this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
7 points (76.9% liked)

FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early)

1106 readers
1 users here now

Welcome!

FIRE is a lifestyle movement with the goal of gaining financial independence and retiring early.


Flow Charts:

Personal Income Spending Flow Chart (US)

Personal Income Spending Flow Chart (Canada)

Finance Flow Chart (UK)

Personal Income Spending Flow Chart (Australia)

Personal Finance Flow Chart (Ireland)


Useful Links:

Bogleheads Wiki

Mr. Money Moustache - a frugal lifestyle blog

The Earth Awaits


Related Communities:

/c/[email protected]

/c/[email protected]

/c/[email protected]

/c/[email protected]


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

An issue I always have with early retirement is whether it is morally acceptable. When retiring early from a skilled profession you are depriving society of a big contribution you could have given, that was also expected and invested in by society. Utilising a power dynamic by having more money and knowledge to capitalise on other people exacerbates this issue.

How are you dealing with this? Are you of the mindset that you do not owe anything to society? That it is completely fair, as you earned that money and there is a perfect market that trades all aspects in a meritocratic fashion (e.g., delayed consumption should be gratified this hard)? Or that you were not just lucky to have the talents to earn so much money?

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yenahmik 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought this was going to be a question about effective altruism.

Frankly, I don't see my job as being some huge contribution to society. It largely doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[–] FancyPantsFIRE 4 points 1 year ago

I’d take this a step further and say I have existential dread when I think of all the talented / smart people that get pulled into my industry and provide very little if any societal good.

[–] sevan 4 points 1 year ago

If I leave, I potentially free up a great promotion opportunity for someone on my team, which creates another promotion opportunity, and so on. I would consider that a valuable contribution to many people. Alternatively, they might eliminate my position, which reduces the company's cost, which may save a job or two later by reducing the need for layoffs. I will be happy to make that contribution to my team when I am ready to retire.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean if you have enough money to retire early you have by the definition of capitalism provided more than you are taking by retiring.

Whether it's moral is entirely separate, and would require judgement outside the confines of capitalism, which is not possible, because we don't live by any other system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Retirement does not mean you cease to contribute to society. It may allow you to develop new hobbies and passions, build or enhance relationships with family and friends, or give time to your community

Downtime may allow you to think deeply on what kind of world you want to live in, or travel may broaden your horizons and make you aware of issues you would like to address - you could become politically active, or contribute your efforts to a charity

You don't have to do any of these things, but don't write off retirement as an empty non-productive life stage. If it doesn't bring you joy, you can always go back to work ;)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I think it should be fairly uncontroversial here to point out that lowering your expenses is good for society in many ways.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got different moral issues with it, the same as TheButtonJustSpins, but in terms of not providing value I don't think is an issue because

  1. Just because the value you provide to society isn't captured by capitalism in the form of renumeration doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Caring for the sick/injured, volunteering, guerrilla gardening, open source work all provide value even if you're not paid.

  2. I strongly believe that by and large, people want to provide value for others. If you're at the end of FIRE, you're not likely just sitting around drinking alcohol all day. You're probably painting, or helping out a community.

  3. People like to do things they're good at, so they'll probably provide value in a way they're well equipped to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Just because the value you provide to society isn’t captured by capitalism in the form of renumeration doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable

I couldn't agree more. I think equating the value you provide to society entirely to remuneration is sure to backfire.

So much of our salaries are purely dependent on the industry we're in. My job doesn't demand anything particularly special from me - the field as a whole just has a lot of money sloshing around and can afford to let more of it trickle down to me. I could do the same job in another industry, or another location, and get paid 1/3 of my salary.

You could argue that my field has this money because they are providing so much value to society, but I don't think that always holds, at least in the short term. We live in a world of corruption, regulatory capture, investor bubbles etc. - while a market should find an optimal balance in the long run, in the short term I think there's a lot of room to make an outsized salary considering the contribution you actually make, just by being in the right place at the right time.

Is this fair? I don't really think so. But it's all too easy to overthink things and tie yourself up in knots. I just try and live life, have fun and do what I think is right at the time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're still contributing to society just be existing and spending money.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, no, you are not. Money doesn't make anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It provides the mechanism by which people are motivated to do things. It's like a lubricant for the engine that is society. I'm not saying it's right or wrong I'm just saying this artificial store of value is used to motivate productive activities by people.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If your capturing rents from productive people your not lubricating society, your starving the engine of oil.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point, however, the way our social structure of accumulation currently works involves saving money in order to spend on goods and services. He will still be productive by existing, maybe through art or volunteering or some other indirect economic productivity. Does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to pursue this indirect productivity because it is funded through self-developed economic rents, rather than the state granting him the right to pursue his non-direct societal value?

The goal should be to have us all work less hours so we can all pursue our personal interests, but that struggle is still ongoing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats all good and fine, but no one helps society by just spending money, as stated in the original comment.

It should be the goal of society to share the burden of necessary work. To reduce that burden. Is it ok to add more load to others to escape yourself? How much moral responsibility do we each have to improve things now?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I suppose that would depend on your definition of necessary work. If OP is working in advertising or entertainment it might not be seen as necessary. OTOH that might be what's needed for people to be entertained or find the optimal product. Likewise I would consider weapons production to be unnecessary work but others would see it as fundamental. Who's to say that OP spending his time now painting pictures and organizing outdoor hikes with his friends is less necessary than someone cleaning a street or working in an office? The economic value may be different but there are other intangible values that would contribute to society.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I literally couldn't give two shits about some supposed moral obligation to society I may or may not have.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Look at it from the opposite angle, I'm opening up that position for the next person.

I personally never feel like I owe society anything. I'm fortunate to have a well paying job, but that doesn't saddle me with guilt, but instead gratitude. I'm grateful for the opportunities I have, and I try to make the best I can with them. However, I do intend to become very active in causes without any expectation of pay. I also intend to start businesses and whatnot free from the obligation to make money, not because I feel obligated, but because it makes me happy.

Here are some causes I intend to work on:

  • decentralized applications, like a decentralized (not federated) lemmy
  • help people get out of debt
  • make video games
  • invest in small businesses on very favorable terms

And so on. I expect to be very busy once FI, but I don't be busy with a regular 9-5. I don't want to do it now because I'll need to find a way to profit from it; once FI, profit isn't necessary and perhaps unwanted.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most work is pointless. You don't deprive society of anything by not providing your work. I know I sure as hell won't be making the world a worse place by no longer creating software that helps rich assholes take money from other rich assholes.

EDIT: That said, I do have some moral issues with retiring based on owning stocks. It's not going to stop me, but it does go against my antiwork stance. I don't want to be owning class, even if I'm a little fish in it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Firstly, I don't think your contributions to society are limited to work. Spending time with hobbies also contributes, e.g. art, volunteering, or open source coding. You can also work a more enjoyable "job" in retirement, without feeling strangled by the paycheck.

We also already have enough production in society for everyone to be happy, and many people's jobs do not actually contribute to society in a meaningful way, e.g. people who work at advertising firms. I think we should target the billionaires sucking up literally all the resources and seeing if "early" retirement is actually a problem at that point. People are working until they're 70 right now, but maybe everyone could retire closer to 50 if we distributed our resources more fairly.