Time is a very interesting resource to think about.
There are, as at this point of writing, 86.4k seconds in a day, give or take a second or two due to how the ``second'' is no longer related to the rotational period of the Earth.
One third of that, on average, is not consciously usable because one needs to sleep, leaving behind 57.6k seconds.
One third of which (half of the remainder) is meant for work/employment as defined by society, leaving behind 28.8k seconds.
That's 28.8k seconds of ``your own time'', around 8 hours per day, on average.
In reality, that number can be a little higher, since most people do not work all seven days of the week. Assuming a 44-hour work week, we get something like (168−44−(8×7))/7≈9.7 hours or around 35.0k seconds on average of ``your own time'' in a day.
That's time for yourself to spend that the companies are legally disallowed from using without suitable compensation, and even then, only up to certain limits.
I'll use 28.8k seconds as the average since it rounds nicely to 8 hours and can be scaled up accordingly for the off days that do not involve work.
These 28.8k seconds per day are a very precious and interesting resource. They are non-renewable---once those 28.8k seconds are gone, they are gone. One will only get another 28.8k seconds the next day, and it will be a brand-new one. Nothing that was unused ever gets banked for future use; it's either one uses it now or loses it forever.
And the 28.8k seconds are relentless. They have an upkeep of 1 second per second, so if one doesn't use it, it still goes away steadily, whether one is cognizant or not.
How best ought the 28.8k seconds be used then?
Personally, the actual numbers allocated are less important compared to the general categories of things that will be assigned to. I mean, it's ``your own time''---there is really no need for the kind of hard and highly optimised assignment, because at that point, the whole meaning behind living is lost and one might as well be an automaton.
The three main categories I see that are important are (in no order of merit): short-term happiness stuff, middle-term happiness stuff, long-term happiness stuff.
``Short-term happiness stuff'' means things that lead to nearly instant gratification. For example, playing a computer game, or having a good meal. These things help improve one's mood and morale for the short-term and are quick reflections on why life is worth living.
``Middle-term happiness stuff'' means things that have at least a few months of horizon ahead. For instance, hanging out with friends, spending time with some not-so-close relatives and the like. They are middle term because there's that instant gratification aspect, but there's also a long-ish relationship building part that makes this kind of happiness recurring. They are also middle term because at some point, people's life trajectories change, and what was once a great friend may just end up as a lukewarm one in the future.
``Long-term happiness stuff'' means things that are for the ever-elusive ``in future''. These things don't necessarily generate any form of gratification now, but can be seen as an investment towards future happiness. Some examples include hanging out with close family, learning a skill/language, having a hobby and the like.
Most people can easily understand the ``short-term happiness stuff'' and the ``middle-term happiness stuff'', mostly because of the instant gratification that comes naturally from such interactions. But when it comes to ``long-term happiness stuff'', one starts hearing all sorts of excuses about how there's never enough time to read, or to learn, or to hang out with close family. It's an easy mistake to make. Remember, there are 28.8k seconds of ``your own time'' to spend---even if we allocate the time equally among the three categories, we're still talking about 9.6k seconds per day per category.
That translates to around 160 minutes, or around 2.67 hours. Just 2.67 hours to spend on things that can only show a return ``in future''---is that really too much to ask for?
Many these days like to think that they are some kind of warrior of sorts, a warmonger always fighting for whatever cause they have, be it for ``social justice'', poverty, or rights and privileges. But I'm starting to come to the conclusion that much of our daily lives these days are more farmer than warrior, mostly because much of the good things in life need to start from a small, inconsequential thing (plant some seeds), followed by daily minute ministrations (watering the plants, clearing some weeds), and waiting for the time to kick in (wait for the plants to grow according to the season) before finally reaping the benefits (harvest time).
As urbanites, we sort of lose that focus that our farmer-ancestors had. Everything needs to be awesome and happen now, or else it is not useful and/or value-less.
Such behaviour can even be seen in the way some of us manage our finances, whether it be by living from pay cheque to pay cheque, or by speculating in the stock market, or even by gambling.
No wonder the proverb ``patience is a virtue'' comes to play.
------
So after so much [unnecessary] exposition, what is it I'm trying to get at?
It's simple, really. To understand that while there are needs that need to be handled now, it is always prudent to take a little time to prepare and take actions that help our future. Our future selves will be pleased at our foresight if we had taken that time to do things that would only benefit us in the future.
After all, no farmer ever had crops he/she did not sow before, and no one got wealthy just from spending money without saving and/or investing. Why would it be any different for the development of the self?
