Do we need a new age of facepunching?

[ChickenStash]

I see a neighbour.. he cant be more than 25, works in the food service industry.. I mean serving customers.
He just bought a Camaro... its a few years old, but its got 450 break horsepower. I know this because, it was featured on a BBC TV show.
Maybe he got a deal on it ...its gotta be 50K in price.

Are we talking $50k US? If so, 2020 Camaro Coupe with the SS package (455hp V8) in average shape goes for mid-30K from a dealer, less from a private party. Go back to a 2018 (same engine and similar body style) and it's in the mid-20k range. (Not that I'm condoning anyone dropping that much on a toy)

[Zikoris]

My FIRE model is absolutely doable for a 20 year old today. The barrier to entry for my job is almost nonexistent, definitely no education required, and my company hires 20 year olds regularly to these types of roles, so absolutely they could get my job in a heartbeat and be earning my income. People move into and out of my (cheap) apartment complex every month, and there are other options in a similar price range as well (i.e. I don't live in the only cheap apartment in the city). Definitely every frugal thing I do is available to whoever wants to do it. And there's no minimum age to open an investment account at my brokerage. So yeah, let's have less excuses and more facepunching.

[Metalcat]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure. I can’t really blame people for not wanting to sign on for that.

Bingo.

I literally spend my days unraveling social conditioning. It is not fucking easy.

But I have to say, I am a HUGE fan of a well executed facepunch.

People say that MMM is a persona and Pete is not that abrasive IRL. Well I'm the opposite. Malcat is a fairly gentle persona, but IRL Mal sounds almost exactly like MMM.

Facepunching is a huge part of my work in helping people break out of unhealthy behaviours. I use shocking language and personal insults regularly. It's not at all unusual for someone seeking my help to hear me call their behaviour "dumbfuck stupid."

And my patients love me for it. Why? Because it's not from a place of cruelty, it's from a place of deeply caring and understanding.

You almost cannot effectively challenge deeply ingrained, toxic social constructs without fairly aggressive, existentialist, absurdist humour.

It is frankly absurd that people make themselves poor to appear rich, and that to be rich, most of us have to appear poor. The deeper meaning of the above statement gets profoundly into issues of self worth, understanding of self in the world and in relation to others, and really, existential angst shit like sense of purpose and meaning of life and happiness.

If I want to get rich to buy all of the stuff but the only way to get rich is to not buy all of the stuff then what is the real meaning of being rich?

Life is filled with absurdist paradoxes, and sometimes you need a bit of bombastic intensity to pull someone out of the cyclical patterns of thinking that are holding them in self-destructive behaviours.

So I yell and swear at people, and they respond shockingly well.

[TreeLeaf]

I'm fine with people facepunching so long as they are fine with me facepunching them back for facepunching me.

It's all the non-facepunchers that I'm scared of. We need a different section of the forum to put all the non-facepunchers in to.

[Laura33]

I am so sick of the STUPID labels someone invented for the generations. This, like all division disguised as observation, is based on real fractures in society (gender, ethnicity, age, wealth, geography) but then exacerbated.

It’s like the meme says, “they want you focused on a culture war to keep you from fighting a class war.” But further than that, microfocusing on those labels (which I won’t deign to use) leads to absurd stereotyping and upset.

I agree with this.  And yet I do think these labels can sometimes be helpful.  My mom's a Boomer, and everything was all about how great she and her compatriots were, because of the power of their sheer numbers.  Nothing I could ever do could match up -- like, when I talked about a campus protest against Apartheid, she'd start reminiscing about her student days, and soon we were talking about how her generation stopped an actual war.  She didn't even realize how belittling that kind of thing could be, and when I pointed it out, she'd get upset, because of course that wasn't what she meant -- and then suddenly, my being upset once again became all about her.  So I ended up learning to just drop an ironic comment and move on. 

The hardest part was not being able to complain about anything.  I mean, if I started to talk about the stress of the arms race with the USSR and knowing that there were nukes pointing at us, she'd start in on the Cuban Missile Crisis and literally not knowing if she'd wake up the next morning.  To me, it wasn't about who had it harder -- it was wanting to be able to talk to someone who would acknowledge that, yes, the stuff I was dealing with was actually hard, full stop.  The "-er" was irrelevant.

So when the whole GenX label came about, and I began to realize that it wasn't just me, and in fact there was a whole giant other pile of people who felt like I did and had developed some of the same personality traits and reactions as I had, it was really, really affirming.

[LateStarter]

I am so sick of the STUPID labels someone invented for the generations. This, like all division disguised as observation, is based on real fractures in society (gender, ethnicity, age, wealth, geography) but then exacerbated.

It’s like the meme says, “they want you focused on a culture war to keep you from fighting a class war.” But further than that, microfocusing on those labels (which I won’t deign to use) leads to absurd stereotyping and upset.

I agree with this.  And yet I do think these labels can sometimes be helpful.  My mom's a Boomer, and everything was all about how great she and her compatriots were, because of the power of their sheer numbers.  Nothing I could ever do could match up -- like, when I talked about a campus protest against Apartheid, she'd start reminiscing about her student days, and soon we were talking about how her generation stopped an actual war.  She didn't even realize how belittling that kind of thing could be, and when I pointed it out, she'd get upset, because of course that wasn't what she meant -- and then suddenly, my being upset once again became all about her.  So I ended up learning to just drop an ironic comment and move on. 

The hardest part was not being able to complain about anything.  I mean, if I started to talk about the stress of the arms race with the USSR and knowing that there were nukes pointing at us, she'd start in on the Cuban Missile Crisis and literally not knowing if she'd wake up the next morning.  To me, it wasn't about who had it harder -- it was wanting to be able to talk to someone who would acknowledge that, yes, the stuff I was dealing with was actually hard, full stop.  The "-er" was irrelevant.

So when the whole GenX label came about, and I began to realize that it wasn't just me, and in fact there was a whole giant other pile of people who felt like I did and had developed some of the same personality traits and reactions as I had, it was really, really affirming.

