5 ms·

I don't know how to say this without sounding like an asshole, but why do most people who are all about FIRE talk this way? Am I the only one who doesn't look a

by pc86 4y ago

I don't know how to say this without sounding like an asshole, but why do most people who are all about FIRE talk this way? Am I the only one who doesn't look at working a cushy office job 30-35 hours a week as "a lifetime of servitude?" I'd rather give up some time for a few decade, and enjoy life during that time, and retire earlier than most but later than I could, than be miserable for a decade just to live a lower middle class life without any skills to fall back on (as would certainly be the case if the market drop 50% 8-10 years into your retirement - you're now in your 40s, a decade removed from tech, and you need a job now). How does anyone read fringe nonsense like "ethically I wouldn't want to birth a child into a life of bondage under capitalism" and not roll your eyes hard enough to get RSI?

lobocinza 4y ago
They lack insight about nature and other political systems.
awillen 4y ago
That last part is definitely overdramatic, but I do think that you're looking at the math of work in a way that I (and presumably the poster to which you're responding) don't agree with. The thing is, your 30-35 hours at a cushy office job isn't just 30-35 hours of fungible time - it's a commitment to a lifestyle that revolves around office work. A lot of folks talk like a person who has a job has the same amount of freedom as someone without a job, just minus the time they spend in the office. That's part of it, but there's also the loss of spontaneity/flexibility/control. If those are things you really prize, then it can be perfectly rational to optimize your life for the maximum number of years in which you have total control (i.e. you're not working). If that's what you want to do, then it makes perfect sense to work as much as humanly possible and save as much money as possible on any year in which you're working at all, since you're giving up that total control of your life whether you're working 20 hours or 80. Then, when you've got enough money, you get total control of your life for as many years as possible. Depending on what you value, it can be a totally reasonable optimization.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > since you're giving up that total control of your life whether you're working 20 hours or 80. You forget the age effects: when you're 80 you will have less control on the basics (like, control over being able to run for a few hours without pain) > Then, when you've got enough money, you get total control of your life for as many years as possible. Depending on what you value, it can be a totally reasonable optimization. No, the FIRE logic seems self-inconsistent to me: if you do believe in this "control" part, it's not a reasonable optimization! A much better logic would take into account the age effects to conclude it's better to enjoy life as much as possible until say 40, then slave away to repay the debt incurred. Or even better- die in debt! > A lot of folks talk like a person who has a job has the same amount of freedom as someone without a job, just minus the time they spend in the office. That's part of it, but there's also the loss of spontaneity/flexibility/control. Personally, I disagree with the FIRE logic for other reasons: I believe it's better to participate to society, to do great things together as species, as a team! I've seen some people call it "team mankind" or "team earth" and I wholeheartedly agree: we've accomplished miracles at the planet level! Why go FIRE and be lonely? Isn't that waiting for death? Having a job means participating to society, which is not just a net-negative of losing "spontaneity/flexibility/control", but doing interesting things with other people, which requires coordination/synchronization and therefore entails some degree of a loss of control. However, I personally believe it's for the better, not just at the species/planet level, but at the individual level: I like having colleagues. I like the small talk. I like being part of a multiple persons effort. And so are you, unless you've got some quirks, because most humans are pro-social.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    Not having to work doesn’t mean you can’t be participating in society anymore. It just means you’re now calling 100% of the shots instead of suffering someone else’s decisions.
    - csdvrx 4y ago
      If you are fully insulated from everyone else decisions, I'd call that not participating in society anymore...

by pc86 4y ago

lobocinza 4y ago

They lack insight about nature and other political systems.

awillen 4y ago

That last part is definitely overdramatic, but I do think that you're looking at the math of work in a way that I (and presumably the poster to which you're responding) don't agree with. The thing is, your 30-35 hours at a cushy office job isn't just 30-35 hours of fungible time - it's a commitment to a lifestyle that revolves around office work. A lot of folks talk like a person who has a job has the same amount of freedom as someone without a job, just minus the time they spend in the office. That's part of it, but there's also the loss of spontaneity/flexibility/control. If those are things you really prize, then it can be perfectly rational to optimize your life for the maximum number of years in which you have total control (i.e. you're not working). If that's what you want to do, then it makes perfect sense to work as much as humanly possible and save as much money as possible on any year in which you're working at all, since you're giving up that total control of your life whether you're working 20 hours or 80. Then, when you've got enough money, you get total control of your life for as many years as possible. Depending on what you value, it can be a totally reasonable optimization.

csdvrx 4y ago
> since you're giving up that total control of your life whether you're working 20 hours or 80. You forget the age effects: when you're 80 you will have less control on the basics (like, control over being able to run for a few hours without pain) > Then, when you've got enough money, you get total control of your life for as many years as possible. Depending on what you value, it can be a totally reasonable optimization. No, the FIRE logic seems self-inconsistent to me: if you do believe in this "control" part, it's not a reasonable optimization! A much better logic would take into account the age effects to conclude it's better to enjoy life as much as possible until say 40, then slave away to repay the debt incurred. Or even better- die in debt! > A lot of folks talk like a person who has a job has the same amount of freedom as someone without a job, just minus the time they spend in the office. That's part of it, but there's also the loss of spontaneity/flexibility/control. Personally, I disagree with the FIRE logic for other reasons: I believe it's better to participate to society, to do great things together as species, as a team! I've seen some people call it "team mankind" or "team earth" and I wholeheartedly agree: we've accomplished miracles at the planet level! Why go FIRE and be lonely? Isn't that waiting for death? Having a job means participating to society, which is not just a net-negative of losing "spontaneity/flexibility/control", but doing interesting things with other people, which requires coordination/synchronization and therefore entails some degree of a loss of control. However, I personally believe it's for the better, not just at the species/planet level, but at the individual level: I like having colleagues. I like the small talk. I like being part of a multiple persons effort. And so are you, unless you've got some quirks, because most humans are pro-social.
- ornornor 4y ago
  Not having to work doesn’t mean you can’t be participating in society anymore. It just means you’re now calling 100% of the shots instead of suffering someone else’s decisions.
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    If you are fully insulated from everyone else decisions, I'd call that not participating in society anymore...