Charles Dickens wrote "A Christmas Carol" as a story of redemption, but he also tells a story about FIRE. The two primary (living) characters, Ebenezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchit, exemplify extremes of retirement done badly.
Scrooge, age 60-ish, is beyond FI but, absent the ghostly visits, is on a path to replicate Jacob Marley who died without ever retiring. He is entirely self-made; he is shrewd and works hard, staying at the office until late every night. He has always lived frugally, invested well, and now has the means to retire but not the inclination. His frugality is portrayed as callousness when he declines the opportunity to donate to a charity: "I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry." OTOH, there was no FIREcalc then, so his spreadsheets may have shown he needed to stack another few half-crowns just to be sure.
Cratchit, age mid-40s, lives paycheck to paycheck, spending every farthing of his weekly 15 shillings on his large family. He has no savings, and is eager to bolt from w*rk the instant the closing bell rings. He dislikes his employer but stays on, perhaps because with his unimpressive work ethic might face difficulty finding another j*b. Dickens makes a point of showing the general shabbiness of the Cratchits, from their threadbare clothing to their cramped living quarters, despite Bob having been steadily employed in a solid, white-collar job for many years. However when Christmas rolls around they spare no expense on a grand feast. It is clear that without Scrooge's miraculous enlightenment, Cratchit also will die without ever be able to retire.
So, purely from an ER perspective, which of these two people presents a worse example? Scrooge, the perpetual OMYer, or Cratchit the non-LBYMer? Feel free to be as judgmental and/or humorous as you wish. You won't hurt their feelings, since they aren't real and would be long dead by now anyway. Yes, I know that in 1843 retirement wasn't on anybody's radar, but I'm trying to make an entertaining poll question.
Thank you in advance for your replies, and as Tiny Tim said, "God bless us, every one!"
Scrooge, age 60-ish, is beyond FI but, absent the ghostly visits, is on a path to replicate Jacob Marley who died without ever retiring. He is entirely self-made; he is shrewd and works hard, staying at the office until late every night. He has always lived frugally, invested well, and now has the means to retire but not the inclination. His frugality is portrayed as callousness when he declines the opportunity to donate to a charity: "I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry." OTOH, there was no FIREcalc then, so his spreadsheets may have shown he needed to stack another few half-crowns just to be sure.
Cratchit, age mid-40s, lives paycheck to paycheck, spending every farthing of his weekly 15 shillings on his large family. He has no savings, and is eager to bolt from w*rk the instant the closing bell rings. He dislikes his employer but stays on, perhaps because with his unimpressive work ethic might face difficulty finding another j*b. Dickens makes a point of showing the general shabbiness of the Cratchits, from their threadbare clothing to their cramped living quarters, despite Bob having been steadily employed in a solid, white-collar job for many years. However when Christmas rolls around they spare no expense on a grand feast. It is clear that without Scrooge's miraculous enlightenment, Cratchit also will die without ever be able to retire.
So, purely from an ER perspective, which of these two people presents a worse example? Scrooge, the perpetual OMYer, or Cratchit the non-LBYMer? Feel free to be as judgmental and/or humorous as you wish. You won't hurt their feelings, since they aren't real and would be long dead by now anyway. Yes, I know that in 1843 retirement wasn't on anybody's radar, but I'm trying to make an entertaining poll question.
Thank you in advance for your replies, and as Tiny Tim said, "God bless us, every one!"
