There’s a lot of fascination with billionaires in our society as a whole. To accumulate one billion dollars of capital as a single individual comes with a certain level of responsibility, fame and respect that few get to experience.
However, in life the other dimension that everyone discounts relatively is time.
Assuming the average person lives around 80 years, that comes down to:
4,160 weeks
700,800 hours
42,048,000 minutes
2,522,880,000 seconds
That last number is particularly interesting. Everyone has roughly two and half billion seconds of existence (barring any accidents or early endings).
Which leads me to the next point, assuming you’re less than 48.3 years old, you are currently a time billionaire.
Unlike monetary billionaires, you can’t earn more of your time. Furthermore, not all time is created equal. During the first billion seconds, you get maximum health, energy and things taken care for you.
As time goes on, your billions have more responsibilities they’re obligated to be spent on. So where am I going with all this?
Well I find it interesting that everyone spends so much money & energy tracking, budgeting, thinking about where they spend their time with numerical precision. But how many people actually obsess to the same degree about where they spend their time?
It feels like as a society we’ve lost our way when we value something that we can get more of rather than the only thing we cannot ever get back, ever.
I personally track all my time and treat it exactly like a balance sheet include weekly rituals of time accounting where I identify, analyse and improve how my time is being spent as if it were money.
Is it too far? Maybe. However, as a time billionaire I want to make sure my billions are spent to their maximum effectiveness.
You should too — because you’ll never get your time billions back.
One million seconds is 11 days.
One billion seconds is 3 decades.
"Well I find it interesting that everyone spends so much time & energy tracking, budgeting, thinking about where they spend their money with numerical precision."
Was this the intended idea, I guess?