I think it's more likely that these labels mostly just encourage confirmation bias concerning the (supposed) stereotypical characteristics of each generation.
What % of people born 1946-1964 became self-centred parents, I wonder ? And how does that compare with those born in other fairly arbitrary time periods ?

Some old people think they're fundamentally different to (usually better than) young people, and some young people think they're fundamentally different to (usually better than) old people. 'Twas ever thus.

[Cranky]

I’m pretty sure life, and especially starting out in life has never been easy. It wasn’t easy to be young in the Great Depression or during WWII or for the Boomers or the GenXers or the Millennials… life has a lot of challenges and you learn as you go along.

No generation should think they are too special in that regard.

[VanillaGorilla]

It's interesting to revisit some of MMM's classic example, say his hypothetical two teachers: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/17/the-race-to-retirement-revisited/

Here in California the median schoolteacher salary is about $88k, doubling that for a household income of $176k.

The median house in this state is $860k (!), making for a total mortgage payment of $86k per year.

MMM's example 24k annual cost of living, adjusted for inflation, becomes $44k.

So total expenses is $130k, which is approximately their entire income after taxes. That doesn't include childcare or school expenses.

Yup, selling FIRE is a bit more challenging now.

[spartana]

It's interesting to revisit some of MMM's classic example, say his hypothetical two teachers: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/17/the-race-to-retirement-revisited/

Here in California the median schoolteacher salary is about $88k, doubling that for a household income of $176k.

The median house in this state is $860k (!), making for a total mortgage payment of $86k per year.

MMM's example 24k annual cost of living, adjusted for inflation, becomes $44k.

So total expenses is $130k, which is approximately their entire income after taxes. That doesn't include childcare or school expenses.

Yup, selling FIRE is a bit more challenging now.

But they don't need to buy a house. They can opt to rent a one bedroom apt for a fraction of their joint income, invest the rest (including all the costs and time to maintain and repair, etc their property) and once they reach an FI number move to a LCOL location and buy there. Loose the cars or use them lightly and used and do all the other mustachian stuff to keep expenses low.  Average one bedroom apt in HCOL Orange County, CA where I'm from is around $2000 - $2500/month and includes some utilities. Median sch is around $1 million for a beater.

[Fru-Gal]

Yeah, buying a house in a VHCOL area is currently only for the upper upper middle class. Forget the purchase price, it’s the property tax into perpetuity I can’t get my head around! Home ownership is NOT always better for FIRE.

That said, rents are generally controlled, and have been lowering. My kid was able to move out and get quite a reasonable rent on their first place this year. Kid also bought a car ($5k, both cuz it’s old and it’s a manual). And kid skipped college and self-taught and worked their way from Walmart checker into a professional trade and has no debt. I’m thoroughly impressed.

I don’t think my kid is saving enough yet but at least they got the message to pay themselves first!

[Freedomin5]

It's interesting to revisit some of MMM's classic example, say his hypothetical two teachers: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/17/the-race-to-retirement-revisited/

Here in California the median schoolteacher salary is about $88k, doubling that for a household income of $176k.

The median house in this state is $860k (!), making for a total mortgage payment of $86k per year.

MMM's example 24k annual cost of living, adjusted for inflation, becomes $44k.

So total expenses is $130k, which is approximately their entire income after taxes. That doesn't include childcare or school expenses.

Yup, selling FIRE is a bit more challenging now.

But they don't need to buy a house. They can opt to rent a one bedroom apt for a fraction of their joint income, invest the rest (including all the costs and time to maintain and repair, etc their property) and once they reach an FI number move to a LCOL location and buy there. Loose the cars or use them lightly and used and do all the other mustachian stuff to keep expenses low.  Average one bedroom apt in HCOL Orange County, CA where I'm from is around $2000 - $2500/month and includes some utilities. Median sch is around $1 million for a beater.

Exactly. Median house price in my province is $849,000. But guess what? We bought a 3-bedroom townhouse for $650,000, and we rented out one of the bedrooms to help with the mortgage. You can’t look at median prices and then claim that FIRE is challenging. Mustachians aren’t the median.

[Metalcat]

It's interesting to revisit some of MMM's classic example, say his hypothetical two teachers: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/17/the-race-to-retirement-revisited/

Here in California the median schoolteacher salary is about $88k, doubling that for a household income of $176k.

The median house in this state is $860k (!), making for a total mortgage payment of $86k per year.

MMM's example 24k annual cost of living, adjusted for inflation, becomes $44k.

So total expenses is $130k, which is approximately their entire income after taxes. That doesn't include childcare or school expenses.

Yup, selling FIRE is a bit more challenging now.

But they don't need to buy a house. They can opt to rent a one bedroom apt for a fraction of their joint income, invest the rest (including all the costs and time to maintain and repair, etc their property) and once they reach an FI number move to a LCOL location and buy there. Loose the cars or use them lightly and used and do all the other mustachian stuff to keep expenses low.  Average one bedroom apt in HCOL Orange County, CA where I'm from is around $2000 - $2500/month and includes some utilities. Median sch is around $1 million for a beater.

Exactly. Median house price in my province is $849,000. But guess what? We bought a 3-bedroom townhouse for $650,000, and we rented out one of the bedrooms to help with the mortgage. You can’t look at median prices and then claim that FIRE is challenging. Mustachians aren’t the median.

Exactly, median house price in my city is 650K, detached is closer to 750K. But we own an 800sqft apartment that is worth only 250K because we're willing to live in an old building in a working class neighborhood.

Literally less than a mile away, a similar unit in a newer building sells for close to a million. Friends rent out a 3 bedroom unit in their nearby duplex for $2200 to a family of 5.

Averages aren't terribly meaningful for individuals.

I'm in my second profession where average incomes are plummeting because of market shifts. But I figured out how to take advantage of that and make *more* money in the first profession, and am doing the exact same thing in the new one.

Mustachianism is literally all about NOT behaving average. It's all about rejecting the norm and looking for the creative solutions that provide an even BETTER result than just spending more money on the norm would provide.

I would say that the bulk of the work I do as a therapist is getting people to release expectations of "the norm" and to realize that the norm is sick and suffering.

