FI on the down low???

[Martha]

I too was new to the board when Ted was in the process of decompensating.

I sometimes think about duty and what my obligations are to family, etc. Duty in part keeps me working. Sometimes I also think about a duty to make contributions to the greater good of society. But that doesn't have much to do with work for me. I remember during the Great IQ Debate I brought up Marilyn Vos Savant and the possiblity that she had a duty to contribute more to society than simply writing a goofy newspaper column. . . Where are the philosophers and great thinkers of today? Great gifts = great obligations? Maybe.

 

[MJ]

i would rather have an old beat up car and no worries than a porsche and a noose around my neck.

I wouldn't mind a few big homes on sprawlling 500 acre properties, a few 50 acre lakes, RRs, porsches, a butler, maid and cook as long as I got the money easily (inherited, lottery, bank mistake, embeezlement) with obsolutely no worries.

 

[Caroline]

In a friendly conversation, my younger brother called me a freeloader.
I ask; why are you calling me that, he answers; you are living off of society,
I ask; what do you mean by that, he answers; you no longer contribute to society
I ask; what do you mean by that, he answers; you are not spending much of your money.
After about 5 minutes of back and forth dialogue, I said, oh, ok.

Is this "not spending much of your money" as in "not wasting natural resouces by buying unnecessary things that cost petroleum and material to build, ship, and stock, not contributing to the landfill with the byproducts of same, not clogging the freeways and my airways going to work every day in a gas-guzzler, not taking a job from someone else who actually needs it, etc. etc. etc.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

I'd say you were contributing MORE than us working stiffs... Can't wait to start doing my share!

Caroline

 

[Gumby]

* Great gifts = great obligations?* Maybe.

..

 

[newyorklady]

Is this "not spending much of your money" as in "not wasting natural resouces by buying unnecessary things that cost petroleum and material to build, ship, and stock, not contributing to the landfill with the byproducts of same, not clogging the freeways and my airways going to work every day in a gas-guzzler, not taking a job from someone else who actually needs it, etc. etc. etc.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

I'd say you were contributing MORE than us working stiffs... Can't wait to start doing my share!

Caroline

Good point. My cheapness or frugality does make me an environmentalist of sorts.

 

[audreyh1]

WOW!

I'm still trying to get my brain around that "Ted Thread".

So basically, the only way one can "contribute to society" is if someone else is paying you to do something?  

It has nothing to do with what you spend your money on? (or don't)

I guess in this model any savings at all would be considered immoral - because then the individual might be tempted NOT to work?

People should be financially compensated for "volunteering" because that will encourage more "volunteering"?

Gosh - people who ER drop out and do nothing but smoke pot and take drugs?  

Wow - pretty twisted view. :

I'm sure glad "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence - not "we are morally obligated to always work for hire".

In fact, I don't think there was anything about the individual's duty to support the national economy by working for hire in the Declaration or any other of the founding articles.  No - it reads more like the freedom of the individual to pursue his self interest.

Audrey

 

[Lusitan]

My Granddad retired in 1971 at the age of 55, but Grandmom kept on working until the end of 1980, when the gummint closed down the hospital she was working at. She was 56, and I think she started getting her pension at that time, although she chose to continue working part-time, until she was around 70.

...

Still, Granddad retired because he was eligible, and he got a pension. He did not depend on Grandmom's income to keep him afloat, so he was never just not working and leeching off Grandmom's income.

Similarly, my Mom is going to be retiring from the gov't around January 2009. She'll get a nice pension, and just won't have to work anymore. My stepdad will probably have to go on a few more years though. But in this case, I'll still look at my Mom as being retired, and not being relegated to housewife status.

Yeah I see where you're coming from. I guess the concept of a pension is so completely foreign to me (and most of my peers in their 30s and younger) that I wasn't thinking along those lines, where you work until a set age and then get a set pension, and that's your retirement. In that case, since one spouse is probably older than the other, it makes sense that one spouse would hit retirement first while the other works a couple more years to hit their retirement.

Also, I wasn't thinking about the spouses who want to continue working, for whatever reason. That's a different story - that's essentially a couple who is FI but one of them just likes to work so they keep doing it.

