4 ms·
Living off interest and investments seems to be a recent phenomenon (FIRE). My grandmother ensured that all her well-off children never sat on their laurels and
by olcor 8y ago
Living off interest and investments seems to be a recent phenomenon (FIRE). My grandmother ensured that all her well-off children never sat on their laurels and depended solely on passive income even though it could be considerable.
The goal was to keep the mind fresh and running, and to be a productive member of society even if you didn’t exactly need to work. If you had more, you could give back more, but stopping work was always heavily discouraged.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoWorks fine if you have a safety net. Doesn’t if you can’t work for whatever reason. Plenty of people in their 50s who have been out of work for months or a year and can’t get a job because no one will hire them. So you hustle to hopefully crate your own safety net (passive income).
- olcor 8y agoAgreed; I'm not talking about people who don't have a safety net. I'm talking about folk wisdom discouraging people who already have a rather substantial one where they definitely do not need to work. The idea is that sloth is addictive, and often sends the wrong message to the children.
- astura 8y agoI mean, most early retirees don't aspire to live a life of sloth...
- knn 8y agoWhat do you mean by recent? There's been a whole society of rentiers living solely off investment income in most countries for at least the last 300 years, if not several thousand years. It's extremely well documented, especially in Britain and France since the early 1800's (see Thomas Piketty's work on wealth distribution). The more capital one owns, in general, more income is earned from capital rather than wages. This ratio increases sharply when you look at the top 1% and 0.1% of owners.
- speedplane 8y ago> What do you mean by recent? I think the recent phenomenon is that many folks with moderate levels of income and initial capital have become convinced that they can attain financial freedom. Pickety's research does not support that, in fact, it supports the opposite conclusion: the only way to get wealthy, is to start wealthy.
- alexgmcm 8y agoIt's like that quote attributed to Steinbeck - "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
- QualityReboot 8y agoTemporarily embarrassed millionaire American here. I can't make universal health care and UBI happen. The next best thing is to acquire wealth so I can some day avoid the drudgery of working life. Maybe.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SeanAppleby 8y agoThat's an ironic claim on this platform. If you make $200k/year (normal high tech comp, probably not far from the average person here), save $100k/year and average 6.5% returns over 10 years, you have $1.4M. You can then on average draw down $63k/year assuming 2% inflation to retain your purchasing power until the end of time. That's very comfortable if you're just willing to not live in the bay area or NYC.
- scarface74 8y agoYet another example of HN bubble thinking that the “normal high tech comp” is anywhere close to $200K a year. https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer/salary https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-develope...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]