3 ms·
>Most people middle class and up work way more than they strictly need to for simple wellbeing. Sort of. For the week, I would agree, for a lifetime, not so su
by Clubber 9y ago
>Most people middle class and up work way more than they strictly need to for simple wellbeing.
Sort of. For the week, I would agree, for a lifetime, not so sure about that. I mean what happens when you are unable to work? That could come sooner or later, but when it does come, you will need a chunk of change to get you through the rest of your life. Also, at the other end of life, children can't work until 16, so someone needs a chunk of change to take care of them too.
- mseebach 9y agoThe trick is to abstain from all luxuries in life (thus, the "strictly need" qualifier). Of course, we don't really want to do without the luxuries, so we work to earn their cost -- and we also don't want to do without them in old age/during sickness, and so we even more to have savings. But a roof over your head and beans in your bowl, including savings for a few decades of this without working, isn't really hard to achieve at all.
- monaghanboy 9y agoAs a small example, I met someone at the gym the other day who told me living in the South Bay without a car would suck. I was surprised; I've never learned how to drive, nor have I owned a car, and I consider this a blessing. I bike 25 minutes to work, 20 minutes to the gym, and less to most other places I need to go. And I'm healthier for it. I never became acclimated to owning a car, and every time I consider buying one, I just can't justify the value add. I don't even mean that financially it wouldn't net out (it certainly wouldn't), but the cognitive overhead of having to manage yet another thing doesn't really appeal to me. And then there's the thought of passively sitting in a box for about an hour a day in lieu of being out in the open air, which sounds awful.