Politics of mustachianism

[icky]

New thread, ignoring that pesky, dirty and "hostile", feminist word:

Is mustachianism just a more socially palatable form of the socialist/anarchist fight against wage slavery? MMM doesn't politicize anything and makes lots of jokes, so therefore his writings become highly clickable and accepted around on the internet echo chamber. Jacob's ERE was popular, but less so, because he had more extreme ideas.

As much as you personally hate my politics/personality or whatever, please attempt to answer this question earnestly, all other responses will be ignored:

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

[Jellyfish]

I respectfully submit, Icky, that you might simply be on the wrong forum talking to the wrong group of people.  I've quite enjoyed my career (most of the time) and I've worked for a wage all 20+ years of it.  I still want to be financially independent.  Financial independence means I get to make choices about how I spend my time, doing things that are important to me.  For me its about creating a life where I have flexibility and freedom of choice.  It's personal, not political.

[lackofstache]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

I think the MMM site is Pete's way of fighting this oppression. Giving others access to this kind of information and discussion is a huge part of helping many people move from consumerist, debt using folks to financially independent badasses.

I personally want freedom, which is why I'm saving money, so that I don't HAVE to do anything that I don't want to, especially if that means working for someone or a company I don't agree with ethically. I think it's very difficult to try to help all humans, so I try to help those close to me at this point; friends & family members mostly. Outside of helping those folks, I do what I can to limit my own consumption of the planet's finite resources, so at the very least, hopefully more people in the future will have a crack at figuring out this whole "living" thing.

[ginklord]

I don't think many on these forums "find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it". I certainly don't.

I'm interested in freedom, and lots of it. My choices today, when aligned with my belief system, are limited. In order to care for our family, provide opportunities for our children, and enjoy our extended families and friends, my wife and I have to make choices where the financial cost is a major factor. Also, we HAVE to work - there's just no other way to survive in our society.

Once we achieve FI, those choices will be much less dependent on money, including how/if/where we work.

[PloddingInsight]

I feel very lucky that my easy job pays so much money.

And I think financial independence will be even better.  Can't wait!

[Caoineag]

...

Is mustachianism just a more socially palatable form of the socialist/anarchist fight against wage slavery?
...

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

"Wage slavery" is not a term I would use because I don't see it as a form of slavery or oppression. You trade money for time. I also don't see frugality and the goal of financial independence as socialist or anarchist. Everyone has the option of choosing how to spend their money in a capitalist society. Since I value my time more than stuff, I choose to buy as much of my future time for doing things unrelated to income as I can. Making money also does not necessitate working within a hierarchy, though many people choose to do so for greater financial gain. I think part of the mismatch here is that you see this as a political choice whereas I see it as a personal choice. We do have threads on why people seek financial independence and almost all the reasons given are personal choices.

[former player]

There was a lot about my government job that I liked (and a number of bosses that I didn't) and I was reasonably well paid.  When I was offered redundancy terms aged 50 which immediately put me well over FIRE, I took them and haven't looked back.  Because I left voluntarily, one of my other colleagues with financial and family obligations kept their job.

Does it make it better or worse, from a social conscience point of view, that part of my FIRE is coming from a government pension rather than investing in stocks and shares?  My relatively unconsidered view is that it doesn't make much difference: it's all part of the same (reasonably democratic, undeniably prosperous, unequal) system.

Are there problems with the current system?  Yes, of course.  Life here is not fair, even if it's fairer than most places on earth.  I'm not ever going to be a revolutionary: too destructive.  In retirement I have become an elected parish councillor, volunteer my time and expertise to local causes, and donate to my favourite charities, so I'm trying to make the things which are in my circle of control better, while still leading a comfortable life (I'm not neurotypical: you do not want to know me and I don't want to know you if I'm not feeling comfortable).

I had grandparents who suffered physical violence when campaigning for women to have the vote.  I've never found a cause like that, and probably don't have the courage they did.

[icky]

...

Is mustachianism just a more socially palatable form of the socialist/anarchist fight against wage slavery?
...

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

Everyone has the option of choosing how to spend their money in a capitalist society.

True, but our capitalist society happens to benefit from globalized labor. Do we truly live in a capitalist society if our goods come from places where humans don't work under capitalist democracy with personal freedom?

I can't even walk into the grocery store nearest my house and buy an apple with any assurances it wasn't picked by someone who does have the same freedoms I do and then drenched in a chemical that could be destroying my body and the environment. It's personal decision if I choose to buy the apple or not, sure, but I think having a political viewpoint and ideal and fighting for it seems like the only real way to change the choices that are available.

[icky]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

I think the MMM site is Pete's way of fighting this oppression. Giving others access to this kind of information and discussion is a huge part of helping many people move from consumerist, debt using folks to financially independent badasses.

I agree, what are other ways?

I personally want freedom, which is why I'm saving money, so that I don't HAVE to do anything that I don't want to, especially if that means working for someone or a company I don't agree with ethically.

I personally think this is what everyone wants. Does everyone get a shot at it? What is our responsibility to make sure everyone has a shot at it or do we have none?

[Freedom2016]

I read your entire other thread, as well as this one, and I'm left wondering what you are hoping to accomplish on the MMM forum. Are you trying to "wake up" the FIRE population that you have deemed insufficiently agitated by the world's injustices? Are you trying to work out your own thoughts and beliefs? It seems clear from your other thread that you have rejected the raison d'etre of this site and forum: maximizing savings so as to achieve financial independence as early as possible.

I'm 40 and I realize this is going to come off kind of patronizing, but, to be honest, I was where you are 15 years ago. I had spent time in sub Saharan Africa, the slums of Calcutta, the anti-Western Iran, and elsewhere and I was frankly overwhelmed at the injustice and horrors I saw, especially compared to the fat, lazy, and uninterested America I had come from. I wanted to shake everyone else around me awake: don't you SEE what's happening? Don't you understand? How can you spend your time watching sports and planning vacations when people are being maimed, raped, and tortured in the DRC so you can have your coltan-built cell phones?

