The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: freebeer on April 08, 2015, 01:18:23 PM
-
I have had two personal problems with aspects of "Mustachianism".
One is the assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course.
The second, arguably related assumption, is that personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities (home remodeling, house cleaning, growing vegetables, etc. ) is more meritorious than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services.
I basically don't agree with either proposition.
As background, I'm someone with a similar educational background to that of MMM who has for over 30 years engaged in generally "salaried" work in the IT industry.
I am definitely a supporter of the "LBYM" aspect of Mustachianism including the implicit rejection of ridiculousity in our consumerist society. And for the last 4+ years, while I'm still fully employed, I have traded significantly reduced total compensation for much more time flexibility and autonomy.
But the idea that I'd be even better off not working at all has never felt right. I enjoy what I do and those whom I work with, and I feel I'm accomplishing good things for the world as well as myself in so doing. Having "FU money" is a very nice safety net and I am sure that if I didn't work I would (and hopefully someday will) pursue more vigorously various activities that I also enjoy and new ones to boot, but meanwhile I would rank most of my work time as among the most enjoyable of my overall time (and the least rewarding bits of work time as no less satisfying than the least rewarding of non-work time such as doing household chores).
I recently stumbled on an article by researchers at Oxford University that deals with this issue and the seeming dilemma that the most highly compensated people are now working the most hours: http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/wp20143.pdf
The Economist sound-bited it (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out) as:
Back in 1899 Thorstein Veblen... argued that leisure was a “badge of honour”. Rich people could get others to do the dirty, repetitive work—what Veblen called “industry”. Yet Veblen’s leisure class was not idle. Rather they engaged in “exploit”: challenging and creative activities such as writing, philanthropy and debating.
Veblen’s theory needs updating... Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy “exploit” at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off. On the flip side, leisure is no longer a sign of social power. Instead it symbolises uselessness and unemployment.
The MMM default approach (work less than 10 years saving like crazy, then retire early) is not so great if we make the assumption that "exploit" is (for many of us) best undertaken at an office rather than in our kitchens. And if we are getting good "exploit" (and, perhaps, even "badassity") at the office, then what's the point of seeking it at home by doing routine chores. Being a "jack of all trades" is great and all, but is it worth greatly reducing the "embodied capital" of an educated specialist?
Of course this approach has worked great for MMM himself... I'm just questioning it as a general recommendation. And that harsh last bit ("leisure ... now symbolises uselessness and unemployment") might even help explain why early-retired folks seem to have a harder time getting dates...
-
There have been a number of threads along these same general lines pretty much since the inception of MMM. I feel like where you (and others of a similar mindset) and I differ is on our interpretation of MMM. I don't personally feel that "stop working" is the fundamental principle of mustachianism, but instead "have freedom to choose." Attaining a level of financial independence such that you don't *need* any job allows your work to be something you choose to partake in, rather than it being something that enslaves you.
Similarly, mustachian frugality/self-reliance is, to me, for three good reasons-- first, it allows you to accelerate the date at which you achieve freedom to do whatever you want (including working). Second, it encourages introspection about what is important to you, and whether things or services genuinely make you happy, making personal decisions about the relative value of each. Third, it instills a self of pride in having a set of skills and abilities, and encourages self-improvement.
In essence, FU money gives you freedom to work or not work. Being frugal frees you from the feeling that you must purchase non-essential goods or services, making you more thoughtful and less stressed.
-
One is the assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course.
The second, arguably related assumption, is that personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities (home remodeling, house cleaning, growing vegetables, etc. ) is more meritorious than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services.
I believe you are missing the point. The point is to reject consumerism/LBYM (which you agree with) to allow you to live the life you design and reduce consumption. Simply put, ultimate freedom over your life choices. For MMM its blogging & carpentry. For you its computer science. For others its poetry, sports, farming, etc. The idea is you can leverage FI regardless to do the exact activities that bring you the most happiness without needing to worry about money.
-
There have been a number of threads along these same general lines pretty much since the inception of MMM. I feel like where you (and others of a similar mindset) and I differ is on our interpretation of MMM. I don't personally feel that "stop working" is the fundamental principle of mustachianism, but instead "have freedom to choose." Attaining a level of financial independence such that you don't *need* any job allows your work to be something you choose to partake in, rather than it being something that enslaves you.
Similarly, mustachian frugality/self-reliance is, to me, for three good reasons-- first, it allows you to accelerate the date at which you achieve freedom to do whatever you want (including working). Second, it encourages introspection about what is important to you, and whether things or services genuinely make you happy, making personal decisions about the relative value of each. Third, it instills a self of pride in having a set of skills and abilities, and encourages self-improvement.
In essence, FU money gives you freedom to work or not work. Being frugal frees you from the feeling that you must purchase good or services in order to survive, making you more thoughtful and less stressed.
Exactly. And I think this is something that the freaking retirement police get wrong, as well. If you, given the fact that you have achieved FI and therefore the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, decide retire, and then you find that the "exploit" activities that you want to do end up making you money, then AWESOME! Why in the hell is it that people get so hung up on the word "retire"?
-
Yeah, I don't have the same interpretation, OP.
I think the FI part means much greater freedom to choose the type of work you do, paid or not. The F-you money concept but even stronger if you're really FI.
As for doing stuff yourself, partly that's LBYM, sure, but a big part to me is the attitude of growth. Trying new things, maybe failing, maybe succeeding, either way growing.
-
As the others have said, it's about choosing freedom OR getting away from an amount of work that you feel is too much in proportion to leisure time OR if you simply don't enjoy the 9-5.
As far as growing potatoes/doing house maintenance etc goes. That is not the goal. I'm fairly sure those who post about that do it in their free time/enjoy it/fill some idle time with it. There are plenty of threads of interesting tales of other hobbies and outings that people do when FIREd, which may also include "exploit" work on their own clock
Believe what you want OP. I'm pretty sure everyone who has retired early is happy and there is nothing you can do to stop it, you can disagree with the principles all you like. Just head on over to the Post-FIRE thread.
-
If Mustachianism has a "fatal" flaw (as you put it), then when should we expect it to die?
-
.. I don't personally feel that "stop working" is the fundamental principle of mustachianism, but instead "have freedom to choose." ...
Similarly, mustachian frugality/self-reliance is, to me, for three good reasons-- first, it allows you to accelerate the date at which you achieve freedom to do whatever you want (including working). Second, it encourages introspection about what is important to you, and whether things or services genuinely make you happy, making personal decisions about the relative value of each. Third, it instills a self of pride in having a set of skills and abilities, and encourages self-improvement.
In essence, FU money gives you freedom to work or not work. Being frugal frees you from the feeling that you must purchase non-essential goods or services, making you more thoughtful and less stressed.
I'm totally with you on "have freedom to choose" being fundamental and that this is powered by frugality. But the "self-reliance" part, where that implies (in many many MMM posts) that it's simply a Good Thing to trade hours of higher-paid specialized work for hours of more general labor, is what I'm questioning. And self-reliance is, in this day and age, always just a veneer. MMM has mad carpentry skills I'll never have but he isn't going to personally make sheetrock or even plywood. The cars he recommends buying are modern ones laden with computers and require specialized equipment even to determine what's wrong.
Basically MMM seems to get personal "exploit" from manual labor, which is fair enough since "exploit" is after all a personal thing! But in the tone of posts his extrapolates that it's good for everyone... which (unlike LBYM and achieving FI) I'm not so sure about. That may only be because it's not stuff that (in general) floats my own boat but that just reinforces the proposition that there's no general principle here.
Another way to state this concern is that the MMM default approach in effect cheats on FI, because when you early-retire on a shoestring you are in effect committing to expend personal labor on various things rather than hire them done. That's fine but in that sense you aren't really FI. And if you aren't really FI yet, then whether you should meet your needs by doing X hours of low-skill unpaid labor or doing Y hours of high-skilled (and more rewarding) paid labor and hiring the job done with the proceeds is not obvious (perhaps even if Y > X). Whereas MMM seems to argue that it is obvious and in favor of the unpaid labor (even if X > Y).
-
If Mustachianism has a "fatal" flaw (as you put it), then when should we expect it to die?
The question is whether we should expect Mustachianism to spread widely. If the only reason most people work more hours is to pay for ridiculous stuff they don't need, then Mustachianism should become pervasive with more and more living lives in some ways like the English upper class in Victorian times (particularly those who are highly-educated and well-compensated and can thus most easily save enough for early FI). If instead most people (particularly those who are highly-educated and well-compensated ) are increasingly working for "exploit" and getting much of their personal fulfillment and societal stature therefrom, then paid work should remain prevalent independent of the lure of consumerism.
The Oxford paper (which what I really hoped folks would discuss) seems to support the latter proposition.
-
.. I don't personally feel that "stop working" is the fundamental principle of mustachianism, but instead "have freedom to choose." ...
Similarly, mustachian frugality/self-reliance is, to me, for three good reasons-- first, it allows you to accelerate the date at which you achieve freedom to do whatever you want (including working). Second, it encourages introspection about what is important to you, and whether things or services genuinely make you happy, making personal decisions about the relative value of each. Third, it instills a self of pride in having a set of skills and abilities, and encourages self-improvement.
In essence, FU money gives you freedom to work or not work. Being frugal frees you from the feeling that you must purchase non-essential goods or services, making you more thoughtful and less stressed.
I'm totally with you on "have freedom to choose" being fundamental and that this is powered by frugality. But the "self-reliance" part, where that implies (in many many MMM posts) that it's simply a Good Thing to trade hours of higher-paid specialized work for hours of more general labor, is what I'm questioning. And self-reliance is, in this day and age, always just a veneer. MMM has mad carpentry skills I'll never have but he isn't going to personally make sheetrock or even plywood. The cars he recommends buying are modern ones laden with computers and require specialized equipment even to determine what's wrong.
Basically MMM seems to get personal "exploit" from manual labor, which is fair enough since "exploit" is after all a personal thing! But in the tone of posts his extrapolates that it's good for everyone... which (unlike LBYM and achieving FI) I'm not so sure about. That may only be because it's not stuff that (in general) floats my own boat but that just reinforces the proposition that there's no general principle here.
Another way to state this concern is that the MMM default approach in effect cheats on FI, because when you early-retire on a shoestring you are in effect committing to expend personal labor on various things rather than hire them done. That's fine but in that sense you aren't really FI. And if you aren't really FI yet, then whether you should meet your needs by doing X hours of low-skill unpaid labor or doing Y hours of high-skilled (and more rewarding) paid labor and hiring the job done with the proceeds is not obvious (perhaps even if Y > X). Whereas MMM seems to argue that it is obvious and in favor of the unpaid labor (even if X > Y).
Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. So, if what you are saying here were true, then you're saying someone who decides to move out into the middle of nowhere, live completely off the grid, raise his own food, and fend for himself completely isn't financially independent?
Your logic... Is not logical.
-
MMM doesn't endorse retiring on a shoestring. He endorses retiring on an amount of funds that allows you to sustain a lifestyle that makes you happy, and to pursue whatever *you* feel like pursuing. It is left to the individual to define what makes you happy and what you feel like pursuing. If that's work, so be it. The breakdown in your last reply is that you assume you must always compare manual labor's outsourcing cost against the possible income of the same amount of time. By not needing any money, you no longer need to assess how much you could be making with that time, because there is absolutely no need to make any amount of money. As to self reliance being a veneer, I don't think it's a veneer just because it has its limits. Even if you could make your own drywall, would the argument then become "well you didn't mine your own gypsum?" That's just silly. MMM merely asks that people open themselves up to the possibility that they are capable of more than they think they are, and to the possibility that they might derive some satisfaction from pushing their limits.
If you're FI/RE, and you decide that carpentry, renovation, or whatever are a worthwhile and fulfilling use of your time, so be it. If you decide that the best use of your time is sipping Mai Tais and paying someone else to do it, and you RE'd with the appropriate amount to support those choices, so be it. Nobody says that you have to make the same choices as MMM to be mustachian, just that you make *informed* choices.
In effect, MMM's philosophy removes the need to perform the calculus of "is this the best use of my time financially," and replaces it with "is this the most fulfilling use of my time."
-
I have had two personal problems with aspects of "Mustachianism".
One is the assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course.
I have a question in return; do you ever plan on retiring? The current retirement age is an arbitrary limit; why not retire at 80? If I accept your premise that retiring early is not desirable, then what is a satisfactory time to quit working if ever? If you plan on retiring before 80 generally the same arguments can be applied to retiring before 65.
-
So it seems most people addressed your first concern (that you have to ER when you're FI--clearly not), so I'll address your second, regarding specialization.
MMM promotes insourcing (and badassity) not out of necessity, but due to the happiness and satisfaction it brings.
Of course specialization exists. And of course we can exploit it.
But what you want to consider is: is my life better for it? I could use a bedpan and catheter and stay in bed all day. Would that make my life better? Probably not. I could hire someone to mow my lawn. Would that make my life better? Maybe, maybe not.
You have to decide where that line is for yourself.
MMM buys milk from the store, he doesn't milk his own animals.
Obviously insourcing vs. outsourcing is a line each much draw for themselves. MMM doesn't argue one should insource everything, but that one should consider what they are outsourcing, rather than accept things by default, like many people do, and should maybe push themselves to insource a little more than they are now, because the accompanying feeling of badassity and skills will improve their life more than the specialization (earning more during that hour and paying someone else to do that activity) will.
In other words, I reject both of your premises as being tenants of Mustachianism. :)
Specialization absolutely is a great thing. But the key is to not blindly do anything without consideration -- DIY (general jack of all trades) blindly or specialization blindly. It isn't an "either-or," but something you should consider for each thing in your life.
-
Why has no one mentioned that OP, has actually followed MMM in that having FU money, he traded money for less work time? Seems like you ARE on board! Welcome!
As for the second item, I would hope that the achievement and challenge of doing shit yourself would be self-evident. Like Arebelspy more eloquently points out, you in-source some things now that some would outsource (like complicated computer issues). Have you never put up a shelf? Could have hired a handyman. So you're not that far off on the second point either!
-
I would love to spend a reasonable amount of my day performing higher level intellectual, strategic, and educational activities. Sadly, our corporate wisdom has decided that it is more efficient to eliminate administrative and lower level employees and push tedious tasks, such as raw data input, back on highly compensated employees as they know we will complete the task at the expense of our personal time if need be. Even going as far as taking those who had moved past grunt status and pulling them back down. The only "exploit" that goes on is higher level managers sitting around trying to figure out how to exploit more out of their employees.
I will probably always "work" in some capacity, but my FI is all about doing it on my terms, and not being used and abused to make someone else look good.
-
But the idea that I'd be even better off not working at all has never felt right. I enjoy what I do and those whom I work with, and I feel I'm accomplishing good things for the world as well as myself in so doing. Having "FU money" is a very nice safety net and I am sure that if I didn't work I would (and hopefully someday will) pursue more vigorously various activities that I also enjoy and new ones to boot, but meanwhile I would rank most of my work time as among the most enjoyable of my overall time (and the least rewarding bits of work time as no less satisfying than the least rewarding of non-work time such as doing household chores).
Nothing wrong with working if it's one of the things that give you self worth and you value doing it. I would say that you're in the minority of most people, especially those interested in FI/RE. The "retiring early" goal doesn't mean you have to stop working and become a layabout, but it frees you to work on what you deem enriching. You're already there, so stay the course if it makes you happy.
Personally, I've been stuck in the movie Groundhog Day for 2.5 years at work. It pays well, is easy, and allows me to be home with the family more than more fulfilling work, but most days it feels like a sentence rather than a blessing. Imagine a task you could write a script to fully automate in 30 minutes, but you have to do manually for 5 years. I have FU Money, but choose not to pull the trigger. By the time this project finishes, I should be halfway to my "don't have to work unless I choose to" number. It may sound like laziness, but I prefer to change projects every 6 months or so because I enjoy learning and becoming better. Doing the same tasks for longer than that become monotonous and boring.
As far as the end of your post, what is stopping you from doing both "industry" and "exploit"? Balance can be very fulfilling. It's what I strive for, but the beam is usually, and currently, tilted.
-
I would love to spend a reasonable amount of my day performing higher level intellectual, strategic, and educational activities. Sadly, our corporate wisdom has decided that it is more efficient to eliminate administrative and lower level employees and push tedious tasks, such as raw data input, back on highly compensated employees as they know we will complete the task at the expense of our personal time if need be. Even going as far as taking those who had moved past grunt status and pulling them back down. The only "exploit" that goes on is higher level managers sitting around trying to figure out how to exploit more out of their employees.
I will probably always "work" in some capacity, but my FI is all about doing it on my terms, and not being used and abused to make someone else look good.
Yes yes yes... now THIS is precisely the MMM-ish tone that I have been reacting to! ;-)
The Oxford paper (which no one here seems to addressing due to the radar chaff of what folks have mis-interpreted as an attack on Mustachianism) implicitly questions whether this is in fact a generally increasing phenomenon (since if it was true we'd expect those with more income and thus more FI-ability to work less, not more but the trend is in the opposite direction). In other words, am I just lucky, or are true Mustachians a la MMM in some sense unlucky (being highly compensated enough to become FI, yet having unrewarding work time that can be preferentially swapped for "insourcing" time)?
-
Yes yes yes... now THIS is precisely the MMM-ish tone that I have been reacting to! ;-)
The Oxford paper (which no one here seems to addressing due to the radar chaff of what folks have mis-interpreted as an attack on Mustachianism) implicitly questions whether this is in fact a generally increasing phenomenon (since if it was true we'd expect those with more income and thus more FI-ability to work less, not more but the trend is in the opposite direction). In other words, am I just lucky, or are true Mustachians a la MMM in some sense unlucky (being highly compensated enough to become FI, yet having unrewarding work time that can be preferentially swapped for "insourcing" time)?
Frankly, I'm fairly certain we're being trolled, but I'll bite anyway.
I think you are getting very well reasoned and rational responses here. To cast them as rash reactions to an attack-- to even suggest that we see your point of view as an attack, and to not address the counterarguments, suggests that you are not open to looking at it in a different way. I don't need to rebut a 43 page paper in order to have valid arguments contrary to yours.
On the off chance that we are not being trolled, I am genuinely happy that you have found a path that makes you happy and works for you, which is what MMM is all about anyway. Carry on with my blessing.
-
Why has no one mentioned that OP, has actually followed MMM in that having FU money, he traded money for less work time? Seems like you ARE on board! Welcome!
As for the second item, I would hope that the achievement and challenge of doing shit yourself would be self-evident. Like Arebelspy more eloquently points out, you in-source some things now that some would outsource (like complicated computer issues). Have you never put up a shelf? Could have hired a handyman. So you're not that far off on the second point either!
Yes, I AM most definitely on board! :-)
Re: the 2nd item, sure... last week my son and I repaired a sailboat mast myself and it was definitely satisfying. I am trapping mice nightly, not calling pest control folks (at least not yet)... maybe not "satisfying" in the same way but still feels right. But I do "outsource" a lot lot more than MMM in part because I'm working full-time so have less available time. I guess to sum it up, MMM sometimes kinda seems to imply that not choosing as he does = "ridiculousness". To me, that part isn't what Mustachianism is all about.
-
I think you are getting very well reasoned and rational responses here. To cast them as rash reactions to an attack-- to even suggest that we see your point of view as an attack, and to not address the counterarguments, suggests that you are not open to looking at it in a different way.
+1.
Troll or not, OP does not seem open to other points of view. Or maybe isn't reading the replies?
-
I guess to sum it up, MMM sometimes kinda seems to imply that not choosing as he does = "ridiculousness". To me, that part isn't what Mustachianism is all about.
Yeah, it's not. Many of us have pointed out that your narrow reading doesn't mesh with how the rest of us read it. Maybe consider re-looking at how you read/interpret MMM's post, and keep in mind at the same time they're written with purposeful brashness designed to get through to people. Take what you can from them, and leave the rest. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater though.
-
...if what you are saying here were true, then you're saying someone who decides to move out into the middle of nowhere, live completely off the grid, raise his own food, and fend for himself completely isn't financially independent?
Your logic... Is not logical.
If someone has to work 60 hours per week at a job to pay for their food, are they financially independent? You will no doubt say: no way! So if another person has to work 60 hours a week on their farm in order to have enough food to eat, is it logical to consider them financially independent? Personally, I think not. In both cases their personal labor is equally essential to their survival as their personal capital is insufficient to allow them to do as they please with their time. It's true that the second person would have less dependence on the rest of civilization (but not none - they are probably buying seeds and tools and other stuff), but that is not what I call financial independence.
And the vast majority of the billion+ people who live in the middle of nowhere, off the grid, raising all their own food, and fending for themselves completely are not only working long hours in order to to live, but are not living well. It's hard to call a subsistence farmer in a remote hamlet "financially independent" with a straight face.
-
...if what you are saying here were true, then you're saying someone who decides to move out into the middle of nowhere, live completely off the grid, raise his own food, and fend for himself completely isn't financially independent?
Your logic... Is not logical.
If someone has to work 60 hours per week at a job to pay for their food, are they financially independent? You will no doubt say: no way! So if another person has to work 60 hours a week on their farm in order to have enough food to eat, is it logical to consider them financially independent? Personally, I think not. In both cases their personal labor is equally essential to their survival as their personal capital is insufficient to allow them to do as they please with their time. It's true that the second person would have less dependence on the rest of civilization (but not none - they are probably buying seeds and tools and other stuff), but that is not what I call financial independence.
And the vast majority of the billion+ people who live in the middle of nowhere, off the grid, raising all their own food, and fending for themselves completely are not only working long hours in order to to live, but are not living well. It's hard to call a subsistence farmer in a remote hamlet "financially independent" with a straight face.
"financially independent"
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean
-
And the vast majority of the billion+ people who live in the middle of nowhere, off the grid, raising all their own food, and fending for themselves completely are not only working long hours in order to to live, but are not living well. It's hard to call a subsistence farmer in a remote hamlet "financially independent" with a straight face.
The difference, of course, is that someone FI by the definition of an MMM adherent *does not have to do the work to survive*. They do it to enrich themselves, to challenge themselves, and for enjoyment. Draw your own line in the sand of what you *want* to do yourself, and what you *want* to pay for, and then earn the minimum amount of money necessary to support that lifestyle in perpetuity. Then do so, stress free.
-
...if what you are saying here were true, then you're saying someone who decides to move out into the middle of nowhere, live completely off the grid, raise his own food, and fend for himself completely isn't financially independent?
Your logic... Is not logical.
If someone has to work 60 hours per week at a job to pay for their food, are they financially independent? You will no doubt say: no way! So if another person has to work 60 hours a week on their farm in order to have enough food to eat, is it logical to consider them financially independent? Personally, I think not. In both cases their personal labor is equally essential to their survival as their personal capital is insufficient to allow them to do as they please with their time. It's true that the second person would have less dependence on the rest of civilization (but not none - they are probably buying seeds and tools and other stuff), but that is not what I call financial independence.
And the vast majority of the billion+ people who live in the middle of nowhere, off the grid, raising all their own food, and fending for themselves completely are not only working long hours in order to to live, but are not living well. It's hard to call a subsistence farmer in a remote hamlet "financially independent" with a straight face.
I agree, I think one has to have enough coming in from investments to support their lifestyle to be "financially independent" under a FIRE-type definition.