Happiness requires rejecting so many averages and norms and forging your own way and figuring out what works for you as a human, not succumbing to what you "should" do and "should" want.

Also, let's not forget that frugality is about living your best life by getting the most out of your time and energy investments.

It's not hard for anyone to FIRE unless they're already living their best possible life given their circumstances. If someone is truly living hand-to-mouth, are they really living their best life?? Are the choices they are making actually optimal??

Everyone likes to invoke poor people and say they have no choices, which is pretty insulting to poor people, but I actually work with a lot of very low income folks living hand to mouth. And we explore the exact same questions: how can you make choices that would lead to better, healthier outcomes, how can you access supports for meaningful improvement?

Literally everyone can benefit from challenging their own thinking and expectations.

A chronically unemployed man with trauma who can't keep a job because he keeps *literally* punching people in the face needs to challenge his established belief system that he "should" be punching people in the face as the only mechanism for asserting ones dignity when feeling dehumanized by another.

He needs to be face-punched about literal face punching.

Meanwhile a high earning person who feels enormous social pressure to buy a home in a certain area so that they can send their kids to certain schools may need a face punch about the belief that they are a "bad" parent if they aren't willing to "invest" in their children this way. But their work stress makes them stressed, causes conflict in their marriage, and emotionally unavailable to their kid.

They may need a face-punch about their faulty belief system about what it means to be a "good" or "bad" parent and what they "should" do and the shame and pride associated with all of those "shoulds."

The entire purpose of Mustachianism is to challenge the norms, challenge the "shoulds" we were conditioned to feel, and to use frugality as a tool to explore the true value of all of our spending decisions.

I feel like I "should" want to travel by plane to far flung places for vacations, but frugality makes me question if the value is truly beneficial for me compared to the cost of a road trip or camping.

Frugality asks: "what is the real value of this spending decision to YOU?"

So yeah, averages are not terribly relevant to individuals. We know that average behaviours will make you poor, sick, and miserable. So why would anyone willingly aspire to replicate that "average" lifestyle?

We have better options. That's kind of the whole reason we're all here.

[spartana]

It's interesting to revisit some of MMM's classic example, say his hypothetical two teachers: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/17/the-race-to-retirement-revisited/

Here in California the median schoolteacher salary is about $88k, doubling that for a household income of $176k.

The median house in this state is $860k (!), making for a total mortgage payment of $86k per year.

MMM's example 24k annual cost of living, adjusted for inflation, becomes $44k.

So total expenses is $130k, which is approximately their entire income after taxes. That doesn't include childcare or school expenses.

Yup, selling FIRE is a bit more challenging now.

But they don't need to buy a house. They can opt to rent a one bedroom apt for a fraction of their joint income, invest the rest (including all the costs and time to maintain and repair, etc their property) and once they reach an FI number move to a LCOL location and buy there. Loose the cars or use them lightly and used and do all the other mustachian stuff to keep expenses low.  Average one bedroom apt in HCOL Orange County, CA where I'm from is around $2000 - $2500/month and includes some utilities. Median sch is around $1 million for a beater.

Exactly. Median house price in my province is $849,000. But guess what? We bought a 3-bedroom townhouse for $650,000, and we rented out one of the bedrooms to help with the mortgage. You can’t look at median prices and then claim that FIRE is challenging. Mustachians aren’t the median.

I also had 2 roommate when I bought a house plus a 30% down payment due to living being able to save by living in a very small rental (or on a sailboat). That allowed me to pay off the house in 4 years and then I kicked the roommates to the curb and FIREd lol. I also bought a small 1000 SF old 1950s house needing lots of DIY fixing during a big housing market downturn.

My sister lived in VHCOL Manhattan Beach CA and earned less then $50k/year gross. She rented a small studio/room attached to a big fancy main house walking distance to the beach for under $1000/month all inclusive. Saved her money, FIREd, moved to a less expensive area of coastal SoCal (but still expensive) and was able to buy a small condo with cash.  Lots of ways to do things to get to FIRE.

And let's not forget about our RL teacher couple @arebelspy and spouse who were millionaire FIREees before 30 using real estate.

[eyesonthehorizon]

I love the turn this thread has taken.

I’m skeptical of whatever the mainstream fashionable thing to do is, but my family’s expectations were for me to become very visibly successful, & the work culture in my industry was to instill a belief that manager-track behaviors included buying a four-bedroom detached house & a late model car, while styled in up-to-date business casual & flashing the latest phones.

Having a community of thoughtful people confronting frugality as a challenge rather than “proof of failure” might have been the breath of fresh air that kept me from suffocating. I think I more likely would’ve dropped out than joined in, because the insanity of that work culture was so stark to me. I would have missed out on hundreds of thousands of earnings across my 20s & 30s, pushing FIRE into my 50s or later.

No matter how firm your values, being the only one to hold them is exhausting & demoralizing, because every community has well-intended attempted facepunchers & plain garden variety assholes anyway, the pressure to conform is intense. Pioneering everything yourself is a lot of work. Being able to get ideas & moral support makes it into a significantly more enjoyable hobby.

I’m reminded of another activity that is work & which a lot of people had to do in the past out of necessity, but which can now be done for pleasure, with a lot more enthusiastic fans around to help: knitting exploded in popularity as soon as people had the opportunity to share patterns, pitfalls, & successes freely online.

[tj]

My wife and I had a long discussion last night about life skills, and it was sobering to think how few folks understand things like the social security break points, what all the line items on a paystub mean, or how to estimate what your take home pay will look like.  In that context it is amazing we don’t have even worse outcomes than we do.

I consider myself reasonably financially literate and I don't understand that one!

To be fair, I was in graduate school without a W2 for a chunk of my 20s, so I haven't even qualified for social security yet. I'll figure it out before it's relevant to me, I'm sure.

Read this:

https://thefinancebuff.com/early-retirement-social-security-benefits.html

[Tass]

My wife and I had a long discussion last night about life skills, and it was sobering to think how few folks understand things like the social security break points, what all the line items on a paystub mean, or how to estimate what your take home pay will look like.  In that context it is amazing we don’t have even worse outcomes than we do.