After a few years of pretty significant depression over the state of the world and my uncertainty over what I should DO about it (I wanted to save the world...but...how? If I did 1 thing it left 4000 others not done)... I eventually came to the realization that I am simply unable to save the world and it is a waste of my life's energy to fret about it. I've since learned that my circle of control is pretty small, but that is the place where I *can* make a difference, if I choose to. My circle of influence is a bit larger, and in fact I have directed my career in that direction (negotiation and conflict management consultant to a variety of international and domestic organizations). But even there humility dictates that I recognize the limits of my ability to change others.

In short, to you someone like me might from the outside look like a selfish, complacent person only concerned with amassing money, and to hell with the rest of the world.

To me, I've tread the path you're on, and I'm comfortable with where I've landed. I'm much happier now that I've stopped shouldering the overwhelming burden that I felt 15 yrs ago.

And for what it's worth, I for sure stand on the shoulders of the feminists who came before me. I have 2 masters degrees from top universities and I am a high income sole breadwinner for my family: yet I feel no particular responsibility to stay in my job, or use my degrees, either in gratitude to those before me, or as an example to those who come after me. My living life on my own terms, whatever I (and my DH) decide them to be, will be my example and legacy to my children. Part of that legacy is having the skills and ability to amass enough assets that I can then trade for more time with those I love the most. Thus for me financial independence = freedom.

[Tai]

Why would I want financial freedom? Money is power in our society. I used money that I had available because I have been working towards FI to hire a lawyer I desperately need yesterday. I do not come from a wealthy background, and I have had times (years ago) when I have gone hungry for days. I have also lived and travelled in the third world. Most people I met overseas would have been amazed by your attitude. Being able to be financially secure and support yourself and your family was the goal of most people I met. If you have wealth such that you can help support your community either with money or time, ideally both, then even better.

Go sign up for the peace corps or some other volunteer program and get your head sorted. For me seeing ill children that their parents could not afford to treat gave me some perspective on the value of having enough money to know that you can take care of yourself and your loved ones.

[Zikoris]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

Why on earth would that be "oppression"? Everyone has different preferences. Plenty of people either like working full time, or like the fancy-pants lifestyle it provides them. If they don't like it, the alternatives are easy enough to find in the information age - every single person in this forum somehow found their way here.

I do think there's value in introducing people to the idea of simple living and FI, since a lot of people just plain don't realize it's a possibility (that would include me, up until about three or four years ago). Beyond that, people make their own lifestyle choices based on what they value, and it's none of my concern.

[icky]

I read your entire other thread, as well as this one, and I'm left wondering what you are hoping to accomplish on the MMM forum. Are you trying to "wake up" the FIRE population that you have deemed insufficiently agitated by the world's injustices? Are you trying to work out your own thoughts and beliefs? It seems clear from your other thread that you have rejected the raison d'etre of this site and forum: maximizing savings so as to achieve financial independence as early as possible.

Yes, I am working out my thoughts and inviting debate. I'm not trying to wake any up, but I would like people to stand up for their viewpoint and try to convince me. I guess some find this distasteful and would prefer only the like-minded in the their internet communities.



I don't think you sound complacent although complacency troubles me. I realize it's exhausting to NOT be complacent, and requires a certain amount of rational detachment. But how big, as an American consumer, is your circle of control?

[AndThen]

I read your other thread as well... It sounds like you are quick to judge everyone else's lifestyle yet it doesn't seem like you are doing much on your own to control your own actions. Instead of buying that slave picked chemically drenched apple, why not farm and grow your own? Where are your examples of you leading your life doing what you are judging the rest of us to not be doing by your supposedly higher standards?

[NoraLenderbee]

Working a regular job isn't abhorrent to me--I rather enjoy it. There have been long periods when my job was so interesting that I preferred working to other things I might have done with that 40 hours per week. However, at this point in my life, I would rather have more time to do other things.  I'm 51 and I don't have forever.

I don't think there is anything wrong with working for a living, either. People need to know what it means to be responsible for themselves and to support themselves.

I also want the freedom from fear of job loss. I went through a dreadful layoff when the job market was not good, and the next job I got made me miserable. With FI, I can ride out a disruption, and I won't *need* to take a job that sucks.

Therefore, I'm working hard to amass capital so I can live on unearned income like the idle rich. :)

[gimp]

Jesus christ, fuck your politics, can't we not politicize everything? Make money, save money, spend less money, I don't care who you vote for or what your picketing sign says.

[Jellyfish]

I read your entire other thread, as well as this one, and I'm left wondering what you are hoping to accomplish on the MMM forum. Are you trying to "wake up" the FIRE population that you have deemed insufficiently agitated by the world's injustices? Are you trying to work out your own thoughts and beliefs? It seems clear from your other thread that you have rejected the raison d'etre of this site and forum: maximizing savings so as to achieve financial independence as early as possible.

Yes, I am working out my thoughts and inviting debate. I'm not trying to wake any up, but I would like people to stand up for their viewpoint and try to convince me.

Maybe this is an age thing...I suspect I'm significantly older than you...but I don't owe anyone an explanation for my viewpoint and don't need to convince anyone of anything.  If you are searching for meaning good luck to you, but I would think that would be a more fruitful journey if you looked within instead of to others.

[Pigeon]

I don't see socialists as aligned with anarchists in any real way.

I'm politically very liberal.  I enjoy my job.  That doesn't preclude wanting to save money for a variety of reasons.  I like the security of having a good bank balance and I'm looking forward to taking on new challenges when I retire.  I don't think a desire to save says anything about one's politics.

[wutra]

I read your entire other thread, as well as this one, and I'm left wondering what you are hoping to accomplish on the MMM forum. Are you trying to "wake up" the FIRE population that you have deemed insufficiently agitated by the world's injustices? Are you trying to work out your own thoughts and beliefs? It seems clear from your other thread that you have rejected the raison d'etre of this site and forum: maximizing savings so as to achieve financial independence as early as possible.

Yes, I am working out my thoughts and inviting debate. I'm not trying to wake any up, but I would like people to stand up for their viewpoint and try to convince me. I guess some find this distasteful and would prefer only the like-minded in the their internet communities.



I don't think you sound complacent although complacency troubles me. I realize it's exhausting to NOT be complacent, and requires a certain amount of rational detachment. But how big, as an American consumer, is your circle of control?

Convince you of what? It is very clear that you have strong opinions about many things in life that aren't likely to change based on anything anyone here has to say.

[svi]

I read your entire other thread, as well as this one, and I'm left wondering what you are hoping to accomplish on the MMM forum. Are you trying to "wake up" the FIRE population that you have deemed insufficiently agitated by the world's injustices? Are you trying to work out your own thoughts and beliefs? It seems clear from your other thread that you have rejected the raison d'etre of this site and forum: maximizing savings so as to achieve financial independence as early as possible.

Yes, I am working out my thoughts and inviting debate. I'm not trying to wake any up, but I would like people to stand up for their viewpoint and try to convince me.

Maybe this is an age thing...I suspect I'm significantly older than you...but I don't owe anyone an explanation for my viewpoint and don't need to convince anyone of anything.  If you are searching for meaning good luck to you, but I would think that would be a more fruitful journey if you looked within instead of to others.

Its not an age thing, its a narcissism thing. Young or old why would a person presume to ask someone to justify their morality for to them? I think the reason that she gets this negative reaction is that people perceive a smug, superior attitude cloaked by a Glenn Beck style "I'm just asking questions".

[NoraLenderbee]

New thread, ignoring that pesky, dirty and "hostile", feminist word:

Is mustachianism just a more socially palatable form of the socialist/anarchist fight against wage slavery? MMM doesn't politicize anything and makes lots of jokes, so therefore his writings become highly clickable and accepted around on the internet echo chamber. Jacob's ERE was popular, but less so, because he had more extreme ideas.

As much as you personally hate my politics/personality or whatever, please attempt to answer this question earnestly, all other responses will be ignored:

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

To expand on my previous answer:

Your "if" condition doesn't apply to everyone, and it doesn't really describe why people are here. Some folks probably detest the 40-hour job with every fiber of their being, but I think a lot of people don't find it so bad while they are in the phase of accumulating money. They just don't want to do it forever. 

I don't think having to earn your own living is oppression, so I don't feel responsible for fighting it. (That's not to say I think the existing system is great and has no problems!)

And though I put a smiley on it before--the philosophy of MMM explicitly relies on the fact that you *can* accumulate enough capital to live on the income/proceeds, and that you *can* develop passive and unearned income, which depends on surplus and inequalities. That isn't wrong IMO; it's just how the world works. MMM is about freeing oneself from the need to work (through frugality and attitude change, as well as making money), not about freeing humanity from the need to get its food through labor of some kind. If everybody could suddenly retire from working, we'd all still need to eat.

The community here is more about practicing frugality, etc., in your own life. I don't think people are here to discuss politics and social systems. There are other places to do that. If you aren't getting the discussion you want, it's not because of hate toward you or your politics--it's more that people aren't interested in the type of discussion you want to have.

[Caoineag]

True, but our capitalist society happens to benefit from globalized labor. Do we truly live in a capitalist society if our goods come from places where humans don't work under capitalist democracy with personal freedom?

I can't even walk into the grocery store nearest my house and buy an apple with any assurances it wasn't picked by someone who does have the same freedoms I do and then drenched in a chemical that could be destroying my body and the environment. It's personal decision if I choose to buy the apple or not, sure, but I think having a political viewpoint and ideal and fighting for it seems like the only real way to change the choices that are available.
[/quote]

I think we are talking at each other instead of with each other. I see saving money as a personal issue, you are trying to equate that with a political issue. I understand that how I choose to save money should be in alignment with my beliefs and I do spend and save my money in alignment with my values.

Unfortunately, I believe you are missing a couple of logic steps between what you are asking and what you are trying to find out. It appears that you really want to ask me what I value and how I support those values in my day to day life but your questions are more geared towards how can people selfishly seek financial independence when the world is such a mess. Whereas I suspect a great number in this forum would say you should seek financial independence BECAUSE the world is such a mess.

If you want more people to be able to make the "right" choices in accordance with your beliefs, then you need to get involved with organizations (or create one) that help bring that change into being. If you feel strongly about something, then do something about it. Sure you can't change the entire world, but you can make little changes here and there and if enough people make little changes here and there, it changes things in a big way. Right now, I get the impression that you are paralyzed by your own beliefs, especially because you feel it is all too much. People who feel they are making a difference have a tendency not to seek validation from others.

I choose to be as much in control of my life as possible, thus I seek financial freedom to make such choices. This is independent of my social or political values though those do intersect in that I will not choose to save or spend in a manner that conflicts with those values, but choosing the ability to control my own life to the best of my ability is not in conflict with that.

As a side note, just because someone doesn't live in a democracy or a capitalist society doesn't mean that person would prefer to starve. People in other nations take those jobs because the money gives them and/or their families the freedom to make choices. Otherwise, everyone would stay on the farm.

[Zikoris]

Maybe this is an age thing...I suspect I'm significantly older than you...but I don't owe anyone an explanation for my viewpoint and don't need to convince anyone of anything.  If you are searching for meaning good luck to you, but I would think that would be a more fruitful journey if you looked within instead of to others.

Thank you, you've found a way to verbalize the thing about the "icky" threads that's rubbing me the wrong way. I also have no interest in trying to convince people to do much of anything, because outside of things that are actually harmful to others (environmentally destructive, etc), I don't particularly CARE what lifestyle choices other people make, what they think of my choices, or whether they're having an existential crisis. I think a lot of Mustachians would agree, so this really is the wrong place to be asking these kinds of questions if you're actually looking for convincing.

Maybe Reddit's  ChangeMyView subreddit would be a better choice?

[ash7962]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

I think "abhorrent" is too strong of a word for how I feel about my job.  I'm thinking more "not ideal".  I'd rather work in a more flexible job or a job with less hours while not having to consider money issues.  For a while I might even consider being a stay at home mom as a job (that decision is a few years off still).  I think the regular 40hr/week job is not exactly oppressive, but more limiting.  I also think people already have the means to remove themselves from a 40hr/week job, so, since its available, I don't feel the need to riot in the streets or anything.  Really I think just giving others the knowledge of *how* to gain financial independence is the best thing to do.  I happen to do that by pointing my friends and family to this blog, and MMM does it by writing the blog.  I think another way I contribute a little is that I will free up a job opportunity instead of holding a job spot for the entirety of the next 40 years.  That way another person will have the chance to become FI.

Second, I do not consider my job soul numbing at all, in fact it is often an outlet for both my creative and logical tendencies, but I'm still going to push for FI.  I guess half of my reason for wanting FI is because I want the freedom, and the other half is because I want to decrease my consumption while increasing my happiness.  I believe that if I hit FI tomorrow then I'd start working on my own programming projects (I am a software dev).  I also would spend time learning other fields that I've been interested in but haven't pursued because of the extra time commitment (database management, networking, circuit building).  So, I would still be "working" or doing tasks that could be part of a 9-5 job, but I'd be happy to do them.  Also, if I found that I wasn't happy then I would have the freedom to try different things in order to figure out what makes me happy.

Lastly, I also want to simplify my life, and that fits in really well with MMM and FI.  Plus, I guess I've also found that I really enjoy watching my stash increase.  I love looking at mint and I love seeing the trends move upward.

[icky]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

I think another way I contribute a little is that I will free up a job opportunity instead of holding a job spot for the entirety of the next 40 years.  That way another person will have the chance to become FI.

oh! very good point!

[Nate T]

Is mustachianism just a more socially palatable form of the socialist/anarchist fight against wage slavery?

No, I don't think it is. As others have pointed out here, the practical tools of mustachianism (living well below one's means) are compatible with a variety of political ideologies. I would think a better question is, "Is mustachianism compatible with a socialist/anarchist ideology?" The answer to that question would seem to be yes. One could easily interpret mustachianism in the context of an individualist libertarian/Austrian ideology. Alternatively one could approach mustachianism as a part of a desire to reach a post-economy society (as suggested by Keynes in his "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren").

Icky asks whether people have a moral obligation to fight for social justice and economic opportunity. As it happens, I believe we do, but I don't think anything about mustachianism implies this moral obligation.

I do however agree with what I believe is Icky's premise that the "personal is political." And one's approach to mustachianism does in fact have some relation to their political commitments.

[johnhenry]

And though I put a smiley on it before--the philosophy of MMM explicitly relies on the fact that you *can* accumulate enough capital to live on the income/proceeds, and that you *can* develop passive and unearned income, which depends on surplus and inequalities. That isn't wrong IMO; it's just how the world works.

You are right, our economic system is not unfair because it allows participants to ACCUMULATE capital or even that accumulated capital can produce income.  But the completely unfair part is: it allows HUGE amounts of wealth to be passed from generation to the next, so that some participants are not required to accumulate the CAPITAL they control.

I think icky is right to think that members of this forum, supposedly well-versed in personal finance, could see the inherent injustice in our system.  Members of this forum prove that it can take as little as 5-10 years of working and saving to control enough financial assets (tax credits) to comfortably meet all of ones obligations to society(taxes) and still provide a comfortable life for self and family in a first world country. Yet we live in a system where some participants can be born with a trust fund with hundreds or thousands times that value.  We've thrown off the silly yolk of the gold standard, when, to provision for the common good, the government had to actually borrow from those who already controlled wealth.  Yet this far into the era of fiat money we have still have citizens, rich and poor, mixing metaphors and acting as if one has as much right to be born a billionaire as he has to his constitutional rights.

I'm not content to say, well "it's just how the world works".   I'm not content to say, I was smart enough and worked hard enough to get mine, so I don't care about making the system fair, since it worked for me.  I sure as hell am not content with a system that allows my heirs to "own the obligations" of others by controlling the wealth I've accumulated.  I want them to owe just as much to society at the beginning of their journey as I did.

People, money is a creation of the state(government). Money can not be separated from the state.  We can print as much as we need.  As long as we(collectively) tax less than that, it leaves us all (individually) some amount to earn, trade, accumulate, invest. Yes, to do this there has to be a "national debt".

I see saving money as a personal issue, you are trying to equate that with a political issue.

Yet another failure to understand, in the most basic sense, what money is.  Anything involving money IS ALWAYS a political issue because it is all of us, collectively, that get to determine what value money has, by determining how much of it is created in which circumstances, how much is "destroyed" by collecting taxes and in which circumstances.

How silly that some of us think that money is still something one should be born with.  Something that, to do it's work, government must first take from us!

[NUF]

Icky,

I think you sound so excited to have a forum for debate and conversation and I think that's great. As a fellow lover of big ideas, I think some of the ideas you've wanted to explore are interesting.

I would like to point out though that going to a forum organized around X and then questioning X can feel disrespectful to the people who go to that community expecting a safe space; they may feel ambushed in a space they didn't expect to have to defend themselves in. This goes double when using emotionally charged language and terms; moral, oppression, etc. In other words I think you are being insensitive to the other members by trying to "yuck their yum".

I'd personally would like to have an opportunity to participate in some of these interesting idea-based conversations without feeling like I'm engaging someone who is purposefully trying to upset others. I think that if you keep your questions but tone down the emotionally charged language, frame things in a way that is more respectful to different life philosophies and stopped openly challenging the idea that this forum is centered around, we can have many interesting discussions. As is, I tend to feel that you are trying to frame being the FI in an overly extremely way (I've never seen anyone here state that FI is for everyone in the world or that it is the end all and be all of life) which makes me hesitant to engage because I wonder I'm going to be able get an open, respectful, even-keeled, idea based conversation.

[Spartana]

I read your entire other thread, as well as this one, and I'm left wondering what you are hoping to accomplish on the MMM forum. Are you trying to "wake up" the FIRE population that you have deemed insufficiently agitated by the world's injustices? Are you trying to work out your own thoughts and beliefs? It seems clear from your other thread that you have rejected the raison d'etre of this site and forum: maximizing savings so as to achieve financial independence as early as possible.

Yes, I am working out my thoughts and inviting debate. I'm not trying to wake any up, but I would like people to stand up for their viewpoint and try to convince me.

Maybe this is an age thing...I suspect I'm significantly older than you...but I don't owe anyone an explanation for my viewpoint and don't need to convince anyone of anything.  If you are searching for meaning good luck to you, but I would think that would be a more fruitful journey if you looked within instead of to others.

Its not an age thing, its a narcissism thing. Young or old why would a person presume to ask someone to justify their morality for to them? I think the reason that she gets this negative reaction is that people perceive a smug, superior attitude cloaked by a Glenn Beck style "I'm just asking questions".

I assumed it was a soapbox thing - wanting to talk about the terrible injustices of the world rather then seeking an answer to any specific question she posed. As she says above, she wants to be "convinced" -  but convinced of what? In her other thread it was to be convinced whether striving for FI was the way to go based on her values (and I highly admire those values and her dedication to wanting to put those above all else). But it seemed, after all, that wasn't really what she was seeking (advice, encouragement, new ideas) because so many posters offer that and she gave their ideas no heed whatsoever, so continued to laude the injustice of the world. Nothing wrong with wanting to be on a soap box, especially for such dire injustices in the world, just not sure this is the right forum to do that in.

For what it's worth, I loved my jobs and didn't feel an antagonism towards working. However, even the best loved job, one you may feel is even important to helping others or society, takes away a lot of free time you'd rather spend on other things. I didn't have a job I could work P/T so quitting (once FI) was the best course of action for me. It allowed me to do things that were important to me, to my family, to be with my rescued 6 pets (eventually 8 and now one), etc...

[Nate T]

People, money is a creation of the state(government). Money can not be separated from the state.  We can print as much as we need.  As long as we(collectively) tax less than that, it leaves us all (individually) some amount to earn, trade, accumulate, invest. Yes, to do this there has to be a "national debt".

I'm relatively new around here, but surprised to see chartalist theories of money in this forum. Is this just your own position Johnhenry, or is this commonly held here?

[SummerLovin]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

You're assuming that you can only choose one or the other, and the reality for most people is somewhere in between.  I find the work that I do challenging and enjoyable, but I have hit a point in my life where working beyond 40 hours per week is does not fit with the other things that I enjoy doing.  The more money I make the more responsibility I have at work and the expectation to put in more hours.  You work hard to make money, so that you can have more freedom, but at some point you end up being a "wage slave". Consumerism, "keeping up with the Jones" or whatever perceived needs  get you in the situation, and the only solution is to take control and make better choices on how you spend your time/money, effectively becoming FI. 
FI means different things to each person, based largely on values and priorities. Some people like working but only to a point, some love working, some hate it, (usually because they aren't happy with what they are doing and feel trapped) FI allows you to take control and avoid the feeling of being trapped, because you know you can leave.
My only responsibility to my fellow humans is to take care of myself and my family, and leave my world (as much as I can influence) a little better than I found it. 

[anisotropy]

As much as you personally hate my politics/personality or whatever, please attempt to answer this question earnestly, all other responses will be ignored:

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

Hi icky,

I like being paid a salary, my job is ok, but I do not want to work everyday because I want to do other stuffs (lots and lots of luxury traveling). Sadly not many jobs allow me to do what I want to do, and for the few jobs that do I lack the skill sets to make money from it.

Fortunately we are already "financially independent" and if we were to quit work today or got laid off, 4% of our stash could easily provide us with a comfortable lifestyle (2k monthly in eating out and entertainment, 30k annual budget for semi-luxury travelling, etc etc).

Yet we still wake up and go to work everyday (ok most days) regardless if its +35C or -35C outside. Why? We like money, we want more money, and we require even more money to fund our dream lifestyle. Let's face it, supposed we had 100M, 4% of 100M is "only" 4M, and trust me, it doesnt go as far as you think if one truly wishes to live large.

Now to answer your question, we don't feel we have the responsibility to help all humans, and we push for more money (beyond FI) because we can and because we want to. I noticed you did not ask to explain my answers so I will stop here.

[icky]

Is mustachianism just a more socially palatable form of the socialist/anarchist fight against wage slavery?

No, I don't think it is. As others have pointed out here, the practical tools of mustachianism (living well below one's means) are compatible with a variety of political ideologies. I would think a better question is, "Is mustachianism compatible with a socialist/anarchist ideology?" The answer to that question would seem to be yes. One could easily interpret mustachianism in the context of an individualist libertarian/Austrian ideology. Alternatively one could approach mustachianism as a part of a desire to reach a post-economy society (as suggested by Keynes in his "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren").

Icky asks whether people have a moral obligation to fight for social justice and economic opportunity. As it happens, I believe we do, but I don't think anything about mustachianism implies this moral obligation.

I do however agree with what I believe is Icky's premise that the "personal is political." And one's approach to mustachianism does in fact have some relation to their political commitments.

Thank you for articulating what I could not.

[icky]

Icky,

I think you sound so excited to have a forum for debate and conversation and I think that's great. As a fellow lover of big ideas, I think some of the ideas you've wanted to explore are interesting.

I would like to point out though that going to a forum organized around X and then questioning X can feel disrespectful to the people who go to that community expecting a safe space; they may feel ambushed in a space they didn't expect to have to defend themselves in. This goes double when using emotionally charged language and terms; moral, oppression, etc. In other words I think you are being insensitive to the other members by trying to "yuck their yum".

I'd personally would like to have an opportunity to participate in some of these interesting idea-based conversations without feeling like I'm engaging someone who is purposefully trying to upset others. I think that if you keep your questions but tone down the emotionally charged language, frame things in a way that is more respectful to different life philosophies and stopped openly challenging the idea that this forum is centered around, we can have many interesting discussions. As is, I tend to feel that you are trying to frame being the FI in an overly extremely way (I've never seen anyone here state that FI is for everyone in the world or that it is the end all and be all of life) which makes me hesitant to engage because I wonder I'm going to be able get an open, respectful, even-keeled, idea based conversation.

Thank you for your thoughts. I will try to refrain from much input as I quickly turn emotional. I am surprised so many people consider this some kind of haven when in fact MMM is pretty crass and unsympathetic to those that don't want their "safe places" disturbed. But please, don't let me scare you, debate away!

I have received several PMs similar to your post, in that people don't entirely disagree with me but also don't want to stick their necks out too far, which is why I decided to post again.

[arebelspy]

Oh boy, another one?  :)

[isbjshaffer]

Why would I want financial freedom? Money is power in our society. I used money that I had available because I have been working towards FI to hire a lawyer I desperately need yesterday. I do not come from a wealthy background, and I have had times (years ago) when I have gone hungry for days. I have also lived and travelled in the third world. Most people I met overseas would have been amazed by your attitude. Being able to be financially secure and support yourself and your family was the goal of most people I met. If you have wealth such that you can help support your community either with money or time, ideally both, then even better.

Go sign up for the peace corps or some other volunteer program and get your head sorted. For me seeing ill children that their parents could not afford to treat gave me some perspective on the value of having enough money to know that you can take care of yourself and your loved ones.

This is my favorite response so far, it's our culture that's the problem. I almost view the whole thing as part of my religious philosophy. While I don't think that is necessarily Pete's purpose of the blog, I think many of the principles and reasons why he chose this path are for many of the same reasons that Christians claim that owing money and having debt is so terrible. He is free to do with his time as he pleases, many people are chained to their desk for 40+ hours a week and do not have as much opportunity to make much of a difference in the world or even spend time with their families and friends. I would challenge many people who plan to go out to eat dinner and pay obnoxious amounts of money for food and JUSTIFY that to those parents mentioned above.

[johnhenry]

People, money is a creation of the state(government). Money can not be separated from the state.  We can print as much as we need.  As long as we(collectively) tax less than that, it leaves us all (individually) some amount to earn, trade, accumulate, invest. Yes, to do this there has to be a "national debt".

I'm relatively new around here, but surprised to see chartalist theories of money in this forum. Is this just your own position Johnhenry, or is this commonly held here?

Hey Nate.... welcome.  I still consider myself new here too, but I guess I have been around a while now.

Good question?  I don't recall seeing too much agreement from other members when the subject has come up before.  It's amazing, to me, how often it should come up though.  It's kind of weird for a community of people of be in (supposed) agreement about the best way to personally manage money, yet not be on the same page about "what money even is"!! 

I certainly haven't seen anyone else use the term chartalist here.  I am aware of the theory and in my mind, there isn't really a better way to explain what money is.  On one hand, it's so simple it seems but one step above common sense.  But on the other, I'm a lifelong student of money and economics and I was in my late 20s before the chartalist view really found it's way to me.  So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's not more widespread.

I think I posted a link to this PDF a while back on this forum:  http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_658.pdf

I think it's one of the most straightforward places to start, especially for non-economists.  A great extension of Keynes for the post-hard currency era.

What's your story?

[Nate T]

People, money is a creation of the state(government). Money can not be separated from the state.  We can print as much as we need.  As long as we(collectively) tax less than that, it leaves us all (individually) some amount to earn, trade, accumulate, invest. Yes, to do this there has to be a "national debt".

I'm relatively new around here, but surprised to see chartalist theories of money in this forum. Is this just your own position Johnhenry, or is this commonly held here?

Hey Nate.... welcome.  I still consider myself new here too, but I guess I have been around a while now.

Good question?  I don't recall seeing too much agreement from other members when the subject has come up before.  It's amazing, to me, how often it should come up though.  It's kind of weird for a community of people of be in (supposed) agreement about the best way to personally manage money, yet not be on the same page about "what money even is"!! 

I certainly haven't seen anyone else use the term chartalist here.  I am aware of the theory and in my mind, there isn't really a better way to explain what money is.  On one hand, it's so simple it seems but one step above common sense.  But on the other, I'm a lifelong student of money and economics and I was in my late 20s before the chartalist view really found it's way to me.  So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's not more widespread.

I think I posted a link to this PDF a while back on this forum:  http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_658.pdf

I think it's one of the most straightforward places to start, especially for non-economists.  A great extension of Keynes for the post-hard currency era.

What's your story?

Oh very cool! I'm actually an economist and sympathetic to the post Keynesian approach in general (actually I have a working paper in the Levy Institute working paper series). I would whole-heartedly agree that with your earlier point that money is inherently political.

[icky]

And though I put a smiley on it before--the philosophy of MMM explicitly relies on the fact that you *can* accumulate enough capital to live on the income/proceeds, and that you *can* develop passive and unearned income, which depends on surplus and inequalities. That isn't wrong IMO; it's just how the world works.

You are right, our economic system is not unfair because it allows participants to ACCUMULATE capital or even that accumulated capital can produce income.  But the completely unfair part is: it allows HUGE amounts of wealth to be passed from generation to the next, so that some participants are not required to accumulate the CAPITAL they control.

I think icky is right to think that members of this forum, supposedly well-versed in personal finance, could see the inherent injustice in our system.  Members of this forum prove that it can take as little as 5-10 years of working and saving to control enough financial assets (tax credits) to comfortably meet all of ones obligations to society(taxes) and still provide a comfortable life for self and family in a first world country. Yet we live in a system where some participants can be born with a trust fund with hundreds or thousands times that value.  We've thrown off the silly yolk of the gold standard, when, to provision for the common good, the government had to actually borrow from those who already controlled wealth.  Yet this far into the era of fiat money we have still have citizens, rich and poor, mixing metaphors and acting as if one has as much right to be born a billionaire as he has to his constitutional rights.

I'm not content to say, well "it's just how the world works".   I'm not content to say, I was smart enough and worked hard enough to get mine, so I don't care about making the system fair, since it worked for me.  I sure as hell am not content with a system that allows my heirs to "own the obligations" of others by controlling the wealth I've accumulated.  I want them to owe just as much to society at the beginning of their journey as I did.

People, money is a creation of the state(government). Money can not be separated from the state.  We can print as much as we need.  As long as we(collectively) tax less than that, it leaves us all (individually) some amount to earn, trade, accumulate, invest. Yes, to do this there has to be a "national debt".

So yes, that's it. I've realized, you know what, it's actually kinda fed up that I'm totally capable of saving enough in 5-10 years to meet all of my needs. I mean, what is the real problem there? What if there's more than just the problem of inheritance? Is there actually not enough work for everyone? Are we only able to benefit in this way due to incredibly cheap labor in other places?

You seem to think (apologies if I'm misunderstanding) fiat money is mostly to blame? But wasn't gold just as arbitrary of a thing to place value on?

Is there a problem with accumulation? Is there such thing as too much? Maybe for some there isn't because they have big investments ideas and build things and do good, but thats not me. I get by with very little. I think, perhaps naively and optimistically, that the social "safety net" will be accessible to me if I ever need it. For me then, is there no real reason to accumulate?

I'm sorry if people think I'm not listening to their reasons. I am, and I do think that perhaps the best thing for me is still FI since that would free my time and give me more opportunities. It just doesn't seem so easy to decide on the investment vehicles to make that happen. I bike and bus, I eat a ton of rice and beans, I buy used, why would I turn around and then say, but ok, I'm going to go ahead and get 8% interest from all those things I'm rejecting in my daily life. (consumerism, wasteful environmental practices, unfair labor standards.)

[PeteD01]

People, money is a creation of the state(government). Money can not be separated from the state.  We can print as much as we need.  As long as we(collectively) tax less than that, it leaves us all (individually) some amount to earn, trade, accumulate, invest. Yes, to do this there has to be a "national debt".

I'm relatively new around here, but surprised to see chartalist theories of money in this forum. Is this just your own position Johnhenry, or is this commonly held here?

Hey Nate.... welcome.  I still consider myself new here too, but I guess I have been around a while now.

Good question?  I don't recall seeing too much agreement from other members when the subject has come up before.  It's amazing, to me, how often it should come up though.  It's kind of weird for a community of people of be in (supposed) agreement about the best way to personally manage money, yet not be on the same page about "what money even is"!! 

I certainly haven't seen anyone else use the term chartalist here.  I am aware of the theory and in my mind, there isn't really a better way to explain what money is.  On one hand, it's so simple it seems but one step above common sense.  But on the other, I'm a lifelong student of money and economics and I was in my late 20s before the chartalist view really found it's way to me.  So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's not more widespread.

I think I posted a link to this PDF a while back on this forum:  http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_658.pdf

I think it's one of the most straightforward places to start, especially for non-economists.  A great extension of Keynes for the post-hard currency era.

What's your story?

Oh very cool! I'm actually an economist and sympathetic to the post Keynesian approach in general (actually I have a working paper in the Levy Institute working paper series). I would whole-heartedly agree that with your earlier point that money is inherently political.

I think this is way off topic. However, I have one question: how does the apparently simple solution of the sovereign taxing away the intergenerational transfer of wealth square with the interest of the sovereign to insulate economic activity from the unpredictable effects of individual mortality? When should it kick in etc.? Maybe you want to open another thread regarding this interesting question.

A good starting point point would be to consider the interest of the sovereign in an economy which is able to supply the necessary means to assert his power whenever needed with particular attention to the the fact that the ultimate objective of the the sovereign is to assert his sovereignty.

On another note, I don't think you are going to find much objection to your theory of the nature of money on this forum because it is not populated by crackpots - hence the lack of resonance to your postings.

[Daisy]

I can't get past the socialist/anarchist label. Socialism and anarchy seem to be polar opposites to me. Socialism is government control, and anarchy is no government.

Can you explain this further? Maybe it would help us understand your philosophy.

[Daisy]

Jesus christ, fuck your politics, can't we not politicize everything? Make money, save money, spend less money, I don't care who you vote for or what your picketing sign says.

The not-so-secret secret is that in socialist societies, EVERYTHING becomes political. Everyone gets into your business because everything you do or want to do is controlled by the government. The job you have, the education you can get, the ration card given to you limiting your food choices. It turns into a one-size-fits-all mentality where individual freedom, choice, points of view are frowned upon.

I am surrounded by people that fled these types of societies so I know a bit about it.

Socialist societies tend to have a strong undercurrent of a black market where people can access what they really need. Unfortunately because of the need to survive with this black market, people turn to "soft" theft in that they steal stuff from their government jobs to barter with in the black market. Individual efforts on providing for your family are frowned upon and you have to stick to the script provided by your government. You can't get away from human nature and the desire to better you and your family's lives.

There are injustices in all systems, and I applaud the OP in trying to figure out how to help solve these problems. However, I see that most of the places where these injustices occur are not in a free market economy where people are guaranteed certain rights. Most likely they occur in these socialistic and communist societies. It's best to be in a free market where you can live your life independent of politics. Wouldn't it be a terrible place to live if your job security or access to education were all influenced by whether you agreed with the government or not?

I always refer back to Ghandi's great quote whenever I find myself complaining about something whether in society or in my personal circle-of-control situations: "Be the change you want to see in the world."

[icky]

I can't get past the socialist/anarchist label. Socialism and anarchy seem to be polar opposites to me. Socialism is government control, and anarchy is no government.

Can you explain this further? Maybe it would help us understand your philosophy.

Apologies, I didn't mean to suggest they are the same and/or equal. Obviously theres lots of different types of them both. There may not be a label for my philosophy.

The way I broadly and probably ignorantly see it, socialism aims for ownership by the group, anarchism aims for ownership by no one. Capitalism aims for
ownership by whoever has the most money. Mostly what I meant is that both anarchism and socialism have had movements which criticize the dehumanizing effects of industrialization and class stratification.

I think most people probably agree the best system would be one that is largely egalitarian while still protecting the rights of individuality.


I definitely have anarchist heros that have influenced my thinking. Emma Goldman is a big one. But I have many others, I don't think I'm an ideologue and I believe I have an open mind. I'm trying to jive it all into something coherent. I'm a government employee who attends things like Michigan Womyns music festival (womans separatism events) and believes in free love while being Catholic and also having close to 90k in the stock market. So yeah, there's a lot that seems, perhaps is, hypocritical and contradictory.

The Last Psychiatrist has some great posts about some of the ills of our society and different ways of looking at them:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html

Even if I get accused of being a hypocrite or overly emotional or a shill or whatever, I still think its all worth talking about. I think a lot of us use the "live according to your own values and don't bug anyone else" as an excuse not to have to talk about the values we all share. I will fight and learn and fight and listen and fight and learn and listen and hopefully something will stick in my mind and my actions eventually.

If I was going to have one overarching philosophy, I guess it can be boiled down to what Emma Goldman said in 1897, "I demand the independence of woman, her right to support herself; to live for herself; to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she pleases. I demand freedom for both sexes, freedom of action, freedom in love and freedom in motherhood."

[Daisy]

The way I broadly and probably ignorantly see it, socialism aims for ownership by the group, anarchism aims for ownership by no one. Capitalism aims for
ownership by whoever has the most money. Mostly what I meant is that both anarchism and socialism have had movements which criticize the dehumanizing effects of industrialization and class stratification.

