Learn Hardcore Swedish: Efter jobbet har jag så lite energi att jag bara vill titta på tv. - After work I have so little energy that I only want to watch TV.

If the sentence starts with the subject, you say:
Jag har så lite energi efter jobbet.
If you move a time phrase to the front (Efter jobbet), the verb still has to be in second position, so the subject moves after the verb:
Efter jobbet har jag så lite energi.

So Efter jobbet har jag … is correct.
Efter jobbet jag har … is wrong, because the verb is no longer in second place.

Why is it efter jobbet and not efter jobb?

Jobb is a noun that normally appears either:

in the indefinite form: ett jobb (a job) / jobb (job, work in general)
or in the definite form: jobbet (the job / work).

In time expressions like this, Swedish often uses the definite form to mean “my usual work / my workday” in a general way:

efter jobbet ≈ “after work (is finished)”

Saying efter jobb sounds incomplete or unidiomatic here. You could say efter jobbet or efter arbetet, but not efter jobb in this meaning.

What’s the difference between jobb and arbete in this kind of sentence?

Both can work, but there are nuances:

Efter jobbet – very common, everyday, slightly more informal. Refers to your job/shift/workday.
Efter arbetet – more formal or neutral, slightly more “proper”, but still fine.

In daily spoken Swedish, efter jobbet is more typical.
Efter arbetet might appear more in writing, in formal speech, or when you want a slightly more serious tone.

Could I also say Jag har så lite energi efter jobbet att jag bara vill titta på tv? Is that still correct?

Yes, that word order is also perfectly correct:

Efter jobbet har jag så lite energi att jag bara vill titta på tv.
Jag har så lite energi efter jobbet att jag bara vill titta på tv.

Both follow the V2 rule (the verb har is in second position).
The difference is only in emphasis:

Starting with Efter jobbet emphasizes the time: after work is the important context.
Starting with Jag is more neutral, focusing first on you.

What does the structure så lite energi att … mean exactly, and why do we use att here?

This is a degree + result construction:

så lite energi = “so little energy”
att jag bara vill titta på tv = a result clause: “that I just want to watch TV”

Together: så … att … = “so … that …” in English.

Here att introduces the result of having so little energy. You can’t drop att the way English sometimes drops that:

English can say: “I have so little energy I only want to watch TV.”
Swedish must have att: … så lite energi att jag bara vill titta på tv.

What’s the difference between så lite energi att and så att? I’ve seen both.

They are different structures:

så + (adjective/adverb) + att
- expresses degree + result:
- Jag är så trött att jag somnar direkt.
  “I’m so tired that I fall asleep immediately.”
så att (together)
- often means “so that / in order that / with the result that”:
- Jag sänkte volymen så att barnen kunde sova.
  “I turned down the volume so that the children could sleep.”

In your sentence it’s not så att, but så lite energi + att …
It’s the degree “so little energy” leading to the result “that I only want to watch TV.”

Why is it så lite energi and not something like så låg energi?

In Swedish, with energi (as a mass noun), you usually talk about the amount:

mycket energi = a lot of energy
lite energi = little energy

So if you want to express degree, you say:

så mycket energi – so much energy
så lite energi – so little energy

Using låg energi is grammatically possible in some technical or descriptive contexts (e.g. låg energi-strålning = low-energy radiation), but for personal tiredness, native speakers normally use mycket/lite energi, not hög/låg energi.

Why is there no att before titta? In English we say “to watch TV.”

In Swedish, after modal verbs like:

vill (want)
kan (can)
måste (must)
ska (shall / going to)

you almost always use the bare infinitive, without att:

Jag vill titta på tv. – I want to watch TV.
Jag kan simma. – I can swim.
Jag måste gå. – I must go.

So vill titta (not vill att titta) is the normal, correct form.

Why is it titta på tv and not just titta tv?

With verbs of watching/looking, Swedish usually uses the preposition på:

titta på tv – watch TV
titta på en film – watch a film
titta på fåglar – look at birds

You can’t drop på here.
titta tv sounds wrong to native speakers; titta på tv is the idiomatic phrase.

Is there a difference between titta på tv and se på tv?

Both are used and both mean “watch TV,” but with small nuances:

titta på tv – very common and neutral; often used for the activity of watching.
se på tv – also common; can sometimes feel a bit more like “see” (focusing on the content), but in practice they overlap a lot.

In everyday speech, many people use titta på tv slightly more often, but you will hear both everywhere.

Why is tv in lowercase? Can I write TV or teve?

All of these exist in modern Swedish:

tv – very common in everyday writing; treated like a regular word.
TV – also correct, especially if you want to show it is an abbreviation.
teve – a spelled‑out, more spoken-like form; somewhat informal.

In normal text, tv or TV are the most common spellings. In your sentence, tv in lowercase is natural and standard.

Could I say jag vill bara titta på tv instead of jag bara vill titta på tv? Does the position of bara change the meaning?

Both are grammatically correct, but the focus changes slightly:

jag vill bara titta på tv
→ usually interpreted as: “I only want to watch TV (and not do anything else).”
The “only” focuses on what you want to do.
jag bara vill titta på tv
→ often heard in speech with intonation that expresses frustration or resignation:
“I just want to watch TV.” (emotionally “just let me do that, that’s all I ask”)
Here bara colours the whole desire, not just the activity.

In many everyday contexts they will be understood almost the same, but jag vill bara titta på tv is the more neutral, typical order if you clearly mean “only this and nothing else.”

Why do we use present tense vill when it’s about something I want to do later, after work?

Swedish often uses the present tense for future meaning when the time is clear from context:

Imorgon jobbar jag hemma. – I’ll work from home tomorrow.
Nästa vecka åker vi till Göteborg. – We’re going to Gothenburg next week.

In your sentence, efter jobbet already gives the future time frame, so vill in present tense naturally refers to what you will want then:

Efter jobbet har jag så lite energi att jag bara vill titta på tv.

You could use kommer att vilja, but it would sound overly heavy and unnatural here. The simple present is the normal choice.