6 ms·

> Previously my underlying approach to life looked like: "I will do X which will enable me to do Y so that I can finally do Z." I now approach my days with "Wha

• balfirevic 5y ago
  > they might be better off scaling back to a sustainable 40hr/week job 40hr/week is the unsustainable part.
  • yarcob 5y ago
    40h/week of work leaves very little time for household, kids, exercise, side projects, and relaxing. I think 20h/week is a more reasonable target if you want to enjoy things beside work. Of course it's okay to work 40h/week if you really want to, or even more, if you enjoy it, but you should really think hard about whether that's really what you want, or if it's just what your employer wants you to do.
    • daddylongstroke 5y ago
      This!! I've wanted to drop down to 18-20 hours TOPS for years. Being in tech, I haven't seen a single opportunity for this being a possibility. When I talk to my managers about it (mostly in large orgs, but even in smaller 12-people shops) they look at me like I'm out of my fucking mind. Response always is "no, you can't be productive enough in 18 hours to contribute meaningfully to the product".
    • AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      > 20h/week That's what I have an issue with. When I'm working on a problem, I cannot simply forget about it at 3pm and head to the beach to enjoy life. The problem will be in my head 24/7 until one of us gives up.
      • psyc 5y ago
        In my 20s, I was very much like this. When I was struggling with burnout, an older colleague told me that when he leaves the building, he shuts work off entirely and enjoys unrelated things. At the time, hearing this frustrated me because I couldn't even begin to fathom which muscle one would flex in order to "shut off" thinking about work. But now I'm the age that he was back then, and I find I can compartmentalize or turn off work thinking easily. I'm not suggesting it's a factor of age, exactly, but perhaps some other change that occurs over time? Not really sure, but something in my head definitely changed.
        • skeeter2020 5y ago
          This is very dependent on the individual. I personally prefer intense, all-consuming project-oriented work, followed by longer gaps to recover. I think what we share is some form of a state of decompression/recovery though.
        • euroderf 5y ago
          Try this. Last thing at the end of the workday, write yourself a context save. Jot three to five sentences about where you are, what's in your head. If you do it right, the next morning you can brief yourself and jump right back into it. And in-between, not need to hold it in your head, grinding away in the background.
      • skeeter2020 5y ago
        If you have the flexibility to restrict your work to 20 hr/wk you probably also get to decide when you work; nothing says you can't work 20 hrs straight, or 80 hrs/week for a month and then take a break. Lots of consulting-type work actually prefers this approach.
      • 5y ago
    • walletburst 5y ago
      This is where I think the concept of "coasting" to financial independence could be beneficial for many. The idea is that you build up enough investments early in life such that without any additional contributions, your net worth will grow to support retirement at a traditional retirement age. Then you just need to make enough money to cover your monthly living expenses, which could open up a lot more career options that better fit your desired lifestyle. https://walletburst.com/tools/coast-fire-calc https://walletburst.com/tools/coast-fire-calc
      • cowvin 5y ago
        Yeah, my wife and I talk about reaching a sort of semi-retirement state where we can just make some small amount of money and not stress out about money anymore. That will keep us busy but we can take breaks any time we want to.
  • nradov 5y ago
    That's only 24% of your time most weeks, even less on weeks when you have holidays or vacation. What's unsustainable? In fact many people have done it their whole adult lives, which makes it sustainable by definition.
    • sunshineforever 5y ago
      The time of sleep does not belong to us. Terrible at math (heh) but its something like multiply 24% by 2/3. Aka 24/3=8
    • scarby2 5y ago
      > That's only 24% of your time most weeks, even less on weeks when you have holidays or vacation. What's unsustainable? In fact many people have done it their whole adult lives, which makes it sustainable by definition. It's significantly more than 50% of the time that's available to me, by the time you factor in the things that i do because of work it's getting to around 70%. Not that many people have done it their entire lives in the way we do today. Now we have the majority of millennials with 2 people trying to do a 40 hour week along with all of the other things that need to be done. I would argue a 40 hour work week + extras is great if i'm not cooking, cleaning, doing much childcare etc. If we look back at pre-industrial humans we'll see that the striking thing is quite how much time they spend not doing anything productive.
    • burntoutfire 5y ago
      It may be 24% of time, but it's something like 70% of my energy. Add chores on top of that and there's barely any energy left for discretionary activities.
    • sidlls 5y ago
      Factoring in activities in support of work (commute, dress), it's more than 50% of one's waking hours during the week.