Don't confuse free markets with crony capitalism. Crony capitalism leads to influence and control by the "masters of the universe". But, if you limit the government's influence, then the crony capitalists can't have all that much influence. Crony capitalists don't like competition between small companies and try to limit their liabilities (think a crony capitalist buys influence and then doesn't face the repercussions of an environmental catastrophe created by their company). They'd prefer to be a monopoly. We need to support local businesses instead of the mega-corps to change this dynamic (this is where you can "be the change you want to see in the world").

I'd argue that in socialist societies, these monopolies are greater than in a true free market economy. And if the government owns/controls the businesses, then who are you going to sue if they mess up?

I think socialist societies are more class-centric than free markets. Maybe not the "ideal utopian" socialist societies but look around the world and in these societies you still have the haves and the have-nots - except the haves are the ones in charge of the government.

If I was going to have one overarching philosophy, I guess it can be boiled down to what Emma Goldman said in 1897, "I demand the independence of woman, her right to support herself; to live for herself; to love whomever she pleases, or as many as she pleases. I demand freedom for both sexes, freedom of action, freedom in love and freedom in motherhood."

Well I'd dare say we have mostly reached this for women in the US. Yay! Time to move on to other countries where this isn't the case.

[mozar]

So many different questions here.

[icky]

So many different questions here. I can definitely relate to feeling conflicted after going to Michfest (did you just get back?), but I find the politics there to be very...knee jerk (reactive w/o thinking).
I have always felt responsibility to make the world a better place, irregardless of my money situation. FI would give me more options to do so. Currently, as a full time worker, I have limited options for helping. But I also wonder exactly what you mean by fighting oppression. For example, I see voting as a way to fight oppression, but this doesn't relate to how much money I have.
Does becoming FI itself require responsibility to fight oppression? Not anymore more so than someone who was born with money. If one does like working there are many other reasons for FI that have been stated here. Does having money require that you give it away (excess or any at all)? That depends on the ideology you subscribe to. We can't answer that here.

As far as saving the world, what rubs me the wrong way is that you think the world needs saving. The world doesn't need to be saved, and certainly not by you.

The idea that working for a wage is ok for some people, but just not for me, seems to me to be just as narcissistic as some people think I sound. If the FI community doesn't think work is a form of oppression, why is the work "freedom" constantly used. The people who enjoy work either have jobs that give them a great deal of autonomy or have come to believe it is their only option for survival. I'm not saying no one should work. I think no one should work under oppressive and dehumanizing conditions. Yes, its a Utopian Ideal, but I mean, if I'm saying, well I don't want to work for a boss my whole life, don't I have to admit that would be the ideal for everyone?

I never used the words "save the world", but the idea that most people are doing fine and I'm full of myself if I think I need to contribute even more in fixing the sysyem as it is today is one I can't get onboard with. I fundamentally disagree.

[chasesfish]

This is going to be pretty basic:  I like this place and part of the reason is the politics lean somewhere towards localized libertarian.  Don't stress out and worry about shit you can't control  go and take personal responsibility and control the stuff you can.  Also understand that freedom is a simple math formula:

Money = Freedom
Buying stuff costs money
Therefore buying stuff costs freedom




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zikoris]

The idea that working for a wage is ok for some people, but just not for me, seems to me to be just as narcissistic as some people think I sound. If the FI community doesn't think work is a form of oppression, why is the work "freedom" constantly used. The people who enjoy work either have jobs that give them a great deal of autonomy or have come to believe it is their only option for survival. I'm not saying no one should work. I think no one should work under oppressive and dehumanizing conditions. Yes, its a Utopian Ideal, but I mean, if I'm saying, well I don't want to work for a boss my whole life, don't I have to admit that would be the ideal for everyone?

Not having to work is undeniably more freedom than having to work, just due to having more options - but guess what? That's not important to everybody! A lot of people LIKE the structure that work provides, LIKE the social aspect of working, and are miserable after they retire at 65 because they no longer have those things! The simple living espoused by Mustachians certainly makes it easier to reach the point of no longer having to work - but guess what? Not everybody likes that! A LOT of people would rather work and be able to afford a fancier lifestyle, and there's nothing wrong with that! People are capable of making their own choices based on what they value!

I'll try to keep this simple: just because you or I don't like something does not make that thing horrible oppression. Your entire argument is based on completely flawed logic.

[mozar]

The idea that working for a wage is ok for some people, but just not for me, seems to me to be just as narcissistic as some people think I sound. If the FI community doesn't think work is a form of oppression, why is the work "freedom" constantly used. The people who enjoy work either have jobs that give them a great deal of autonomy or have come to believe it is their only option for survival. I'm not saying no one should work. I think no one should work under oppressive and dehumanizing conditions. Yes, its a Utopian Ideal, but I mean, if I'm saying, well I don't want to work for a boss my whole life, don't I have to admit that would be the ideal for everyone?

I never used the words "save the world", but the idea that most people are doing fine and I'm full of myself if I think I need to contribute even more in fixing the sysyem as it is today is one I can't get onboard with. I fundamentally disagree.

[oinkette]

If you find being paid a salary for a 40-hour work-week so abhorrent as to not want to do it, and also have the opportunity to not do it, do you have any responsibility to stand up and figure out ways to fight against that form of oppression for all humans? If you do not find making a salary and working within a heirarchy unpleasurable and soul-numbing, why the push for "financial independence"?

I don't think I have a responsibility to anyone else, as that would be assuming that they have the same interests as me.  One of my coworkers lives for her job.  She has literally said she would go play in traffic if she were laid off.  I'm not 100% sure she's kidding.  But I don't judge...I live for freedom.  I think I would go play in traffic if I knew I was stuck working a 9-5 until 65.  My point is, ER is not for everyone and I would never assume so. 

I do like to think I lead by example. Just as I learned (perhaps a bit too late for ERE) from Jacob and Mr. M, I'm showing others that there are options besides working 40 years then retiring. The more people do it, the less fish in the sea employers have to pick from, the better they treat current employees.

As for the unpleasurable soul-numbing aspect, yes I find working 9-5 so but I've always been a free spirit. Even in school I was thinking of ways not to work 9-5.  I didn't work out that way, but I did end up in a job with a great quality-of-life/salary ratio.  This tides me over until FIRE.