I was thinking more along the lines of a couple having to save up a stash for a self-funded FIRE, and how I see the stash (and the FIRE) as a marital enterprise intead of two individual stashes.

Well, don't get divorced.

("Oh, officer, it's so horrible! I was laying in bed and I heard a noise. My husband didn't answer so I thought he was still asleep in bed with me. I emptied my clip at the burglar and (*sob*) it was my husband! He wasn't in bed with me after all!! Oh, the holes in the mattress? Well, you see, I was hiding on the floor on the other side of the bed and I must have shot through it at him, I mean the burglar... yeah, that's it!")

I just took the final exam for Family Law (which is a nice term for what should be called Divorce Law), and when I was reviewing my notes I saw one class where I had eagerly jotted down the following verbatim from my professor:

"There are 3 ways to dissolve the marital status:
(1) divorce
(2) annulment
(3) murder"

Your post came just at the right time for a good laugh. I don't know what's funnier - the joke, or the fact that I wrote it down in my notes without skipping a beat. Sadly, I was unable to work that into any of the fact patterns onto the exam ...

 

[newyorklady]

Though I don't have a pay job, I am very productive. I think some people are just bitter and jealous of those that can retire and didn't fall into the spending and credit trap. Don't know about this Ted guy, but working for a company does not mean that you are doing good for the country. there are many evil corporations out there. some neutral, and some good as well. though i don't have a job per se, you could say that i am a financial consultant (will be more so once I fire my stupid financial consultant- that is a whole other rant though- my picks always turn out best, so pay him for nothing really), carpenter, fisherman, cook, botanist, maid, student, but on my own terms and for myself. I also do volunteer work and may even choose to buy a little vinyard or farm somewhere and work the land. People can have a very limited view of what productivity means, and that is a shame. I am not a stressed out person who hates their job and life, so I am more likely to be pleasant and helpful to others, therefore doing more good in the world. Also, when I have children, or if rather, I will have the luxury of being able to be around and be a nanny, a tutor and won't have to delegate this to a stranger.

 

[haha]

I too was new to the board when Ted was in the process of decompensating. 

I sometimes think about duty and what my obligations are to family, etc.  Duty in part keeps me working.  Sometimes I also think about a duty to make contributions to the greater good of society.  But that doesn't have much to do with work for me.  I remember during the Great IQ Debate I brought up Marilyn Vos Savant and the possiblity that she had a duty to contribute more to society than simply writing a goofy newspaper column. . . Where are the philosophers and great thinkers of today?  Great gifts = great obligations?  Maybe.

Ted was an annoying person, but he was definitely smart. Long before there was much news coverage of oil markets, and crude futures were still in contango, he would buy the outmonths and gain from the rise in prices, and from the basis coming home to spot. He made quite a bit of money- all it took was smarts and courage.

Actually, I don’t care how much of an ass a poster is, if he/she is smart and will share some of that. It is stupid annoying people that get me riled.

I came to think that Ted was a natural Kantian- he believed in the Categorical Imperative. Here is a short definition of that philosophical stance from Wikipedia: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Early retirement fails this test, as it obviously is an elitist phenomenon. Even if we taught everyone to do it, everyone could not, because the economy and society on which we ERs depend would all be retired. Call a dentist- “sorry, they are all retired.”

I felt kind of sorry for old Ted, because this evidently troubled him, and I understand how it might.

OTOH, I manage to avoid stressing about it myself. 

Ha

 

[donheff]

Categorica "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Early retirement fails this test, as it obviously is an elitist phenomenon. Even if we taught everyone to do it, everyone could not, because the economy and society on which we ERs depend would all be retired. Call a dentist- “sorry, they are all retired.”

I felt kind of sorry for old Ted, because this evidently troubled him, and I understand how it might.

OTOH, I manage to avoid stressing about it myself.

Thanks, that clarifies what all this Ted talk is about. Some of us do seem a bit self righteous about how much better ER is than working. It strikes me that the FI part is far more important. Once we are FI we are in a good position to choose how best to be "productive." That might be sittin by a dock of the bay, volunteering, working at a rewarding job, or some mix of the above.

 

[Martha]

Ted was an annoying person, but he was definitely smart. Long before there was much news coverage of oil markets, and crude futures were still in contango, he would buy the outmonths and gain from the rise in prices, and from the basis coming home to spot. He made quite a bit of money- all it took was smarts and courage.