• neogodless 5y ago
  In general the focus should be: Be mindful. Informed. Increase your knowledge, consider alternatives, and make decisions given an expanded list of options. (Don't just go with the default, common, mainstream way of thinking that leads to people retiring at age 65 after decades of hating their job.) I'm a proponent of many of the concepts of FIRE, but in some ways, the attitude started way before I started reading Get Rich Slowly, and Mr. Money Mustache. I'm all about putting effort into things I really care about, while being efficient and judicious with effort being put into things I don't care about. Work is usually not at the top of my list on things I care about. So I have changed jobs frequently to find ones that pay better than the last, and are also a better fit for me. Shorter commute. Better team. More engaging work. Along the way, spending below my means and ensuring money I do spend actually provides the result I expect (i.e. lasting happiness that a lot of spending doesn't really provide) has been instrumental in making thoughtful decisions while also accumulating that cushion that can eventually wean me off paid work as a necessity. In other words, I don't choose jobs that suck because they pay well, so I can get to a "finish line" faster. I put all the variables into play, and make sure I'm enjoying life now while also expanding the flexibility I'll have in the future. While we agree on a lot of things, maybe we read different "FIRE discussions" because many of them factor these things in. Compulsory work limits your options, and even more so, spending all your money or beyond your means limits your options indefinitely. That doesn't mean retirement creates happiness, or is a prerequisite for a good life, but getting beyond that work requirement can certainly give you a lot more freedom in how you choose to use your time.
• sokoloff 5y ago
  > For the average FIRE person working a $100-200K/year job, they might be better off scaling back to a sustainable 40hr/week job and making a point of taking vacations and doing activities in their off time. In software right now, I think it’s not difficult to have a sustainable low-six-figure job where you take vacations and have activities and off time to enjoy them.
  • sidlls 5y ago
    That depends on the region and industry. Outside of "tech hubs" like the Bay Area, most software jobs paying close to six-figures are still more like "business casual, butt in the seats" than they are "WFH 2x/week, wear sandals and shorts if you want". These jobs have things like accrued PTO, limited perks, and relatively inflexible time-off tolerance that is highly dependent on the manager's whim. "Not difficult" is relative, really.
    • babyblueblanket 5y ago
      I heavily disagree, especially in current times. "small startup" culture happens outside of tech hubs if you look, especially anywhere that's close to a state university with any substantial CS program. Trying to recruit new grads as a small company in an ok-but-not-hub city means bending some QOL considerations, especially in demand jobs like devs.
      • sidlls 5y ago
        "Small startup"s are the last place I'd look for the kind of work-life balance required to actually enjoy the fruits of one's labor. You're trading a stable work week for perks at that point--differently bad work environments, in this context.
• monktastic1 5y ago
  > One of my biggest problems with FIRE discussions is how much they reinforce the idea that retirement is a prerequisite for achieving happiness. This leads a lot of FIRE-minded people to double down on jobs they hate that consume too much of their time and energy, only because they think it will better enable them to be happy later. On the FIRE subreddit, anyway, they're very clear that: 1. It's the FI part that really matters. RE is just one possible choice of what to do with it. 2. It's silly to make yourself miserable until you're FI. 3. FI is not magic. It will not meet your expectations unless you've carefully thought through what it is you want to do with that freedom.
  • stouset 5y ago
    "Build the life you want, then save for it" has become the mantra of these subreddits as of late, which I think is a much better approach than the "live and eat like a college student so you can live and eat like a college student for the rest of your life but without having to work" that it used to come across as.
    • borski 5y ago
      This was what always turned me off from FIRE stuff, and I’m glad to hear it’s changing. I’ve seen so many friends go down the path of “convince myself it’s okay to be absolutely miserable for 10-15 years so that I can continue to do that forever but without someone paying me to be miserable” and it is extremely sad to watch, and often very hard to convince someone not to do.
      • yourapostasy 5y ago
        > ...“convince myself it’s okay to be absolutely miserable for 10-15 years so that I can continue to do that forever but without someone paying me to be miserable” and it is extremely sad to watch... Another way of looking at that situation is to ask why this cohort of some of the most driven, value-sensitive people in the labor force are so miserable with their leadership that they will voluntarily subject themselves to such a regime for the rest of their life, not for sipping mai tais on the beach but just to implement "...but without that leadership". It is nearly a truism people leave managers (doesn't even have to be direct managers) and not companies. And if you do not accept that truism, the question still stands, just in a different area. Why are our workplaces so systemically dysfunctional that it gives rise to this behavior in a cohort that arguably should be highly coveted and aggressively retained by their employers?
• sunshineforever 5y ago
  I would feel like a king with 20k a year and so I am trying to find the right degree to work 3, maybe 2 days a week to be able to achieve this? Any suggestions?
