The joy of not being useful

[Turbo29]

Disagree. I am still purchasing the things that they are providing. How is that nothing?

When you purchase you are consuming, you are not producing.

 

[TickTock]

My point is, they are still providing these things and those not working are providing nothing. I struggle with that sometimes.

When you purchase you are consuming, you are not producing.

Yes, when I purchase (whether working or not), I'm consuming. But I am providing something - the money to make that purchase.

Or looking at it from another perspective, I'm providing the money made from my previous production.

 

[Slim11]

You all do realize that no matter how much you did when working, no matter how much you saved, others are supporting you now. They grow your food, provide your electricity, water, and sewerage, and if they stopped, you couldn't survive.

And what service do you provide that I cant get elseware? Tell me how much your job is worth and cant be replaced? You cant . Because in the sceam of things you really have nothing to add. And thats if your important. Yes nothing. If you had great ideas and changed the world 30 years later your contrabutions are worthless. You do understand this. Or do you think you are worth more? My uncle basicly streamlined nuclear energy, flew all over the world , built all the us reactors plus the ones on Russia and Europe. He had parks named after him, hospitals. Now thats all gone, the places have been renamed and if you goggle his name nothing comes up. He was also credited for the revitalization of Newark after the riots. One of the only people that put money back o to the city. But yet nothing on a goggle search. Piont is , you are not as important as you think , and time will make it worse. Even at your best, no one will remember you. And yet somehow you will provide the food we need. And the water , and what ever else is required. Because you need to be paid. Its just how it works.

 

[GrayHare]

We have a Blow That Dough thread. Is this a Blow That Time thread?

 

[Turbo29]

And what service do you provide that I cant get elseware? Tell me how much your job is worth and cant be replaced? You cant . Because in the sceam of things you really have nothing to add. And thats if your important. Yes nothing. If you had great ideas and changed the world 30 years later your contrabutions are worthless. You do understand this. Or do you think you are worth more? My uncle basicly streamlined nuclear energy, flew all over the world , built all the us reactors plus the ones on Russia and Europe. He had parks named after him, hospitals. Now thats all gone, the places have been renamed and if you goggle his name nothing comes up. He was also credited for the revitalization of Newark after the riots. One of the only people that put money back o to the city. But yet nothing on a goggle search. Piont is , you are not as important as you think , and time will make it worse. Even at your best, no one will remember you. And yet somehow you will provide the food we need. And the water , and what ever else is required. Because you need to be paid. Its just how it works.

What makes you think I am providing any services? I am also retired and living off of the production of others. As for the rest of your post, Marcus Aurelius said it almost 2000yr ago, "So many who were remembered already forgotten, and those who remembered them long gone."

 

[Route246]

When you purchase you are consuming, you are not producing.

If you view this as a macroeconomic frame of reference for producing (i.e. GNP being the total value of all goods and services produced by a country’s residents and businesses, regardless of where they are located, over a specific period) then the purchasing of a service or good is contributing to the GNP and therefore being productive. When someone works in a service job, the value of the service they provide (such as a haircut, a meal served, or a room cleaned) is counted in the GNP as part of the total output of services produced by the nation. The wages paid to the worker are also part of the income generated by the economy, which is another way to calculate GNP. It is immaterial if it lingers and has an effect.

The contribution of service workers goes beyond the immediate value of their labor. When these workers earn wages, they spend this income on goods and services—such as rent, groceries, transportation, and entertainment. This spending supports other businesses and jobs, creating what economists call a multiplier effect. Making a purchase is spending and this is part of GNP and considered productive.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I think everyone has to find their niche in retirement. The longer you are retired the more time you have to explore different interests and activities and for me personally they seem to change with time.

I have done so many different things in the 13 years that I’ve been retired. I taught an online college class for eight years and that was something I had never done before. I helped some of my friends clean out their entire homes. I helped others stay in their homes until they were too sick to do so. I spent four years volunteering at the Humane Society.

Now I’m consulting in my prior career part time and help individual friends as they need it. I’m also the president of our HOA for our condo complex. I’m sure there will come a time that I won’t do any of these things any longer as I age. I have been able to let go of activities that even if I once enjoyed them, I no longer do. I think retirement is all about adapting to the changes and enjoying how you’re spending your days.

 

[Slim11]

What makes you think I am providing any services? I am also retired and living off of the production of others. As for the rest of your post, Marcus Aurelius said it almost 2000yr ago, "So many who were remembered already forgotten, and those who remembered them long gone."

Thats my point, you are not providing a thing. Just consuming, you add nothing, and just take. Just like me.

 

[CaptTom]

Thats my point, you are not providing a thing. Just consuming, you add nothing, and just take. Just like me.

Wow. Some of these threads went to a dark place.

I look at it a bit differently. We're all part of something larger than ourselves. We take. We contribute. We get to decide whether our existence has been a net positive for society, or a net negative.

So, yes, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Physically, a net zero. But what's that saying about having made one life breath easier along the way? Seems like a worthy goal to me.

To me, there's value in improving society, leaving the world a better place than we found it. As a casual observer, it seems a lot of people don't feel that way. They're in it to take what they can, with no regard for anyone else. Some are even actively trying to tear down society.

As long as "we" outnumber "them," even slightly, the arc of history moves in a positive direction. Not without setbacks, but I think most of us would rather live now than at most times in the past. That's only true because of all the small contributions by all those whose names have been forgotten.

 

[Lorenzo]

Wow. Some of these threads went to a dark place.

LOL. Yes, all this deep reflection started with

Right now I am making a crochet snake.

 

[sengsational]

My point is, they are still providing these things and those not working are providing nothing. I struggle with that sometimes.

Most of us here could have been 50% contribution and 50% consumption during our working years, but we decided to contribute more, and put the excess to work. There's little doubt in my mind that luck / chance played a big part, and not out of place to be grateful for that, but I would not think that struggle is necessary; you gave up something earlier and now are enjoying the benefits.

What if, instead of amorphous "capital" saved during your last few working years, you set nine miles of two-strand, topped with barbed wire, laid by the father for the son. Now, too old, that kind of work is beyond you, and your son the rancher brings you a steak?

 

[COcheesehead]

I’m with you, excellent post. Sometimes I feel it’s just me, but social interaction at work leaves me drained at the end of the day. One thing I’ll look forward to is the solitude.

Some retirement threads say that many who retire have problems with it, they are no longer in charge, telling people what to do. Now how is that a good existence? Part of the reason I nixed an MBA plan. I wanted it for the increased income but didn’t want to manage people.

Managing people was the worst part of owning my business. It was professional babysitting. Being independent of anyone else’s goals or desires was the best part.

 

[COcheesehead]

I am pretty introverted and I feel less need for validation than most people.

Being useful to others generally involves social interaction. Social interaction tends to leave me worn out.

I remember once doing this volunteer thing. Afterwards other people were talking about how good they felt. I felt mentally and emotionally exhausted.

Life is so much better now that I have more control over how much I socialize.

I best definitions of introvert/extrovert I ever ran across were:
An introvert replenishes energy internally.
An extrovert replenishes energy externally

It gets away from the social engagement side and focuses on how you like to reinvigorate yourself.
The extroverts were refreshed by the external engagement. An introvert would rather have time inside their head.

 

[pacergal]

I agree with that, COcheesehead.
I am an introvert, who chose one of the most extroverted jobs around (public health nurse). There wasn't a minute of my day that I was not around, being, doing, for someone else.
Nursing is a very "extroverted" career-lol.
I spent my 45-60 minute drive home every day in complete silence! lol. I turned on the news to get the traffic report to know which way to head home, then lovely silence!

Even if I am doing something at home, I feel useful.
What I love about retirement is the ability to choose, daily, what I want to do or accomplish. Even if it is a nap .
I am blessed.

 

[Happy Homebody]

Not being useful as a positive....hmm. That might ring well with a person who let someone else judge usefulness. Maybe some school marm echoing "unless you are serving others, you are not being useful" or even "unless you experience discomfort while serving others, you're not being helpful enough."

I was raised with something similar to that. I should be doing things for others, but nothing I ever did was enough. It was though I had no inherent worth, my only worth was in how much I could be worth to others.

This is something I have struggled with.

I now believe in the idea that every human has inherent worth. You don't have to do anything to prove your worthiness. You don't have to smart or beautiful or talented or rich.

You don't have to be anything. You just have to be.

 

[sengsational]

And the wonderous thing is that being yourself means you have an oversized positive influence on the world.

 

[audreyh1]

I was raised with something similar to that. I should be doing things for others, but nothing I ever did was enough. It was though I had no inherent worth, my only worth was in how much I could be worth to others.

