Cognitive dissonance on pursuit of FI

[Judith681]

Hi all,

I have been a lurker a while now and to post again as feeling so much cognitive dissonance over the pursuit of FI and other life values I try to adhere to. I am struggling with trying to live a life of simplicity, anti consumerism and lack of focus on materialistic pursuits as well as being an admirer of much Buddhist philosophy and similar such thinking. I feel like in order to fuel growth which enables my investments to provide perpetual interest that can be lived off, I need others to consume and produce for my own benefit. It makes me feel two faced in a sense.

I have read MMMs article on what if everyone followed MMM principles etc but I don't really understand the idea that it's capital provided by investors that fuel growth, it's my $750,000 that I can live off forever without ever having to technically do a thing if I chose not too. My investment money never went directly to a business to fund its growth, mine was given to the secondary market. It still seems that I will need growth from companies and the economies at large to fund the continued interest on my investments and this seems to come largely from companies making stuff and providing services that people consume.

Even though I preach that money doesn't buy you happiness, I still have FI as a huge goal and will have huge loads of cash in investment form allowing me to live without working, it just seems to go against other things I hold dear to in ways and seems overly selfish. I find it hard to reconcile these things and wonder if I am alone in this or if others ever have similar thoughts.

I'd love to get some thoughts on how to overcome these feeling of cognitive dissonance as I am still all up for the pursuit of FI.

Judith

[forest]

"Even though I preach that money doesn't buy you happiness, I still have FI as a huge goal and will have huge loads of cash in investment form allowing me to live without working, it just seems to go against other things I hold dear to in ways and seems overly selfish."

...this caught my eye. I do not think there is a conflict at all. Really, what you are trying to buy with money is not happiness.

What you are trying to do is to buy freedom. Happiness cannot be bought, but freedom from having to work can absolutely be bought.

Whether or not this will lead to more happiness is another matter.

As for the ethics of investing, that is another matter. Don't really have a good answer for that one...

[Yaeger]

The biggest thing that helped me was becoming comfortable with never having access to the money. I set up direct deposits to my TSP (401k) and to my Vanguard taxable accounts. I've spent the last 3 years slowly increasing the amount going into that as I slowly become more cost-conscious and eliminate spending. You don't miss it if you don't have a chance to spend it.

I've also kept my standard of living relatively the same and just push all my raises and bonuses directly into investments. So i basically live on the salary of a college grad just entering the professional workforce.

*edited for spelling

[aceyou]

This is definitely NOT a silver bullet, but here's a ted talk about ways to invest in index funds where sustainability and promoting positive social values are prerequisites for making it into the fund. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/audrey_choi_how_to_make_a_profit_while_making_a_difference?language=en

It personally bothers me that exxon mobil is the 3rd largest holding in VTSAX, given that I put every extra penny I get into VTSAX.  This Ted Talk has definitely got me thinking about different ways of going about it.  I'm not about to switch my portfolio from one short Ted Talk, but maybe you could investigate it a little further if it interests you. 

[rachael talcott]

It doesn't sound like you're opposed to consumption, per se, just excess consumption.  Your success in investing does not require excess consumption on the part of others.  Certainly if you invest in a lot of different companies, not all of them will hold to your values on any number of issues, but isn't that the cost of living in a pluralistic society? The alternatives to a pluralistic society are not all that attractive. 

[smedleyb]

I think Judith just nailed a fundamental contradiction at the heart of mustachianism.  As if Apple became the biggest corporation on the planet -- and the largest component of the S&P -- by selling us shit we need. 

[mareofnight]

What do you think you should do with excess money, if not saving it? Is there anything you can do with FI that would fulfill the same values? (Volunteering, activism, creating art, working part time to fund a charity...)

If this is partly an asthetic thing, maybe having some of your retirement fund in the form of a paid-off house would feel less dissonant.

[meadow lark]

I have actually thought about this a little bit, to.  My big thing is, I should be making more charitable donations.  And I have started, but my plan is when we hit our goal of $1million I will start donating at least 10% of my salary, and maybe up to 50% to charity.

I don't feel a dissonance, personally.  2 of my primary motivators in life are freedom and security, which is a big part of what attracts me to FI.  Other people have different goals.  Lots and lots of people want to buy things that are irrelevant to me, but I try to respect that, essentially giving them freedom in the same way I want it. 

