I think a non-obvious aspect of time opportunity cost is forever missing out on specific experiences that are best lived in specific stages of life.
The truth is most of us can't have it all, some of the cards we've been dealt with are less than ideal, but there's always a silver lining to everything seemingly unfavorable. E.g. If you have to work harder than average to achieve basic stability, then when the going gets tough, you're less fazed by it than the person who had things come easily and never developed that resilience muscle.
There's this saying if I remember correctly from Alex Hormozi mentioning that in your 20s, you're either under lived or under skilled, there's no in between, or something like that.
Being under-lived is basically not spending much time to live life as in stacking those experience points generally in other domains outside of just work.
I'm assuming the reward here is the classical projected outcome of making good money but with no time to step out of this bubble lest everything comes crashing down on you and starting back at zero. It's a perception, realized or nor, of wearing golden handcuffs, so to speak.
On a purely focus metric and given the current state of the world with intense competition and marginally less economic mobility/opportunity, being over-skilled, if such a thing exists, may seem to have a lot of advantages in one's 20s, as one can basically live by and thrive/navigate through competence alone.
However, it's a drug, the moment you're addicted to the validation that comes from being the capable one, your identity starts getting wrapped around what you produce without any room whatsoever for what actually matters to you beyond external metrics.
Something that's initially framed as just your 20s, could extend through to 30s, then 40s, maybe 50s too, until the body puts a hard stop to it.
I know the plan coming from this choice of being under-lived in one's 20s is a catch up trade of sorts to backfill the experiences later with money and freedom.
On the flip side, being under skilled is cruising through life without developing much of real competitive economic advantage.
Funnily enough, the main premise is in order to develop skills, one has to put the very life they are trying to sustain on the back burner?
At least for me, the dichotomy itself is very rigid. I mean, yes, I have to be aware and recognize that different seasons call for different balances, and that the ability to shift between modes is itself a skill that's worth aiming for.
Which is developing into the person who can ruthlessly focus when it matters AND fully disconnect and be present when that too matters. It's actually rare and valuable to possess and worth a try than defaulting to choosing one over the other.
Better yet, what experiences are you comfortable never having, and can you make that choice consciously rather than by default?
This is the point of curating your regrets with opportunity cost as having it all is a near impossibility.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
