6 ms·

I don't want to "consume a lot more". I want to work less, and for the work I do to be valuable, and to be able to spend my remaining time on other valuable thi

I don't want to "consume a lot more". I want to work less, and for the work I do to be valuable, and to be able to spend my remaining time on other valuable things.

infecto 11mo ago
So you are agreeing with the parent? If consumption has gone up a lot and input hours has gone down or stayed flat, that means you are able to work less.
- wizzwizz4 11mo ago
  Not unless rent is cheap, it doesn't. It might mean my boss is able to work less.
  - ghaff 11mo ago
    Rent can be pretty cheap depending upon where you live. If you want to live in a high cost of living area, that's a form of consumption.
    - wizzwizz4 11mo ago
      If I live somewhere, and maintain the building myself, what's being consumed?
      - ipdashc 11mo ago
        The spot of land is being consumed, no? If it's HCoL, clearly that's land that a lot of people wish they could live on but can't.
        wizzwizz4 11mo ago
        But I'm not paying rent to them.
        ipdashc 11mo ago
        I mean, yeah? Does any market work like that? If you want an apple, you pay the person who has the apple to take it from them, you don't pay the other people who want apples. Not really following where this is going
    - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
      >If you want to live in a high cost of living area, that's a form of consumption. Not really a "want" as much as "move where the jobs are". Remote jobs are shakey now and being in the middle of nowhere only worsens your compensation aspects. Being able to live wherever you please is indeed a luxury. The suburb structure already sacrificed the aspect of high CoL for increase commute time to work. I also do think that dismissing aspects of humanity like family, community and sense of purpose to "luxuries" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.
      - ghaff 11mo ago
        In most places (SF may be somewhat of an exception in terms of relatively unaffordable housing in both the city and any accessible suburbs) 30-60 minute commutes are pretty normal. At least a lot of the companies are probably in the suburbs/exurbs anyway. I'm not suggesting living in the middle of nowhere but, in a lot of places, urban vs. exurban living is a choice especially with companies that are often exurban.
- ipdashc 11mo ago
  > or stayed flat But that's not what they said, they said they want to work less. As the GP post said, they'd still be working a full week. I do think this is an interesting point. The trend for most of history seems to have been vastly increasing consumption/luxury while work hours somewhat decrease. But have we reached the point where that's not what people want? I'd wager most people in rich developed countries don't particularly want more clothes, gadgets, cars, or fast food. If they can get the current typical middle class share of those things (which to be fair is a big share, and not environmentally sustainable), along with a modest place to live, they (we) mainly want to work less.
  - infecto 11mo ago
    How can you wager that when the data proves otherwise. People want new cars, that next gadget, they want a bigger car, bigger home etc.
Kerrick 11mo ago
You can consume a lot less on a surprisingly small salary, at least in the U.S. But it requires giving up things a lot of people don't want to, because consuming less once you are used to consuming more sucks. Here is a list of things people can cut from their life that are part of the "consumption has gone up" and "new categories of consumption were opened" that ovi256 was talking about: - One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago. - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago. - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago. - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago. - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago. I could keep going, but by this point I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
- malfist 11mo ago
  This didn't say they wanted to consume less, presumably their consumption is the right level for them.
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  > - One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago. It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone and a cell phone plan. Many things that were possible to do before without one now require it. > - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago. Maybe you can replace these with the cell phone + plan. > - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago. It's not clear that imported food is cheaper than locally grown food. Also I'm not sure you have the right time frame. I'm pretty sure my parents were buying imported produce in the winter when I was a kid 50 years ago. > - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago. Agreed. > - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago. Yes but in urban areas whatever you're saving on cars you are probably spending on higher rent and mortgage costs compared to rural areas where cars are a necessity. And if we're talking USA, many urban areas have terrible public transportation and you probably still need Uber or the equivalent some of the time, depending on just how walkable/bike-able your neighborhood is.
simianwords 11mo ago
you can consume as much as an average person from 1950's by working just a few days a week.
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  It's not always possible to live like a person from the 1950s due to societal changes. And many jobs that pay well do not allow you to work part time.
- mythrwy 11mo ago
  Not cigarettes I can't!
satvikpendem 11mo ago
Save up and then FIRE; retire early by moving to a lower cost of living area.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
  save up at what job?
  - satvikpendem 11mo ago
    At the job you work currently? Or if you're unemployed, then this advice doesn't work of course.
    - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
      Well I got work but the pay is minimal and supplemented by what freelance gigs I can grab. Not much to save per paycheck.
- lisbbb 11mo ago
  I think FIRE was basically just a fad for awhile. I say this as a 52 year old "retiree" who isn't working right now and living off investment income. It takes a shitload of wealth to not have to work and I'm borderline not real comfortable with the whole situation. I live in a fairly HCoL area and can't up and move right now (wife has medical needs, son in high school, daughter in college). I'd be freaking out if I didn't have a nest egg, we would be trying to sell our house in a crap market. As it stands, I don't really want to go on like I am, my life is a total waste right now.
  - satvikpendem 11mo ago
    It's not a "fad," it's a mathematical observation that investing more generates more returns. Maybe the media was covering it more at some point but the concept itself is sound. You are in fact FIREd by the same definition, it's just that in your case it seems you would need more money than you have currently due to the factors you stated, but that's not the fault of the concept of FIRE in general. And anyway, there are lots of stories of people doing regular or leanFIRE too, it doesn't require so much wealth as to be unreachable if you have a middle class job. For example, https://www.reddit.com/r/leanfire/s/67adPxZeDU https://www.reddit.com/r/leanfire/s/67adPxZeDU If you think your life is a waste right now, do something with it. That's actually the number one thing people don't expect from being retired, how bored they get. They say in FIRE communities that all the money and time in the world won't help if you don't actually utilize it.