I heard this idea recently that there are 3 types of people.  One group is very immediate.  They care about their family, their community, maybe even their country, but they are very interested in who they actually know.  It's all about guns, defending their homes, etc.

One type is all about looking good, impressing other people with their accomplishments, their things.  Very, very status conscious.

One type is all about ideas.  They care about big things that are abstract or far away.  They are environmentalists, explore different religions, Donate to charities in other countries, etc.  you and I are solidly in the 3rd category, but there is nothing wrong with the other types.  They're fine.  We don't have to educate or change them.

Maybe the height of their life is buying an SUV and a big house.  What if their big motivators are showing off to other people and buying fancy things?  Who am I to judge? 

If nothing is wrong with other people's consumption, and your behavior isn't influencing it, why would it be wrong to profit off it (in the stock market?)

I'm sick with a cold so I apologize if I don't make sense.  My main points are 1-your freedom is important.  It is good to pursue it.  2- Make sure you have thought through your judgements about other people who have vastly different motivations than you do.  This goes for me too.  It's very easy for me to look down on others and judge their behavior is wrong, because it is not consistent with my motivations and aesthetics. 3-you have zero influence on the market.  Using it to make money has no Ethical meaning because You hoping it will go up doesn't make it go up. 

[tobitonic]

Hi all,

I have been a lurker a while now and to post again as feeling so much cognitive dissonance over the pursuit of FI and other life values I try to adhere to. I am struggling with trying to live a life of simplicity, anti consumerism and lack of focus on materialistic pursuits as well as being an admirer of much Buddhist philosophy and similar such thinking. I feel like in order to fuel growth which enables my investments to provide perpetual interest that can be lived off, I need others to consume and produce for my own benefit. It makes me feel two faced in a sense.

You're right; the wealth of every investor comes from the offshoots of systems that, by far and large, perpetuate inequality across the globe.

We address this to some degree by charitable giving. Others address it in different ways, or not at all. Your approach is up to you.

[Thinkum]

There are lots of ways to reconcile your investment conundrum. Try realizing that we all need things to live our lives; shelter, food, and clothing. So you can pick and choose individual stocks to invest in, or choose certain types of indexes to invest in like REITS. The other side of the coin is that life is not fair, never has been. The idealist in me wishes it were and gets upset at times that our world is so focused on the wrong things like non-stop consumerism. However, life is all about choice. We cannot choose what others will spend their money on, only how we spend or invest ours. I do not feel guilty in the slightest about investing, in fact I try to get more people to do the same!

[CATman]

I've considered the exact point you propose, but for me it comes down to personal choice. We all choose to live the way we do because of an internal value system. We value one thing over another. Some of us value our having the freedom to do whatever we like over material things. We may do it because it's our time or we're conscious of the effect our consumption has on the environment as a whole. Heck, we may even value consumption of things differently. Maybe you actively reduce your overall consumption of consumer goods, but really like fixing up old motorcycles. That's ok because you recognize the effect this consumption has on your own personal financial goals and how it fits into your value system as a whole. There could be many drivers behind how you construct your individual value system, but you get the picture.

The average person has a different value system. They prioritize consumption of physical goods over the impact they have on the environment and/or the impact it has on their overall finances. They consume products from the companies we invest in and we (hopefully) make a return on that investment. Whether we invest or not, those people are still going to buy the products those companies are producing. Yes this sounds a bit like the rationalization a drug dealer might make for why they sell drugs, but I hope the point still comes across.

You can tailor your investments to fit your value profile, but I'm off the school that investing is best when emotions and feelings are left out and pure logic is the sole driver of my decisions. Not saying it's the best way or the only way, but it has worked for me and countless others so far.

[Ricky]

There are lots of ways to reconcile your investment conundrum. Try realizing that we all need things to live our lives; shelter, food, and clothing. So you can pick and choose individual stocks to invest in, or choose certain types of indexes to invest in like REITS. The other side of the coin is that life is not fair, never has been. The idealist in me wishes it were and gets upset at times that our world is so focused on the wrong things like non-stop consumerism. However, life is all about choice. We cannot choose what others will spend their money on, only how we spend or invest ours. I do not feel guilty in the slightest about investing, in fact I try to get more people to do the same!

