taking on more debt with big wedding (just an example), buying a house, having a few children?
Just trying to be realistic.

Finally, when they're in their 40s they might be able to save. So, what is the chance they'll retire when they are 65? I'm thinking it's pretty low.

I think you are right. Chances of retiring at 65 like the Baby Boomers are doing now, is low.

Great that we have a forum like SC to sort stuff out and avoid the financial traps of our friends and relatives.

[frugal50]

In the 60's and 70's when all these retirement schemes were modernized, 1 in 7 folks were elderly.

When the baby boomers all retire, it will be 1 in 3.

Further, people only lived to 68 back then.

Now they live past 80.

In 10 - 15 years, govt budgets are going to be under a lot of pressure.

Might be working past 70!!!

i got 15 more years before i retire at 67

[kanewtz]

I'd hate it....personally. I love what I do and enjoy being at work.

I'd like to work four 10 hr shifts and alternate having a Fri and Mon off every other week.

[frugal50]

I'd hate it....personally. I love what I do and enjoy being at work.

I'd like to work four 10 hr shifts and alternate having a Fri and Mon off every other week.

what kind of work do you do?

[Brad]

I wonder how many people complaining that they won't be able to retire at 65 are also living beyond their means, ie house way bigger than they need, financing two or three brand new cars, enrolling their kids in every expensive activity they can find, taking expensive vacations, etc. I save 2/3 of my after-tax income and invest it into low-risk dividend-paying blue chip stocks and have no doubt I'll be able to retire by 50, unless some unpredictable event occurs that somehow bankrupts me but that's unlikely.

As for banks having an interest in getting us to invest more, that only holds true if you invest in things that bring the banks a lot of profit, eg high-MER mutual funds. If you invest in low-cost ETFs or buy stocks directly, the only profits to the banks are the commission fees you pay which are minimal.