Actually, I don’t care how much of an ass a poster is, if he/she is smart and will share some of that. It is stupid annoying people that get me riled.

I came to think that Ted was a natural Kantian- he believed in the Categorical Imperative. Here is a short definition of that philosophical stance from Wikipedia: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Early retirement fails this test, as it obviously is an elitist phenomenon. Even if we taught everyone to do it, everyone could not, because the economy and society on which we ERs depend would all be retired. Call a dentist- “sorry, they are all retired.”

I felt kind of sorry for old Ted, because this evidently troubled him, and I understand how it might.

OTOH, I manage to avoid stressing about it myself.

Ha

Agreed. ER is an elitist phenomenon and it kind of troubles me too, but not enough to work until 65 and not enough to give away all our money. Maybe it is my socialist ancestors I am hearing.

 

[astromeria]

I know how hard I worked when I was working, so ER troubles me not at all. Besides, I'm not convinced that writing and editing software documentation was more productive than raising children and performing other domestic chores, voting, supporting arts organizations (with ticket purchases & performance attendance as well as donations), traveling and broadening my--and other peoples'--horizons, and just generally being a decent human being and making sure Dh eats enough fiber .

Not to mention all this good-doobie wedding stuff...spent yesterday picking up DD's future inlaws at the airport, going to lunch with them, and giving them a 3-hour tour of Charleston. Am cutting short my DC visiting plans so that I'll be home when friends want to crash with us later this month en route from FL to MA, and so on.

I don;t exasctly have an absence of deadlines now that I'm retired. it's just that they've changed drom work deadlines/pressures to seasonal (gardening) deadlines, visitor deadlines, and such.

 

[HFWR]

Using this reasoning, you can never retire...

 

[unclemick]

Hmmm

I suffered under the illusion that I never worked - I mean what else is a college degree for?

Participating in the Space Program - I was a lucky contributor to history and happy as a clam to be there. The usual pain in the butt Dilbert parts were just the dues of doing business.

Of course after thirty years - even 'fun' can get old.

My old buddy Sam(now deceased) - "If they didn't pay me to come here, I'd have to buy a ticket to come watch."

heh heh heh heh heh - from my late Father - if you don't get dirty, you ain't working.

 

[audreyh1]

Thanks, that clarifies what all this Ted talk is about.  Some of us do seem a bit self righteous about how much better ER is than working.  It strikes me that the FI part is far more important. Once we are FI we are in a good position to choose how best to be "productive."  That might be sittin by a dock of the bay, volunteering, working at a rewarding job, or some mix of the above.

I think what bothered me most about Ted's point of view was that you were not contributing to society or being productive unless someone else was paying you. That is such a limiting view.

When you work for hire, you are doing something that someone ELSE thinks is your best use. It takes FI to do what YOU think is your best use. And I also believe an individual has the right to choose whether or not to "contribute to society" at all.

It took me years in my career to learn to distinguish between what I was good at, and what I found most fulfilling to do. The way the work marketplace goes, employers/bosses will always push you to do what they think you are good at and what is best for the company, regardless of whether it is most fulfilling for you as an employee. So I kind of see Ted's point of view indicating that you have an obligation to use your best skills and talents for society even if it brings you no personal fulfillment. For example - if you are a skilled dentist, then you are always obligated to provide these dental services because you can - no matter how many years you have "served" as a dentist and even if you don't care to practice dentistry any more.

I also have a really problem with the idea of working for hire/to earn money even if you don't need the money! I've run into this attitude several times during my retirement. Because we are good at photographing wildlife, some people feel that we should make a business of it. I find the idea absurd because we don't need the money that a business might bring, so why burden ourselves with all the work it would take to actually make any money at all at it? Not to mention the likelihood that it would totally ruin a good thing. Isn't donating and sharing our work enough of a contribution? Aren't we "allowed" just to enjoy doing something we are good at without having to figure out how to turn it into a money-making operation?

OK - rant off.

Audrey

 

[Andre1969]

My attitude is that if I have the resources to quit work and just sit on my ass all day and watch reruns of Gilligan's Island and Gunsmoke, I'm still contributing to society. How? Well, if I've amassed the resources to be able to do something like that and not have to work, society is benefitting from those resources, because that money is out there, in the market, available for investors to use and benefit from.

