What If Everyone ERd As Soon As They Could?

T

TickTock

Full time employment: Posting here.
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
642
With a nod to twaddle, who posted: I think it's interesting to ask "what if everybody retired as soon as they earned enough to sustain themselves?" Is there any evidence to suggest society would be worse off?"

Discuss.
 
Yeah, healt care costs would plummet because people would get out of high stress, illness-causing jobs early enough so irreperable damage would not be done.

The travel business would see a boom.
 
"Discuss"? Were/are you a teacher?
It depends how it occurred.
If naturally i.e. part of the culture no affect - society would have incorporated it into its normal operations.
If suddenly those who had the resourses decided to ER at the same time there would be short term and long term disruptions
Short term - e.g. labor shortages; reduced smog; possibly higher wage and other inflation
Long term - Society adapts

Discuss
 
Kids would be happier. Parents would be happier. The monstrous gap between rich and poor would be narrowed.

Basically, it would be nirvana.
 

Attachments

  • effort.jpg
    effort.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 5
Don't you know where you are? You shouldn't have said "Discuss."

You should have said "Argue."
 
heh. Yes, we tend to be a bit on the prickly side. :rant:
 
TickTock said:
"what if everybody retired as soon as they earned enough to sustain themselves?" Is there any evidence to suggest society would be worse off?"
Click to expand...

People would have time to be wise shoppers and the financial incentive to be such, so maybe demand would force survival of only the "best value" or at least the better products, eliminating inferior ones and resulting in channeling of resources more efficiently.
 
Last edited:
If the standard retirement age changed from 65 to something much lower say, 50, then the overall standard of living would go down. People would have less things and more free time, and, most likely, everyone would be better off.


However, if everyone retires as soon as they can then we have a bit of a problem. The most productive people would soon earn enough to retire, and, as a result, work the least. The more incentive you want to give someone to work, the less work you'd get.
 
You seem to be stuck with the idee fixe that we must *maximize* productivity. That's almost as absurd as the idea that we should strive for zero productivity. How about a happy middle ground? You know, like France. :)
 
bongo2 said:
The more incentive you want to give someone to work, the less work you'd get.
Click to expand...

Man, I'm glad you were never my manager!

I always looked for any incentive (positive incentives!) I could find to encourage folks to work *and* enjoy their work. It could be as simple as bringing in cookies or brownies the DW had baked.
 
Sustain themselves:confused: One man's sustenance is another's view of pure poverty...

Not to be critical, but we all decide our own threshold for sustenance. Further, if more opted for lower levels of consumption (and therefore lower accumulation in that phase of life) then we would probably see the markets retreat, leaving many who thought they were at that "sustenance" level, without enough and having to un-FIRE.

R
 
bongo2 said:
However, if everyone retires as soon as they can then we have a bit of a problem. The most productive people would soon earn enough to retire, and, as a result, work the least. The more incentive you want to give someone to work, the less work you'd get.
Click to expand...

Wellll.... I'm retiring in a couple months, and am now training up the third person hired to take over my duties. I suppose I was very productive, but that doesn't mean I worked the least. If I'd kept being that productive, I would have produced myself into an early grave or a mental institution. Would that be the most socially desirable result?

You don't really believe that the more incentive you provide, the less work you'll get, I hope. That would make a slavery-based economy optimal. Yuck.

The idea that by retiring early one is somehow stealing from society (a theme I see recurring here) is a bit of a crock. I only 'owe' society production if that society is an inflexible centrally planned economy relying on getting every last bit of productivity to sustain itself.

The society I live in turns out to have a relatively elastic economy. This worker has produced according to his ability for a good long time, and has accumulated a surplus of capital that he now intends to use to better his own life. This will not have a deleterious effect on society as a whole, as the retired worker will continue to expend funds, consume goods and services, and in general still be engaged with society's economic engine as his accumulated surplus funds are reinvested and expended.

