Proposition: Early Retirement is Selfish

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goodnight Gracie!

Does this mean I dont find out where the boot goes?

(Come on REW...slow and easy, right over the plate...)
 
Purron, that was a great post detailing your situation in ER. I think there are others here who have sound reasons for ER'ing. When I contrast your comments with Bongo2's it makes me want to .... well never mind. I'm sure Bongo2 will wiggle out of his "obligations" which are really to apologize to ER people like yourself. He has caused a lot of unnecessary angst.
 
bongo2 said:
Just because you don't like a convention doesn't mean you can break it.
Click to expand...
I agree.

bongo2 said:
It is still selfish to park in the handicapped spot even if you think there are too many.
Click to expand...
I agree. In fact, it's not just a convention, but actually illegal!

Neither of those statements addresses my claim that said convention (that folks are supposed to work between ages 20-60) is unwarranted and breaking said convention is not a moral problem, provided that said ERd person is paying his own way. You claimed that ER causes actual direct and indirect harm to society. I'm still waiting for you to state the harm. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how someone with $100 million in investments who spends most of his time in leisure activities is harming society while if he went to work at Burger King for 40 hours a week he's not harming society.

bongo2 said:
Just becuase other people aren't breaking a convention doesn't mean that you can. Handicapped parking again. When you break that convention, if there are no police around, you get dirty looks. Just like when the 45 year old software engineer retires.
Click to expand...
Are you shifting your position? This looks more like you're claiming that breaking a convention is by definition wrong. I don't equate parking in a handicapped spot with ER, and not just because the first one is illegal. I don't agree that breaking a convention is wrong because many people disagree with it.

bongo2 said:
flispstress: "there is value to one's being happy that positively affects others around them" With that isn't it pretty hard to be selfish? I don't think the word is going to have the same meaning if you restrict it to only things that are pretty awful.
Click to expand...
I'm going to break in on this one: do you claim that someone being happy doesn't positively affect those them? I think it does. I think that being happy has value, both to the happy person and to those who interact with him.


In the end, it seems to me that your issue is with having 'too much' leisure time.
 
I'm going to jump into this discussion here and hopefully add something useful. It appears to me that Bongo's point is basically that ER is immoral, because if everyone did it then society would collapse. I can completely understand his rationale. That makes sense to me.

However, the problem is that that premise presumes that everyone can ER, but the majority of people choose not to do so out of some sense of moral obligation to society and recognition of the inherent "selfishness" of stepping out of the workforce. This is the part I disagree with, for 2 reasons.

First, obviously ER is not available to everyone. If you think that there is a huge crowd of folks out there with more than enough cash in the bank to retire, but who choose to keep working "for the greater good," then you're delusional. There is no shortage of hardworking 60 year olds out there who would love to stop working, but simply can't afford to. They made different choices throughout life. They chose to have 5 kids. They chose to live in an enormous house or drive expensive cars or take expensive vacations. Now they're reaping the consequences of those decisions. The people who are in a position to ER are there not because of luck (OK, luck had a small part to play but was certainly not the deciding factor) but because they sacrificed frivolous luxuries, lived below their means, educated themselves on financial matters, and invested wisely. Now it's their turn to reap the consequences of their decisions.

Secondly, as another poster pointed out, the simple principles of economics would correct the situation in which society is starved for a workforce. Manufacturers would be forced to raise wages to attract the necessary workers. This would be reflected in large-scale price increases in the goods, as the increased costs are passed on to consumers. Inflation would lurch forward. Those who ER'd would suddenly find that their previously ample nest egg no longer cuts the mustard, and would be forced to step back into the workforce. Only those with an abundance of savings would be able to remain ER'd.
 
kombat said:
I'm going to jump into this discussion here and hopefully add something useful. It appears to me that Bongo's point is basically that ER is immoral, because if everyone did it then society would collapse.
Click to expand...
Interesting point. He also stated that ERing to, say, take care of children is not immoral, yet if everyone ERd to do so (or take care of elderly parents, or others with disabilities, as not everyone has children) there would be no production and society would collapse. In fact, if everyone did [insert just about any activity here], society would collapse. I don't think that's a good argument.
 
TickTock said:
Interesting point. He also stated that ERing to, say, take care of children is not immoral
Click to expand...

