Now I do what's important and don't waste my time with other things. I don't try to "life-hack" or make myself as efficient as possible because if I'm only working on my most important things I know I'm spending my time well.
I cut my working hours down to one or sometimes two days a week, sometimes more when they need me more. I don't need more money than that -- and I live in Manhattan (no kids).
And my life is better than ever.
Nothing special about me. Anyone could do it.
(I recently had an idea I'm passionate about and may put in long hours for it, which will be following my passions. Making your time your own lets you.)
EDIT: to dragons' question of what I do, I work at the company I founded. My compensation is no higher than anyone else's. Working one-fifth time gives me one-fifth pay.
The more valuable question is how low are my expenses. I've found much more freedom in needing less than in having more. Cutting out what doesn't add joy to my life creates freedom and joy. That's what I meant by nothing special about me. Anyone can cut waste. Not many seem to.
Having less stuff: http://joshuaspodek.com/less_please. By this point I cringe when someone gives me a material gift, knowing I'll want to get rid of it soon. Most friends have learned I prefer a bottle of wine or scotch as a gift to anything to stick on a shelf.
My exercise regiment has me in as good physical shape as I've ever been (including when I ran marathons and competed at Nationals level in Ultimate Frisbee). Here's how I work out every day with no gym membership, cost, or equipment, enjoying it: http://joshuaspodek.com/how-begin-workout-routine and http://joshuaspodek.com/knew-minute-day-workout
Personal development for free, the equal of any multi-thousand-dollar seminar: http://joshuaspodek.com/vipassana-meditation
Lots of other examples if you dig through my blog.
What do you do for your income?
Basically it would force you to hang out with people you know.
I have friends and business associates who thrive on long work hours.
We all need to figure out what we need out of life.
To think in terms of "well, at least it was quality time" is to admit that we in fact suffer from a poverty of time. In a world where we had enough time to satiate demand, we genuinely would not care whether we spent it well.
Ditto for happiness. This may not be the forum for a consideration of the Hedonistic Imperative, but you might give a few moments of thought for the serious vision aimed at optimizing some measure of happiness and pleasure, rather than some measure of wealth or a count of seconds.
http://www.hedweb.com/hedab.htm
"This manifesto outlines a strategy to eradicate suffering in all sentient life. The abolitionist project is ambitious, implausible, but technically feasible. It is defended here on ethical utilitarian grounds. Genetic engineering and nanotechnology allow Homo sapiens to discard the legacy-wetware of our evolutionary past. Our post-human successors will rewrite the vertebrate genome, redesign the global ecosystem, and abolish suffering throughout the living world."
-----
Though it has to be said that I'm firmly in the count of seconds camp - until you get a decent supply of those queued and flowing in a pipeline, you're burning your candle at both ends. Crazy to be playing the game like it's ten to midnight on Doomsday when you could instead be helping to fund ways to turn back the clock though biotechnology:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/02/what-is-wealth.ph...
In short, debating the value of time spent is the mark of humans who are gnawed inside by the knowledge of their own lack of time. Those humans should give more of their money to the SENS Foundation - that would be the unbendingly rational thing to do.
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/10/the-rational-use-...
Better to be realistic and expect that we probably will die, instead of constantly worrying about death and hoping for some miracle cure(IMO).
Most people think science is done with eureka moments by geniuses, but actually what is needed is a "systematic" exploration.
I completely disagree. Happiness is a consequence of your outlook on life. It has very little to do with choices, and everything to do with how you perceive yourself, and whether you believe that you should be happy.
This TED talk by Brené Brown on the topic is particularly relevant:
It's what I try to do and it's really awesome because it gives you both plenty of free-ish time and plenty of money to enjoy that free-ish time with.
After all, the number one piece of advice was "spend time with the right people". But maybe it applies for introverted people too. For me, top of the list for right people is my wife. We can be "alone together". Perhaps curled up together on the couch reading.
And introverted doesn't mean that we don't enjoy the company of good friends -- it just means that we need some alone time after to regain our energy. Good friends are often significantly energy draining but are significantly happiness increasing.
http://dunn.psych.ubc.ca/files/2010/12/If-Money-Doesnt-make-...
HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3922794
Time is the ultimate luxury
It's an hour but well worth a listen/watch
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2574
But is Hacker News an empty subsitute? It pushes the same buttons, but is missing many of the components that are only available in face to face conversation.
Your time isn't worth so much, if poor health precludes you from doing what you want/enjoy.