Many use the term to mean "not beholden to anyone else" -- e.g. when a teenager becomes "financially independent" from their parents when they move out and start paying their own bills. They aren't FI in our sense of the word, however. The farmer is similar. But if the farmer had an FU stache of 500k and could stop farming and buy all the food they need, but farm for pleasure and independence's sake, of course they're FI.
There's two different definitions of FI -- around here we commonly mean "have enough money to not work yet still pay all expenses."
The farmer is not that type of FI. But he is the type of FI as in "not dependent on anyone else financially."
-
I think you are getting very well reasoned and rational responses here. To cast them as rash reactions to an attack-- to even suggest that we see your point of view as an attack, and to not address the counterarguments, suggests that you are not open to looking at it in a different way.
+1.
Troll or not, OP does not seem open to other points of view. Or maybe isn't reading the replies?
I am reading replies (as my paid work permits, ha ha) & am very open to other points of view. But I was hoping that SOMEONE would express such views about the linked articles rather than about the fluff I put around them (that was really intended to just get the conversation started, trying for a bit of MMM brashness myself was perhaps a bit much though since yeah OK there's not really a "fatal flaw"...).
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
-
I think you are getting very well reasoned and rational responses here. To cast them as rash reactions to an attack-- to even suggest that we see your point of view as an attack, and to not address the counterarguments, suggests that you are not open to looking at it in a different way.
+1.
Troll or not, OP does not seem open to other points of view. Or maybe isn't reading the replies?
I am reading replies (as my paid work permits, ha ha) & am very open to other points of view. But I was hoping that SOMEONE would express such views about the linked articles rather than about the fluff I put around them (that was really intended to just get the conversation started, trying for a bit of MMM brashness myself was perhaps a bit much though since yeah OK there's not really a "fatal flaw"...).
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
Maybe because it seems completely obvious?
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers)
There's no one question to your answer.
Paid work can certainly be quite interesting.
Other work is not interesting at all, that's why they have to pay people to do it.
And some people find some work interesting that others would find quite boring. And some find it interesting at first, then tire of it over time.
For most of us here though, we want the flexibility to move on when the work is no longer interesting (if it ever was) or find more interesting things than work in ER. Others will continue their work, and not ER after FI, because they find it interesting enough.
THAT's the bottom line for Mustachianism--freedom to work, or not, as you choose, and find interesting work, or play.
For me, I love my job. But I've done it 8 years. That's plenty of time to get out of it what I wanted, and move on to other interesting things.
If your job is interesting, great. But is it the only interesting thing, ever? Is there nothing else out there that would interest you? If so, work at your job for 40 years. That's cool. In the meantime, reduce your waste (ala Mustachianism). If then you find that you want other things, you have the freedom to move on.
Regular paid work is interesting to an individual. Or it's not. But that's irrelevant to Mustachianism.
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
What about the work being paid makes it more interesting? Is attaching money to it a panacea that makes it instantaneously more rewarding? I do not find my my satisfaction with my job is increasing. Nor, I suspect (and anecdotally observe), do most others.
Your assumption here also seems to be that ER = inactivity, whereas for must of us, it's not at all. In fact, I anticipate greatly increased activity. More travel, more entrepreneurial ventures, and all without any obligation to continue them if I become dissatisfied, because I am not chained to them as a means of supporting myself. In ER, I am opening up my job for someone else who needs the money, and filling my hours in a way that is far more interesting to me. At present, nobody is willing to offer me a job for the same wage that allows me to do whatever I want, whenever I want.
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
What about the work being paid makes it more interesting? Is attaching money to it a panacea that makes it instantaneously more rewarding? I do not find my my satisfaction with my job is increasing. Nor, I suspect (and anecdotally observe), do most others.
Your assumption here also seems to be that ER = inactivity, whereas for must of us, it's not at all. In fact, I anticipate greatly increased activity. More travel, more entrepreneurial ventures, and all without any obligation to continue them if I become dissatisfied, because I am not chained to them as a means of supporting myself. In ER, I am opening up my job for someone else who needs the money, and filling my hours in a way that is far more interesting to me. At present, nobody is willing to offer me a job for the same wage that allows me to do whatever I want, whenever I want.
This. And once I am FI, if someone magically decides to offer me a salary in exchange for me doing whatever I want, whenever I want, for as long as I agree to have him or her give me that salary, that doesn't mean I won't be FI anymore.
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
Honestly, I'm not sure it matters much if engaging work is becoming "more" or "less" common. What matters is simply, "Is MY work engaging? Would I continue to do this (or any job) if I didn't need the money?" If yes, keep working. If no, find a way to RE.
I'm glad you love your work so much. There are others like you here who are really only interested in FI, not RE. My entirely anecdotal experience is that you are in the minority (not here in particular, but IRL), but I could be wrong. I am one of the many here who has a well-paying knowledge-work job and is fighting hard for FIRE. What pays well and what I enjoy doing are not the same - even if the paid work is intellectually engaging.
There is something intrinsically enjoyable about the *freedom* to do as I please, even if what I end up choosing is technically the same activity. I enjoy coding, but doing it on my own time would cut out the politics, the paperwork, the meetings, etc. which compose 90% of my workdays. If you don't have to deal with that stuff at your knowledge-work job then I'm super jelly :)
-
Generally speaking, I dislike my job and can't wait to quit and pursue the things I enjoy (which are very difficult to monetize, and so cannot be my source of income themselves).
If you enjoy your work and have no other pressing priority (as MMM had fatherhood) then I say more power to you. This is about choice; being free to choose what you do with your time, and free to change your mind at a moment's notice without worrying how you will house, clothe or feed yourself.
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
Here's where personal opinion comes into play. The study comes to the conclusion that highly educated individuals are working more than less educated ones, but the study can't come close to explaining why that is. So I'll present another theory: highly educated individuals are not immune to advertising, logical errors, lifestyle creep, and keeping up with the Joneses. Therefore, when one is highly educated (correlating with high compensation) each hour they work leads to more earnings, much more earnings than an extra hour worked by a person of little education. That extra work is more valuable because they're compensated more for it!
Another point: from the quote in your original post, they mention that there are less dull jobs and more glamorous ones. That is simply untrue. There may be fewer "dull jobs" thanks to automation and efficiency, but I don't see the rise in "glamorous jobs". Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that most "glamorous jobs" they're thinking about have a small group of highly-compensated individuals and a large group of folks making marginal amounts of money from these jobs.
I believe you're reading the results of the study correctly, but the meaning you're drawing from those results is incorrect. Regular paid work is NOT getting more interesting except for an exceptionally small group, those who derive their self-worth and value from their jobs. That fact doesn't call Mustachianism into question.
-
Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy “exploit” at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off.
If the argument really is this ridiculous, I'm not surprised most people aren't commenting on the paper. Most jobs are very very dull. I think the Economist columnist doesn't have a clue how many cashiers, janitors, and call center workers there are in this country.
-
Super simple explanation: there is dignity and self worth in accomplishments.
If you find that in a 9-5 job after you hit FI then keep at it. If you prefer to accomplish new things and learn new skills with DIY tasks after you ER then you should do that. To each his own but I think Mustachianism is about personal growth.
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
Here's where personal opinion comes into play. The study comes to the conclusion that highly educated individuals are working more than less educated ones, but the study can't come close to explaining why that is. So I'll present another theory: highly educated individuals are not immune to advertising, logical errors, lifestyle creep, and keeping up with the Joneses. Therefore, when one is highly educated (correlating with high compensation) each hour they work leads to more earnings, much more earnings than an extra hour worked by a person of little education. That extra work is more valuable because they're compensated more for it!
Another point: from the quote in your original post, they mention that there are less dull jobs and more glamorous ones. That is simply untrue. There may be fewer "dull jobs" thanks to automation and efficiency, but I don't see the rise in "glamorous jobs". Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that most "glamorous jobs" they're thinking about have a small group of highly-compensated individuals and a large group of folks making marginal amounts of money from these jobs.
I believe you're reading the results of the study correctly, but the meaning you're drawing from those results is incorrect. Regular paid work is NOT getting more interesting except for an exceptionally small group, those who derive their self-worth and value from their jobs. That fact doesn't call Mustachianism into question.
This is the discussion I was hoping for on this thread.
But you assert as "fact" without any data or supporting arguments ("I don't see the rise..." and "I would be willing to bet..." don't count) the thesis that "Regular paid work is NOT getting more interesting except for an exceptionally small group". Admittedly the Oxford paper and Economist article offered only indirect evidence for the alternative proposition that regular paid work is generally getting more interesting (in the upper tier of compensation/education, which is not a small group and in which I'd bet an overwhelming majority of current Mustachians sit) but they did at least offer some supporting arguments, including the point that a number of activities that were once leisure-time gentlemenly pursuits, such as scientific research, so thus ipso facto interesting, are now clearly mainly paid work and not often/easily done by amateurs.
Anyway so how could we empirically test this question? One way might be to investigate whether people presented with the option not to work, choose not to do so at a greater or lesser rate than in the past. If at a greater rate, that would support the proposition that regular paid work is getting less interesting. If at a lesser rate, that would support the alternative (albeit complicated by longer life expectancies). We could look at the % of folks choosing early vs. late retirement, or even whether the rise of Obamacare (which has free many of us from having to worry as much about "mainstream" employment) has led to more early retirement vs. more entrepreneurship. I don't know the answer and I'm not necessarily supporting the Oxford/Economist line.
-
Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy “exploit” at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off.
If the argument really is this ridiculous, I'm not surprised most people aren't commenting on the paper. Most jobs are very very dull. I think the Economist columnist doesn't have a clue how many cashiers, janitors, and call center workers there are in this country.
Well there's quite a bit of data in the Oxford study and some more nuanced conclusions... as I said The Economist naturally only sound-bited it. But regarding "Most jobs are very very dull" the question isn't whether that's true or not, the question is whether the percentage of interesting jobs is growing or shrinking. Certainly one would expect there are now fewer cashiers and janitors, proportionally, than there once were... thanks to automation. Call center workers, well probably significantly fewer in *this* country ;-), in a way also thanks to technology.
-
Again the main question I'm trying to ask here is whether, if regular paid work is really getting more rather than less interesting (for the most educated/skilled workers), that would call into question the "insourced=good" plank of Mustachianism as well as about actually doing ER=good (as something applicable to most folks vs. just as particular personal choices among many)? I'm not hearing much responsiveness to this question.
Here's where personal opinion comes into play. The study comes to the conclusion that highly educated individuals are working more than less educated ones, but the study can't come close to explaining why that is. So I'll present another theory: highly educated individuals are not immune to advertising, logical errors, lifestyle creep, and keeping up with the Joneses. Therefore, when one is highly educated (correlating with high compensation) each hour they work leads to more earnings, much more earnings than an extra hour worked by a person of little education. That extra work is more valuable because they're compensated more for it!
Another point: from the quote in your original post, they mention that there are less dull jobs and more glamorous ones. That is simply untrue. There may be fewer "dull jobs" thanks to automation and efficiency, but I don't see the rise in "glamorous jobs". Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that most "glamorous jobs" they're thinking about have a small group of highly-compensated individuals and a large group of folks making marginal amounts of money from these jobs.
I believe you're reading the results of the study correctly, but the meaning you're drawing from those results is incorrect. Regular paid work is NOT getting more interesting except for an exceptionally small group, those who derive their self-worth and value from their jobs. That fact doesn't call Mustachianism into question.
This is the discussion I was hoping for on this thread.
But you assert as "fact" without any data or supporting arguments ("I don't see the rise..." and "I would be willing to bet..." don't count) the thesis that "Regular paid work is NOT getting more interesting except for an exceptionally small group". Admittedly the Oxford paper and Economist article offered only indirect evidence for the alternative proposition that regular paid work is generally getting more interesting (in the upper tier of compensation/education, which is not a small group and in which I'd bet an overwhelming majority of current Mustachians sit) but they did at least offer some supporting arguments, including the point that a number of activities that were once leisure-time gentlemenly pursuits, such as scientific research, so thus ipso facto interesting, are now clearly mainly paid work and not often/easily done by amateurs.
Anyway so how could we empirically test this question? One way might be to investigate whether people presented with the option not to work, choose not to do so at a greater or lesser rate than in the past. If at a greater rate, that would support the proposition that regular paid work is getting less interesting. If at a lesser rate, that would support the alternative (albeit complicated by longer life expectancies). We could look at the % of folks choosing early vs. late retirement, or even whether the rise of Obamacare (which has free many of us from having to worry as much about "mainstream" employment) has led to more early retirement vs. more entrepreneurship. I don't know the answer and I'm not necessarily supporting the Oxford/Economist line.
No, what you were hoping for was someone to argue with so you could flex your intellectualism (disclaimer: my opinion, since you seem to take everything as stated fact). We know from psychology that people aren't very good and choosing the optimal path for themselves or their own happiness, so a population study in early vs. late retirement is useless in this case.
The study shows that some previously unpaid jobs, done for fulfillment, are now getting paid. Cool story bro. But that doesn't support your original argument.
-
Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy “exploit” at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off.
If the argument really is this ridiculous, I'm not surprised most people aren't commenting on the paper. Most jobs are very very dull. I think the Economist columnist doesn't have a clue how many cashiers, janitors, and call center workers there are in this country.
Well there's quite a bit of data in the Oxford study and some more nuanced conclusions... as I said The Economist naturally only sound-bited it. But regarding "Most jobs are very very dull" the question isn't whether that's true or not, the question is whether the percentage of interesting jobs is growing or shrinking. Certainly one would expect there are now fewer cashiers and janitors, proportionally, than there once were... thanks to automation. Call center workers, well probably significantly fewer in *this* country ;-), in a way also thanks to technology.
I'm a little lost. I guess I'm wondering why the question is whether the percentage of interesting jobs is growing or shrinking. What do overall trends have to do with anything? As posted by AJ above, isn't the only relevant data point the enjoyability of one job -- the one you're working?
-
OP, did you actually read the paper you cite? I read through the paper, and the sound bite from the Economist you quote does not accurately summarize the paper's actual research content. They covered data on time spent in categorized activities, showing that higher compensated people are indeed working more. No data was presented regarding people's satisfaction (or lack thereof) with these activities.
It's hard to find comparisons of job satisfaction surveys for more than a few years, but this article
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/20/most-americans-are-unhappy-at-work/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/20/most-americans-are-unhappy-at-work/)
summarizes a recurring study from the Conference Board which shows a significant decline in worker happiness since 1987, with currently less than half of those surveyed saying they're satisfied in their jobs.
My personal take on people who are highly satisfied with their jobs (especially in tech or IT fields) is that they're often limited intellectually, socially, and athletically.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert A. Heinlein
You bring up another false dichotomy that many people use to justify hiring others to do work: "I'll work at my highly compensated job because my compensation per hour > compensation rate of xxx specialist, who I'll hire." This is only true if you do in fact work extra hours rather than do this task. Most of the time this is not true; our labor hours and/or compensation is set, and we pay others while we sit unproductively rather than learn new tasks and broaden our skill set.
Additionally, I'd posit that if you're working so much that you can't take on non-"paid work" tasks, your life/work balance is already skewed, and not favorably.
Even if we were to accept the (very unproven) thesis that some modern jobs offer the equivalent of Veblen's "exploit" satisfaction to workers, I'd say that narrow, specialized stature is a pale, sad shadow of what those historical aristocrats strove for: accomplishment in many areas, engagement in intellect, art, public policy, adventure.
That's my goal for financial independence: to live better, more broadly, to take the offered chance. I don't think I can do that in an office.
-
...the sound bite from the Economist you quote does not accurately summarize the paper's actual research content. They covered data on time spent in categorized activities, showing that higher compensated people are indeed working more. No data was presented regarding people's satisfaction (or lack thereof) with these activities...
Correct... that was only a possible explanation for the data (suggested in the original paper as well as by The Economist). It's right to be skeptical of "Just So Stories" but OTOH there must be some explanation and this data does at least suggest that higher compensated people aren't already rushing towards Mustachianism.
My personal take on people who are highly satisfied with their jobs (especially in tech or IT fields) is that they're often limited intellectually, socially, and athletically.
Richard Branson is more what I was thinking about as a paradigm of job satisfaction blending with life satisfaction. I don't think it would be easy to call him limited intellectually, socially, or athletically.
...Even if we were to accept the (very unproven) thesis that some modern jobs offer the equivalent of Veblen's "exploit" satisfaction to workers, I'd say that narrow, specialized stature is a pale, sad shadow of what those historical aristocrats strove for: accomplishment in many areas, engagement in intellect, art, public policy, adventure.
That's my goal for financial independence: to live better, more broadly, to take the offered chance. I don't think I can do that in an office.
That most historical aristocrats were really Renaissance Men is of course also a very unproven thesis. It is certainly true that many of them weren't skilled in basic trades or things like cooking and cleaning or sometimes even dressing themselves. And many of the hereditary upper class who made the most memorable contributions were rather narrow in their accomplishments (e.g. Charles Darwin).
But I'm with you about living more broadly! This week I've fixed a sailboat mast, climbed a mountain, assisted with my town's government, helped fundraise for a kids competition, and gone dancing... as well as spent time in my actual job. So no I couldn't live more broadly *just* in an office. The question here is whether for most of us the office will still have a significant role to play in that overall mosaic of life. To the degree that the answer is "yes" then the full-throttle version of Mustachianism (get FI ASAP and drop out of the rat race) should remain of more limited appeal rather than (as MMM sometime seems to posit) being pretty much the best plan for all, with staying with a traditional career spun as a mug's game for over-consumers (and I guess in your version also nerds who don't have a real life).
-
the full-throttle version of Mustachianism (get FI ASAP and drop out of the rat race) should remain of more limited appeal
And again, multiple people have told you that's not their interpretation of Mustachianism. Do you think you might be reading it wrong if basically no one else reads it that way? You keep harping on this made up definition of Mustachianism that many of us have told you seems to be a very odd misinterpretation.
Mustachianism is about FI and options and badassity, yes. It's not about dropping out ASAP. It's about building a good life. If quitting your job gets you there, great. If working does, great.
-
Anyway so how could we empirically test this question? One way might be to investigate whether people presented with the option not to work, choose not to do so at a greater or lesser rate than in the past.
Yep, we could ask those in the intellectually demanding jobs whether they'd stay at their jobs for free if they won the lottery. The lottery earnings wouldn't be enough to, say, open their own research lab, but would be enough to live very comfortably.
Richard Branson is a fine example of someone who continues to work. Of course, he's an extreme outlier that's irrelevant to the rest of us working schleps. Most of us have to contend with irrational deadlines, non-listening bosses, and inane rules.
-
Correct... that was only a possible explanation for the data (suggested in the original paper as well as by The Economist). It's right to be skeptical of "Just So Stories" but OTOH there must be some explanation and this data does at least suggest that higher compensated people aren't already rushing towards Mustachianism.
That most historical aristocrats were really Renaissance Men is of course also a very unproven thesis.
Aaaargggghhhhh!
Freebeer, I'm trying not to get frustrated and listen to your posts, but I can't help it.
For starters, the word 'data' is plural. Datum is the singular form of data. It is incorrect to say "this data" or "the data is." Also, data are quantifiable observations. The data do not suggest anything; we merely infer what mechanisms may be causing specific patterns in our data.
Also, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation for a pattern or phenomenon that has been rigorously tested and is generally agreed upon.
A thesis is a body of work focusing on related questions. A hypothesis is a narrow and testable explanation for a specific pattern or phenomenon.
In most cases you are presenting neither a theory nor a hypothesis. Your assertions are not theories because they are not well substantiated or broadly supported, and they are not hypotheses (at least not in this thread) because there are no data with which to challenge them.
I will just throw my voice into the chorus here saying that I do not believe a tenent of mustachianism is to quit work as soon as possible. Instead, the goal is to maximize happiness by spending wisely and gaining financial freedom.
Also, I agree with kendallf that you are stretching what was presented in that paper to conform to your argument. The data are simply not there to support the conjectures being made.
EDIT: typo
-
Kill me now. Please, no more of these we have an "obligation" to ourselves and society to work and do what we're good at nonsensical threads. (Spider-Man may feel he has a duty to society, but I sure as shit don't.) Or any more of the "luck" craziness. (Dunno why somebody who's reading Oxford academic papers would start talking about "luck" anyway.)
-
...
I will just throw my voice into the chorus here saying that I do not believe a tenant of mustachianism is to quit work as soon as possible...
I think you meant "tenet". It's not fundamental but certainly it is woven into MMM's discourse and default advice. For example, MMM just recently tweeted to the Canadian couple worried about making it on $200K/year to "retire RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" (and the caps were his, not mine). This where no indication was presented in the source article that either person found their work at all burdensome (to the contrary the wife said about her prior job that “I loved the people and the work was always challenging”). So that sure sounded like "quit work as soon as possible" to me.
Anyway I was just trying to poke a bit at this ... but I hadn't yet seen the thread on Sacred Cows, that captured it and much much more and the humor's more overt.
-
Correct... that was only a possible explanation for the data (suggested in the original paper as well as by The Economist). It's right to be skeptical of "Just So Stories" but OTOH there must be some explanation and this data does at least suggest that higher compensated people aren't already rushing towards Mustachianism.
That most historical aristocrats were really Renaissance Men is of course also a very unproven thesis.
Aaaargggghhhhh!
Freebeer, I'm trying not to get frustrated and listen to your posts, but I can't help it.
For starters, the word 'data' is plural. Datum is the singular form of data. It is incorrect to say "this data" or "the data is." Also, data are quantifiable observations. The data do not suggest anything; we merely infer what mechanisms may be causing specific patterns in our data.
Also, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation for a pattern or phenomenon that has been rigorously tested and is generally agreed upon.
A thesis is a body of work focusing on related questions. A hypothesis is a narrow and testable explanation for a specific pattern or phenomenon.
In most cases you are presenting neither a theory nor a hypothesis. Your assertions are not theories because they are not well substantiated or broadly supported, and they are not hypotheses (at least not in this thread) because there are no data with which to challenge them.
I will just throw my voice into the chorus here saying that I do not believe a tenant of mustachianism is to quit work as soon as possible. Instead, the goal is to maximize happiness by spending wisely and gaining financial freedom.
Also, I agree with kendallf that you are stretching what was presented in that paper to conform to your argument. The data are simply not there to support the conjectures being made.
it's tenet, not tenant. :)
(oh, and co-sign with everyone disagreeing with the OP. the paper is ridiculously long, but one trend in the US is that lower-paid jobs are often hourly and thus 40-hour-per-week gigs, while higher-paid jobs are salaried and thus "work-whenever-the-man-says-so")
-
I think you meant "tenet".
Typo corrected. This is what happens when you don't proof-read with autocorrect ;-)
It's not fundamental but certainly it is woven into MMM's discourse and default advice. For example, MMM just recently tweeted to the Canadian couple worried about making it on $200K/year to "retire RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" (and the caps were his, not mine). This where no indication was presented in the source article that either person found their work at all burdensome (to the contrary the wife said about her prior job that “I loved the people and the work was always challenging”). So that sure sounded like "quit work as soon as possible" to me.
I read that article, and I can understand MMM's advice - she recently unemployed, and they've been working incredibly hours while at the same time bleeding money. Their challenge is that without her very high income they are unable to continue to spend $172k/year. They are stressed because they cannot find a jobs which will pay such high wages. Their two stated goals were retirement and funding their children's education.
I think what's written between the lines is that most of their expenses now are to pay for them to work these absurd hours, and without working there's no need for a nanny, a grocery service, and private preschool.
-
...
I will just throw my voice into the chorus here saying that I do not believe a tenant of mustachianism is to quit work as soon as possible...
I think you meant "tenet". It's not fundamental but certainly it is woven into MMM's discourse and default advice.
Again: no.
-
...
I will just throw my voice into the chorus here saying that I do not believe a tenant of mustachianism is to quit work as soon as possible...
I think you meant "tenet". It's not fundamental but certainly it is woven into MMM's discourse and default advice. For example, MMM just recently tweeted to the Canadian couple worried about making it on $200K/year to "retire RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" (and the caps were his, not mine). This where no indication was presented in the source article that either person found their work at all burdensome (to the contrary the wife said about her prior job that “I loved the people and the work was always challenging”). So that sure sounded like "quit work as soon as possible" to me.
Anyway I was just trying to poke a bit at this ... but I hadn't yet seen the thread on Sacred Cows, that captured it and much much more and the humor's more overt.
"retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Not every sound bite is going to carry the nuance expressed in a couple hundred MMM articles, interviews, etc. I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire." Also, a lot of his posts begin with some reader comment/case study that sets the stage for "retirement = stop working" based on the reader's preference, so context has to be considered as well.
-
Mustachianism is about FI and options and badassity, yes. It's not about dropping out ASAP. It's about building a good life. If quitting your job gets you there, great. If working does, great.
This is also how I view Mustachianism. FI allows choices. Right now, I'm working because I need to. I'd like to reach a point in my life when I can choose if I still want to work (and I probably will). My SO has no desire to retire. Once we reach FI, we can decide to take sabbatical breaks to travel. But that option isn't possible until we reach a certain level of financial independance.
-
Mustachianism is about FI and options and badassity, yes. It's not about dropping out ASAP. It's about building a good life. If quitting your job gets you there, great. If working does, great.
This is also how I view Mustachianism. FI allows choices. Right now, I'm working because I need to. I'd like to reach a point in my life when I can choose if I still want to work (and I probably will). My SO has no desire to retire. Once we reach FI, we can decide to take sabbatical breaks to travel. But that option isn't possible until we reach a certain level of financial independance.
This is a good answer. My job is not perfect. The fact that I can quit at any time is what makes my life good. Right now, I'd still rather work, but if the d-baggery at my company ratchets up more, I can pull the rip-cord whenever I want.
-
..."retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire."...
Exactly my point: MMM typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working.
The question is whether this is in fact true (for folks at the upper end of education/income, for whom Mustachianism ER is a reasonable possibility).
-
..."retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire."...
Exactly my point: MMM typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working.
The question is whether this is in fact true (for folks at the upper end of education/income, for whom Mustachianism ER is a reasonable possibility).
Well then you both missed the post about the internet retirement police. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/) The great thing is that how you two are defining it is not the only way to look at it, something almost everyone in this thread has tried to say. MMM comes across as wanting people to achieve financial independence, that is if they wanted to quit working they could, if they wanted to keep working they could, if they wanted to play games all day they could, if they wanted to build a spaceship they could...etc. It's about buying future options versus being forced to stay in one option for forty years.
-
... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working...
Exactly... that's really my only point here, together with the question of whether MMM is generally correct in that assumption (regarding people in the upper tier of education/income, which are arguably those for whom Mustachian ER is the most realistic option).
BTW to some earlier responders in this thread - I do NOT place any negative value-judgment on ER (MMM style or any style) nor am I a member of the "retirement police". I don't believe that working for a salary is necessarily more contributive to society than other pursuits and am also a believer that informal/flexible work arrangements is on a vector to becoming more common than 9-5 toiling. I am just curious how broadly the ER part of Mustachianism (vs. the LBYM/frugality part of Mustachianism) should be expected to appeal, given those of us who achieve FI and don't seem to be so interested in ER.
A secondary point is that if most high earners aren't so interested in FI then the imperative for frugality is perhaps significantly lower. If a person expects to keep utilizing their significant embodied capital no matter what - because that is providing "exploit" satisfaction - then achieving FI sooner rather than later arguably could be more a nice-to-have than a must-do for that person. So some consumerism could be explained not as suckas getting increasingly stuck in traps but as rational ridiculousness because they are already (thanks to embodied capital) infinitely wealthy in MMM terms.
-
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?" and him saying "Hell yes!" -- obviously it looks like he's telling them to quit, because they're asking if they can, and he responds emphatically. That's not the tone of the overall message though, nor the point of Mustachianism.
It seems your mind is much too closed to gain anything from this, so I won't go on or address any other points, as it seems like a waste of time.
Best of luck to you, freebeer.
-
So you're trying to differentiate between a veneer, the character MMM who with some bombast talks about "FREEEEEDOM" and the actual content of his posts? How he "comes off" is just the flash, it's the window dressing. You're ignoring the content of the store.
-
I'll chime in a bit regarding this notion of "exploit"...
I work in a very specialized field - hydrogeology - it doesn't get much more specialized.
It's an infinitely interesting field, results in decent compensation, and I certainly think it is important work for society (water is life etc.).
But based on ~ 25 yrs. experience now - in both public and private sector - the only "exploit" I see is the grinding down of the workforce under, as others have pointed out, ridiculous workloads, impossible productivity goals, and "mission creep" i.e. mostly doing administrative, accounting, and project management rather than scientific / technical work.
I think this comes down to a philosophical question of what work is meant to be - I originally got into a technical specialized field because the conventional wisdom was that was the path to not having a job that involved breaking rocks all day for 12 hr shifts or repetitive motion injury destruction of your body like my Dad endured on an assembly line at GM. Sure if you wanted to dedicate every waking moment to pursuing your chosen specialty then by all means have at it. But the lure was that the other option was equally viable - that a good job could be had that allowed reasonable hours and provided a good honest living in an endeavor that didn't just turn your brain or body to mush after a few years. In my opinion though an opportunistic corporate culture, an asinine obsession with the Protestant work ethic, and a workforce largely on the consumer treadmill and possessing a "race to the bottom" mentality, have created an environment where the only sane decision for a lot of non-workaholic people is to pursue ER, regardless of how much they like their chosen field in theory.
-
I find your pseudo-intellectual tone insufferable.
Here's what it boils down to for me: In the current state of the western world, you generally need money to survive, and generally have to perform some sort of work to get money. I want to get myself to a point where I have all of the money I need to continue my lifestyle, and then am able to exist without worrying about money. Where I can work if I choose, or I can sleep away my days in a field if I choose. I am actively working to break free from my current wage-slave status.
-
I suggest you read this blog post from MMM:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/
But a third category is the Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual (Swami).
....
The message is that even if you’re not looking to actually retire from your job, your working life will improve quite magically as you grow your money mustache and start needing the job less and less.
I think that shooting for achieving Swami status is an ideal thing for EVERYONE who is still working – whether your goal is complete early retirement or just continued elevation along the levels of the Swami scale (note that most CEOs and celebrity types are in fact Swamis themselves – they absolutely do not need the money from working but they continue out of a sense of purpose).
-
I find your pseudo-intellectual tone insufferable.
Consistent with forum rule # 2, I think we should all generally strive to respond to the content and the merits of a post, not the tone (unless the tone is unambiguously offensive). It's easy to misconstrue a post's tone (which is not always easily expressed through this medium of communication), and I've been both a victim and a perpetrator of this myself. Who knows, the tone you're calling "pseudo-intellectual" could very well be considered simply "intellectual" if you agreed with the content being expressed :-)
-
I find your pseudo-intellectual tone insufferable.
Consistent with forum rule # 2, I think we should all generally strive to respond to the content and the merits of a post, not the tone (unless the tone is unambiguously offensive). It's easy to misconstrue a post's tone (which is not always easily expressed through this medium of communication), and I've been both a victim and a perpetrator of this myself. Who knows, the tone you're calling "pseudo-intellectual" could very well be considered simply "intellectual" if you agreed with the content being expressed :-)
If we're citing rules, allow me to put forward the following:
Orwell's Six Rules
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-
The RETIRE RIGHT NOW statement many people refer to on here is usually in conjunction with "i dont have enough to retire" or "i hate my job" or any other statement not saying i love my job and i'll work for ever.
Your also and older person if you've been working for 30 years. and your generation identified themselves with their careers much more than the millenial generation does.
if you gave 90%+ of the people in this country unlimited funds (basicaly the FI we speak of here) and asked them what they would do with it ... most if not all would not be working the same job the same way they are right now.
This is independence
This is the freedom we are striving for here
I like what i do... its fun... but if given the choice to do any of my hobbies that currently makes me no money full time i'd probably be doing much more of that and less of this. but thats just me
-
The MMM default approach (work less than 10 years saving like crazy, then retire early) is not so great if we make the assumption that "exploit" is (for many of us) best undertaken at an office rather than in our kitchens. And if we are getting good "exploit" (and, perhaps, even "badassity") at the office, then what's the point of seeking it at home by doing routine chores. Being a "jack of all trades" is great and all, but is it worth greatly reducing the "embodied capital" of an educated specialist?
I think there are a couple things with this:
1. I am a jack of all trades by nature. At my age, of course, I have specialized knowledge and depth in many areas of engineering, because I've been doing it so long. But I like to have my fingers in a lot of things. AT work and at home, so as not to get bored.
2. The problem with full specialization and ignoring all aspects of "jack of all trades" is when you can't get a job anymore and have no other skills to fall back on. What if you CAN'T get anyone to pay you for your expertise anymore? And then you don't know how to cook, clean, garden, mend, etc?
-
And if you aren't really FI yet, then whether you should meet your needs by doing X hours of low-skill unpaid labor or doing Y hours of high-skilled (and more rewarding) paid labor and hiring the job done with the proceeds is not obvious (perhaps even if Y > X). Whereas MMM seems to argue that it is obvious and in favor of the unpaid labor (even if X > Y).
I'm not sure how I would do that, as a full time salaried employee.
Doing my own cooking means I can save money on my own time.
Trying to get a paying job? At my rate, I cannot get a second job at half time.
That's the big disconnect. Plus a second half time job is AWAY from my kids, which, duh, cooking is not.
-
This is the freedom we are striving for here
I like what i do... its fun... but if given the choice to do any of my hobbies that currently makes me no money full time i'd probably be doing much more of that and less of this. but thats just me
Ditto. I actually have an amazing job. I'm paid well, don't work long hours, and get to work on a pretty wide variety of projects, and administrivia is not too ridiculous. The work is interesting, and usually not too stressful, I'm appreciated and I have some flexibility in my schedule. However, I still have to put in 80 hours every two weeks, attend meetings and conference calls, and sit indoors on beautiful days. Right now it's 64 and sunny, but will probably be raining over the weekend, so I'd love to chuck my responsibilities and go work in the garden or ride my horses. I guess those are my exploits, but I don't want to do either of those things for 80 hours a week, either. I bend over backwards to pack them into my schedule though, because being a professional basically means working 40+ hours per week, unless you're FI enough to freelance and take projects ad hoc. I think that most professional jobs, even if they have intellectual variety, don't offer enough physical variety - that is, I've got my ass in a chair for 6+ hours most days, and it goes against my nature - working more to pay for stuff I could DIY, would mean going even more against nature by spending more time in front of a screen instead of moving and engaging my brain in more hands-on ways that my work does not (digging in the dirt, building things, training horses). Let's not also forget that DIY skills, even if you don't employ them every day, are recession-proofing. Skills like gardening and scratch cooking are undervalued, and underestimated, IMO. It's taken me a solid decade to get really good at both skills, to the point that I can grow a big portion of our food and be really efficient at using it. People who think they'd use these skills in a crunch, but haven't developed them, might be in for a rude awakening on the learning curve involved.
http://www.raptitude.com/2010/07/your-lifestyle-has-already-been-designed/
-
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
Only? Did you even read his tweet that I referenced?
-
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
Only? Did you even read his tweet that I referenced?
Did you? The tweet is a response to an article that states:
"The couple has two key long-term goals that they’re concerned about: saving enough in RESPs to pay for a university education for their three kids, and retiring when Raj turns 60 with $85,000 a year in net income for the rest of their lives."
Obviously retirement *is* a goal for this couple. Are you seriously implying that all the nuance of MMM's philosophy can be encapsulated in 140 characters inclusive of the link to the article itself?
Frankly, you seem to be continuously moving the goalposts. Nobody reads the fundamental philosophy espoused by this site as you seem to. Rather than accept a differing viewpoint from your own or accept that you might be reading it differently than the majority, you muddy the waters with a seemingly slippery premise, and then suggest that others are the ones at fault when you yourself cannot be pinned down. You don't seem to want to find common ground-- and can't accept when others won't jump on board your flawed reading of MMM.
If you want to continue to argue, summarize your own viewpoint, and be consistent. Also, make sure to do it in less than 140 characters.
-
If you want to continue to argue, summarize your own viewpoint, and be consistent. Also, make sure to do it in less than 140 characters.
Hear, hear!
(And while you're at it, you might as well take pains to follow Orwell's six rules of writing...)
-
"exploit" is (for many of us) best undertaken at an office rather than in our kitchens
Interesting point and I fit more in this category. For me retirement isn't the goal, it's getting enough FI to let me pursue however much I want of whatever else I feel like wherever it happens to be. I guess that doesn't make for as interesting a blog though.
-
I have had two personal problems with aspects of "Mustachianism".
One is the assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course.
So, fine. Don't subscribe. Have a great life.
The second, arguably related assumption, is that personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities (home remodeling, house cleaning, growing vegetables, etc. ) is more meritorious than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services.
I basically don't agree with either proposition.
Seriously, why would you waste your time here?
As background, I'm someone with a similar educational background to that of MMM who has for over 30 years engaged in generally "salaried" work in the IT industry.
I am definitely a supporter of the "LBYM" aspect of Mustachianism including the implicit rejection of ridiculousity in our consumerist society. And for the last 4+ years, while I'm still fully employed, I have traded significantly reduced total compensation for much more time flexibility and autonomy.
But the idea that I'd be even better off not working at all has never felt right. I enjoy what I do and those whom I work with, and I feel I'm accomplishing good things for the world as well as myself in so doing. Having "FU money" is a very nice safety net and I am sure that if I didn't work I would (and hopefully someday will) pursue more vigorously various activities that I also enjoy and new ones to boot, but meanwhile I would rank most of my work time as among the most enjoyable of my overall time (and the least rewarding bits of work time as no less satisfying than the least rewarding of non-work time such as doing household chores).
I recently stumbled on an article by researchers at Oxford University that deals with this issue and the seeming dilemma that the most highly compensated people are now working the most hours: http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/wp20143.pdf
The Economist sound-bited it (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out) as:
Back in 1899 Thorstein Veblen... argued that leisure was a “badge of honour”. Rich people could get others to do the dirty, repetitive work—what Veblen called “industry”. Yet Veblen’s leisure class was not idle. Rather they engaged in “exploit”: challenging and creative activities such as writing, philanthropy and debating.
Veblen’s theory needs updating... Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy “exploit” at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off. On the flip side, leisure is no longer a sign of social power. Instead it symbolises uselessness and unemployment.
The MMM default approach (work less than 10 years saving like crazy, then retire early) is not so great if we make the assumption that "exploit" is (for many of us) best undertaken at an office rather than in our kitchens. And if we are getting good "exploit" (and, perhaps, even "badassity") at the office, then what's the point of seeking it at home by doing routine chores. Being a "jack of all trades" is great and all, but is it worth greatly reducing the "embodied capital" of an educated specialist?
Of course this approach has worked great for MMM himself... I'm just questioning it as a general recommendation. And that harsh last bit ("leisure ... now symbolises uselessness and unemployment") might even help explain why early-retired folks seem to have a harder time getting dates...
And I don't agree with any of those propositions.
On the other hand, I have a neighbor in his late 70's who is still working. It is his life, his decision. I have no desire to second guess him.
-
I enjoy what I do and those whom I work with, and I feel I'm accomplishing good things for the world as well as myself in so doing.
If you have a truly important and rewarding job, e.g. performing life saving surgery on small children or cute puppies, and really enjoy it, then fine, keep working.
But most of us work the 98% of jobs that are NOT especially important and are not rewarding in any way other than salary and benefits. We work not because we wake up every morning thinking "Oh BOY! I can't wait to fight the traffic, get to my job, and spend 10-hours hunched over a computer churning out the financials on the Jones Account today!"
Sometime next week while you are at your job, ask yourself, "If I could be anywhere or doing anything right now, is sitting here at my job where I would choose to be if 1) I was not being paid to do it and 2) society/family didn't expect it of you?
If you can truly say that, compensation and societal pressure aside, there is nothing in the world you'd rather be doing than whatever you do at work, you are blessed far beyond what most people can ever hope for. Either that, or you need counseling for workaholism.
I hear people say "I love my job and wouldn't quit yada yada yada" all the time. But they usually change their tune pretty quick when I get them to really consider if that is what they really want to do, more than anything else in life.
When they really analyze it, the reason most of them work is to make money (with societal pressure being a distant, but significant, second). But if you already have more money than you need, why do something that isn't really what you most want to do, just to earn more money that you don't need?
BTW, it is NOT always easy to break out of the mold that society expects us to conform to- especially in the USA, where "work" is revered to an insane degree (far more than in Europe).
My wife is a perfect example. She says she likes her work, but bitches about it all the time.
But she simply can't pull the trigger and quit. She doesn't have the courage to put up with the crap she'd get from friends, family, society. So she trudges to work every day to make more money that we don't need.
I'm still working on her- if I can get a workaholic like her to quit before age 60, I'll consider it a victory. :)
-
Well, freebeer, I'm not sure what you're after here. You seem to want a discussion on a certain topic ("are Americans really happy or unhappy in their work, and has happiness in work increased in the last couple of generations"). We've had one response that linked to an article suggesting that Americans are quite unhappy in their work. Have you done a google scholar search for articles that support this question one way or another?
Or are you looking for anecdotal evidence? Because I can offer some if that's what you're looking for.
I'm highly educated and specialized- PhD in aerospace engineering, and I have a job in my field. I've had several jobs in my field, actually, the kind that people would call dream jobs.
But the thing is- in order to get paid by somebody, I have to do the job THEY want me to do. I don't have the freedom to pursue the pure research I really love (except on the side, for free- which I am doing, incidentally.) At the moment, I'm quite unsatisfied in my job, as it has become a quagmire of documentation, meetings, and management. I'm in the process of making changes and exploring options (some smaller, some more drastic) to improve my job satisfaction. But the point remains that despite my specialization, and the fact that I really like my coworkers and work in a positive and supportive office, the job is not so fun that I'd be there at all if I weren't getting paid for it.
In fact...I don't know a single person in that office who would continue to work there if they didn't need the money. At least, not full time. Half time? If you could drop the half of the job that's awful? (meetings, documentation, reports etc)? Then maybe. In fact, I might plan to work half time after we're FI to fund some extras or the kids' educations or what have you, if I could find a task that's sufficiently interesting and convince my company to let me do it. But I still wouldn't do it for free.
If I were working for free? I've got research ideas of my own I'd pursue. And my garden. And extended summer camping trips with my family. And fitness/exercise pursuits. And a list of other things.
The point is- when I'm FI, I'll have the choice to either continue to work part time in my field (a good choice for me I think if I can find such an arrangement) or not. To take leaves of absence to spend with my children in the summer (if corporate policy will allow me to). To ditch the horrible soul-sucking parts of my job. And to NOT spend 40 hours a week damaging my body by leaving it sedentary in front of a computer.
So what are you looking for here? I am highly specialized and work in the space industry (space! cool!) and I know zero people at my place of work who would still be there in a month if they won the lottery today. Anecdotal, yes. But there's my experience, and that's why I'm choosing to pursue financial independence.
-
If I were FI, I would probably keep working for awhile, but I would work differently. No more repetitive weekly safety meetings rehashing the same rehashed hash. No more mandatory annual bullshit training. I would work the hours that pleased me (taking off that sunny Wednesday mentioned earlier) and I would attend more conferences irrespective of my employer's willingness to pay. I would ignore the painfully detailed annual performance review and I would take a solid month off every year and travel. I would leave early every Monday for martial arts @ 430 rather than having to take the late class. Et cetera.
I would do more actual work and less irrelevant bullshit.
-
It's like HDT said, if you are happy as you are then maybe some of the ideas don't apply:
I do not mean to prescribe rules to strong and valiant natures, who will mind their own affairs whether in heaven or hell, and perchance build more magnificently and spend more lavishly than the richest, without ever impoverishing themselves, not knowing how they live — if, indeed, there are any such, as has been dreamed; nor to those who find their encouragement and inspiration in precisely the present condition of things, and cherish it with the fondness and enthusiasm of lovers — and, to some extent, I reckon myself in this number; I do not speak to those who are well employed, in whatever circumstances, and they know whether they are well employed or not; — but mainly to the mass of men who are discontented, and idly complaining of the hardness of their lot or of the times, when they might improve them. There are some who complain most energetically and inconsolably of any, because they are, as they say, doing their duty. I also have in my mind that seemingly wealthy, but most terribly impoverished class of all, who have accumulated dross, but know not how to use it, or get rid of it, and thus have forged their own golden or silver fetters.
-
..."retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire."...
Exactly my point: MMM typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working.
The question is whether this is in fact true (for folks at the upper end of education/income, for whom Mustachianism ER is a reasonable possibility).
Well then you both missed the post about the internet retirement police. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/) The great thing is that how you two are defining it is not the only way to look at it, something almost everyone in this thread has tried to say. MMM comes across as wanting people to achieve financial independence, that is if they wanted to quit working they could, if they wanted to keep working they could, if they wanted to play games all day they could, if they wanted to build a spaceship they could...etc. It's about buying future options versus being forced to stay in one option for forty years.
I think I've been misunderstood here. Probably my fault.
I don't think MMM assumes folks always want to quit working -- I've read everything he's written on the subject and know that's not the case. The point of my post was simply that not every sound bite carries all of that nuance; the tweet referenced was a great example of that. So, someone could be forgiven for making the assumption that MMM thinks everyone wants to quit their jobs, if their only exposure was via these sound bites and they hadn't read deeper. That's all I meant.
The bit about context (i.e. the 'subject' has already stated their desire to quit, thus MMM is replying in kind under the assumption that is the goal) was not quoted by freebeer above and is kind of critical to the point I was making. ARS stated this more clearly:
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
-
..."retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire."...
Exactly my point: MMM typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working.
The question is whether this is in fact true (for folks at the upper end of education/income, for whom Mustachianism ER is a reasonable possibility).
Well then you both missed the post about the internet retirement police. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/) The great thing is that how you two are defining it is not the only way to look at it, something almost everyone in this thread has tried to say. MMM comes across as wanting people to achieve financial independence, that is if they wanted to quit working they could, if they wanted to keep working they could, if they wanted to play games all day they could, if they wanted to build a spaceship they could...etc. It's about buying future options versus being forced to stay in one option for forty years.
I think I've been misunderstood here. Probably my fault.
I don't think MMM assumes folks always want to quit working -- I've read everything he's written on the subject and know that's not the case. The point of my post was simply that not every sound bite carries all of that nuance; the tweet referenced was a great example of that. So, someone could be forgiven for making the assumption that MMM thinks everyone wants to quit their jobs, if their only exposure was via these sound bites and they hadn't read deeper. That's all I meant.
The bit about context (i.e. the 'subject' has already stated their desire to quit, thus MMM is replying in kind under the assumption that is the goal) was not quoted by freebeer above and is kind of critical to the point I was making. ARS stated this more clearly:
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
All this is crazy talk. If you enjoy it or not, what does that matter? But I believe MOST people would not want to HAVE TO work if they so chose. It's the "having to" in order to live a decent life that is the problem. I don't mind my job, but I'd like to not HAVE TO do it. ...See the difference there?
I believe MMM is 100% correct if he extolls the position that MOST PEOPLE would rather not HAVE TO work.
"Yes, I like going to work every day" versus "Yes, I like HAVING to go to work every day."
Ersh... People can create the hugest logical conundrums out of nothing. :(
-
..."retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire."...
Exactly my point: MMM typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working.
The question is whether this is in fact true (for folks at the upper end of education/income, for whom Mustachianism ER is a reasonable possibility).
Well then you both missed the post about the internet retirement police. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/) The great thing is that how you two are defining it is not the only way to look at it, something almost everyone in this thread has tried to say. MMM comes across as wanting people to achieve financial independence, that is if they wanted to quit working they could, if they wanted to keep working they could, if they wanted to play games all day they could, if they wanted to build a spaceship they could...etc. It's about buying future options versus being forced to stay in one option for forty years.
I think I've been misunderstood here. Probably my fault.
I don't think MMM assumes folks always want to quit working -- I've read everything he's written on the subject and know that's not the case. The point of my post was simply that not every sound bite carries all of that nuance; the tweet referenced was a great example of that. So, someone could be forgiven for making the assumption that MMM thinks everyone wants to quit their jobs, if their only exposure was via these sound bites and they hadn't read deeper. That's all I meant.
The bit about context (i.e. the 'subject' has already stated their desire to quit, thus MMM is replying in kind under the assumption that is the goal) was not quoted by freebeer above and is kind of critical to the point I was making. ARS stated this more clearly:
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
All this is crazy talk. If you enjoy it or not, what does that matter? But I believe MOST people would not want to HAVE TO work if they so chose. It's the "having to" in order to live a decent life that is the problem. I don't mind my job, but I'd like to not HAVE TO do it. ...See the difference there?
I believe MMM is 100% correct if he extolls the position that MOST PEOPLE would rather not HAVE TO work.
"Yes, I like going to work every day" versus "Yes, I like HAVING to go to work every day."
Ersh... People can create the hugest logical conundrums out of nothing. :(
I'm not sure who you are aiming this blinding glimpse of the obvious towards? Did you actually read the post you were replying to?
-
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
Only? Did you even read his tweet that I referenced?
Did you read the SWAMI article yet? It's already been linked once.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/
And then there's the article about the guy who hated early retirement.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/03/23/reader-story-the-man-who-thought-early-retirement-sucked/
MMM clearly thinks it's fine for people to keep working if that's what they want to do. Please acknowledge.
-
Today's article seems directly relevant:
Great News – Early Retirement Doesn’t Mean You’ll Stop Working (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/).
Maybe now you'll read MMM the same way the rest of us do, freebeer. It might be worth rereading the old posts with that mindset, you may get a lot more out of them. :)
-
..."retire - and by that I mean either quit working altogether or do something you enjoy regardless of income - RIGHT NOW - you've made it!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. ... I think you are right that he typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working, but he'd be a giant gasbag if he always attached a full explanation of what is meant when he says "retire."...
Exactly my point: MMM typically comes across as assuming that most people want to quit working.
The question is whether this is in fact true (for folks at the upper end of education/income, for whom Mustachianism ER is a reasonable possibility).
Well then you both missed the post about the internet retirement police. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/) The great thing is that how you two are defining it is not the only way to look at it, something almost everyone in this thread has tried to say. MMM comes across as wanting people to achieve financial independence, that is if they wanted to quit working they could, if they wanted to keep working they could, if they wanted to play games all day they could, if they wanted to build a spaceship they could...etc. It's about buying future options versus being forced to stay in one option for forty years.
I think I've been misunderstood here. Probably my fault.
I don't think MMM assumes folks always want to quit working -- I've read everything he's written on the subject and know that's not the case. The point of my post was simply that not every sound bite carries all of that nuance; the tweet referenced was a great example of that. So, someone could be forgiven for making the assumption that MMM thinks everyone wants to quit their jobs, if their only exposure was via these sound bites and they hadn't read deeper. That's all I meant.
The bit about context (i.e. the 'subject' has already stated their desire to quit, thus MMM is replying in kind under the assumption that is the goal) was not quoted by freebeer above and is kind of critical to the point I was making. ARS stated this more clearly:
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
Not every soundbite will carry every nuance... I can agree to that. But we're not talking about single soundbites but whole articles. When someone is discussing a "fatal flaw" in a system and utilizes soundbites to defend their position rather than try to understand the system being discussed then they are going to be wrong usually. Relying on soundbites to come up with your opinion on a thing is intellectually lazy.
And the last part with ARS's quote is also true for anyone not asking that question. People who are asking the question "Can I become financially independent and still work?" will not even see anything about retiring. So while ARS is correct in what he is saying I think it is being misinterpreted as a defense for the idea that MMM is all about retirement, which it is not. It is more about learning about what you want out of life and taking responsibility for creating that life. That could be retirement, it could be work, it could be anything.
Forest from the trees.
-
I know I'm new here....and new to MMM in general. I find this post very interesting feel compelled to comment.
The OP's main gripe here seems to be that if you are truly Mustachian, then it is truly right and just to drop your day job like a bad habit. Also they question "is work getting more/less interesting". It is also noteworthy that they carry a self-proclaimed heavy bias that work "is interesting"...and working at your day job is far more enjoyable than menial tasks like home improvement.
Many senior members of the forum have repeatedly argued with great conviction that quitting your job the minute you are able to is not essential to being Mustachian.
I know I've just repeated the obvious, but bear with me.
The OP likes his job, which is great, and is waving an Oxford paper around saying "hey, people like me who are well educated and well paid find work interesting" . Why would one do this? And why come here to do it? The answer seems pretty clear - they are rationalizing something. Rationalizing wanting to work. That's what is bothering the OP - an underlying need to rationalize the desire for them to continue working.
To the OP - Why rationalize working? But more importantly, why the NEED to rationalize working?
I'm not a psychologist - couldn't be further from one. When someone heavily biased in one direction comes to a forum heavily biased in another direction they are either looking for a fight (which they do not appear to be), or are looking to rationalize some behavior by getting somebody to say something that they disagree with that will push them past the tipping point in their stance on the issue.
Good luck.
-
The Oxford study just says that work is more enjoyable than it used to be, not that work is enjoyable, period. If 10% of jobs used to be enjoyable, and 20% of jobs are now enjoyable, that's not all that meaningful. There are plenty of studies that show that a large percentage of the workforce is dissatisfied with their jobs.
Going back to the original two points:
I have had two personal problems with aspects of "Mustachianism".
One is the assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course.
The second, arguably related assumption, is that personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities (home remodeling, house cleaning, growing vegetables, etc. ) is more meritorious than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services.
I basically don't agree with either proposition.
Let's fix these straw men:
1) Minimizing the number of years of BS work is a generally desirable element of an individual life's course.
2) Personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities is often more rewarding and efficient than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services.
Bringing this back to the latest MMM post, if there are any "supposed to's" in Mustachianism, it's that you're supposed to use your FI as leverage to find the work you like to do (in agreement with OP), and to not do it more than you want to. In addition, you're supposed to insource things that people generally outsource inefficiently because of laziness/learned-helplessness/working-too-muchness.
-
The OP likes his job, which is great, and is waving an Oxford paper around saying "hey, people like me who are well educated and well paid find work interesting" . Why would one do this? And why come here to do it? The answer seems pretty clear - they are rationalizing something. Rationalizing wanting to work. That's what is bothering the OP - an underlying need to rationalize the desire for them to continue working.
To the OP - Why rationalize working? But more importantly, why the NEED to rationalize working?
Not the OP, and also new, but let me chip in my $.02. I'm in the same boat as the OP, high performer, fairly high salary (same with my wife on both accounts), and enjoy my job. I read a lot of financial blogs (I work in finance), and stumbled across this one.
What I object to, and maybe the OP too, is that people who aren't following the same MMM path "don't get it" "are sheeples" "are mindless" "are conspicuous consumption consumers" etc. And it's simply not true. I can consciously, knowledgably deviate from the MMM path because my goals are not necessarily the same as the MMM goals. If the goal is (for example) to save 50% of your salary for 10 years so you are FI and can walk away, maybe it makes sense for me to save 25% of my salary for 20 years, because I'm not in such a hurry. So you see me in my car, or at a restaurant, or watching cable TV, and it's not because I "don't get it" or am a "sheeple", it's because I've set a budget for myself, including a fairly significant amount of savings on a dollar basis (even if not as impressive %-wise) and that budget still allows for indulgences. The way this blog is written doesn't really seem to account for that.
And then I read
But most of us work the 98% of jobs that are NOT especially important and are not rewarding in any way other than salary and benefits. We work not because we wake up every morning thinking "Oh BOY! I can't wait to fight the traffic, get to my job, and spend 10-hours hunched over a computer churning out the financials on the Jones Account today!"
Sometime next week while you are at your job, ask yourself, "If I could be anywhere or doing anything right now, is sitting here at my job where I would choose to be if 1) I was not being paid to do it and 2) society/family didn't expect it of you?
If you can truly say that, compensation and societal pressure aside, there is nothing in the world you'd rather be doing than whatever you do at work, you are blessed far beyond what most people can ever hope for. Either that, or you need counseling for workaholism.
It honestly makes me feel sad. I wonder what type of life and surroundings this person has to feel this way. Is every waking moment at my job pure bliss? Of course not. Do I sit at my desk and look at my picture of a sailboat and of the Hawaii coastline and wish I was doing those things? Sure. But those are fairly fleeting; I know I'd get tired with those things as well. It's like seeing a smokin' hot chick walk down the street; there might be a temporary flare up of lust, but I know I'll be much happier going home to my wife whom I love (and is a looker too!) Point is, IN GENERAL, MOST OF THE TIME, I like being at my job enough that I am not in a huge hurry to leave, and, as a bonus, it pays pretty well too. I really think that the membership here attributes a much higher amount of hatred for their job to the average person than is realistic. As Shakespeare said "If all the year were playing holidays; To sport would be as tedious as to work.”
Anyways, not looking to pick a fight, or talk for the OP, but just trying to clarify that just because someone has different priorities or goals does not make them wrong, and that because their goals may differ, seeing them in pursuit of them may look wrong or dumb or silly from one perspective, but correct from another. If you're walking to the mountains, and I'm walking into town, sure, my path is a stupid ignorant way to get to the mountains. But if I'm going to the town, maybe I know what I'm doing.
-
The OP likes his job, which is great, and is waving an Oxford paper around saying "hey, people like me who are well educated and well paid find work interesting" . Why would one do this? And why come here to do it? The answer seems pretty clear - they are rationalizing something. Rationalizing wanting to work. That's what is bothering the OP - an underlying need to rationalize the desire for them to continue working.
To the OP - Why rationalize working? But more importantly, why the NEED to rationalize working?
Not the OP, and also new, but let me chip in my $.02. I'm in the same boat as the OP, high performer, fairly high salary (same with my wife on both accounts), and enjoy my job. I read a lot of financial blogs (I work in finance), and stumbled across this one.
What I object to, and maybe the OP too, is that people who aren't following the same MMM path "don't get it" "are sheeples" "are mindless" "are conspicuous consumption consumers" etc. And it's simply not true. I can consciously, knowledgably deviate from the MMM path because my goals are not necessarily the same as the MMM goals. If the goal is (for example) to save 50% of your salary for 10 years so you are FI and can walk away, maybe it makes sense for me to save 25% of my salary for 20 years, because I'm not in such a hurry. So you see me in my car, or at a restaurant, or watching cable TV, and it's not because I "don't get it" or am a "sheeple", it's because I've set a budget for myself, including a fairly significant amount of savings on a dollar basis (even if not as impressive %-wise) and that budget still allows for indulgences. The way this blog is written doesn't really seem to account for that.
It's like you haven't read the thread. There are people who do not interpret it as needing to have a 50% savings rate in order to receive your MMM badge. It's cool if 25% is what you save and you've optimized the shit out of your expenses. But if you're just sitting pretty with some upper middle class/rich life and are able to save 25% out of sheer lack of needing to buy that yacht then you're not getting it.
From the OP -
I have had two personal problems with aspects of "Mustachianism".
One is the assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course.
The second, arguably related assumption, is that personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities (home remodeling, house cleaning, growing vegetables, etc. ) is more meritorious than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services.
I basically don't agree with either proposition.
You already admit to the first assumption just via the fact that you're saving. You are on the MMM spectrum. Many people are who do plan on working for as long as they wish. The saving isn't to "retire" so much as it is to have purchased future options. People who don't get the concept of buying their future are the sheeple, people who sit there and live life according to what they see in advertisements or because that's what they've always been told and they can't imagine a different way of living, those people... they're sheeple. You could still be a sheeple w/ 25% savings rate, but probably not as you've demonstrated an ability to realize that money is for the future and spending it all now on crap isn't necessarily good for your long term happiness and health. Maybe we're just having problems with interpreting the blog differently than you. I tend to look at things and figure out how they can apply to me and my life, not necessarily worry about whether my goals are identical to the author (which is ridiculous, we're different people, we'll have different goals).
-
There are people who do not interpret it as needing to have a 50% savings rate in order to receive your MMM badge. It's cool if 25% is what you save and you've optimized the shit out of your expenses. But if you're just sitting pretty with some upper middle class/rich life and are able to save 25% out of sheer lack of needing to buy that yacht then you're not getting it.
Great example, very well put.
-
It's like you haven't read the thread. There are people who do not interpret it as needing to have a 50% savings rate in order to receive your MMM badge. It's cool if 25% is what you save and you've optimized the shit out of your expenses. But if you're just sitting pretty with some upper middle class/rich life and are able to save 25% out of sheer lack of needing to buy that yacht then you're not getting it.
Entirely possible that I'm not getting it. I haven't "optimized the shit out of my expenses" because I don't need to in order to maintain a reasonable savings rate. So I guess I'm closer to your "sheer lack of needing to buy that yacht" end of the scale (though the yacht in question would be a dinghy), but struggle to understand why there is a required sacrifice component.
IOW, reading this blog there's a feeling that you might see me on the street and say "there's a guy in a $30k car who must be commuting to a job he hates in order to support his materialistic lifestyle, on a debt-based treadmill he'll never get off of." Instead, you could say "there's a guy driving a paid-for car to a job he likes, and he's got a healthy growing nest egg and a financially comfortable lifestyle that he can easily afford to support." Yes, the latter is "not mustachian" but it's also not "sheeple." Balance. Middle ground. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement of that in the "MMM" vs. "Sheeple" dichotomy that has been created.
-
It's like you haven't read the thread. There are people who do not interpret it as needing to have a 50% savings rate in order to receive your MMM badge. It's cool if 25% is what you save and you've optimized the shit out of your expenses. But if you're just sitting pretty with some upper middle class/rich life and are able to save 25% out of sheer lack of needing to buy that yacht then you're not getting it.
Entirely possible that I'm not getting it. I haven't "optimized the shit out of my expenses" because I don't need to in order to maintain a reasonable savings rate. So I guess I'm closer to your "sheer lack of needing to buy that yacht" end of the scale (though the yacht in question would be a dinghy), but struggle to understand why there is a required sacrifice component.
IOW, reading this blog there's a feeling that you might see me on the street and say "there's a guy in a $30k car who must be commuting to a job he hates in order to support his materialistic lifestyle, on a debt-based treadmill he'll never get off of." Instead, you could say "there's a guy driving a paid-for car to a job he likes, and he's got a healthy growing nest egg and a financially comfortable lifestyle that he can easily afford to support." Yes, the latter is "not mustachian" but it's also not "sheeple." Balance. Middle ground. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement of that in the "MMM" vs. "Sheeple" dichotomy that has been created.
Actually there's no assumption you're commuting to a job you hate. The assumption is that you're probably living a scripted life. That scripted life doesn't necessarily mean that you're uncomfortable or sad. There are plenty of people who live all sorts of lifestyles and are happy with it. Are they living their lives though? If it's a script they're getting from what living a middle class lifestyle should be then probably not. And that's cool if you're cool with it. I would say the Mustachian would be living the life they want to, and their savings would be a tool to do so. If that included some aspects of middle class life I can see it. But if it was just a carbon copy of middle class life then I can't.
The note on optimization is more about tackling the waste that our lives generate. About setting good solid sustainable examples of living for ourselves and future generations. A standard middle class lifestyle is extremely wasteful, again... if you're cool w/ that... The optimization is about minimizing that, and frankly to us it's not sacrifice, it's just living. Just as you seem to assume I see a middle class person commuting to work and shake my head and think those thoughts, you are stating that you see a person who is not in a fancy car commuting to a middle class job and think that they are sacrificing, when in fact they are probably living a financially comfortable lifestyle that they can easily afford to support.
The false dichotomy that is being put in place is either that you live a middle class lifestyle or are suffering. Not MMM vs. Sheeple. There is no suffering on my side of the fence. There are tons of people who live completely fine middle class lifestyles on probably a quarter of what you spend. Hence the terms "Volcano of Wastefulness", which I am a part of too. I try to work at it, it is a process and a lifestyle, not a line in the sand. If you don't buy into it or don't get it, fine, have a nice day and an awesome life. If you do, then you'll work towards it because it is a fulfilling aspect of living, not some sacrifice to it.
And furthermore it seems you've ignored the rest of my post about defining sheeple more. I'll repost it just in case you just happened to miss it. :)
You already admit to the first assumption just via the fact that you're saving. You are on the MMM spectrum. Many people are who do plan on working for as long as they wish. The saving isn't to "retire" so much as it is to have purchased future options. People who don't get the concept of buying their future are the sheeple, people who sit there and live life according to what they see in advertisements or because that's what they've always been told and they can't imagine a different way of living, those people... they're sheeple. You could still be a sheeple w/ 25% savings rate, but probably not as you've demonstrated an ability to realize that money is for the future and spending it all now on crap isn't necessarily good for your long term happiness and health. Maybe we're just having problems with interpreting the blog differently than you. I tend to look at things and figure out how they can apply to me and my life, not necessarily worry about whether my goals are identical to the author (which is ridiculous, we're different people, we'll have different goals).
-
Entirely possible that I'm not getting it. I haven't "optimized the shit out of my expenses" because I don't need to in order to maintain a reasonable savings rate. ...
The "optimizing" is based on the idea that being above a certain level of consumption, you hit rapidly diminishing returns. What advantage does a $30K car have over a $10K reliable car? It's about scaling our spending and our perception according to our actual needs.
... Instead, you could say "there's a guy driving a paid-for car to a job he likes, and he's got a healthy growing nest egg and a financially comfortable lifestyle that he can easily afford to support." Yes, the latter is "not mustachian" but it's also not "sheeple." Balance. Middle ground. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement of that in the "MMM" vs. "Sheeple" dichotomy that has been created.
Statistically, you wouldn't say that, because many high earners live beyond their means, but if we had special insight into your life and finances, we might say, "That guy has a job he likes right now, but he's using his excess income on the diminishing returns of consumption rather than on financial freedom to weather future life changes." Your job is good right now, but it could suck in no time flat. Your family might go through a crisis, and you could have the flexibility to be there for it. Are you going to wait until it happens to cut the fat? How confident are you that you'll love your job for 30 more years?
-
Purposeful living is a key part of the Mustachian Volksgeist.
The guy driving to work as described certainly could be Mustachian, but not if he's merely following a script, as matchewed points out, and there's likely waste and areas that could be improved, and ways they could be happier.
-
MMM comes across as wanting people to retire only in the context of people asking "Can I retire?"...
Only? Did you even read his tweet that I referenced?
Did you read the SWAMI article yet? It's already been linked once.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/
And then there's the article about the guy who hated early retirement.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/03/23/reader-story-the-man-who-thought-early-retirement-sucked/
MMM clearly thinks it's fine for people to keep working if that's what they want to do. Please acknowledge.
Yes, I did and I guess I could be considered a "Swami". But of course labeling someone who has "FU Money" yet is still working in their chosen profession as "retired" is neither accurate nor helpful. I certainly don't apply that label to myself. But that's just a question of semantics and I understand why MMM uses the term as he does especially given his personal situation which was not just achieving FI and then carrying on.
The original question of my post though was different, it is about how many such professionals, having achieved FI, we should expect to really want to immediately "retire" (actually, not just in their mind, and at least to MMM's level of a major pivot from what they've been doing, even if not to a life of leisure). The Oxford study seemed to suggest that the appeal of that aspect of Mustachianism might perhaps be more limited than some here might think, and I thought that was interesting. Unfortunately this thread degenerated into finger-pointing rather than a discussion of this question.
-
The original question of my post though was different, it is about how many such professionals, having achieved FI, we should expect to really want to immediately "retire" (actually, not just in their mind, and at least to MMM's level of a major pivot from what they've been doing, even if not to a life of leisure). The Oxford study seemed to suggest that the appeal of that aspect of Mustachianism might perhaps be more limited than some here might think, and I thought that was interesting. Unfortunately this thread degenerated into finger-pointing rather than a discussion of this question.
Honestly, I think there have been some very detailed responses posted to your two questions in your OP, as well as some discussion about why the conclusions from the Oxford study are not what you portray them to be. I would suggest that you go back and read some of the carefully constructed counterarguments made by many of the people here. Certainly not all of them agree with your statements, but the point of debate is to see another viewpoint. As for that...
You first brought up an "assumption that minimizing the number of years of traditional (salaried / company) work is a generally desirable element of an individual's life course." Numerous people, many of them senior mMustachians, have said that this is not actually part of their core values, but you've continued down this line of questioning. It's a bit absurd; in a very real sense you are telling the very people define this lifestyle that they believe something else.
The second point you raised about how personally engaging in a wide variety of useful activities (home remodeling, house cleaning, growing vegetables, etc. ) is more meritorious than trading the monetary fruits of specialized labor for such services was similarily addressed. The idea that one should pay specialists to do everyday items on the basis that they earn more money per-hour at their jobs has some inherent flaws. First, it assumes that all the time that you save by hiring someone else will be spent actually working more. Second, it assumes that the individual gets nothing out of doing these jobs themselves. For example, it might take 3 hours to learn how to replace a fan belt in your vehicle the first time, but you wind up learning a lot about a car's engine by doing this, you probably wouldn't reduce your working hours to change the fan belt, and you very likely will gain a sense of personal accomplishment after the job is done. As a bonus, the job will take substantially less time the next time (changing the cost-benefit analysis) and the more you know about cars the easier it will be to prevent and repair future problems (which IMO is the real value of doing something like this).
Does this hold true for every situation? of course not. I wouldn't try to do my own dental work (even though there are websites on exactly how to accomplish this), and MMM has written about how he uses a Mexican drywall crew because they simply are so incredible at this specific task.