I consider myself reasonably financially literate and I don't understand that one!

To be fair, I was in graduate school without a W2 for a chunk of my 20s, so I haven't even qualified for social security yet. I'll figure it out before it's relevant to me, I'm sure.

Read this:

https://thefinancebuff.com/early-retirement-social-security-benefits.html

Nice resource, although to be fair the SSA website now lets you say how many more years you will work and what your average income will be.

Still, the graphic of the break points is helpful. It establishes for sure that I will be past the first break point by the time I qualify for SS, and that neither DH or I is likely ever to make it to the second break point.

[Ron Scott]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

[Kris]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

Serious question, Ron: have you read MMM’s blog?

[Paper Chaser]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

If you're inclined to pursue FIRE in the first place, you're very likely to have a natural tendency to avoid chasing 'more' of any material thing. Including money. FIREe's tend to be motivated to FIRE by disliking the normal treadmill of work, stress, work, and instead choosing to pursue things that decrease stress and personal turbulence.

By modern standards I have stayed in my job for a very long time. I am overqualified, and could chase more money if I desired. I stay because this job is 'enough', while offering a better mix of work/life balance and stability. I recognize that not chasing 'more' may lengthen my timeline for FIRE, but I believe that it will also avoid some pitfalls and allow me to live as I want to during that journey. It's the difference between taking an interstate or the backroads. One likely gets you to your destination sooner, but the other offers a ton more flexibility and interesting things along the way.

[Metalcat]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

Serious question, Ron: have you read MMM’s blog?

Also, the majority of members here are highly educated and make a lot of money...not exactly a population dragging it's ass on anything...

You can't throw a rock around here without hitting someone with a doctorate who makes 6 figures.

[Ron Scott]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

Serious question, Ron: have you read MMM’s blog?

I have. I get it and appreciate a good bit of it but it doesn’t grab me completely—because different strokes.

Having said that, my question relates less to the blog and more to the forum posts, which seem to focus heavily on building toward retirement by reduction in spending and I see very little about increasing your income by busting ass during your working years.

I’m talking about the emphasis here on spending vs. earning.

So—why focus on facepunching someone who buys a nice car for his family and not facepunch people who could earn much more but don't because they hate “working for the man” or having to go into a physical office a couple days a week, etc.?

[Metalcat]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

Serious question, Ron: have you read MMM’s blog?

I have. I get it and appreciate a good bit of it but it doesn’t grab me completely—because different strokes.

Having said that, my question relates less to the blog and more to the forum posts, which seem to focus heavily on building toward retirement by reduction in spending and I see very little about increasing your income by busting ass during your working years.

I’m talking about the emphasis here on spending vs. earning.

So—why focus on facepunching someone who buys a nice car for his family and not facepunch people who could earn much more but don't because they hate “working for the man” or having to go into a physical office a couple days a week, etc.?

It's not either or.

They're not at all mutual exclusive.

Plenty of folks here talk about buying nice cars and don't generally get piled on. If anything, conversations here about spending come with tons of encouragement if the person sounds like they've thought it through.

The facepunches have always been for "wasteful" spending, is spending that won't actually make the person any happier.

[sixwings]

I just finished reading Patrick Stewarts memoirs, and his life and memories particularly from his early 20s-30s to what expectations are now for people in their early 20-30s is quite different. For instance, when he was young and just getting started, it was very common for him to share a bedroom with another person, right up until he was in his early 30s. It's very common to see peoples experiences and expectations when they were 20-30 in the 50s/60s compared to now. Life was expected to be much simpler back then.

That said, the marketing, consumerism, and expectations of what life should be based on consumerism and marketing is so different now. Young people get bombarded with things they should consume, whether it's travel and consuming other cultures and experiences, or buying things, or whatever, it's at a totally different level than what people in the 50s or 60s could have even dreamed it would be like.

[sixwings]

I see a trend in popular media and even reddit where people think “FIRE” means living like a college student on rice and beans so you can retire at 30 to continue to live on rice and beans.  The alternative is to YOLO with a Ford Raptor and monthly cruises.  Lost along the way is simply living modestly below your means and quietly building wealth.

This is being entirely driven by marketing companies to create a false narrative around living within your means and designed specifically to encourage people to buy things they don't need. It intentionally getting people to think those are their only 2 options and that narrative is constantly in their faces 24/7.

I don't like the idea of facepunching or whatever, I think it's about educating and supporting people to reject consumerism and focus on their values and living to their values.

[aloevera1]

I just finished reading Patrick Stewarts memoirs, and his life and memories particularly from his early 20s-30s to what expectations are now for people in their early 20-30s is quite different. For instance, when he was young and just getting started, it was very common for him to share a bedroom with another person, right up until he was in his early 30s. It's very common to see peoples experiences and expectations when they were 20-30 in the 50s/60s compared to now. Life was expected to be much simpler back then.

That said, the marketing, consumerism, and expectations of what life should be based on consumerism and marketing is so different now. Young people get bombarded with things they should consume, whether it's travel and consuming other cultures and experiences, or buying things, or whatever, it's at a totally different level than what people in the 50s or 60s could have even dreamed it would be like.

I think expectations related to international travel are INSANE. A person in their 20s is supposed to "go and explore the world". This includes airtravel across the world (we are mostly based in North America so any flight is a long distance flight). Then once you are there you cannot miss on EXPERIENCES OF LIFETIME. Most of them are not going to be free...

This is literally time one is at the peak broke, e.g. their career hasn't fully launched but mommy and daddy are not sponsoring anymore. Yet, the image of happy girlies having a blast on a beautiful Rome patio is so pervasive.

Even if you travel to the cheap destination, getting there is likely not affordable for a huge chunk of those 20 something. They just don't know it's unaffordable yet.

Honestly, I think Instagram brought this idea of beautiful life full of experiences to a new level entirely. Instagram made it look like EVERYONE is living like that until literally everyone started living like that. Even if I watch a HGTV show I don't get a sense that everyone around me is renovating a McMansion. However, if I scroll through the Instagram and recommendation on Instagram I see my peers. They are totally relatable, they seem very real and they are somehow doing all these things...

Same thing could be said about the restaurant culture that completely got out of control in the Big City I used to live at. It's just the norm, the expectation is that every social outing involves eating (and drinking out). Taking and posting beautiful pictures of food is mandatory as well.

I am pretty sure these expectations did not exist up until very recently.

[Tass]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

The answer from the man himself: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

The most important thing to note is that cutting your spending rate is much more powerful than increasing your income. The reason is that every permanent drop in your spending has a double effect:

• it increases the amount of money you have left over to save each month
• and it permanently decreases the amount you’ll need every month for the rest of your life

So your lifetime passive income goes up due to having a larger investment nest egg, and it more easily meets your needs, because you’ve developed more skill at living efficiently and thus you need less.

That bit also links to this one:  https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/11/14/doubling-your-salary/

Mainstream personal finance pundits like Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman advocate lower spending for those in debt. Yet they have an apparently unlimited upper ceiling on how much increased spending can still lead to happiness, as evidenced by the high-spending lifestyles they are living today.

Here in the sensible middle, Mr. Money Mustache recommends both paths: earn as much as you can, but never sacrifice your soul to do it. At a certain level of income (which I feel is around $100,000 per person per year [in 2012]), the time to financial independence becomes so short that it becomes increasingly futile to earn more – that’s just how the math works out.

But all the earnings in the world are useless if you never know the meaning of the word “enough”. So get that concept in place right away – before wasting your time with increased income. Otherwise very little of that increased flow of cash will find its way into your ‘stash.

In summary, that's probably the emphasis on these forums because it's in keeping with the philosophy that spawned them. My understanding is that the Bogleheads forums tend to emphasize earning and spending more.

[use2betrix]

Yeah, buying a house in a VHCOL area is currently only for the upper upper middle class. Forget the purchase price, it’s the property tax into perpetuity I can’t get my head around! Home ownership is NOT always better for FIRE.

That said, rents are generally controlled, and have been lowering. My kid was able to move out and get quite a reasonable rent on their first place this year. Kid also bought a car ($5k, both cuz it’s old and it’s a manual). And kid skipped college and self-taught and worked their way from Walmart checker into a professional trade and has no debt. I’m thoroughly impressed.

I don’t think my kid is saving enough yet but at least they got the message to pay themselves first!

You are spot on about the rent vs buy conversation for many people. It seems *nearly* everyone thinks that it’s such a great investment to buy. Sure, in many cases it is. In plenty, it certainly isn’t, or even marginal at best.

I bought my first home this year at 35 y/o, when we already had a net worth of about $1.3mm, so money was NOT the thing holding us back.

Rent at our 4 bed/2 ba, 3 car garage home was $2250/mo. We moved into a newer & larger home 2 miles away (4 bed/3.5 ba, about 800 sq ft more). Our new home purchase price was $425k. We put $200k down, and we are still paying about $2770/mo, not including utilities. Our 2.2% property tax and the 6.6% interest rate are huge. We also now have to pay to fix stuff, way more maintenance, etc.

I fully admit that we would have been better off continuing to rent. We were ready for something a bit nicer and a place to make ‘our own.’ While we may come out ahead (barely?) by the time we hope to FIRE/move in 6-10 years, I am not betting on it. Nearly all our other investments have been into VTSAX. I actually consider our home likely to be our worst big investment.. I am viewing it through the lens of the quality of life improvement (hopefully), as opposed to the financial investment.

When I was renting for so many years, it was crazy the number of people telling me, “oh man you are wasting so much on rent, you need to buy..” They they had no idea I was already a millionaire and plenty well versed on my own personal circumstances and the rent vs owning decisions I had made. It’s this mindset of everyone thinking they have to buy a house that probably holds a lot of people back financially.

[Just Joe]

I really have no idea how people make ends meet while going out, buying things and then paying other people to do their chores.

[Telecaster]

So—why focus on facepunching someone who buys a nice car for his family and not facepunch people who could earn much more but don't because they hate “working for the man” or having to go into a physical office a couple days a week, etc.?

Because those aren't the people asking for facepunches (As I recall, facepunches were traditionally asked for, not just dolled out although somethings that happened too).   People asking for facepunches would typically do a case study then ask why they were in debt and couldn't save.   Typically there would be some unnecessarily consumer spending that could easily be eliminated.   Hence the need for the facepunch.

If someone is happy buying a nice car for their family they are unlikely to come to MMM and ask for a review of their finances. 

[wenchsenior]

I just finished reading Patrick Stewarts memoirs, and his life and memories particularly from his early 20s-30s to what expectations are now for people in their early 20-30s is quite different. For instance, when he was young and just getting started, it was very common for him to share a bedroom with another person, right up until he was in his early 30s. It's very common to see peoples experiences and expectations when they were 20-30 in the 50s/60s compared to now. Life was expected to be much simpler back then.

That said, the marketing, consumerism, and expectations of what life should be based on consumerism and marketing is so different now. Young people get bombarded with things they should consume, whether it's travel and consuming other cultures and experiences, or buying things, or whatever, it's at a totally different level than what people in the 50s or 60s could have even dreamed it would be like.

I think expectations related to international travel are INSANE. A person in their 20s is supposed to "go and explore the world". This includes airtravel across the world (we are mostly based in North America so any flight is a long distance flight). Then once you are there you cannot miss on EXPERIENCES OF LIFETIME. Most of them are not going to be free...

This is literally time one is at the peak broke, e.g. their career hasn't fully launched but mommy and daddy are not sponsoring anymore. Yet, the image of happy girlies having a blast on a beautiful Rome patio is so pervasive.

Even if you travel to the cheap destination, getting there is likely not affordable for a huge chunk of those 20 something. They just don't know it's unaffordable yet.

Honestly, I think Instagram brought this idea of beautiful life full of experiences to a new level entirely. Instagram made it look like EVERYONE is living like that until literally everyone started living like that. Even if I watch a HGTV show I don't get a sense that everyone around me is renovating a McMansion. However, if I scroll through the Instagram and recommendation on Instagram I see my peers. They are totally relatable, they seem very real and they are somehow doing all these things...

Same thing could be said about the restaurant culture that completely got out of control in the Big City I used to live at. It's just the norm, the expectation is that every social outing involves eating (and drinking out). Taking and posting beautiful pictures of food is mandatory as well.

I am pretty sure these expectations did not exist up until very recently.

Agree so much.

This type of thing seemed to start taking off in the 1990s and then boomed with the social media era. My parents and grandparents did not have social circles (even white-collar, upper-middle class, professional ones) that regarded regular international travel or eating out at restaurants frequently as the norm...vacations were mostly car trips, with a winter trip maybe to Florida or Mexico or the Caribbean for the higher income (we lived in the great dark north). International trips were a super special thing...most people either didn't do them or did one or two big trips in a lifetime.  Real estate was notably cheaper, so many people I knew in this circle did have two houses (winter home) but they usually sold one home at retirement (if they were higher income) or kept a more modest main house + a family cabin (upkeep often paid by several different family members).

[Metalcat]

So—why focus on facepunching someone who buys a nice car for his family and not facepunch people who could earn much more but don't because they hate “working for the man” or having to go into a physical office a couple days a week, etc.?

Because those aren't the people asking for facepunches (As I recall, facepunches were traditionally asked for, not just dolled out although somethings that happened too).   People asking for facepunches would typically do a case study then ask why they were in debt and couldn't save.   Typically there would be some unnecessarily consumer spending that could easily be eliminated.   Hence the need for the facepunch.

If someone is happy buying a nice car for their family they are unlikely to come to MMM and ask for a review of their finances.

Exactly, almost exclusively facepunches are for folks who have asked for advice on how to save money, and typically mostly doled out when the person starts making excuses for spending despite saying they want to save more.

And almost universally, every thread where someone asks for cost cutting advice but they're making a low income, a number of people will suggest that the focus instead on earning more. That usually *is* the facepunch people go with.

A "facepunch" is mostly a direct reality check to break through someone's discrepancies between their stated goals and their actions.

[Fru-Gal]

Thanks @Tass for posting those MMM excerpts. I absolutely took his advice to double my salary to heart, that’s exactly what I did and after 5 years of that salary/savings I was able to FIRE (I was in my late 40s and thankfully had an IRA that had been compounding since my 20s as well). My story also illustrates the time value of savings, because there was a stretch of more than a decade where I did not save practically anything, but my IRA continued to grow and is now the bulk of my total investments. Back then I had a target date fund, but sometime after starting reading MMM I switched it to VTSAX.

I’ve also shared many times that we financially struggled for many years. But you know how life is, you start noticing little hints from people (only a rare few) that there is a better way. Like when I mentioned that I’d read The Millionaire Next Door to someone who I knew was doing quite well, and he said he loved that book. And then I found this blog!

[spartana]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

Jeeze why do you assume people who aren't trying to earn more are "dragging their ass" on the job? Many people chose their careers out of personal interest, their joy in that career,  or a sense of altruisism and societal benefit rather then money or high income. Not being motivated by increased income, or increased consumption of consumer goods, certainly doesn't mean they are a bunch of lazy slackers.  Most work their asses off and kick ass on their jobs. What better way to reach FIRE then via a joyful career you are interested in and love even if it's lower paying.

[Ron Scott]

Many people chose their careers out of personal interest, their joy in that career,  or a sense of altruisism and societal benefit rather then money or high income. What better way to reach FIRE then via a joyful career you are interested in and love even if it's lower paying.

People’s careers can develop in strange ways, but those who follow their muse—as you say, “out of personal interest, their joy in that career,  or a sense of altruisism and societal benefit”—have won the game. They’re the lucky ones. Some of them earn very little, some become wealthy, but if the job you have is the joy in your life you’re got a damned good life.

I’ve known a few people like this. None of them focus on significant voluntary reductions in their expenses with the goal of leaving their jobs and retiring as soon as they make their number — because they’re already doing what they love.

[Freedomin5]

Some people might focus on reducing expenses even if they’re doing what they love because sometimes you don’t know how long you will have your job. Restructuring, health issues, or other life circumstances may preclude you from working for the rest of your life. The wise would still look for ways to optimize expenses and savings to become “work optional” or SWAMI.

[Metalcat]

Some people might focus on reducing expenses even if they’re doing what they love because sometimes you don’t know how long you will have your job. Restructuring, health issues, or other life circumstances may preclude you from working for the rest of your life. The wise would still look for ways to optimize expenses and savings to become “work optional” or SWAMI.

Almost like...FI still matters even if you don't RE, which happens to be something Ron says all the time.

I LOVED my career, but that doesn't mean I "won." Just because you love your work doesn't mean that you never have to worry about money. That's ridiculous.

Life happens, disability happens, I was a high earner and had I not been minimizing costs, I would have been absolutely, supremely fucked when I was forced to medically retired.

Frugality saved my ass AND it made my quality of life better along the way.

And it continues to do so even though I'm now going back to work at a new career that I love.

Some people make a lot and enjoy spending more, that's fine, we have plenty of folks in these parts with >1M$ homes, who drive luxury sports cars, who travel extensively, who enjoy any variety of of indulgences.

No one face punches them, no one is coming for anyone's spending if they're happy with it. We're not  militant vegans coming for everyone's burgers, jeez.

[Ron Scott]

Some people might focus on reducing expenses even if they’re doing what they love because sometimes you don’t know how long you will have your job. Restructuring, health issues, or other life circumstances may preclude you from working for the rest of your life.

Of course, and I’ve valued FI throughout my life. I have also always thought of emergency funds in terms of a year or 2…not a few months

The focus of my comments above however are related more to the kind of expense reduction that is made specifically to quit work and enjoy 40 or 50 years’ retirement.

People who’s work is their joy in life don’t save to quit.

[Metalcat]

???

Whether someone quits or not has no bearing on them reaching FI though????

This makes no sense.

[tj]

???

Whether someone quits or not has no bearing on them reaching FI though????

This makes no sense.

It should. If you can't afford to quit but you still quit, you're not FI.

[Metalcat]

???

Whether someone quits or not has no bearing on them reaching FI though????

This makes no sense.

It should. If you can't afford to quit but you still quit, you're not FI.

Not my point. My point was that whether the person retires or not, they still need to save the same amount to reach FI.

So if I'm aiming for FI, whether I like my job or not, I'm still going to aim to cut costs and save money.

Ron seems to be saying that only people who care about retiring early cut costs. It makes no sense.

[Tass]

Many, many people don’t *want* to hear about frugality because we live in a society that says that if you have to be frugal, you’re a failure.

I just don’t understand why people who want to FIRE seem more fixated on reducing expenses than growing income.

Shouldn’t people who drag their ass instead of kicking ass on the job be the first ones facepunched?

Jeeze why do you assume people who aren't trying to earn more are "dragging their ass" on the job? Many people chose their careers out of personal interest, their joy in that career,  or a sense of altruisism and societal benefit rather then money or high income. Not being motivated by increased income, or increased consumption of consumer goods, certainly doesn't mean they are a bunch of lazy slackers.  Most work their asses off and kick ass on their jobs. What better way to reach FIRE then via a joyful career you are interested in and love even if it's lower paying.

Nah, there are also people here who explicitly say they are doing as little work as possible and saving their efforts for pursuits that are meaningful to them. I say: good for them, they thought it through. Maximize what makes you happy, minimize what doesn't. If you have work that makes you happy, great, but if you are trying to maximize something else, and you've figured out the optimal balance of maximizing that thing and minimizing work, then congrats!

The only "losing" of the game is to play it mindlessly, without ever considering what you're playing for.

To be fair, I'm not sure whether Ron is talking about facepunching hardcore mustachians who follow this philosophy or average joes who don't make very much money.

[tj]

???

Whether someone quits or not has no bearing on them reaching FI though????

This makes no sense.

It should. If you can't afford to quit but you still quit, you're not FI.

Not my point. My point was that whether the person retires or not, they still need to save the same amount to reach FI.

So if I'm aiming for FI, whether I like my job or not, I'm still going to aim to cut costs and save money.

Ron seems to be saying that only people who care about retiring early cut costs. It makes no sense.

That would indeed make no sense.

[Log]

This strikes me as a “why are you booing [him], [he’s] right!” moment.

Yes saving for FI still makes sense if you love your job, because it provides security and enables you to get even richer as you continue working. Still, knowing you intend to continue working takes the pressure off the time horizon, and makes it much easier to let go a bit instead white-knuckling your way to maximal savings.

[LennStar]

He needs to be face-punched about literal face punching.

Now that is an interesting sentence :D We need more face punches!

I’m talking about the emphasis here on spending vs. earning.

So—why focus on facepunching someone who buys a nice car for his family and not facepunch people who could earn much more but don't because they hate “working for the man” or having to go into a physical office a couple days a week, etc.?

You sure you have read the blog? (And I am not even talking about the post where MMM ansers that question.)
It's about being happier in life - and getting Burn-Out is for most people not the way to be happier.

Also curbing expenses (at least starting from the average consumer sucka person) is easier than increasing income by 50%. Also, you sure that hedonic adaption will take that away and you need to increase your income again and again?
If you want you could call that lazy. But you qould very likely forgetting that frugality is not only about money - half of it is, see above, about a better and happier life. Sure, biking saves you a ton of money, it also makes you happier and healthier, something that money can only achieve very rudimentary above a certain point (and consumer sucka is way above that point).


Also "lazy" is a very disparaging word.
For example: Me. I am certainly lazy - just ask my mother - but I describe myself as a low energy person. Why? Because it's true. That is genetics, too. Some trees bloom very early, some very late. Some birds migrate far, some only a bit. That is because in time of abundance, the active individuals have an advantage, but in time of scarcity they die. That is why every race of whatever living being has a bell curve on energy/activity too.

Even if I loved the job and it would pay a shitton, I could not do 50 or even 60 hours weekly for any longer time. In fact I will down my time from 40h to 36h in June. It will push my FIRE back a year. But I have decided to make the resulting 1 Free Friday every 2 weeks a "health day", concentrating on my wellbeing and also doing intentionally "slightly discomforting" physical stuff. 
Is that lazy? Think about it.

Would I get an MMM facepunch for "delaying my FIRE"? Hell no!

[Ron Scott]

He needs to be face-punched about literal face punching.

Now that is an interesting sentence :D We need more face punches!

I love that reference to tough guy violence—face punch—on an Internet forum. When my daughter was 5 she would call you a “bad pal”. Then she grew up so.  LOL

[sixwings]

I just finished reading Patrick Stewarts memoirs, and his life and memories particularly from his early 20s-30s to what expectations are now for people in their early 20-30s is quite different. For instance, when he was young and just getting started, it was very common for him to share a bedroom with another person, right up until he was in his early 30s. It's very common to see peoples experiences and expectations when they were 20-30 in the 50s/60s compared to now. Life was expected to be much simpler back then.

That said, the marketing, consumerism, and expectations of what life should be based on consumerism and marketing is so different now. Young people get bombarded with things they should consume, whether it's travel and consuming other cultures and experiences, or buying things, or whatever, it's at a totally different level than what people in the 50s or 60s could have even dreamed it would be like.

I think expectations related to international travel are INSANE. A person in their 20s is supposed to "go and explore the world". This includes airtravel across the world (we are mostly based in North America so any flight is a long distance flight). Then once you are there you cannot miss on EXPERIENCES OF LIFETIME. Most of them are not going to be free...

This is literally time one is at the peak broke, e.g. their career hasn't fully launched but mommy and daddy are not sponsoring anymore. Yet, the image of happy girlies having a blast on a beautiful Rome patio is so pervasive.

Even if you travel to the cheap destination, getting there is likely not affordable for a huge chunk of those 20 something. They just don't know it's unaffordable yet.