To a large extent, life is not about choice. It's the illusion of choice. Consider that many that gather here on this forum are of a pretty similar personality type, or at the least highly educated. Think about the circumstances that lead people to consume or not consume or to find this site or not find it. Regardless, people will do what they do, often as a result of not having a choice. So OP, play the cards you're dealt and don't worry about it too much. You're either the millions of inefficient consumers or you're in the minority by taking advantage of all the inefficiencies. If you don't want to support the consumption train but still want to achieve FI - look into RE. Owning/living in a house is definitely consumption - but it's definitely lower on the hierarchy of needs than an iPhone.

Consumption is a sliding scale. There is no "too much" or "too little" - there's only the amount that you feel appropriate, however arbitrary.

[misshathaway]

Another angle is the desire not to be a burden for others to support later on in life. A stache that you have worked to create makes that possible. It may also mean that later on, or at least after death, you will be able to do something positive with it. Like the airlines say, put you own oxygen mask on first, then your child's.

[Ozstache]

I'd love to get some thoughts on how to overcome these feeling of cognitive dissonance as I am still all up for the pursuit of FI.

I struggle with these feelings too. They even extend to charity, which some have proposed as a part solution on this thread, as I can't help feeling that helping anyone beyond achieving their basic human needs is actually contributing to excess consumption of our planet's resources. This thread is providing some interesting perspectives that may help me come to terms with it.

[Bertram]

Even though I preach that money doesn't buy you happiness, I still have FI as a huge goal and will have huge loads of cash in investment form allowing me to live without working, it just seems to go against other things I hold dear to in ways and seems overly selfish. I find it hard to reconcile these things and wonder if I am alone in this or if others ever have similar thoughts.

I'd love to get some thoughts on how to overcome these feeling of cognitive dissonance as I am still all up for the pursuit of FI.

Hi Judith,

Here is my "Version" of your problem: I think a healthy society requires that everybody stay involved and contribute their part, not just financially but with their work and ability as well. Let me illustrate by looking at a married couple: one works in finance and has a big income, the other is a social worker and has low income. How do they divide their housework? Well despite whatever their income is you'd expect both to their fair share with regards to the time they have.
What if the high earner has a nest egg big enough that allows him to become FI, but his wife continues to work? Well, he'd pick up more of the housework if he had more time.

And I believe it's the same with society in general. Humans are fit to actively contribute 35-40 years of their live. And not just with taxes but with their ability. Personally I don't think working 10-15 years and saving does not relieve you of continuing to contributing to society after you are FI. Hence why I do not like the RE part of the equation. It does feel like a hack. Having saved should not be a reason to stop contributing your ability.

So my "solution" is that I want to stay involved and do other things after I reach my number. And yes charitable giving is a part that I try to integrate as well, and now in the accumulation phase not just when I reach FI. I guess you could say that FI is a relevant part of my life planning, but it does not dominate all my other decisions and actions. It's going to (hopefully) be one of the side outcomes as life goes on. And it'll give me the flexibility to contribute in other ways to society with my ability.

[happy]

For me the dissonance is somewhat assuaged by the concept of enough. I'm saving enough to live a simple life. I'm not becoming FI with the goal of ending up with 5 million. Yes the money I've invested is buying into consumerism, but we all consume at some level, so I don't feel compelled to completely reject that. It can't be avoided: IMO we each have an obligation to consume efficiently and not wastefully. NOT investing at all I would consider an overreaction.

I won't be retiring particularly early (60), but will continue to work at living my simple life, contributing as appropriate and able.

[pumpkinlantern]

I have read MMMs article on what if everyone followed MMM principles etc but I don't really understand the idea that it's capital provided by investors that fuel growth, it's my $750,000 that I can live off forever without ever having to technically do a thing if I chose not too. My investment money never went directly to a business to fund its growth, mine was given to the secondary market. It still seems that I will need growth from companies and the economies at large to fund the continued interest on my investments and this seems to come largely from companies making stuff and providing services that people consume.