But, what if everyone selfishly decided to retire early? Simply put, the rate of production of goods and services would drop below the current demand, resulting in a shortage of goods and services for the early retirees. Prices would rise, consuming more of the accumulated surplus of funds held by the retirees. Demand for workers would also rise, resulting in a rise in wages. Inflation would result, reducing the buying power of the early retirees further. At some point some of the retirees would suffer from the economic pressure, and rejoin the workforce so as to get additional income and restore their purchasing power and lifestyle. The economy would arrive at a new stable state, probably a bit less well off for the remaining early retirees, but with the workforce pretty much unaffected. (Higher prices largely compensated for by higher wages.)
 
Last edited:
TickTock said:
What if everybody retired as soon as they earned enough to sustain themselves?
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about this last night, and what a strange world it would be. I know I'm being extreme, as people work for more than money, but taking the question literally for a moment. There would be no celebrities. NBA players would play one season, or maybe just a few games. Executives would similarly just work a few months after achieving high status. Rock stars would put out one album, play maybe a few venues, and then never be heard from again. I'm not sure if movies could get made, but no one would ever work on more than one successful project. Perhaps all movies would be small independent ventures. Television shows would last just a few episodes. Wild.

This is getting pretty esoteric, but there would also have to be a dramatic shift in the share of goods going to labor. The benefits of production are split between govenrment, capital and labor, and there is a lot of political tension in that relationship. To create a much larger leisure class there would have to be a large reduction in labor's share of the output, and an increase for the other two. I'm curious exactly how that would play out.
 
bongo2 said:
I was thinking more about this last night, and what a strange world it would be. I know I'm being extreme, as people work for more than money, but taking the question literally for a moment. There would be no celebrities. NBA players would play one season, or maybe just a few games. Executives would similarly just work a few months after achieving high status. Rock stars would put out one album, play maybe a few venues, and then never be heard from again. I'm not sure if movies could get made, but no one would ever work on more than one successful project. Perhaps all movies would be small independent ventures. Television shows would last just a few episodes. Wild.

This is getting pretty esoteric, but there would also have to be a dramatic shift in the share of goods going to labor. The benefits of production are split between govenrment, capital and labor, and there is a lot of political tension in that relationship. To create a much larger leisure class there would have to be a large reduction in labor's share of the output, and an increase for the other two. I'm curious exactly how that would play out.
Click to expand...

You are discounting one of the basic human emotions...........greed!!
 
Greed is illegal in my proposed ER utopia. Once you have your share, you must retire. And start speaking French. :)
 
twaddle said:
Greed is illegal in my proposed ER utopia. Once you have your share, you must retire. And start speaking French. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I care for the language requirement, but may I suggest that you also include the phrase, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", in the list of rights enumerated in the documents establishing your [-]society[/-] utopia...;)
 
I've met several ER types who are homeless vets or some type
government or insurance payment for who knows what living overseas. They seem to be able to do anything most people can and great complainers when it comes to something they don't like to do. They tend to have the sourest opinion on most things specially the government and where they come from ( U.S.A.).

I am as old if not older than many of them and will never see
such hand outs even though I am still working and paying into
such benefit plans to the tune of 40% of my earnings.

Maybe if we made everyone accountable for their own problems I could of retired much before by being financtially responsible.

Maybe we should all just be able to lay around and do what we want after 20 years of work. We can always use illegal labor to make up for the short fall, then of course they would not be able to send 80% of their earnings back home as we would need it to pay for our own enjoyment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PaunchyPirate
Car loan application as a retiree
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
Dash man
Dash man
H
Passively-managed Job after FIRE
Replies
16
Views
2K
JohnC12
J
prudent_one
Which advisory option for spouse surviving me?
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
RetiredHappy
R
L
61 y/o in Atlanta, mostly retired
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
pacergal
P
A
Is the IRS intentionally this obtuse???
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
indiajust
I

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom