4 ms·

>Outside of real outlier status where you're paid really, really large amounts of money for your services (like notable entertainer or cardiac surgeon) the way

>Outside of real outlier status where you're paid really, really large amounts of money for your services (like notable entertainer or cardiac surgeon) the way to wealth is to own the means of production. Period. This is a lazy view, or a really privileged one at least. I know a couple of people in their fifties who have retired from putting as much money into the market as possible (post-tax and pre-tax) while living modestly through their younger years. Having enough money to retire early is having wealth. Views like the one you espouse are insidious because they give people a justification to stop trying and spend everything they make. Why not get the $1500/mo apartment instead of the $900/mo one? If you can't build wealth, what's the point in trying to accumulate it at all?

ip26 7y ago
Having enough money to retire early is having wealth. Sort of. There's two pieces to FIRE. Saving aggressively, yes. But also by learning to live modestly, you need less wealth to retire. So half of FIRE is accumulating wealth, but the other half is needing less wealth.
- omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
  Exactly. At some point the decrease in annual spending converges with the increase in annual income, and that's FIRE. It's not like people have to retire at that point either. The general idea is that they can do what they want and aren't tied to a specific field, career, job, and so on...
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    Right, I didn't imply that they had to retire. It's just that even having that option means you are wealthy. People who can live a middle-class lifestyle in the US without working are super fucking wealthy on a global perspective.
disintegore 7y ago
Are you aware of the fact that your anecdotal evidence from the fifties may no longer be pertinent? Have you seen what happened to wages since then? To the cost of living? To the cost of homes?
- war1025 7y ago
  "People in their fifties" not "People from the fifties"
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  FIRE is still a thing even today; for example Mr. Money Mustache talks about this all the time: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com https://www.mrmoneymustache.com Your point about wages stands, but even in the 50s there was no way the lower strata would have been able to retire early -- let alone retire at all -- or accumulate great wealth. > To the cost of living? To the cost of homes? COL and housing prices are not uniform. FIRE is going to be hard in San Fran even as a full-time Dev, but if you're making $85k in Des Moines it might be well within reason.
- wolfgang42 7y ago
  In their fifties, so born in the 1960s and probably started their retirement fund in the '80s or so. (Not that things also haven't changed since then, but it is a pretty big difference.)
  - disintegore 7y ago
    Big tunnel vision moment on my part.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Born 1968, never made more than $80k/yr until 2011, resigned 2014 (came back very part time because there's something wrong with me, 2017). Started saving and investing 1990.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  Wow, learn to read. >I know a couple of people in their fifties
bluGill 7y ago
You two are talking past each other. There wealth as a token of who is winning some game: he who has the most $$$ wins (what I don't know - this is a religion question). You need to own means of production to win this game. If you are reading this, you probably have no chance of getting here, but is fun to dream about. There is also wealth as in you don't have to hold a job to maintain your lifestyle. When you are young this is impossible (except for a few who inherit money or win the lottery), but if you live below your earnings and invest the rest well you can get to the point where you no longer need to work. (Some people choose to work anyway, others will retire)
CPLX 7y ago
> Views like the one you espouse are insidious because they give people a justification to stop trying and spend everything they make. Nah. I think it's views like the one you're espousing that are insidious, because they present the illusion that the difference between normal people and the genuinely wealthy is just a matter of some personal self sacrifice, rather than a set of fundamental policy failures that have lead to a collapse of social order and rising inequality. Of course it's better, for them, if the masses are focused on index funds instead of the abusive effects of concentrated financial power on the middle class.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  > between normal people and the genuinely wealthy Ah, the convenient goal post shift to imply that people who retire early don't have wealth. Wealth is now redefined to mean "an amount of assets large enough to make a convenient political out-group".

ip26 7y ago

Having enough money to retire early is having wealth. Sort of. There's two pieces to FIRE. Saving aggressively, yes. But also by learning to live modestly, you need less wealth to retire. So half of FIRE is accumulating wealth, but the other half is needing less wealth.

omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
Exactly. At some point the decrease in annual spending converges with the increase in annual income, and that's FIRE. It's not like people have to retire at that point either. The general idea is that they can do what they want and aren't tied to a specific field, career, job, and so on...
- pathseeker 7y ago
  Right, I didn't imply that they had to retire. It's just that even having that option means you are wealthy. People who can live a middle-class lifestyle in the US without working are super fucking wealthy on a global perspective.

disintegore 7y ago

Are you aware of the fact that your anecdotal evidence from the fifties may no longer be pertinent? Have you seen what happened to wages since then? To the cost of living? To the cost of homes?

war1025 7y ago
"People in their fifties" not "People from the fifties"
blaser-waffle 7y ago
FIRE is still a thing even today; for example Mr. Money Mustache talks about this all the time: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com https://www.mrmoneymustache.com Your point about wages stands, but even in the 50s there was no way the lower strata would have been able to retire early -- let alone retire at all -- or accumulate great wealth. > To the cost of living? To the cost of homes? COL and housing prices are not uniform. FIRE is going to be hard in San Fran even as a full-time Dev, but if you're making $85k in Des Moines it might be well within reason.
wolfgang42 7y ago
In their fifties, so born in the 1960s and probably started their retirement fund in the '80s or so. (Not that things also haven't changed since then, but it is a pretty big difference.)
- disintegore 7y ago
  Big tunnel vision moment on my part.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Born 1968, never made more than $80k/yr until 2011, resigned 2014 (came back very part time because there's something wrong with me, 2017). Started saving and investing 1990.
pathseeker 7y ago
Wow, learn to read. >I know a couple of people in their fifties

bluGill 7y ago

You two are talking past each other. There wealth as a token of who is winning some game: he who has the most $$$ wins (what I don't know - this is a religion question). You need to own means of production to win this game. If you are reading this, you probably have no chance of getting here, but is fun to dream about. There is also wealth as in you don't have to hold a job to maintain your lifestyle. When you are young this is impossible (except for a few who inherit money or win the lottery), but if you live below your earnings and invest the rest well you can get to the point where you no longer need to work. (Some people choose to work anyway, others will retire)

CPLX 7y ago

> Views like the one you espouse are insidious because they give people a justification to stop trying and spend everything they make. Nah. I think it's views like the one you're espousing that are insidious, because they present the illusion that the difference between normal people and the genuinely wealthy is just a matter of some personal self sacrifice, rather than a set of fundamental policy failures that have lead to a collapse of social order and rising inequality. Of course it's better, for them, if the masses are focused on index funds instead of the abusive effects of concentrated financial power on the middle class.

pathseeker 7y ago
> between normal people and the genuinely wealthy Ah, the convenient goal post shift to imply that people who retire early don't have wealth. Wealth is now redefined to mean "an amount of assets large enough to make a convenient political out-group".