I respectfully disagree with the blanket statement that "companies making stuff" is bad.  It's hyperconsumerism that is bad - consuming things we don't need for the sole purpose of consumption.  The standard of living for people in the Western world has dramatically improved over the past century - this is largely due to construction companies that built sewage systems, health care companies that made vaccines, transportation companies that built railroads, technology companies that developed the internet, consumer goods companies that sold food and spices and soap and bandaids.  We are highly fortunate that we can afford to live our comfortable, sanitary lives and discuss on forums about being "anti-consumerism" and how you're rejecting the latest iPhone trend.

Even though I preach that money doesn't buy you happiness, I still have FI as a huge goal and will have huge loads of cash in investment form allowing me to live without working, it just seems to go against other things I hold dear to in ways and seems overly selfish. I find it hard to reconcile these things and wonder if I am alone in this or if others ever have similar thoughts.

Money and FI doesn't buy happiness.  It sets conditions for which happiness is easier to achieve.  You don't wake up with a large bank account and retire and suddenly magically become a different person.  FI doesn't even necessarily mean you stop working.  It means that you stop working for money.  It means you can work for things that matter to you and are in line with your values, whatever that may be.  Maybe that's charity work for a non-profit company, maybe that's being a caregiver for your children/grandchildren/parents/friends, maybe it's working for a start-up company doing something cool and innovative but doesn't pay you well.

[phwadsworth]

There are a bunch of big topics you're addressing here, but I will pick apart just one small one, this:

I still have FI as a huge goal and will have huge loads of cash in investment form allowing me to live without working

Do NOT think you're not working!  You worked and earned the money that you saved.  The reason you get to stop working (if you want) with FIRE is because you SPEND LESS than the norm.  The reason that other people have to keep on working for decades is because they spent all the money they worked for.  You're not getting anything for free that other people (who are still working) didn't get, you're just better at managing your priorities.

When I FIRE in a few short years and my equally-high-income peers ask me, "How are you done working already?!" I will reply,"How are you not done buying stuff already?"

[Judith681]

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies so far, I have really enjoyed reading them :).

I just want to clarify a few things. I am not completely anti consumption at all, I don't have a war on material things as many items provide joy and great practical benefit to our lives but I do aim to live a simple life when it comes to possessions, I do aim to completely distance myself from buying anything for status. I like to encourage others to move away from excessive consumption and am all for less is more but never to the level of counting your possessions or simply labelling people buying an apple product as the perfect example of excessive consumption, you could get a huge amount of joy and practical benefit from owning an iPad for example. I am not against such things however...

The problem for me and what's causing my dissonance is that if I encourage that mindset in others of having less, of saving money, of not replacing things at a very frequent levels not only for the benefits of that it might have on the earth but also that it helps me achieve FI sooner but not spending so much money - that it will directly negatively impact the growth of my investments required for FI, now this point is certainly arguable the other way and I'd love to hear points explaining this but this is how I feel. I don't see how having $750,000 invested broadly in the worlds secondary stock market helps provide capital to others or helps further that growth that keeps me in FI, it is the process of others continuing to work, consume and produce whilst I sit happily at home earning interest from all this activity by others. It is this that causes me some dissonance.

I am confident that the majority of people will not be able to become FI and I have confidence that humanity will likely continue to grow for my lifetime so I will be able to benefit from this but I don't think perpetual growth is possible long term so I wonder if I am simply benefiting from something that long term is going to cause problems for the earth. I hope I'm making sense, I'd love not to feel this way and I know it doesn't even enter some people's minds but it certainly does enter mine.

On the point of money and happiness, I am not saying money creates the happiness, but having freedom as a result of having it certainly helps which itself isn't my problem. I think what bothers me and I really wish it didn't is that simply by having money in invested form can create further money to live off in perpetuity. I'd like to know how this itself furthers growth and that if more and more people (which probably will not happen) obtained this how could it not negatively impact the growth to start with that we need to continue FI.

Judith

[Eudo]

I don't see how having $750,000 invested broadly in the worlds secondary stock market helps provide capital to others or helps further that growth that keeps me in FI, it is the process of others continuing to work, consume and produce whilst I sit happily at home earning interest from all this activity by others. It is this that causes me some dissonance.

I think a lot of people get hung up on the idea of "what if everyone were a mustachian? It wouldn't work!" I claim that it WOULD work. The fallacy is, I think, in the belief that if I work for 10 years, then live off of dividends for the rest of my life, then somehow things can't add up. Other people must be over-consuming for me to live off of dividends. But I don't think that's right. Consider a simplified example:

Imagine a world where food is the only thing anyone needs. There's a machine that can, in any given time, magically produce enough food for 10 people. The only thing is that it needs one person to run it. So in your community of 10 people, you agree to take turns running the machine. You run it for 10 years, then the next guy, then the next, and so on. If each of you lives 100 years, then you will all be provided for, and each of you only needed to work for 10% of your lives (10 years).

But you don't want to have to rely on the honor system, so you use capitalism: You work for 10 years, selling the excess food to the others, and you use it to buy stock in the machine. Then when the others are running it and selling the food, you get paid a fraction of the profits in dividends. Everything works out just fine even though everyone is a mustachian.

This is a simplified version of the real world. Something like only 1% of the population is a farmer, because technology has allowed us to generate plenty of food for everyone with very few farmers. (Productivity, yea!) And it's not just food, it's almost everything. You can produce way more than you consume over a ten year period. That's the point of mustachianism. Everyone is at different stages of their lives, so we all can just take turns putting in our 10 years' work.

EDIT: grammar

[Asgard01]

The problem for me and what's causing my dissonance is that if I encourage that mindset in others of having less, of saving money, of not replacing things at a very frequent levels not only for the benefits of that it might have on the earth but also that it helps me achieve FI sooner but not spending so much money - that it will directly negatively impact the growth of my investments required for FI, now this point is certainly arguable the other way and I'd love to hear points explaining this but this is how I feel. I don't see how having $750,000 invested broadly in the worlds secondary stock market helps provide capital to others or helps further that growth that keeps me in FI, it is the process of others continuing to work, consume and produce whilst I sit happily at home earning interest from all this activity by others. It is this that causes me some dissonance

I feel the same in many ways Judith. I don't intend to RE personally but you are certainly not alone having some of these feelings.

[kaizen soze]

To the extent that living off of investments is a problem, by profiting off of other's over-consumption, then it seems to me that it is a problem with any other way of making a living in a modern economy.  If you work for Apple, for example, your paycheck is paid for by consumers buying things they don't need.  If you work for the government, your paycheck is paid for by taxpayers, who owe taxes because they work for Apple and other companies.  If you are employed at a nonprofit, then you earn money contributed by donors, who likely have an excess of money due to their own profits in the private sector.  Unless you completely unplug, there is not a lot you can do about this. 

[Bicycle_B]

The problem for me and what's causing my dissonance is that if I encourage that mindset in others of having less, of saving money, of not replacing things at a very frequent levels not only for the benefits of that it might have on the earth but also that it helps me achieve FI sooner but not spending so much money - that it will directly negatively impact the growth of my investments required for FI, now this point is certainly arguable the other way and I'd love to hear points explaining this but this is how I feel. I don't see how having $750,000 invested broadly in the worlds secondary stock market helps provide capital to others or helps further that growth that keeps me in FI, it is the process of others continuing to work, consume and produce whilst I sit happily at home earning interest from all this activity by others. It is this that causes me some dissonance

I feel the same in many ways Judith. I don't intend to RE personally but you are certainly not alone having some of these feelings.

Perfectly reasonable concerns.  Some thoughts:
1. True, many of the companies in the secondary market encourage consumerism (excess consumption), so if you buy the broadest funds (eg, VTSAX), you are profiting from this encouragement. Previous poster wisely pointed out you can mitigate this by finding funds that seek to focus only on more ethical companies.  Another approach is to research companies yourself and invest directly in ones you feel are good (SolarCity? Lincoln Electric?), or learn to invest in local companies with more ethical operations.  Maybe in credit unions, or lending directly to coops.
2.  You also make a good point that buying stock in the secondary market creates nothing, it only exchanges pieces of existing profit machines.  You can invest in small business startups, if you wish.  If your net worth exceeds $1M, you can invest in numerous pre-IPO companies privately.  These kinds of things require skill and effort, but what comes easy in this world?  Not a clean conscience, if you have high enough standards!
3.  Local real estate markets contain opportunities to lend money to fixer-upper types at good interest; you would be helping local economies replenish themselves, directly empowering local craftsmen to refurbish existing structures.  To maximize eco-impact and do proactive good, why not find partners who specialize in green upgrades, or finance a local solar installation company, or start a company that provides and finances insulation?

You have power.  Thank you for embarking on the journey of using it wisely.

[mozar]

I see it as, because of the way the system is, that is why I want to FIRE. If I lived in a socialist country like France or Germany, I think I would be less in a hurry to FIRE. The externalities of over consumption means that people are mean to me because they think I need money to consume, I only get 3 week vacations etc.
I think that over consumption is slowing down (the founder of IKEA said we have reached "peak stuff") and more and more people will convert to something like mustachianism out of necessity. Like my pro-SUV cousin who "spontaneously" decided to bike her kids to school when gas prices were super high for awhile.

[phwadsworth]

The statement "living off investments" keeps being made when referring to the possible moral quandary of making gains off the secondary market.  Please remember that the minority of the normal mustachian's money is from investing.  The majority is from their own work.
The OP states a plan to FIRE at $750,000 in the bank.  Assuming a 4% withdrawal rate that's $30,000/year.  Let's say it lasts 35 years, that's $1,050,000 total.  So, $300,000 came from "living off investments" while $750,000 came from saving while working.  This seems like an honest return on capital from a functioning society to me, not necessarily an over-churned system driven solely by hyper-consumerism.
My $0.02, anyway.

[RetiredAt63]

Just a side comment - RE does not = sit in from of the TV.  As an older retiree I see a huge number of my local charities and civic groups being run by retirees (around here they are all older retirees).  Someone who is FIRE is probably contributing to society as much or more than when working, just on a more personal, choice-based level.  Younger working people, especially couples with children, are basically contributing relatively little to their society, they just do not have the time and energy.

And I believe it's the same with society in general. Humans are fit to actively contribute 35-40 years of their live. And not just with taxes but with their ability. Personally I don't think working 10-15 years and saving does not relieve you of continuing to contributing to society after you are FI. Hence why I do not like the RE part of the equation. It does feel like a hack. Having saved should not be a reason to stop contributing your ability.

So my "solution" is that I want to stay involved and do other things after I reach my number. And yes charitable giving is a part that I try to integrate as well, and now in the accumulation phase not just when I reach FI. I guess you could say that FI is a relevant part of my life planning, but it does not dominate all my other decisions and actions. It's going to (hopefully) be one of the side outcomes as life goes on. And it'll give me the flexibility to contribute in other ways to society with my ability.

[Bertram]

You are of course right, I apologize if my post came across as if I didn't value that. I see that my choice of words was probably irritating.
In the context of my post I really only wanted to refer to that understanding of retirement that is "passive" for lack of a better word. Someone who is actively involved with activities and the community etc. would fall on the non-passive side. I see how using RE can be confusing/incorrect.

[azure975]

I can relate to this in certain ways. I feel a bit of guilt at the thought of living an "idle" life off investments or passive income while others have to work at several jobs just to make ends meet. Generally the term "rent-seeking" is used in a perjorative manner. Some argue that I don't have to live an idle life, that I can use the time to do something worthwhile. But what if the things I like to do are hanging out with friends, yoga, hobbies and personal activities (ie, things that are enjoyable for me but don't necessarily help the world or the community in the larger sense)? Seems a bit self-indulgent to me. At the same time, if I can and I enjoy it, why not?

[Bicycle_B]

I feel a bit of guilt at the thought of living an "idle" life off investments or passive income while others have to work at several jobs just to make ends meet. Generally the term "rent-seeking" is used in a perjorative manner.

"Rent-seeking" refers in economics to a situation where someone controls or manipulates a resource to get a higher price than it would command if access to it were based on a free market with a healthy level of competition.  So to the extent that the investments you own compete in a free market, they are not engaging in rent-seeking.

To be sure, many companies do engage in rent-seeking, perhaps every chance they get.  Some would argue the very structure of the market is exclusive to underprivileged groups, that workers are getting an unfair deal, and so on. 

I would argue it's a mix of both the free market and the manupulative, rent-seeking aspect.  So any guilt should be reduced.  Since I'm not saying guilt should be eliminated, there is still the question of what to do about a fraction of your investment income being obtained through imperfect, "dirty" means.  I applaud anyone who takes some steps to make up for it.

