Post by: Villanelle on August 23, 2019, 09:00:15 AM
"Making" implies "earning" which implies "work". So no. Premise not accepted.
Cheers.
Yep, if the $400000/yr requires going back to work I'm not interested.
So, if you are FIREd, or have a hard date set for FIRE in the near future, what amount of money (if any) would it take to buy you back to work? And how long would you stay? (Let's imagine you have to commit to a contract term upfront and there will be no early termination or extension possible.) Assume it's a job comparable to their most recent, unless you most recent was an epic misery in which case remove the extraordinary suffering and have it be a run-of-the-mill job, neither fantastic or horrific, in your field.
What's your rate, and how much of your time would you sell at that rate?
Post by: Candace on August 23, 2019, 09:39:37 AM
Enough, for lack of a better way to put it, is enough. I'm enjoying the LIVING HELL out of not going to work. If presented with that choice -- a year of work for $800k -- I might do it in order to give most of it to charity. But seriously, I'd only do it out of guilt over how I'd feel if I DIDN'T do it. How screwed up is that?
Post by: ysette9 on August 23, 2019, 09:42:03 AM
I think for me it comes down to the work itself. Is it interesting? Stimulating? Does it give a sense of satisfaction? Would I be doing something that matters? If none of that is in place, there isn’t much draw no matter what the pay is.
Post by: Villanelle on August 23, 2019, 11:44:16 AM
It is basically the same question as how much longer would you continue to work once reaching your FI number, except with an activation energy to actually go back to work. I don’t really know personally because we haven’t quite reached The Number, but we are at the peak of our earning years so I understand the OMY syndrome well.
I think for me it comes down to the work itself. Is it interesting? Stimulating? Does it give a sense of satisfaction? Would I be doing something that matters? If none of that is in place, there isn’t much draw no matter what the pay is.
I still haven't decided if I'm even RE. My spouse still works and while I might travel once a year without him, I'm definitely not living the same lifestyle as I imagine us having once we are both FIRE. I also left work assuming it would be a 2-3 year gap while we lived overseas, never imagining that that would be it for at least 9 years, and potentially for forever. So I don't have the mindset that I was DONE FOREVER, which might help.
I'd go back for 2 years at $200k. Interestingly (or perhaps not), I find that the number needs to get higher and higher to get me back (until it reaches $200k), at which point as continues higher, the time I'd be willing to do it actually gets shorter. For $400k, I'd do a year, *maybe* 18 months.
DH and I have discussed, theoretically only, moving to the middle east. We have an acquaintance with a somewhat similar background to DH that got a job in Dubai. Don't know what he makes, but the first offer was $300k, IIRC, and he turned it down. They love it there. I am doubtful, and also weary of being a stranger in a strange land, but for that kind of money (and the many benefits included that help moderate COL a bit), doing it for a couple of years would put us well beyond any FIRE number we need, so we'd very likely. (To be clear, this job isn't an actual possibility and DH likely wouldn't qualify. It's just a thought exercise.) It's an adventure, and if it turns out to be an adventure in the way that e. coli is an adventure, it would be over in two years and would buy us complete freedom and anything we've ever wanted.
Post by: DaMa on August 23, 2019, 02:43:25 PM
Post by: Freedomin5 on August 23, 2019, 03:29:15 PM
Post by: Greystache on August 23, 2019, 06:36:40 PM
Post by: Villanelle on August 23, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
What you are asking is how much of my life I would trade for money even though I already have enough. Stupid question.
Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Post by: ysette9 on August 23, 2019, 08:49:11 PM
What you are asking is how much of my life I would trade for money even though I already have enough. Stupid question.
Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Post by: kei te pai on August 23, 2019, 09:05:55 PM
Post by: thriftyc on August 23, 2019, 10:59:13 PM
Post by: Parizade on August 24, 2019, 05:19:29 PM
Post by: Jon_Snow on August 24, 2019, 09:13:47 PM
Post by: bacchi on August 25, 2019, 02:57:46 PM
Part-time work with unlimited vacation? Sure. Give me an hourly, contract, position doing interesting work for a purpose. No BS meetings.
Post by: chrisgermany on August 25, 2019, 03:02:44 PM
So: priceless.