  • jimbokun 5y ago
    This is the case where it might make sense to earn $100k-$200k per year and plow the majority of it into savings until you can get a fairly safe $20k return. Might only take a few years to save the required amount.
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    If you find anything let me know. Of course here in the US the nigh-insurmountable problem with part time work is that you won't get health coverage at an affordable rate.
    • svachalek 5y ago
      Yes, it's actually a bit better since "Obamacare" but still pretty ridiculous. Another is simply finding an employer who agrees to a part-time engineer. I'm typically on 3-6 major projects at any given time and it seems pretty obvious that simply dropping to 2-3 and working half the time would be a pretty easy adjustment to both sides -- but most management considers this unthinkable for some reason.
      • ta988 5y ago
        Because that would also make you more efficient and make them look bad.
      • neomindryan 5y ago
        I couldn't resist chiming in here: we're doing this at Neomind Labs. We don't act as steward for front-end frameworks yet, but we're considering supporting React (I saw that you're a front-end developer).
  • scarby2 5y ago
• cletus 5y ago
  I see it a little differently. As an analogy, I'm a big believer in caloric intake determining weight for most people. Consume more calories than you use and you will tend to gain weight. Consume less and you will tend to lose weight. So to get a caloric deficit you can exercise more or eat less. But... it's 90-95% diet. Bringing this back to FIRE, the key lesson I think is that what matters in having financial freedom is controlling costs not maximizing income. Expenses can (and often do) _easily_ rise to your level of income. People fall in these traps of thinking they need a $5m house instead of a $2m house, or a bigger boat or a third vacation home. But if you control your expenses AND can be happy then you doubly benefit: you increase your savings (and thus the time required until you have financial independence) AND you decrease how much money you need in retirement because you're accustomed to lower costs. So the point of FIRE is (IMHO) not to seek satisfaction through material things but rather through your approach to life and your experiences. I've seen this with coworkers who convince themselves they need $50,000pa/child for private school, $500k+ plus to pay for each child's Ivy League education and so forth and kill themselves to achieve that. Worse, they can become bitter and unhappy as they realize how long that will take them to achieve even as the top 1% of earners. So not only are they working super-hard for longer they're seeing their families less and bringing home this negativity and entitlement. All of that is a prison of your own making. FIRE philosophically is about really examining what you need and what's really important.
• akshaybhalotia 5y ago
  > For the average FIRE person working a $100-200K/year job This is not at all "average" in countries outside of the US. Here in India, for example, a $100K job is kinda like winning the lottery. For reference, going by the exchange rate it equals somewhat close to 7.5M in local currency. Handymen and people in other labour-heavy jobs don't earn this much in their entire life, considering a 30 years of active work life. Only the top 0.01% (yes, we are an extremely populous country) people have that kind of jobs. Going by the PPP ratio[0] of 21.99, you still need to be earning upwards of 2.2M annual, which is hardly 1% of the population, and majority of them have taken upwards of 8-10 years of work to reach there (which means 1/3rd of work life is gone). The argument could also be made that buying stuff is cheaper in countries like ours, but that doesn't stand for _good_ quality items. As an example, the laptop you can buy for $1k in the US is far superior to what you can buy for 22k and slightly comparable but still better than what you can buy for 75k. If you are lucky enough with means to import, good luck with ~78% import taxes and duties. You don't make these purchases often, but when you do it breaks you. Things like dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, etc are so much more common in the US and almost considered a basic necessity whereas owing to cheap labour (and traditional lifestyle) we subscribe to househelp, which isn't really "cheap" or scalable and the cost of these items is high too. All of this, to say that > they might be better off scaling back to a sustainable 40hr/week job is neither practical nor helps in a poor country where an "average" person is working more than half their lives just to make ends meet. [0]: https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p...
  • akshaybhalotia 5y ago
    Moreover, we don't even have a concept of "hourly" wages or work measurement. - Salaries are decided monthly and unless you are an hourly billed consultant, you cannot negotiate your working hours to be lesser. - Part-time jobs do exist, but only low paying labour intensive jobs which won't leave enough energy for you to be working 2 jobs. - Shifts are again meant only for such jobs as described above. - Employment agreements explicitly prohibit you from "working" to earn in any other way. Getting a passive income is okay, but you cannot work / render services elsewhere to earn. From junior to senior level employees, almost everyone in all sorts of jobs is overworked. Average workday last close to 10 hours, excl commute et al. Pandemic and WFH have worsened this if anything.
• nicbou 5y ago
  I also noticed that many FIRE people don't actually know what to do after retiring, because work was their whole life until that point.