Unless you're a man, it seems. But I didnt get much clarification about whether it matters if the man was financially independent, or if by performing househusbandly duties invoked the bad morality clause of this particular misdemeanor regardless of financial independence.
 
bongo2 said:
FinanceDude: I saw your post. If people contribute to society by spending then surely ER is a problem - just for a very different reason than I thought. The LBYM side would be the problem. If you contribute by spending and also by not spending. . .

As I said before it's the spending side of the equation that aligns society's actions with your desires. You aren't contributing here, you're consuming. It's the producing side of the equation that aligns other people's desires with your actions. There should be a balance of both.
Click to expand...

You never studied economics..........we are talking about a measly 5 PERCENT of all Americans.......the other 95 PERCENT are out working and spending themselves into oblivion........

I understand you believe ALL should work until they die, but I fail to see how the choices of OTHERS affects YOUR obvious choice to work until you die...........
 
Purron, flipstress, Sarah, sunshine, and others: You are probably right. This is a big forum and I don’t read it all. We are also naturally going to have a lot more posts from the people who don’t spend their time on more important things – almost by definition. I also tend to focus on the financial threads, which are probably more likely to lead to “me” centered posts. Perhaps I have gotten a skewed view of early retirement.

CFB: I thought you were ignoring me? I’m sorry the “househusband” comment appears to have so gotten under your skin. In the other thread I said that ER was against “mores.” You asked if it was selfish to retire to take care of your kid, and I made a joke that being a househusband broke a “whole different set of mores.” I used the word “mores” specifically because it does not imply morality, but just social taboo. I was making a reference to this post where you said you like the way people think less of you when they find out you’re a househusband. Can’t we all just get along?

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/showpost.php?p=581272&postcount=24
 
Tick Tock: “Are you shifting your position?”

The last post did shift my position a little bit. In my posts I’ve been muddling two viewpoints: the perception of ER as selfish and the “reality” of it (if there is one). I have mostly been arguing that ER is selfish in some absolute sense, but, in that case how do we distinguish between the 65 yr old and the 45 yr old retiree? You can argue that the 65 yr old is just assumed to be unable to work, but that isn’t very compelling in a philosophical sense. The age when retirement becomes acceptable appears to be somewhat arbitrary.

Perhaps this is closer to the truth. There is a balance between self-centered and other-centered actions that is assumed to be acceptable in our society. The exact nature of this balance (like the exact number of handicapped parking spaces) is arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean that you can unilaterally decide to break it.

“I don't agree that breaking a convention is wrong because many people disagree with it.” I don’t agree with that either, but I think just breaking a convention because you feel like it is selfish. It will certainly be perceived to be selfish – but it probably is selfish as well.

“I'm still waiting for you to state the harm.” I’ve tried. I don’t know if there’s much more to say on this. It is externalities, consumer surplus, and the fact that when you work for pay you are doing what other people want. “demonstrate how someone with $100 million in investments who spends most of his time in leisure activities is harming society” Perhaps our problem is this. I’m not trying to say that leisure harms society actively. It’s the removal of production that is a loss to society. The removal of something good is a harm. The person above may have been productive in the past to make that $100 mil, but they aren’t contributing anything now. Taking someone away who is contributing greatly causes greater harm.

“do you claim that someone being happy doesn't positively affect those them?” No, I’m just saying that if doing something for yourself is unselfish because it makes you happy, then I don’t know how to use the word.

Kombat: I agree that society would self-correct so we won’t have an ER crisis. With the rest of your post I think that you are arguing more that people who ER have earned the right to be selfish, rather than that they are not selfish.
 
bongo2 said:
Kombat: I agree that society would self-correct so we won’t have an ER crisis. With the rest of your post I think that you are arguing more that people who ER have earned the right to be selfish, rather than that they are not selfish.
Click to expand...

But it's universal, isn't it? Take 2 people who each earn $100,000/year. The first spends it on expensive vacations, high-def TVs, and BMW's. The second makes do with trips to the family cottage, basic cable, and a used Honda. He invests the difference.

30 years later, the first guy has no savings, and the second guy has a nest egg capable of supporting retirement. Wasn't the first guy selfish for all those years? If so, then what would you call what the second guy did? Wouldn't it be unfair to deny the second guy the pleasures of all that he's sacrificed for, while the first guy was busy indulging his every whim all those years? You seem to be saying it's OK to be selfish as long as you have a job. But if you live below your means and choose to take those pleasures later in life, that's immoral. I don't get it.
 
