3 ms·

>cut their own hair Actually many of us think is worth it. Take the price of that haircut, pay 10% compound interest on it for 60 years, then ask yourself if y

>cut their own hair Actually many of us think is worth it. Take the price of that haircut, pay 10% compound interest on it for 60 years, then ask yourself if you really care what your hair looks like. I used to spend money on these things when I was younger, but with a few decades of adulthood under my belt, I care less about nice haircuts and fancy cloths. Now, time is more valuable that anything else in life, and financial independence buys me that time. The notion that we should all sell ourselves as wage slaves so that we can afford a new iPhone every year is bonkers. Reject it all. Live Free.

pinot 8y ago
Rejecting haircuts isn't living free, it's living without a haircut. Self image is important for most people and hygiene is the base of that.
- jay_kyburz 8y ago
  Haha. Whats unhygienic about cutting your hair at home for free rather than paying somebody to do it for you?
smileysteve 8y ago
The other aspect is the time; so not only money, but time. My hair grows thick, and I need to cut it every week or 2 to make it life comfortable. a 10 minute walk or ride + a haircut is an hour, and I'm happy with how i look.
reitzensteinm 8y ago
For this kind of calculation to work, you have to determine if your physical appearance impacts your income. For the vast majority of professionals, the answer to this will be yes. Like it or not, that's the world we live in. It's easy to go overboard, but it's not that expensive to get regular decent haircuts, wear nice shits, etc. On a developer's salary it's basically noise, and the ROI over a lifetime will almost certainly be positive. It's important to do a cost/benefit analysis, not just a cost analysis. :)
hindsightRegret 8y ago
You can have a job and still be free. The two are not mutually exclusive. OP's point is that you shouldn't slave away the prime years of your life saving for the dream of FIRE on some beach, island, or etc. I think the idea that you'll be so much happier once you're on that beach than you are now is equally as insane as conspicuous consumption.
- twiceaday 8y ago
  Having a job is not relevant. It's about _requiring_ a salary. If every single person _had_ to work but you removed the financial incentive almost nobody would do their exact current duties or work their exact current hours. They would switch things to be happier. The more of a financial incentive there is the harder it is to make that switch. And the entire point is that you can lessen the financial incentive by lowering your ongoing costs and you can completely eliminate it sooner by saving and investing. Imagining a straw-man that slaves away and saves too much is not helpful to anybody except as a 'gotcha, your rule-of-thumb life advice is wrong in one case' pedantry. It seems ridiculous in a context where seemingly nobody saves money or plans for retirement. Nobody over-saves. This is made-up smug-bait peddled to those who are far from saving too much and want to feel good about it. "Can you believe this guy cuts his own hair? Scoff!" Your last sentence is also a straw-man. You are attempting to debunk what constitutes a click-bait headline. Nobody will defend that ridiculous, oversimplified, universally-extended argument. What is even your point? The full statement requires so many variables to fully qualify, what truth are you attempting to convey?
  - hellisothers 8y ago
    I think hindsight’s and the OP’s point is to not over index one way or the other. You can optimize for happiness now and very likely suffer later or optimize for probably happiness later and suffer now or pick somewhere in between. I agree that a lot of the discussion from the FIRE cohort sounds like you should suffer now for rewards later with an almost religious zeal.

pinot 8y ago

Rejecting haircuts isn't living free, it's living without a haircut. Self image is important for most people and hygiene is the base of that.

jay_kyburz 8y ago
Haha. Whats unhygienic about cutting your hair at home for free rather than paying somebody to do it for you?

smileysteve 8y ago

The other aspect is the time; so not only money, but time. My hair grows thick, and I need to cut it every week or 2 to make it life comfortable. a 10 minute walk or ride + a haircut is an hour, and I'm happy with how i look.

reitzensteinm 8y ago

For this kind of calculation to work, you have to determine if your physical appearance impacts your income. For the vast majority of professionals, the answer to this will be yes. Like it or not, that's the world we live in. It's easy to go overboard, but it's not that expensive to get regular decent haircuts, wear nice shits, etc. On a developer's salary it's basically noise, and the ROI over a lifetime will almost certainly be positive. It's important to do a cost/benefit analysis, not just a cost analysis. :)

hindsightRegret 8y ago

You can have a job and still be free. The two are not mutually exclusive. OP's point is that you shouldn't slave away the prime years of your life saving for the dream of FIRE on some beach, island, or etc. I think the idea that you'll be so much happier once you're on that beach than you are now is equally as insane as conspicuous consumption.

twiceaday 8y ago
Having a job is not relevant. It's about _requiring_ a salary. If every single person _had_ to work but you removed the financial incentive almost nobody would do their exact current duties or work their exact current hours. They would switch things to be happier. The more of a financial incentive there is the harder it is to make that switch. And the entire point is that you can lessen the financial incentive by lowering your ongoing costs and you can completely eliminate it sooner by saving and investing. Imagining a straw-man that slaves away and saves too much is not helpful to anybody except as a 'gotcha, your rule-of-thumb life advice is wrong in one case' pedantry. It seems ridiculous in a context where seemingly nobody saves money or plans for retirement. Nobody over-saves. This is made-up smug-bait peddled to those who are far from saving too much and want to feel good about it. "Can you believe this guy cuts his own hair? Scoff!" Your last sentence is also a straw-man. You are attempting to debunk what constitutes a click-bait headline. Nobody will defend that ridiculous, oversimplified, universally-extended argument. What is even your point? The full statement requires so many variables to fully qualify, what truth are you attempting to convey?
- hellisothers 8y ago
  I think hindsight’s and the OP’s point is to not over index one way or the other. You can optimize for happiness now and very likely suffer later or optimize for probably happiness later and suffer now or pick somewhere in between. I agree that a lot of the discussion from the FIRE cohort sounds like you should suffer now for rewards later with an almost religious zeal.