Post by: Villanelle on August 25, 2019, 03:12:20 PM
I would do it for the same amount I am charged to buy more lifetime.
So: priceless.
You can't buy more of your own lifetime, but half a million dollars absolutely can by more lifetime for other people.
I don't know exactly where my line is, but if someone said I could have $0.5m to donate to causes of my choosing for 6 months of 40 hour work, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. I couldn't.
Post by: FrugalZony on August 25, 2019, 07:35:01 PM
I have been FIREd for 3+ years, but would love to spend more on various charitable causes. That list keeps getting longer and it bothers me to not have more money to help.
I know, there'll never be ENOUGH money to fund all those philantrophic pursuits, but 1/12 of 400k or 2x. that per year could do a lot of good.
If I could pick time and place, I'd be in.
Unfortunately it's not that easy to find something flexible you can dance in and out of that pays that well.
I am currently brainstorming for jobs to do, while I am in Winter quarters (we are nomadic most of the year), just so I can up my donations a bit.
So would I trade my time to pad the stash, me...that would take a VERY lucrative offer and tons of other factors
Would I trade my time to make a bit for money to contribute to a good cause....sure I'd do that. I right now do that mostly as a volunteer though.
Post by: mak1277 on August 26, 2019, 01:57:06 PM
Post by: WalkaboutStache on August 27, 2019, 12:20:30 AM
at the right hand side.
Post by: FreshlyFIREd on August 27, 2019, 02:57:29 AM
What would you pay for access to more air - if you already have all the air you will ever need?
Under most circumstances, I think I have all of the money I will ever need. It would be foolish to return to work to accumulate more.
I would return to work - if work was the only objective. For me, freedom is so much more precious than money.
Post by: davisgang90 on August 27, 2019, 04:19:15 AM
One of the museums is based on a famous railroad photographer, so as a semi-professional photog, it's a pretty cool gig for me. My other passion is teaching, so the education aspect (the job covers pre-school through adult ed) makes me happy as well.
Post by: mak1277 on August 27, 2019, 09:03:58 AM
You either have enough - or - you don't. If you have enough, look to the reasons why you desire more of something where you already have enough.
I have enough. But under the right circumstances, the things I could do with "even more" are awfully appealing.
Post by: sui generis on August 27, 2019, 09:23:45 AM
Post by: Metalcat on August 28, 2019, 07:05:16 AM
I have too many options to easily make plenty of money doing what I enjoy part time.
Post by: Lukim on August 28, 2019, 10:03:55 PM
3 weeks before the retirement date, someone offered me a new and interesting project on a package of $500k a year. I work 3 weeks a month and have 1 week off. I accepted the offer and have just rejoined the workforce.
So my price was $500k per year and something interesting to do.
I think if I had a period of time in retirement and got into the routine of retirement it would have been much harder to drag me back.
Post by: Mr. Green on August 29, 2019, 08:44:41 AM
Post by: sui generis on August 29, 2019, 09:58:09 AM
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
Post by: Mr. Green on August 29, 2019, 07:11:30 PM
^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
Post by: sui generis on August 29, 2019, 07:34:21 PM
^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Post by: Mr. Green on August 30, 2019, 07:08:56 AM
The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
Post by: mak1277 on August 30, 2019, 07:33:23 AM
The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
If I knew I only had ten years left, I'd absolutely take $100 million for one of them and then live the other 9 like an absolute fiend.
Post by: Mr. Green on August 30, 2019, 07:47:16 AM
Would you take $100 million if you only had two years left and one was spent working a job you hated? I imagine some would. I wouldn't though. There isn't enough money on the planet to make it worth losing 50 percent of the time I had left. And that's the challenge. You just never know when it's your time, and for us young people most of the deaths are accidents, which means no warning. You're just driving home one night and then you're dead.The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
If I knew I only had ten years left, I'd absolutely take $100 million for one of them and then live the other 9 like an absolute fiend.
Post by: mak1277 on August 30, 2019, 08:22:32 AM
Would you take $100 million if you only had two years left and one was spent working a job you hated? I imagine some would. I wouldn't though. There isn't enough money on the planet to make it worth losing 50 percent of the time I had left. And that's the challenge. You just never know when it's your time, and for us young people most of the deaths are accidents, which means no warning. You're just driving home one night and then you're dead.The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
If I knew I only had ten years left, I'd absolutely take $100 million for one of them and then live the other 9 like an absolute fiend.
Nope, wouldn't give up a year if I only had two left. But the whole concept of "live like it's your last day" is just a recipe for disaster in my estimation, so it's all a balance.
Post by: SunnyDays on August 30, 2019, 09:24:44 AM
Post by: Mr. Green on August 30, 2019, 09:38:29 AM
Absolutely. The point I was trying to make was that thinking about how much money it would take for one to consider suffering for other people is not a very useful exercise. An incalculable number of variables and unknowns makes it almost a waste of time, in my opinion, because you simply can't reach an answer that has even a shred if confidence to it.Would you take $100 million if you only had two years left and one was spent working a job you hated? I imagine some would. I wouldn't though. There isn't enough money on the planet to make it worth losing 50 percent of the time I had left. And that's the challenge. You just never know when it's your time, and for us young people most of the deaths are accidents, which means no warning. You're just driving home one night and then you're dead.The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
If I knew I only had ten years left, I'd absolutely take $100 million for one of them and then live the other 9 like an absolute fiend.
Nope, wouldn't give up a year if I only had two left. But the whole concept of "live like it's your last day" is just a recipe for disaster in my estimation, so it's all a balance.
Post by: sui generis on August 30, 2019, 10:39:11 AM
The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
I'm surprised you leave the house at all if stats like those concern you!
And these kind of thought experiments are not so much about pinning down an actual number ("I would do it for $6.7MM!") as examining your values in a qualitative sense. Mine say I would have a problem saying no to "a lot" of money for about a year if I knew I could practically solve a humanitarian crisis or issue.
Post by: Mr. Green on August 30, 2019, 11:00:29 AM
Different strokes for different folks. I would not again suffer as I did in my career for a year of the unknown remainder of my life just to solve one of an infinite number of human crises. I might as well stand on the beach throwing grains of sand into the water.The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
I'm surprised you leave the house at all if stats like those concern you!
And these kind of thought experiments are not so much about pinning down an actual number ("I would do it for $6.7MM!") as examining your values in a qualitative sense. Mine say I would have a problem saying no to "a lot" of money for about a year if I knew I could practically solve a humanitarian crisis or issue.
If I loved my job that's a whole different story, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Post by: Metalcat on August 30, 2019, 11:33:53 AM
Nope, wouldn't give up a year if I only had two left. But the whole concept of "live like it's your last day" is just a recipe for disaster in my estimation, so it's all a balance.
IDK, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that "live like it's your last day" is a recipe for disaster.
Post by: Mr. Green on August 30, 2019, 11:56:02 AM
I don't think it has to go any further than the pursuit of happiness. If there are aspects of your life you want to change and you are actively working on them, or if you have achieved absolute happiness and would change nothing about your life then I feel like you're living each day like it were your last. Many people mistakenly use that as a rallying cry to do irresponsible things in the moment, but I think that's just because they don't see the bigger picture.Nope, wouldn't give up a year if I only had two left. But the whole concept of "live like it's your last day" is just a recipe for disaster in my estimation, so it's all a balance.
IDK, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that "live like it's your last day" is a recipe for disaster.
I want to look back at my life, no matter what day I end up dying, and feel like I did my best to be happy because when you strip all the other stuff away, that's what's left.
Post by: mak1277 on August 30, 2019, 12:47:41 PM
Nope, wouldn't give up a year if I only had two left. But the whole concept of "live like it's your last day" is just a recipe for disaster in my estimation, so it's all a balance.
IDK, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that "live like it's your last day" is a recipe for disaster.
If I knew I had one day (or even one year) left to live, I would engage in as much reckless activity as I could fit into the remaining time I had. Every day would be a search for more endorphins in any form possible.
Post by: Metalcat on August 30, 2019, 01:41:45 PM
Nope, wouldn't give up a year if I only had two left. But the whole concept of "live like it's your last day" is just a recipe for disaster in my estimation, so it's all a balance.
IDK, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that "live like it's your last day" is a recipe for disaster.
If I knew I had one day (or even one year) left to live, I would engage in as much reckless activity as I could fit into the remaining time I had. Every day would be a search for more endorphins in any form possible.
You and I are clearly very different people who live very different lives.
Post by: jim555 on August 30, 2019, 02:32:27 PM
Post by: SimpleLifer on August 31, 2019, 09:35:52 AM
The odds are a lot higher than you think. In my case, I'll use the age 36 since my birthday is in two weeks, I have a 0.21% chance of being dead before my 37th birthday. That's 1 in 500 odds. I have a 2.21% chance of being dead within the next decade. That's 1 in 45 odds. I have a 16.89% chance of being dead before turning 65. That's 1 in 6 odds. Those are based on the latest (2016) Social Security actuarial tables. By all means, consider the moral question if you wish but use the actual data. It's kinda scary if you think about it too long, though.^^interesting point here. A tangent from the actual original question, but it does become sort of a thought experiment in morality and commitment to think about saying no to lots of money that I don't need but with which I could solve a significant humanitarian problem by giving it to charity. Could I live with myself if I turned down $100MM for an important cause simply because I wasn't willing to spend one year of my life "in jail"/at a terrible job? How selfish would I have to be to do that? I should have 4 or more decades left, and I'm unwilling to give up 2.5% of my lifespan to help save thousands of lives or something like that? Wow.The only guarantee in our future is death. I reckon you might have a different opinion about spending 100% of your remaining life in "jail." I sure would. Whose to say tomorrow isn't my last day or yours?
The scenario is extreme and thankfully no one has offered me $100MM for a one year gig, so I don't really have to wrestle with this. But, let's say the answer is obvious and I would go back for one year for $100MM and save who knows how many lives through the charitable giving I do with that. Where do I draw the line? $99MM? $10MM? I have no idea where I could confidently say that *not* giving up x% of my remaining lifespan for $y to save z lives is not something I feel any moral guilt about. But for now, what is on offer for me is certainly not enough lives saved for the portion of my own life I'd have to give up.
And it's about as likely I'll win the lottery. But I don't plan around it. And a thought experiment like the one I've proposed deserves to have at least some reasonable assumptions for those that wish to truly consider the moral question. It's fine that that person isn't you, and indeed my post was a derailment from the question initiating this thread.
Edit: Added date for the actuarial tables
I'm surprised you leave the house at all if stats like those concern you!
And these kind of thought experiments are not so much about pinning down an actual number ("I would do it for $6.7MM!") as examining your values in a qualitative sense. Mine say I would have a problem saying no to "a lot" of money for about a year if I knew I could practically solve a humanitarian crisis or issue.
The way I quantify this is: how many more years will my children be minor children?
How many more years of their childhood are left?
Sigh.
I always enjoy reading your perspective, @Mr. Green.
Post by: Mr. Green on September 02, 2019, 04:36:26 AM
Post by: ysette9 on September 02, 2019, 07:05:16 AM
In a sadly ironic mic drop on my comment about not knowing how long you have I found my father dead yesterday morning. He was 66 and in good health. I had just talked to him Friday. Everyone I've notified is simply shocked because of how vibrant and strong he always was. Pursue happiness everyday and tell people you love them.Wow, I’m so sorry for your loss. That is very young and quite sobering.
Post by: Metalcat on September 02, 2019, 07:07:14 AM
In a sadly ironic mic drop on my comment about not knowing how long you have I found my father dead yesterday morning. He was 66 and in good health. I had just talked to him Friday. Everyone I've notified is simply shocked because of how vibrant and strong he always was. Pursue happiness everyday and tell people you love them.
Are you okay?
Do you have enough support??
This is so awful, I'm so sorry.
Post by: DaMa on September 02, 2019, 06:21:42 PM
In a sadly ironic mic drop on my comment about not knowing how long you have I found my father dead yesterday morning. He was 66 and in good health. I had just talked to him Friday. Everyone I've notified is simply shocked because of how vibrant and strong he always was. Pursue happiness everyday and tell people you love them.
I'm so sorry for you loss.
Post by: Mr. Green on September 02, 2019, 06:23:15 PM
My mom came down and the friends we live with are very supportive. Dad had a small group of friends that loved him very much and they have offered assistance as well. I am simply glad we were able to FIRE when we did and it enabled me to be closer to him these past few years than any other time in my life.In a sadly ironic mic drop on my comment about not knowing how long you have I found my father dead yesterday morning. He was 66 and in good health. I had just talked to him Friday. Everyone I've notified is simply shocked because of how vibrant and strong he always was. Pursue happiness everyday and tell people you love them.
Are you okay?
Do you have enough support??
This is so awful, I'm so sorry.
Edit: two typos
Post by: Villanelle on September 02, 2019, 07:38:19 PM
Post by: FrugalZony on September 02, 2019, 08:15:48 PM
I am simply glad we were able to FIRE when we did and it enaboed me to be closer to him these past few years than any other time in my life.My sincere condolences!! I lost my dad earlier this year and I feel that same gratitude having FIREd in 2016 and having that opportunity to spend more time with him in those Fired years.
I hope you can find comfort in this knowledge, I know, I try on a daily basis. I am glad you are surrounded and supported by family and friends.
Sending you hugs!
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on September 02, 2019, 08:36:21 PM
I was retired for 14 months, and it was pretty great. I got the call while I was in my hammock, sipping a beverage, reading a book. The offer was infuriating. It was exactly the type of thing that I couldn't possibly turn down. After 2 years, I'll be allowed to take up to 6 months at a time off (unpaid) for every 6 months I work.
The worst part of FIRE, for me, was that I had a lingering guilt about not using my education. Vanishingly few people can do what I do, and we are all massively overworked as a result. Had you asked me to describe my ideal retirement, it would have been pretty close to this, only it would have been teaching at various universities instead of working in industry. But! A decent part of my job will be training various global departments up to par. So teaching.
And the money is like...stupid. I'm not sure that anyone who came from where I came from could turn this down. It's dynasty-building type money. Or I'm just a huge whore, that's also a possibility.
So that was my number. The first year it will double my savings. Just nuts.
Post by: HovEratoTo on September 04, 2019, 07:24:12 AM
If I could work part-time, 95% from home, and never have to attend BS meetings, I'd go back to work for a few years.
This is my current set-up, except 100% from home. It's the only reason I accepted my current contract position. I love having the freedom to say "no" to so many things. Work fits around MY schedule now. And if either party ever decides it's just not working, I'll just shoulder-shrug and walk away!
Post by: HovEratoTo on September 04, 2019, 07:28:02 AM
In a sadly ironic mic drop on my comment about not knowing how long you have I found my father dead yesterday morning. He was 66 and in good health. I had just talked to him Friday. Everyone I've notified is simply shocked because of how vibrant and strong he always was. Pursue happiness everyday and tell people you love them.
Just made it to this part in the thread. I'm so sorry for your loss. I hope you are surrounded by loved ones and have the support you need right now.
Post by: bacchi on September 04, 2019, 09:39:50 AM
So I actually did go back to work a little bit ago. Someone I used to work with called me up about a position that sounded to them like something that would interest me, and it did. It starts in the states 100% working from home, and eventually I will be sent all over the world to work where needed. It uses exactly my specialty and nothing else. It pays more than I ever thought I would get paid in my wildest dreams. Plus housing. Plus a travel budget. Plus 30 days of vacation.
I was retired for 14 months, and it was pretty great. I got the call while I was in my hammock, sipping a beverage, reading a book. The offer was infuriating. It was exactly the type of thing that I couldn't possibly turn down. After 2 years, I'll be allowed to take up to 6 months at a time off (unpaid) for every 6 months I work.
If my working life was like this, even excluding the mad money and the international travel, I could've worked longer and with far more motivation. Congrats.
Post by: Linea_Norway on September 05, 2019, 02:42:12 AM
DH wants to continue to work a bit after FIRE, at his own pace and conditions, just for extra "fun" money. I think we have room for that anyway, but we'll see. Maybe he also wants to feel a bit "useful".