This is something I have struggled with.

I now believe in the idea that every human has inherent worth. You don't have to do anything to prove your worthiness. You don't have to smart or beautiful or talented or rich.

You don't have to be anything. You just have to be.

I agree. It’s society’s pressures and “shoulds” that demand people are as “productive” as possible most of their lives. I ignore that self-serving attitude.

 

[MrBojangles]

I was raised with something similar to that. I should be doing things for others, but nothing I ever did was enough. It was though I had no inherent worth, my only worth was in how much I could be worth to others.

This is something I have struggled with.

I now believe in the idea that every human has inherent worth. You don't have to do anything to prove your worthiness. You don't have to smart or beautiful or talented or rich.

You don't have to be anything. You just have to be.

I’m introverted by nature as well.

I don’t have a trust fund, but the joy of having a trust fund and being fabulously wealthy is you can keep to yourself and do things on YOUR terms. That’s why inherited money is a wonderful thing.

I’ve had to be way more extroverted than I want to be, it’s a matter of SURVIVAL.

 

[Route246]

When you purchase you are consuming, you are not producing.

If you view this as a macroeconomic frame of reference for producing (i.e. GNP being the total value of all goods and services produced by a country’s residents and businesses, regardless of where they are located, over a specific period) then the purchasing of a service or good is contributing to the GNP and therefore being productive. When someone works in a service job, the value of the service they provide (such as a haircut, a meal served, or a room cleaned) is counted in the GNP as part of the total output of services produced by the nation. The wages paid to the worker are also part of the income generated by the economy, which is another way to calculate GNP. It is immaterial if it lingers and has an effect.

The contribution of service workers goes beyond the immediate value of their labor. When these workers earn wages, they spend this income on goods and services—such as rent, groceries, transportation, and entertainment. This spending supports other businesses and jobs, creating what economists call a multiplier effect. Making a purchase is spending and this is part of GNP and considered productive.

I quoted my earlier macroeconomic comments on GNP.

Furthermore, GNP=C+I+G. Note that investment in this context is not buying SPY, it is true investment in capital to build a business. G is government spending which is different from a transfer payment like welfare. It is government spending on goods and services for all intents and purposes. Lastly, C is consumption which is a huge component of GNP.

Unless someone stops consuming they are contributing to GNP. Yes, spending money at McDonalds for a burger is part of GNP and you are adding to the primary production metric of GNP. Consumption (spending) is the key component of calculating GNP. I left out exports minus imports because it is a smaller part of the calculation.

 

[audreyh1]

I’m introverted by nature as well.

I don’t have a trust fund, but the joy of having a trust fund and being fabulously wealthy is you can keep to yourself and do things on YOIR terms. That’s why inherited money is a wonderful thing.

I’ve had to be way more extroverted than I want to be, it’s a matter of SURVIVAL.

The early retirees on this forum - only a few received inheritances that helped them retire early. A few received inheritances after already retiring early on their own. In many cases the inheritances were modest relative to already acquired net worth. So your audience here are not trust fund babies, the vast majority are self made via their own savings/investments. They early retired from working.

Gaining financial independence allows you to keep to yourself if you wish and do things on your terms, it’s not limited to trust fund babies. It may be later in life, but same ultimate result.

Honestly, I don’t get the fixation on inheriting money. The fixation here is on gaining financial independence which is not necessarily dependent on inheriting money.

 

[Route246]

I quoted my earlier macroeconomic comments on GNP.

Furthermore, GNP=C+I+G. Note that investment in this context is not buying SPY, it is true investment in capital to build a business. G is government spending which is different from a transfer payment like welfare. It is government spending on goods and services for all intents and purposes. Lastly, C is consumption which is a huge component of GNP.

Unless someone stops consuming they are contributing to GNP. Yes, spending money at McDonalds for a burger is part of GNP and you are adding to the primary production metric of GNP. Consumption (spending) is the key component of calculating GNP. I left out exports minus imports because it is a smaller part of the calculation.

One more comment, many of us here might be considered "idle rich" which is a pejorative term used to characterize people who do not work for income. I'm OK with that but what is forgotten is some of us have assets that is in instruments that provide capital for investment. Unless you have all of your life savings in gold bars you're probably providing capital for investment.