I don't want to "consume a lot more". I want to work less, and for the work I do to be valuable, and to be able to spend my remaining time on other valuable things.

infecto 11mo ago

So you are agreeing with the parent? If consumption has gone up a lot and input hours has gone down or stayed flat, that means you are able to work less.

wizzwizz4 11mo ago
Not unless rent is cheap, it doesn't. It might mean my boss is able to work less.
- ghaff 11mo ago
  Rent can be pretty cheap depending upon where you live. If you want to live in a high cost of living area, that's a form of consumption.
  - wizzwizz4 11mo ago
    If I live somewhere, and maintain the building myself, what's being consumed?
    - ipdashc 11mo ago
      The spot of land is being consumed, no? If it's HCoL, clearly that's land that a lot of people wish they could live on but can't.
      - wizzwizz4 11mo ago
        But I'm not paying rent to them.
        ipdashc 11mo ago
        I mean, yeah? Does any market work like that? If you want an apple, you pay the person who has the apple to take it from them, you don't pay the other people who want apples. Not really following where this is going
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    >If you want to live in a high cost of living area, that's a form of consumption. Not really a "want" as much as "move where the jobs are". Remote jobs are shakey now and being in the middle of nowhere only worsens your compensation aspects. Being able to live wherever you please is indeed a luxury. The suburb structure already sacrificed the aspect of high CoL for increase commute time to work. I also do think that dismissing aspects of humanity like family, community and sense of purpose to "luxuries" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.
    - ghaff 11mo ago
      In most places (SF may be somewhat of an exception in terms of relatively unaffordable housing in both the city and any accessible suburbs) 30-60 minute commutes are pretty normal. At least a lot of the companies are probably in the suburbs/exurbs anyway. I'm not suggesting living in the middle of nowhere but, in a lot of places, urban vs. exurban living is a choice especially with companies that are often exurban.
ipdashc 11mo ago
> or stayed flat But that's not what they said, they said they want to work less. As the GP post said, they'd still be working a full week. I do think this is an interesting point. The trend for most of history seems to have been vastly increasing consumption/luxury while work hours somewhat decrease. But have we reached the point where that's not what people want? I'd wager most people in rich developed countries don't particularly want more clothes, gadgets, cars, or fast food. If they can get the current typical middle class share of those things (which to be fair is a big share, and not environmentally sustainable), along with a modest place to live, they (we) mainly want to work less.
- infecto 11mo ago
  How can you wager that when the data proves otherwise. People want new cars, that next gadget, they want a bigger car, bigger home etc.

Kerrick 11mo ago

You can consume a lot less on a surprisingly small salary, at least in the U.S. But it requires giving up things a lot of people don't want to, because consuming less once you are used to consuming more sucks. Here is a list of things people can cut from their life that are part of the "consumption has gone up" and "new categories of consumption were opened" that ovi256 was talking about: - One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago. - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago. - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago. - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago. - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago. I could keep going, but by this point I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.

malfist 11mo ago
This didn't say they wanted to consume less, presumably their consumption is the right level for them.
jimbokun 11mo ago
> - One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago. It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone and a cell phone plan. Many things that were possible to do before without one now require it. > - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago. Maybe you can replace these with the cell phone + plan. > - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago. It's not clear that imported food is cheaper than locally grown food. Also I'm not sure you have the right time frame. I'm pretty sure my parents were buying imported produce in the winter when I was a kid 50 years ago. > - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago. Agreed. > - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago. Yes but in urban areas whatever you're saving on cars you are probably spending on higher rent and mortgage costs compared to rural areas where cars are a necessity. And if we're talking USA, many urban areas have terrible public transportation and you probably still need Uber or the equivalent some of the time, depending on just how walkable/bike-able your neighborhood is.

simianwords 11mo ago

you can consume as much as an average person from 1950's by working just a few days a week.

jimbokun 11mo ago
It's not always possible to live like a person from the 1950s due to societal changes. And many jobs that pay well do not allow you to work part time.
mythrwy 11mo ago
Not cigarettes I can't!

satvikpendem 11mo ago

Save up and then FIRE; retire early by moving to a lower cost of living area.

johnnyanmac 11mo ago
save up at what job?
- satvikpendem 11mo ago
  At the job you work currently? Or if you're unemployed, then this advice doesn't work of course.
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    Well I got work but the pay is minimal and supplemented by what freelance gigs I can grab. Not much to save per paycheck.
lisbbb 11mo ago
I think FIRE was basically just a fad for awhile. I say this as a 52 year old "retiree" who isn't working right now and living off investment income. It takes a shitload of wealth to not have to work and I'm borderline not real comfortable with the whole situation. I live in a fairly HCoL area and can't up and move right now (wife has medical needs, son in high school, daughter in college). I'd be freaking out if I didn't have a nest egg, we would be trying to sell our house in a crap market. As it stands, I don't really want to go on like I am, my life is a total waste right now.
- satvikpendem 11mo ago
  It's not a "fad," it's a mathematical observation that investing more generates more returns. Maybe the media was covering it more at some point but the concept itself is sound. You are in fact FIREd by the same definition, it's just that in your case it seems you would need more money than you have currently due to the factors you stated, but that's not the fault of the concept of FIRE in general. And anyway, there are lots of stories of people doing regular or leanFIRE too, it doesn't require so much wealth as to be unreachable if you have a middle class job. For example, https://www.reddit.com/r/leanfire/s/67adPxZeDU https://www.reddit.com/r/leanfire/s/67adPxZeDU If you think your life is a waste right now, do something with it. That's actually the number one thing people don't expect from being retired, how bored they get. They say in FIRE communities that all the money and time in the world won't help if you don't actually utilize it.