Maybe teach your saving tricks to underprivileged youths who face the biggest hurdles from rent-seeking, and make sure they have enough money for college?  Or find some way to make the world explicitly a better place, that fits into your other joys in FIRE.

[FireLane]

I've wrestled with this as well. It's true that our ability to FIRE depends, to some extent, on other people's excess consumption. But not FIRE-ing wouldn't stop that consumption. People will engage in retail therapy, drive long commutes and eat out at expensive restaurants no matter what I do. The only question is who benefits, and how, from the economic activity that generates.

The way I see it, if I'm invested in the stock market and living off dividends, I can put some of those overconsumption profits to a better use. Rather than corporate profits going into the pockets of people who'd then spend them on further unnecessary consumption, fueling another go-round of that damaging cycle, I can use them to support myself in a simpler life with more freedom and less pointless spending. I can use oil-company profits to buy solar panels for my house, or agribusiness and junk-food profits to support my local farmer's market. And if I model that life of freedom and minimalism to others, they may want to emulate me, reducing the cycle of consumption even further.

Is this a self-serving rationalization? Quite possibly. But it does make me feel better.

[shelivesthedream]

If the market crashed permanently tomorrow because every person in the country woke up and realised that there is more to life than consuming and decided to reorganise their life in line with their new values, I would be OK with that. It would be a hugely more pleasant world to live in. School would be about learning again, and childhood would be about play. No one would spend hours at work rather than spend time with their family and friends. Social pressures would be turned on their head - suddenly being dedicated to a stupid career so you could buy shit would be shameful. I would be happy to live in that world, even if I had to work.

[nyrong]

If everybody in the whole world bought the same amount(or a smaller amount) of goods and services forever, market earnings would be impaired forever and never grow or shrink. The valuation of the market would most likely adjust with it (crash).

Management would also most likely stop reinvesting profits (since it won't grow profits) and instead just return all the profits to share holders via buy back of cheaper stocks/ dividends. And therefore, because of the lower prices, it would mean that extra dividends reinvested/buybacks would be able more to buy more shares. This would mean more returns would come in the form of dividends

Market return is dependent on the gap between business returns(dividends, capital gains derived from earnings growth or buybacks) and expected business returns derived from the market price.

So if consumerism ends today, in the long run it won't really matter because you will get more dividends to reinvest at a lower market price. And more autonomy to decide whether you want to spend your dividends today and be a consumerist instead - to propel earnings growth. Long term investment is not dependent on consumerism.

[alleykat]

If the market crashed permanently tomorrow because every person in the country woke up and realised that there is more to life than consuming and decided to reorganise their life in line with their new values, I would be OK with that. It would be a hugely more pleasant world to live in. School would be about learning again, and childhood would be about play. No one would spend hours at work rather than spend time with their family and friends. Social pressures would be turned on their head - suddenly being dedicated to a stupid career so you could buy shit would be shameful. I would be happy to live in that world, even if I had to work.

I can't even tell you how much I agree with you.  Totally!!!!!!!!

Around me, there is do much construction going on.  Nature completely destroyed just so we can build more stores that we don't need.  There are sooooooo many around already. All you have to do is drive 2 to 15 mins and you will find anything you want.   It is heartbreaking to see land and trees destroyed. When does it stop, when there is nothing left?

[Mmm_Donuts]

From a Buddhist perspective, I believe the Buddha was fine with wealth and earning "interest" on one's wealth as long as it was earned legally and ethically, and as long as the lender is not lending at usurious rates, or harming others for their own personal gain. Of course the stock market is far more complex than the lender/debtor relationships of 2000+ years ago.

He advised against doing business or lending to businesses that harm others. Many seemingly innocuous and mainstream companies also sell weapons, and would therefore be violating ahimsa - I would see companies such as GE, Dow chemicals, Monsanto as particularly unethical. Apple may also be unethical from a Buddhist perspective, as it pays its workers so poorly and amasses great wealth as a result, which is a not a very spiritual approach to doing business.

I'm investing in all these companies via the stock market indices. When I first started investing I looked at ethical mutual funds, and found they avoided certain things but not everything that I found unethical. Plus the earnings were very low, and fees were high.