Apparently, it boils down to the fact that Guy #2 still has some life in him that must be donated to societal good. Both Guy 1 and Guy 2 worked hard, so they were both worthy. But, when Guy 2 decides to take a break--whoa! Until the lemon has been wrung completely out and then put in a desiccator, he's not fulfilled his societal obligation.

"Row, Row, Row for your lives!"
 
samclem said:
Apparently, it boils down to the fact that Guy #2 still has some life in him that must be donated to societal good. Both Guy 1 and Guy 2 worked hard, so they were both worthy. But, when Guy 2 decides to take a break--whoa! Until the lemon has been wrung completely out and then put in a desiccator, he's not fulfilled his societal obligation.

"Row, Row, Row for your lives!"
Click to expand...
Aha, it is clear now. Bongo is a neo-communist - "From each according to how long he lasts before collapsing. To each a retirement of sorts after he can't enjoy it any more."
 
bongo2 said:
The last post did shift my position a little bit. In my posts I’ve been muddling two viewpoints: the perception of ER as selfish and the “reality” of it (if there is one).
Click to expand...
Ah. I’ve been arguing about the reality, not the perception. I will continue to do so; perception is a different matter.

bongo2 said:
I have mostly been arguing that ER is selfish in some absolute sense, but, in that case how do we distinguish between the 65 yr old and the 45 yr old retiree? You can argue that the 65 yr old is just assumed to be unable to work, but that isn’t very compelling in a philosophical sense. The age when retirement becomes acceptable appears to be somewhat arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I’ll come back to this later in this post.

bongo2 said:
Perhaps this is closer to the truth. There is a balance between self-centered and other-centered actions that is assumed to be acceptable in our society.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, although I think you’ll find a range of opinions on where that balance is. In any case, this is again talking about perception instead of reality. I’m addressing the reality, not the perception. Maybe this is where we were getting crossed up before.

bongo2 said:
The exact nature of this balance (like the exact number of handicapped parking spaces) is arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean that you can unilaterally decide to break it.
Click to expand...
Why not, providing I pay my own way? In fact, I can break the convention if I have enough savings. Many folks here have broken the convention. In any case, this is again talking about perception, not reality. In this thread, I have not been and continue to be not interested in someone else’s perception of it.

bongo2 said:
“I'm still waiting for you to state the harm.” I’ve tried. I don’t know if there’s much more to say on this. It is externalities, consumer surplus, and the fact that when you work for pay you are doing what other people want.
Click to expand...
You’re mixing economic and moral arguments here. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘externalities’, so I’ll set that aside until that’s better defined. I’ll address consumer surplus in the next quote. I absolutely disagree that doing what other people want is by definition a good thing, and that not doing what other people want is by definition causing harm.

bongo2 said:
“demonstrate how someone with $100 million in investments who spends most of his time in leisure activities is harming society” Perhaps our problem is this. I’m not trying to say that leisure harms society actively. It’s the removal of production that is a loss to society. The removal of something good is a harm. The person above may have been productive in the past to make that $100 mil, but they aren’t contributing anything now. Taking someone away who is contributing greatly causes greater harm.
Click to expand...
It’s removal of production that’s the harm. Then a person who retires at any age when they can continue to work is causing harm. Then staying home to raise a child or take care of elderly parents is causing harm. Then retiring from a high-production job to teach starving children in Africa is causing harm. Then working 40 hours a week instead of 50 is causing harm, working 30 hours a week instead of 40 is causing harm, and so on. Yet you have repeatedly posted that these things are not what you’re talking about! From your initial post: “The ER we are generally discussing around here is someone who is perfectly able to work deciding to leave their job in order to pursue “leisure” activities.” If it reduces production, then it reduces production, which harms society by your above definition, regardless of the reason. But you don’t claim that any of the above are selfish or harming society. Based on this thread, I do think that your issue is with an able-bodied person having leisure time.

bongo2 said:
“do you claim that someone being happy doesn't positively affect those them?” No, I’m just saying that if doing something for yourself is unselfish because it makes you happy, then I don’t know how to use the word.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that positively affecting those around you is a good thing, and if doing something for myself makes me happy, which makes me deal with other people better, which positively affects them (for example, I don’t blow up at every small inconvenience or setback since I'm not stressed out from working 60 hours a week to contribute to society) then that is a good thing.


