4 ms·

"FIRE" is more accurately described here as not being a productive member of society, which is fine if you've contributed your fair share for 20 years, but not

"FIRE" is more accurately described here as not being a productive member of society, which is fine if you've contributed your fair share for 20 years, but not so fine if you're 22 and just out of college. Somehow I doubt that these people are going to use their free time to get education. Without the pressure of parents/society to get good grades (i.e., achieve mastery of the content, although I recognize in some schools classes are poorly taught and tests don't reflect mastery) most college students would cruise through their classes - just talk to any student who took classes P/NP this past year.

giantg2 5y ago
"which is fine if you've contributed your fair share for 20 years" I wonder what defines fair share. It seems that one could inherit, win, or take advantage of others to accumulate enough wealth to FIRE just as often (maybe even more so) than people who actually earned it by working. I say working because making it through capital ownership without participation doesn't seem like earning it in a way that is beneficial to society. In the end, I don't believe that people who FIRE actually worked so much more and provided so much more for society than those who do not. Many socially beneficial jobs pay the least (teacher, social worker, etc).
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  A "fair share" simply means that you have contributed to the society more than you got back. Money is not an absolutely perfect way measure this contribution, but all other measures are even worse.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Considering the national debt, most people would not meet your definition since we are all using these services that have not been paid for, right?
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      Right. Most people would not meet this definition.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        The person who brought this up was implying that people who FIRE today are paying their fair share.
        AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        Makes sense: those who FIRE don't comprise the most of people.
        giantg2 5y ago
        How does that make sense based on the definition above? FIRE doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they paid their fair share.
- b9a2cab5 5y ago
  People who FIRE don't inherit money. The entire point of FIRE is that you are _saving_ for early retirement. You can certainly argue that these people might not have useful jobs, but I don't think you can argue that they've contributed less to society than someone who has _literally done nothing_ since they were 22. A futures trader on Wall St. is still making it easier for a farmer somewhere to sell their crops with a guaranteed price by making the market more liquid and lowering slippage.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "People who FIRE don't inherit money." This is blatantly false. There are plenty of people who become Financially Independent and Retire Early (FIRE) once they inherit money. Do you think futures traders are contributing enough to society to warrant early retirement? How about the oil futures issue last year? Was that beneficial to society? These people are more about greed. They do not produce anything for society and their facilitation "benefits" are limited and can be wasteful in the name of making more money.
    - b9a2cab5 5y ago
      That is entirely dependent on your idea of "benefit" to society. Accurate pricing of futures means farmers benefit from a price that accurately reflects the supply and demand of their product. Strong liquidity means farmers can sell large volumes of product without much price slippage. If you take the time to understand what these traders do you'll understand that trading is not parasitic but actually generates value for both sides. What IS parasitic is hedge fund managers that charge fees but deliver subpar investment performance compared to index funds. You refer to the oil futures issue last year as being negative for society but I argue it was actually positive for the productive members of society: because traders bought oil futures, the oil producers themselves were able to get guaranteed buyers for their oil even though there was very little demand. In effect the traders subsidized the uncertainty of pandemic ups and downs and the producers profited off the traders' loss. This is an example of futures working well because that oil otherwise would've been dumped or burned since the price was negative (just like wind farms stop operating when the price is negative or oil drillers burning natural gas because it's too expensive to transport). Without futures farmers would have to buy price insurance through some sort of middleman insurance company, which is almost certainly more expensive than the market.

giantg2 5y ago

"which is fine if you've contributed your fair share for 20 years" I wonder what defines fair share. It seems that one could inherit, win, or take advantage of others to accumulate enough wealth to FIRE just as often (maybe even more so) than people who actually earned it by working. I say working because making it through capital ownership without participation doesn't seem like earning it in a way that is beneficial to society. In the end, I don't believe that people who FIRE actually worked so much more and provided so much more for society than those who do not. Many socially beneficial jobs pay the least (teacher, social worker, etc).

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
A "fair share" simply means that you have contributed to the society more than you got back. Money is not an absolutely perfect way measure this contribution, but all other measures are even worse.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Considering the national debt, most people would not meet your definition since we are all using these services that have not been paid for, right?
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    Right. Most people would not meet this definition.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      The person who brought this up was implying that people who FIRE today are paying their fair share.
      - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
        Makes sense: those who FIRE don't comprise the most of people.
        giantg2 5y ago
        How does that make sense based on the definition above? FIRE doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they paid their fair share.
b9a2cab5 5y ago
People who FIRE don't inherit money. The entire point of FIRE is that you are _saving_ for early retirement. You can certainly argue that these people might not have useful jobs, but I don't think you can argue that they've contributed less to society than someone who has _literally done nothing_ since they were 22. A futures trader on Wall St. is still making it easier for a farmer somewhere to sell their crops with a guaranteed price by making the market more liquid and lowering slippage.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "People who FIRE don't inherit money." This is blatantly false. There are plenty of people who become Financially Independent and Retire Early (FIRE) once they inherit money. Do you think futures traders are contributing enough to society to warrant early retirement? How about the oil futures issue last year? Was that beneficial to society? These people are more about greed. They do not produce anything for society and their facilitation "benefits" are limited and can be wasteful in the name of making more money.
  - b9a2cab5 5y ago
    That is entirely dependent on your idea of "benefit" to society. Accurate pricing of futures means farmers benefit from a price that accurately reflects the supply and demand of their product. Strong liquidity means farmers can sell large volumes of product without much price slippage. If you take the time to understand what these traders do you'll understand that trading is not parasitic but actually generates value for both sides. What IS parasitic is hedge fund managers that charge fees but deliver subpar investment performance compared to index funds. You refer to the oil futures issue last year as being negative for society but I argue it was actually positive for the productive members of society: because traders bought oil futures, the oil producers themselves were able to get guaranteed buyers for their oil even though there was very little demand. In effect the traders subsidized the uncertainty of pandemic ups and downs and the producers profited off the traders' loss. This is an example of futures working well because that oil otherwise would've been dumped or burned since the price was negative (just like wind farms stop operating when the price is negative or oil drillers burning natural gas because it's too expensive to transport). Without futures farmers would have to buy price insurance through some sort of middleman insurance company, which is almost certainly more expensive than the market.