I suppose I've reasoned this double standard away by knowing that I have to interact with this world the way it is. My involvement as an investor will allow me freedom to do better things in the world, and my lack of involvement, I believe, wouldn't make any difference. I'm not purposefully investing in these companies individually anymore. At one point I owned some GE stock, but later sold it because of the weapons issue. My own money used to purchase stocks and funds was earned ethically, and the money earned from investments is an imperfect solution to the problem of living in and interacting with an unethical world. There are things I can control on a day to day basis, and that is where I choose to make a difference. It would not benefit the world in any way for me to need to be tied to a desk for 50 hours a week. My investments are a tradeoff for being able to put more energy, more consciously into the world.

Here's an article about Buddhism and wealth that I found somewhat helpful:

http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=452

For years I believed it was us against them. The evil corporations taking advantage of innocent people; the 99% vs the 1%; good vs evil; polluters vs environmentalists and social activists; greed vs. giving. I don't believe this anymore, and I've found the victim mentality I used to have (i.e. that I needed to fight, to resist, to forgo anything tainted by greedy corporate interests) only perpetuated a cycle of harm on myself. Ahimsa includes self harm. My protection against this cycle was dropping the us vs. them labels in my mind. Now as an investor, I'm personally involved in the dirtier side of our civilization, but I don't feel the anger or victimization anymore. The potential for wealth and access to wealth is, though difficult for many, essentially ethically neutral in our society. It is my own intention for what to do with this wealth that has an ethical charge, and I choose to use it in the most conscious, helpful way that I can.

[burrow]

MMM_Donuts,

You seem so wholesome and well-rounded.

[jim555]

The system is designed to program the vast majority.  Consume and work until death.  Breaking the cycle is blasphemy. 
The system falls apart if everyone stopped being a consumer sucker and became a saver.
But you need the latest iJunk and you must keep up with the suckers around you.
People are so programmed to their assigned roles they will say things like "you owe it to society to work" and "you are too young to retire". 
Perfect slaves perfectly conditioned.

[Metric Mouse]

The system falls apart if everyone stopped being a consumer sucker and became a saver.

False.

[JG in Hangzhou]

For me the question is about alternatives.  If I keep working for someone else under full time employment terms, it's not far from being an indentured servant, which I was when I joined the US Navy.  I don't regret that, the time paid was rewarded in several ways.  But if you reach the state of not needing to be in a servitude system, why would you willingly go back to it? "Hey, I'm free, anyone need a new slave?" 
So that covers the result, how about the means?  Is investing in the total market really like stepping over everyone else's heads, climbing to the top over everyone else's bodies.  I felt like I was doing that while I was at work. So for me being the market is much better.  Also, am I really able to judge effectively if the CEO of a green energy company has more altruistic purposes than the CEO of a tire company?  No, so by investing in the market, I can effectively say I am not making any improper choices, but am supporting the whole US economy in a fair and objective way. 
I hope my quick take on this is helpful for anyone who feels the need to hang on to guilt about investing money in to Cigarette and Gun producing companies..... 

[Classical_Liberal]

Not sure if OP'er is still reading, but I found this topic interesting.

Here's some thoughts...

At 750K, a 4%WR is 30K a year. This is some pretty high consumption for a single person.  It's more than the median for the US, which is one of the richest countries in the world during the richest time in history.  I'm not judging, rather showing perspective.  Maybe you would have less C.D. if you found ways to reduce your personal consumption.  Learn to be more self sustaining and utilize other forms of capital (ie social capital for trading services with neighbors, intellectual capital to solve problems without heading to walmart, use your free time from being FIRE to DIY repairs, etc). This would:

A) Make you feel better about your personal choices.

B) Make you less and less dependent on the earnings from your investments; to the point in which they are only a "back up" to other potential solutions to your needs.

C) Now needing less income, you can choose to invest it more in line with values (returns are less important) or donate your unneeded existing returns to causes in line with your values.  Choose whichever creates a better ROI for your values, not your monetary earnings.

D) Teach your new found nonconsumer skills to others who are interested, but lack the time to reinvent the wheel themselves due to wage slavery (like me!!).  Each person who adopts your new lifestyle could potentially add 100 percent return to your previous efforts (or more if they end up teaching someone, talk about compounding returns!)