I think you’re not only mixing perception and reality, but also confusing economic and moral arguments.
 
Hey folks,

Just a heads-up; DW and I are going to visit family for Christmas, and I may or may not post for the next ten days or so. Just wanted to let you know so no one is waiting for a quick reply that won't be coming.

Merry Christmas everyone! :)
 
Crap - my power is back on after five days and I just got back from a mini visit to New Orleans.

Yeah yeah yeah - I know - post on a different thread.

heh heh heh - :D
 
TickTock said:
Hey folks,

Just a heads-up; DW and I are going to visit family for Christmas, and I may or may not post for the next ten days or so. Just wanted to let you know so no one is waiting for a quick reply that won't be coming.

Merry Christmas everyone! :)
Click to expand...
From our perspective, that is a pretty selfish thing to do. >:D
 
“it is clear now. Bongo is a neo-communist” Don’t forget a money-grubbing religious-nut faux-intellectual communist! I pick fights and then snivel about it; I claim to be morally superior while I destroy the earth with my overconsumption! It’s all part of the picture!

FinanceDude: “You never studied economics.....” “.....but I fail to see how the choices of OTHERS affects YOUR obvious choice”

I don’t know if you studied economics more than I, but I studied it enough to know that economics is pretty much about how the choices of people affect each other.

“I understand you believe ALL should work until they die” I understand you don’t read my posts, but, if you did, you’d see that’s not what I’m saying at all.

In the spinoff thread that Tick Tock started on “what if everyone ERd” Nords referenced a thread “Imagine: Can lots of people ERing make things better for everybody?” from a couple of years ago. It’s interesting that in that thread many people said that ER is detrimental to society, and that we do all have a duty to each other. I guess people just like to be contrary. Nords also frequently mentions Po Bronson, but Bronson strongly argues against the FIRE model. Here’s an excerpt, but his whole book argues against it:

“Shouldn't I make money first -- to fund my dream? The notion that there's an order to your working life is an almost classic assumption: Pay your dues, and then tend to your dream. I expected to find numerous examples of the truth of this path. But I didn't find any.”

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/66/mylife.html

Tick Tock: “In this thread, I have not been and continue to be not interested in someone else’s perception of it. . .I think you’re not only mixing perception and reality, but also confusing economic and moral arguments.”

But it is the perception that helps create the reality, and the economics and morality are intertwined. Here’s another example. If I ignore my kids to post on this forum then I’m being selfish. If you ignore my kids to post on this forum, perhaps in some absolute sense there could be similar harm, but you’re not being selfish because no one expects you to look after my kids. Society could theoretically be structured so that grandparents have the duty to take care of kids, or designated government entities, or people named “Tick Tock”, but in our society parents have the greatest obligation, close relatives next, and society last. If I ignore my kids I’m being selfish – even if I personally reject the notion that parents should take care of children. Similarly, someone has to produce. In our society our duty to be productive starts in our 20’s, peaks around 45 or so, and then diminishes to 65. It’s all rough, of course, there are no absolutes. And please people let’s not say “bongo2 says ER is like abandoning your kids!” That’s not what I’m saying.

Kombat: Yes, let’s make this more concrete. Moe and Joe are programmers both making $100k. Joe is a frugal sort who saves 40% of his income and is able to retire at 45 on his savings. Moe spends all of his money, but still stops working at 45 because he is able to scam some sort of disability that he doesn’t have. So, is Moe selfish, but Joe not? I don’t think so. While Joe has earned the right to retire early, his early retirement is still selfish. Again, I think that earning something and it being selfish are two different things. If I eat a cookie and don’t share it with my kids, that’s selfish. It doesn’t matter if the cookie is bought or stolen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Literally: Life After Fire
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
Koolau
Koolau
C
I may have made the mistake of updating my Linkedin status to 'Retired'
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
EastWest Gal
E
C
2 Years FIRE'd
Replies
4
Views
530
MarieIG
M
E
Five Years Retired: Lessons Learned
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
happy2bretired
happy2bretired
N
Article: 'I'm too young to retire': What forced these workers to retire
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
meleana
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom