If you could afford to live by working just 3 days a week…

Living on the equivalent salary for a while and putting the extra somewhere that you can't easily spend it sounds like a good idea.

Staying FT for a bit longer in order to save is a good idea in principle, but it's very easy to fall into the trap of just spending it.

I be the same circumstances as you OP, 40 single no kids small mortgage etc

I did go down to 3 days a week over a 1 year ago now (although 10 hr days I do on the days I does working)

it been the best thing for my mental and physical health I has done as I been so much unhappy at work for a long time now. It be much more manageable for me now and I feels so much better for it

I would if my children were pre-school/infant school age. Otherwise I’d do 4 days and save the extra money tax-free into my pension, to give me more flexibility later on.
If I didn’t have kids I’d do 5 days for as long as possible to save as much money as early as possible so I could relax more when I was over 50 and had less energy for work / or so if I lost my job it wouldn’t be stressful. Money saved young then just magically expands with no effort on your part, it’s great.

I’m self employed and love my job so I’d always chose to work the 5. BUT previous jobs which I hated I would jump down to three in a heartbeat. Fuck the savings.

I think its usually a trade off.
I work 2 nights a week and have done for years, I love it! I will have 30 yrs in a public sector pension when I finish and my mortgage is paid. Live alone so no kids to think of but I also dont have any savings and I do have to live quite cheaply.
Its worth it for me though, to have time for hobbies and relaxing. Plus I dont think I would be mentally able to cope with my job full time!

Does your employer allow you to purchase additional annual leave? If so you could do that and give yourself a trial of a shorter working week.

The danger, especially in the public sector, at the moment is that if you drop hours you won't necessarily be able to get them back.

I couldn't up mine even if I wanted to.

I think you are single and that brings both additional pressure in the sense you only have yourself to rely on in terms of finances, but equally it frees you from a lot of the saving for children's future. You may as well enjoy your own money (and time ) you just need to work out where the right balance is.

Would your job allow you to take a sabbatical? My job does; in a couple of years I'm going to move and was thinking when I do I am going to save up and take a sabbatical for 3 months to settle into my new place. That's the plan, anyway!

OP I'm in a similar situation to you, I have friends who work part time for childcare reasons, and whilst I don't doubt that's hard, part of me thinks if they're making it work out of necessity, and they have higher outgoings than me (I don't have children) surely I could make it work? However I am a bit worried about the impact on future pension, and long term sustainability. I also have to remind myself that most of these friends will have to go back to FT, they aren't doing PT until retirement but only when the children are small!

As a compromise, I'm doing my best to live off less money and putting some aside in investments as well as savings. In that way I'm hoping that in 5-10 years I could be more confident that I could genuinely live long term with the pay cut, as well hopefully having a bigger cushion so that I'd have more security to go P/T, especially if for example I could pay a big chunk of the mortgage off.

I would aim to retire early instead and put the other two days into your pension. Easier to get your working hours in earlier in your life.

One life.

I downshifted at 42. The mortgage was paid off and so I dropped a couple of days. Could still afford to live, have a holiday and save a bit. Is it an option to be full time for a few more years whilst living on a three day a week salary? And get that mortgage paid down as much as possible?

I tend to live my life 20% focused on the future, 80% in the here and now. So while I give a nod to preparing for what might be, I'm far more interested in what's in front of me. Ive come to this way of thinking after multiple experiences of watching life throw curve balls that scupper future plans, ill health, death or bereavement and realising there's no promise of tomorrow that justifies too much sacrafice today. So if I had your choice, I'd go for what would make me happier now. I'm older than you though, and may have made a different decision in my 40s.

At 59, ill and burnt out: fair enough.
At 40 with a mortgage and bare minimum emergency savings: I wouldn't.

I’m 59. Burnt out and I’ll, I’m considering doing this.

I'd see how you can reduce stress at work, or possibly compress to four days a week nine a fortnight rather than sacrifice earnings and investment potential.

You could give yourself a target of two years during which you learn to live off the reduced salary, and put the difference into investments. That way you'd see how manageable it is, and build a safety net at the same time which would be v. useful if you decide to take the leap.

Also, we all go through phases where we feel 'meh' about work. They usually pass. I hated my job about 7 years ago* and seriously thought about leaving for something less stressful but lower paid. I'm so glad I didn't though.

*coincided with perimenopause, unsurprisingly.

If you got made redundant now, would your pension (when accessible) be enough to live on if you couldnt get another public sector role? Also the problem with pubic sector is that if you want to retire early you either have to accept a big reduction in annual pension or be able to support yourself until 68+. If it were me, until i had either savings or paid off the mortgage i dont think i would as you wouldnt get much in terms of universal credit/job seekers or whatever it is called.

By the way, you don't have to have a meaningful hobby - whatever that means. You're allowed to potter about at home.

As someone who's disabled and can't even work one day I would say that the security of the extra money might seem like a good idea but if you work three days, you're more likely to stay healthy so that would be more sustainable. Thus creating security in a different way. Plus you'd have a much nicer life now and you'd even enjoy your job more knowing that you only have to work three days.

How long left on mortgage? Could you over pay for the next year or so and then go part time? At least then you would have financial security.

I would keep working 5 days and stash the extra money away for the future. Or maybe compromise and work 4 days. Maybe if there was something meaningful I wanted to do in those 2 days off, I’d considered the 3 days but not if it was just general “me time” with no plans.

It’s my plan for when my son is older. I currently work school hours and we won’t need me to increase my working hours to fund our life as it is now when that’s not necessary. But I will want to be putting the extra into retirement or general savings.

I think there's a balance to be found. Having recently seen two of my peers die in their forties and early fifties, I've planned financially to live a long life but I'm also making sure I get the most out of my life while I have it. For me, that includes working less but I appreciate that's not everyone's preference.