Plus, I'm still going to have to buy food to eat. Pay the cable/satellite company for the privilege of sitting around on my butt watching those reruns. Pay the electric company. And unless that television was a hand-me-down, I made a "contribution" to SOMEBODY, whether it was Best Buy, WalMart, the Salvation Army, Uncle Ned, etc.

Then, unless I've "failed to launch" and I'm living for free under my parents' roof, I'm either contributing, putting money out there to be used by society, by either renting, or paying a mortgage and property taxes.

Now maybe I'm a talented brain surgeon, auto mechanic, rocket scientist, video game programmer, or what-have-you. I guess you could say I'm not contributing my fullest to society because I'm not working, using those skills so that others may benefit from them. But I'm still contributing to society in the ways that I mentioned. And honestly, no matter how much anyone else contributes to society, isn't it always possible to contribute MORE? You have to draw the line somewhere, and take care of yourself, too.

 

[audreyh1]

Unlike Ted's philosophy, people do not go to work in order to contribute to society. That would be more on the lines of a socialist system. In the US, people go to work to earn money. It's a totally self-interest motivated (capitalist) system. Earning/making money is the motivator. Very few US individuals out there are working for the greater good, most are working to earn a living for themselves and their families and even to save for future needs.

And the ones working for the greater good - many of them do so for no compensation whatsoever, so adding compensation where none is sought out of the strange idea that more people would "volunteer" (when it just lost the definition of volunteering = doing something/giving of yourself for no personal monetary gain) is kind of absurd.

I guess some folks may be able to tell themselves - well, I have to earn a living, but at least I'm "contributing to society".

The idea that contributing capital - spending money - is NOT contributing to society whereas working for hire somehow is, especially when you are paying your own way and aren't taking any one else's resources - that idea is pretty bizarre to me too.

Audrey

 

[donheff]

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Early retirement fails this test

Someone here will know the correct quote from Catch 22. I think it was Yossarian, pondering some wild scheme, who answered the question like, "...but what if everybody did it," with "Then I would be a fool not to wouldn't I?"

 

[wabmester]

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Early retirement fails this test, as it obviously is an elitist phenomenon. Even if we taught everyone to do it, everyone could not, because the economy and society on which we ERs depend would all be retired. Call a dentist- “sorry, they are all retired.”

Huh?

Let's imagine how this utopian society might work.    The prime directive would be:

1) Work your butt off until you've amassed enough wealth to let your investments support you in the manner to which you've become accustomed.

Of course, we'd have to have a couple of options for those who didn't want to work so hard.   How about:

2) Or, work at any random job until you're 65 years old, and then society will take care of you after that.

And perhaps unions of workers would form and create another alternative such as:

3) Put in 20 years of service, and you'll get a pension for the rest of your life.

It's pretty clear to me that option (1) is the One True Capitalistic path likely to be most beneficial to society.    Option (2) is socialism.   And option (3) is the truly elitist path that will crumble under its own weight.

 

[Cool Dood]

Gosh - people who ER drop out and do nothing but smoke pot and take drugs?


Audrey

Hey, what's wrong with smoking pot and taking drugs?!

 

[newyorklady]

Nothing. There is a time and a place for everything and it is called college.

 

[Cool Dood]

Well, I don't think learning ends when you leave college, nor does having lots of sex, or other activities that are either entertaining or edifying. I don't see why dope would be different?

I suppose some jobs demand abstention, and maybe it doesn't mix well with family, but other than that it would seem to be mostly a matter of taste...

 

[donheff]

Well, I don't think learning ends when you leave college, nor does having lots of sex, or other activities that are either entertaining or edifying. I don't see why dope would be different?

I suppose some jobs demand abstention, and maybe it doesn't mix well with family, but other than that it would seem to be mostly a matter of taste...

Thats what they say in Amsterdam. And it looks like Mexico is joining them. Anyone up for a trip to Nuevo Laredo?

 

[newyorklady]

I agree, that was just a quote from South Park. I am not a head myself but like the smell.

 

[Cool Dood]

Oops! I'm not sure how I missed that South Park quote...