Post by: NAVRESLDO on September 06, 2019, 06:13:13 PM
This really struck a chord. I actually went on a job interview yesterday for an interesting job that I don't need. Thanks.
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on October 28, 2019, 07:07:26 PM
The only way I'd consider working again would be if I needed more money, or if I thought it would make me happier. I don't anticipate either scenario.
+1.
Post by: flyingaway on October 30, 2019, 08:14:51 AM
Once I officially retire, I do not plan to do anything that will earn me money.
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on October 30, 2019, 03:12:16 PM
Currently super leanFIRE'd, so a year or two at that income would allow me to fatFIRE in short order.
Post by: soccerluvof4 on November 01, 2019, 04:10:49 AM
Post by: onewayfamily on November 01, 2019, 04:24:03 AM
Those that are already retired have mostly responded with extremely large amounts ($1m+) or that basically under no circumstances would they return to work, for any amount. We fall into this second camp (being FIRE'd for 3+ years now). As several posters have said, if you've planned correctly and really do have enough (i.e. you didn't FIRE with a lower number than you're actually comfortable with) then there is basically no reason to return to work, other than perhaps charitable giving or things in that vein. Your lifetime drains away and nothing can bring it back, so why sacrifice even another second for something you don't need any more of.
Post by: Linea_Norway on November 01, 2019, 06:02:28 AM
<...> As several posters have said, if you've planned correctly and really do have enough (i.e. you didn't FIRE with a lower number than you're actually comfortable with) then there is basically no reason to return to work, other than perhaps charitable giving or things in that vein. Your lifetime drains away and nothing can bring it back, so why sacrifice even another second for something you don't need any more of.
That is what I think too. Still, for reados unknown to me, my generally very intelligent DH thinks he wants to do some occasional work after FIRE, to create some extra spending money. I think it is not necessary, because our FIRE budget is not exactly lean. I certainly see no point for me to go back doing similar work as I do now. Too much stress for my liking. I might want to do some meaningful, yet low stress work, like helping the local shop some hours in busy period.
Post by: herbgeek on November 01, 2019, 03:41:32 PM
Post by: NWOutlier on November 02, 2019, 11:47:27 AM
to me "FIRE" means "you don't HAVE to work" - doesn't mean, you're going to completely avoid anything that pays for your time... let's say, I'm now independent, but I want to learn about furniture making.. I can literally go to a "job" at minimum wage, work with wood, production class equipment and see how furniture is "built" (not designed)... no cost to me other than time (which I don't have when I'm working for money)
the point has never been to do nothing, the point is to be able to do what you want... put a roof over your head, heat, food, insurance, important stuff that is covered by your financial savings... you don't "depend" on an income to meet your basic needs (for some basic + luxury).
I think we need a new acronym.. FIRE has it's group of people, but - I think there is another acronym we can come up with... FI, in short covers it... RE is accurate, but not literal - meaning, retire (or retire early) does not result in doing nothing for the rest of your life....
I guess my answer would be that I would work for zero-minimum wage assuming I was comfortable FIRE.
Here are the benefits of being not dependent on employment... self education, volunteer to improve community (schools, parks, arts, other) maybe if I over did my savings, I would donate money, maybe I work at a company for their discount on goods or services)... FIRE isn't literal, it's options...
now I'll go back and read the responses to this post, let's see how this comment compares to others.... (I'll edit/update if I change my stance/opinion from above)
(Ok - from this point on is edits after scanning the comments)
Wow - see? even I can and need to learn a lot!! the commenters have opened my eyes!... if I was asked to go back to my current work (high stress, high technical) - it would cost a pretty penny, and temp work only, was well as, work from home, no more than 3-9 months a year....
so if I change the context from what would I do if I'm comfortable, or what would I do if I had to go back and doing what I do now? - the results vary from 0 to min wage, although if I go back to what I'm doing now? it would be 6 figures (relative) with daily time being restricted to (4-6hrs), remote work, and probably more as I digest the comments people have provided.
Best Regards,
Steve (NWOutlier)
Post by: Cali4en on November 02, 2019, 05:26:38 PM
That being said, I would go back to work for something truly worthwhile. We volunteer for the same reason and we both really enjoy that. If someone came to me with a job offer that was actually meaningful, then I might do it regardless of what compensation was offered.
