3 ms·

Plenty just stick with the Financial Independence without getting into Retiring Early. But the latter does imply that you withdraw yourself from work, at least

by eswat 8y ago

Plenty just stick with the Financial Independence without getting into Retiring Early. But the latter does imply that you withdraw yourself from work, at least from being a sole contributor to a business you don’t own.

esotericn 8y ago
Retirement implies a sort of finality that I think can only be present in older (or young but disabled) individuals that can no longer meaningfully work. I don't think a 30 year old can 'retire'. From a specific field (e.g. professional football)? Sure. In general? Money isn't the thing that makes successful people work. It's really hard to spend 50 years on pure leisure. I can't think of any examples.
- sgt101 8y ago
  >It's really hard to spend 50 years on pure leisure. I can't think of any examples. Honey, you ain't getting out enough.
- astura 8y ago
  Most people would consider me fairly successful and money is the only thing that makes me work. People retire while they can still meaningfully work all the time, really weird to say otherwise. Some people love working, some love not working. Shrug. Retirement doesn't really have to mean pure leisure, lots of people do meaningful unpaid work in retirement.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I think we just have different definitions of retirement. I don't consider myself 'retired' despite not having a 9-5. It evokes pipe and slippers imagery to me.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Retirement implies a sort of finality Coming out of retirement is a not-extremely-rare thing; I don't think retirement implies finality, though it might arguably imply the absence of an expected financial need to return.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is that these terms are simplified and only seem to mean anything in the context of someone who does some variant of a full-time job or series of full-time contracts for decades. It assumes the front-loading of work punctuated with either long periods, or a complete (final) period, of mostly nothing. Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? No, they are probably just a capitalist, but part of the social support structure of capitalism is the fetishization of work and the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. > If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement? I would say no, if your expectation when you leave is that you will need to comenback to maintain your lifestyle. If you occasionally take a job for self-fulfillment, maybe.
      - esotericn 8y ago
        > the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. I like to talk about them all the time. ;) Though I think we're seeing eye to eye here. Different groups see "work" in such different ways that I think the terminology of stuff like 'retirement' doesn't transfer well. Some people cannot see a life without work. Others do it for toys. Others do it as a status game. Others don't really do it at all. I guess you could call that the 'leisure class'. A theoretical human who has no need for food - are they fasting?

by eswat 8y ago

esotericn 8y ago

Retirement implies a sort of finality that I think can only be present in older (or young but disabled) individuals that can no longer meaningfully work. I don't think a 30 year old can 'retire'. From a specific field (e.g. professional football)? Sure. In general? Money isn't the thing that makes successful people work. It's really hard to spend 50 years on pure leisure. I can't think of any examples.

sgt101 8y ago
>It's really hard to spend 50 years on pure leisure. I can't think of any examples. Honey, you ain't getting out enough.
astura 8y ago
Most people would consider me fairly successful and money is the only thing that makes me work. People retire while they can still meaningfully work all the time, really weird to say otherwise. Some people love working, some love not working. Shrug. Retirement doesn't really have to mean pure leisure, lots of people do meaningful unpaid work in retirement.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I think we just have different definitions of retirement. I don't consider myself 'retired' despite not having a 9-5. It evokes pipe and slippers imagery to me.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Retirement implies a sort of finality Coming out of retirement is a not-extremely-rare thing; I don't think retirement implies finality, though it might arguably imply the absence of an expected financial need to return.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is that these terms are simplified and only seem to mean anything in the context of someone who does some variant of a full-time job or series of full-time contracts for decades. It assumes the front-loading of work punctuated with either long periods, or a complete (final) period, of mostly nothing. Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Imagine a theoretical person that inherits 10 million dollars. If they never take a full-time job and instead just do the odd thing here and there, paid, unpaid, doesn't really matter, are they retired? No, they are probably just a capitalist, but part of the social support structure of capitalism is the fetishization of work and the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. > If you're a contractor and sometimes work and sometimes don't, are you continually coming into and going out of retirement? I would say no, if your expectation when you leave is that you will need to comenback to maintain your lifestyle. If you occasionally take a job for self-fulfillment, maybe.
    - esotericn 8y ago
      > the fact that you don't talk about the non-laboring ruling class, just a spectrum of success of workers, some of whom have earned retirement through their work. I like to talk about them all the time. ;) Though I think we're seeing eye to eye here. Different groups see "work" in such different ways that I think the terminology of stuff like 'retirement' doesn't transfer well. Some people cannot see a life without work. Others do it for toys. Others do it as a status game. Others don't really do it at all. I guess you could call that the 'leisure class'. A theoretical human who has no need for food - are they fasting?