The bottom line is when we buy a burger we are consuming which is 2/3 of the GNP calculation. In macroeconomics consumption is considered productive activity.

 

[Route246]

The early retirees on this forum - only a few received inheritances that helped them retire early. A few received inheritances after already retiring early on their own. In many cases the inheritances were modest relative to already acquired net worth. So your audience here are not trust fund babies, the vast majority are self made via their own savings/investments. They early retired from working.

Gaining financial independence allows you to keep to yourself if you wish and do things on your terms, it’s not limited to trust fund babies. It may be later in life, but same ultimate result.

Honestly, I don’t get the fixation on inheriting money. The fixation here is on gaining financial independence which is not necessarily dependent on inheriting money.

I'm not even retired yet at 68 and recently inherited 7-figures from my parents when my father died at the age of 99 a few years ago. If I had inherited that when I was 22 it would have been a different situation. I miss my father (and mother) dearly and I wish they both lived well into their 100s but they did not. The inheritance did nothing in terms of being life-changing for us. At 22 it would have been life-changing and looking back on my personality and tendencies it probably would have been detrimental. Given my mother lived into her early 90s and my father lived to 99 I feel like I got the best of that deal. Had we been groveling and struggling financially, sadly our sentiment may have been different. Many of my contemporaries are "waiting for someone to die" and feel great relief (perhaps coupled with some grief) when that happens. I feel a bit sorry that they are in that situation but I understand it happens more often than not. I felt the full grief of my loss and I also felt a great amount of blessing that both of my parents had lives well-lived all the way to the end. I hear comments from my contemporaries like, "it's really going to help them because they really needed the money" or "our plans for a comfortable retirement were miscalculated and we didn't expect our inheritance to come so late in life" and I cringe when I hear comments like this because I know they are truthful. Darn, someone died, someone lost their life and you have the audacity to verbalize something like that? The lack of judgement and theory of mind astounds me. Regardless of how you feel there are certain things that you should keep to yourself in life. Reminds me of King's phrase regarding "content of their character" or something like that. I guess I just have a different view on this. NOTE: I don't verbalize this publicly and I can vent about it here because these forums are anonymous for the most part.

 

[MrBojangles]

How do you figure out a set amount of money changes hands a year and contributes to GDP? That is, you work at McDonald’s, your wages are spent at WalMart, those funds are spent to buy inventory, those funds were used to buy raw materials, etc. Over a fairly short time frame, but no additional money was printed.

And, how much as savers are we reducing GNP as we aren’t spenders, but savers, so we can retire early?

That’s why saving for one’s retirement, instead of a pension, is such a poor idea as one is not a consumer, and it reduces GDP. And this is why, right out of college, paying someone paltry wages (or out of high school) is a stupid idea. I started out in a basement anp after finding a decent job with much difficulty ,paid rent, groceries, and a car payment and saved for retirement. Little left over for much else. That was my contribution to GDP. What if you paid me A LOT, I bought a substantial house, wanted to remodel it, hired tradesmen to do it, hired landscapers and gardeners, maybe had a tennis court built, etc, and spent the money instead of hoarding it and contributed to GDP. This money is spent and someone pays more in income taxes and maybe if this were the case our national debt would be decreased. I’ve never understood why you have to start out poor and gradually build wealth in this country

 

[Chuckanut]

I would add to the joys of not being useful, the joy of not being visible. Its amazing what one an get away with when people don't notice the old guy hanging out by the punch bowl.

 

[MrBojangles]

The early retirees on this forum - only a few received inheritances that helped them retire early. A few received inheritances after already retiring early on their own. In many cases the inheritances were modest relative to already acquired net worth. So your audience here are not trust fund babies, the vast majority are self made via their own savings/investments. They early retired from working.

Gaining financial independence allows you to keep to yourself if you wish and do things on your terms, it’s not limited to trust fund babies. It may be later in life, but same ultimate result.

Honestly, I don’t get the fixation on inheriting money. The fixation here is on gaining financial independence which is not necessarily dependent on inheriting money.

I get that. I’m in the same category as the rest of most of you on this forum. But inter generational wealth is a game changer. Right now, for example, I wouldn’t be getting ready soon to go work an overnight shift if I was handed $10 million at age 21 (a topic of another thread) but I’d probably be spending the summer at a beach on the east coast or the UK and having a few drinks and thinking about where to go to dinner or do we eat in?