Post by: EndlessJourney on November 09, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
I think we need a new acronym.. FIRE has it's group of people, but - I think there is another acronym we can come up with... FI, in short covers it... RE is accurate, but not literal - meaning, retire (or retire early) does not result in doing nothing for the rest of your life....
Leave it to Mr Money Mustache to already have come up with an acronym for what you are describing:
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual)
From: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/
Post by: DoNorth on November 10, 2019, 06:36:23 AM
small west European town, Almost $150K/year; over half of it tax free in the form of various allowances. lots of vacation, sick leave, and other forms of time off. Lowest stress job I've ever had with no requirements for meetings/conference calls or any reports. I basically just have to be present. Other allowances for foreign language tutoring, international schools for my kids and paid housing. I don't regret it for a second.
Post by: Skyhigh on November 10, 2019, 01:02:11 PM
Due to a poor performing career I was forced into FIRE at a fairly young age. Now that my industry has recovered I have been trying to find a way to reenter the job market without upsetting my home life and finances too much. I am too scared to risk my financial independence much. My family is very happy with where and how we live. They would not tolerate much displacement.
As an older worker, I find that employers are commonly passing my generation over. They want me to start over at the bottom and endure all the hardships completely over again. I really wanted a meaningful career and find the FIRE life as an older person difficult to accept. It feels as though life and accomplishment have passed me by. Doing what one wants all the time loses its value. I imagine it is different to leave a completed career for retirement. I am bored with FIRE.
I have volunteered enough, traveled enough, and took plenty of self-enriching classes. I don't want to ride any more bikes on a Wednesday morning don't want to join any more cross-country ski clubs. I am done with cows, chickens, gardening,.... etc
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on November 10, 2019, 03:47:15 PM
Post by: nancyfrank232 on November 10, 2019, 03:50:49 PM
Post by: BTDretire on November 10, 2019, 05:49:23 PM
Mikek
Post by: SwordGuy on November 10, 2019, 10:43:19 PM
I would pay each refugee $2000 a month whether they were old enough to work or not. Those that could work would renovate a house I would buy for them with the cash and gift to them. Lather, rinse and repeat until each family had their own house. Then I would identify houses owned by their new neighbors and pay them to fix up the neighbor's houses, too. New paint job, new roof, whatever was needed. That way their new neighbors would be glad they are there.
I would toss in money to cover "how to be an American" lesson and English language lessons.
And I still wouldn't be spending all the money because we're talking about $282,875 per person per year.
$100,000 house, including renovation.
24,000 wages.
6,000 lessons.
60,000 neighbor renovation supplies.
==================
$190,000 costs so far.
I've still got $92,875 per person per year to spend to accomplish something useful.
Oh, hell, let's pay them $4000 a month instead of $2000. Hey, they could afford soap and a bed to sleep in at this point.
Now we're at $214,000 with $68,875 still to spend.
So, the first five refugees would leave me with 5 * $68,875 or $344,375 in my pocket.
Let's see, I'll hire a foreman and pay them well, so we're looking at $200,000 still in my pocket. Hell, have a lottery and put money on the debts of the new neighbors or donate it to some charities.
Of course, that assumed 5 unrelated immigrants.
If it was one family of 5, that would save me $400,000 in house purchase costs!
And that family of 5 would have an income of 5 * 48,000 or $240,000 a year, even if one of them was a stay-at-home mom and the other four were quadruplet babes-in-arms.
So, if at the end of the year Uncle Sam decided to deport them they would have between $35,000 and $210,000 in their pocket plus a $100,000 house that could be sold. Whatever country they end up in (unless they are sent back to their old one and are killed by their country's government), they would have a heck of a nest egg to make a new start with. And it would take less than 2 weeks to sell the house because I would have more immigrants to take care of and a ready-to-go house would be perfect.
Doing that much good could get me out of retirement.
Post by: ROF Expat on November 11, 2019, 08:51:27 AM
I would consider going back to work if someone offers me really interesting work, with colleagues at the top of their game, in a field that I could feel good about. I wouldn't consider it if it meant large amounts of time away from my family.