4 ms·
I decided in college that a 40 hr workweek wasn't the optimal amount for me. I've since learned that for white-collar jobs, employers really really want full-ti
by wutbrodo 8y ago
I decided in college that a 40 hr workweek wasn't the optimal amount for me. I've since learned that for white-collar jobs, employers really really want full-time employees[1]. My way around this was: consume as if I made ~half as much and take extended sabbaticals. The final piece in the puzzle was ACA exchanges, as I can now get stable (though expensive and high-deductible) health insurance while unemployed.
This obviously isn't a binary, but I've been consistently fascinated with the inability of the people I know (generally middle- to upper-middle class) to shift their consumption downwards to meet a goal. Not everyone wants as much leisure time as I do, but I know tons of people with all sorts of reasons they'd like to save more, and every one of them consumes more while making less than me (when I'm working). I used to think the issue was that I grew up without a lot of disposable income, but now I know people with similar backgrounds whose floor on consumption rises in lockstep with their income.
That is to say, I don't disagree with your analysis here, but for God's sake _why_ do people do it?
[1] Contracting is obviously possible, but it often constrains the type of work you can do.
- Aeolun 8y agoBecause there is a lot of things I would like to buy now that I have no money for? My ideal doesn’t change when my income rises, I’m just finally able to pay for the things I’ve wanted all along. At least, that was true before. I guess I’m finally at a level where something remains for saving.
- wutbrodo 8y agoWell, obviously. If what you want to spend your marginal income on is more consumption, that's completely reasonable. There's no accounting for preferences. That's not what I, the article, or anyone else in this thread is talking about though. Note that I'm also talking about a _floor_, not about discretionary income. What you consider "must-have basics" is different from what I would consider to be so, which is different from what a billionaire or a villager below the global poverty line would. To some degree this is normal, but the degree to which it gets in the way of the other goals of the people I'm talking about, I don't understand it. I'm specifically talking about the many, _many_ friends of mine who have goals other than immediate consumption, and for whom immediate consumption is preventing those goals even when those other goals are higher-priority. Yes, I know revealed preferences are a thing, but in extremis the concept relies on a completely unrealistic Homo Economicus model of people. Hyperbolic discounting, innumeracy, an innate desire to keep up with the Joneses even when you disavow any such desire: these are all surely contributors, but I guess I'm surprised at the degree to which their sum skews consumption behavior.