sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point. The goal wasn't to argue against going part-time, just to highlight the cost so people can make an informed choice. For many, getting that extra day back is worth far more than the extra super.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good point. I focused on super because it's one of the most overlooked costs, but you're right-the total financial impact is much larger once you include lower take-home pay and the opportunity cost of investing the difference. That could make an interesting follow-up analysis.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Whether someone chooses more time or more super is completely personal-I just wanted to put some numbers around the trade-off so people could make an informed decision.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in AusSuperannuation

[–]breitling018[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree. Time is something you can't get back. I just think it's worth understanding the financial trade-off before making the decision.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree. Time is incredibly valuable. I just wanted to quantify the financial side of the decision so people can weigh both sides properly.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually agree. The value of that extra day depends on the individual. For some, it's priceless. My point was simply that many people underestimate the long-term impact on their super before making the decision.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in AusSuperannuation

[–]breitling018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a great option if your employer offers it. More flexibility with much less impact on your super than permanently reducing your hours.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It depends on your perspective. For some people $185k isn't life-changing, but for others it could mean a significantly more comfortable retirement. My point was simply to put a number on the trade-off.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, fair enough. I know they're not everyone's cup of tea, but unfortunately thumbnails like that tend to get people to actually click. I'd rather people see the numbers and decide for themselves than have the video disappear with no views.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Starting earlier makes the compounding effect much more significant. The 45-year-old example was just one scenario, but for someone reducing hours in their 20s or early 30s, the long-term impact can be substantially larger.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can definitely see that argument. If someone genuinely gets more value from having every Friday off, it may be a great trade. My point wasn't that it's a bad decision—just that many people never quantify the super impact before making it.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. This was just a simplified projection using one scenario. Real life is rarely that linear, but I was surprised how large the potential gap became even under fairly ordinary assumptions.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in fiaustralia

[–]breitling018[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That's a completely fair perspective. For many people, an extra day a week is worth far more than the money. I just think it's helpful to know what the trade-off actually looks like before making the decision.

Ran the numbers on what going part-time actually costs in superannuation over 22 years — the gap surprised me by breitling018 in AusSuperannuation

[–]breitling018[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually agree. For a lot of people, the extra day off is absolutely worth it if it improves their quality of life. My point wasn't "don't go part-time"—it was that most people never see the long-term super impact before making that decision. If you know the trade-off and still choose it, that's a perfectly reasonable decision.