Honestly, I think Instagram brought this idea of beautiful life full of experiences to a new level entirely. Instagram made it look like EVERYONE is living like that until literally everyone started living like that. Even if I watch a HGTV show I don't get a sense that everyone around me is renovating a McMansion. However, if I scroll through the Instagram and recommendation on Instagram I see my peers. They are totally relatable, they seem very real and they are somehow doing all these things...

Same thing could be said about the restaurant culture that completely got out of control in the Big City I used to live at. It's just the norm, the expectation is that every social outing involves eating (and drinking out). Taking and posting beautiful pictures of food is mandatory as well.

I am pretty sure these expectations did not exist up until very recently.

Agree so much.

This type of thing seemed to start taking off in the 1990s and then boomed with the social media era. My parents and grandparents did not have social circles (even white-collar, upper-middle class, professional ones) that regarded regular international travel or eating out at restaurants frequently as the norm...vacations were mostly car trips, with a winter trip maybe to Florida or Mexico or the Caribbean for the higher income (we lived in the great dark north). International trips were a super special thing...most people either didn't do them or did one or two big trips in a lifetime.  Real estate was notably cheaper, so many people I knew in this circle did have two houses (winter home) but they usually sold one home at retirement (if they were higher income) or kept a more modest main house + a family cabin (upkeep often paid by several different family members).

Yep expectations, especially now with social media, have just exploded and I think that's a big part of the depression that young people face. If you're not travelling and consuming all these cultures and amazing experiences and not eating at fancy restaurants with your friends then you must be falling behind, must be poorer than they are, and there must be something wrong with you. It's pretty deliberate marketing set up to create that feeling. It's the new keeping up with the joneses except 100x more toxic. It's why companies focus now on "micro-influencers" where people with a few hundred to a few thousand followers get free stuff to market to their friends. Our entire economic system is completely designed to keep you always feeling like you're missing out and falling behind and the only way to keep up is to consume more. It's incredibly hard for people to break out of that chain system. It's easier for older people who didn't grow up with instagram and influencers, it's going to be harder and harder for younger generations to break that cycle of constant in your face consumerism.

At least the Joneses weren't sponsored by companies to influence their neighbors to buy stuff. Many of your friends on your instagram reel are.

 That said, the cost of housing in Canada is insane, but that's a bigger issue that's been building for decades that was left unaddressed by multiple different governments because it wasn't convenient to address until it became a dire situation.

[zolotiyeruki]

No matter how firm your values, being the only one to hold them is exhausting & demoralizing, because every community has well-intended attempted facepunchers & plain garden variety assholes anyway, the pressure to conform is intense. Pioneering everything yourself is a lot of work. Being able to get ideas & moral support makes it into a significantly more enjoyable hobby.

That's certainly true--finding a community that shares your non-mainstream values certainly helps you hold fast to them.  Really, you're exchanging one community--a mainstream one that tries to convince you that This Bauble Will Make You Happy For Sure This Time!--for another, one which encourages you to critically evaluate what actually makes you happy, and to optimize your life around that.

I just finished reading Patrick Stewarts memoirs, and his life and memories particularly from his early 20s-30s to what expectations are now for people in their early 20-30s is quite different. For instance, when he was young and just getting started, it was very common for him to share a bedroom with another person, right up until he was in his early 30s. It's very common to see peoples experiences and expectations when they were 20-30 in the 50s/60s compared to now. Life was expected to be much simpler back then.

That said, the marketing, consumerism, and expectations of what life should be based on consumerism and marketing is so different now. Young people get bombarded with things they should consume, whether it's travel and consuming other cultures and experiences, or buying things, or whatever, it's at a totally different level than what people in the 50s or 60s could have even dreamed it would be like.

Totally true.  Remember Home Alone (the movie)?  I look at that family from the mid-90's, and holy cow, they were RICH.  Big ol' house, a huge stack of order-out pizzas, a trip to Europe for the whole extended family, shuttle service to the airport.  Nowadays, their circumstances don't seem all that special.

There's definitely been a tremendous amount of lifestyle inflation over the last 60 years.  Houses are 40% larger than they were half a century ago, even though families have shrunk.  Families used to have one or maybe two cars.  Now, two is the bare minimum.  Informal soccer/basketball/baseball has transitioned to Parks & Rec-sponsored leagues and into ubiquitous "travel <sport> teams".  We had a single computer growing up in the 90's.  I'm frankly embarrassed by how many computers my family has now.  My parents took us out to dinner once a year for our birthday, and rarely went out themselves.  DW and I go out to eat every week.  When I was a freshman in college, I lived in a cinder-block dorm room.  Today's new student housing complexes are absurdly posh.  Few of my peers had a car in college.  Now, everyone (it seems) has one.  Traveling by air, even domestically, was Fancy Pants stuff.  International travel? Gee, whiz, mister, you must be rich!  Nowdays, it doesn't raise an eyebrow.  My school district had two high schools which shared a single football stadium, and had no theater.  The school district where I now live also has two high schools, each has a very nice stadium and a decked-out theater.

The democratization of publication of a person's life highlights has shifted the Overton Window.  sixwings is right about social media.  It's a lot easier to get Likes and Follows by posting vacation photos than a sink full of dirty dishes or the traffic on the way to work.  So the fancy (spendy!) stuff is what we see all the time.

[Paper Chaser]

He needs to be face-punched about literal face punching.

Now that is an interesting sentence :D We need more face punches!

I love that reference to tough guy violence—face punch—on an Internet forum. When my daughter was 5 she would call you a “bad pal”. Then she grew up so.  LOL

It seems like you're a little hung up on the verbiage. MMM "Face punches" have never been a tough guy, physical threat. It's meant to be a brutally honest, sometimes blunt, wake up call for people going through their lives on autopilot. Those who are spending mindlessly, or acting in ways that don't align with their stated goals. Facepunches are delivered (typically with permission from the one receiving the "face punch") to be helpful reality checks. It's just supposed to be constructive criticism delivered in a jarring way to make the point more clearly. Not everyone responds to gentle coddling or subtle hints. Sometimes you have to highlight it and call it out as being stupid or counterproductive.

[spartana]

Many people chose their careers out of personal interest, their joy in that career,  or a sense of altruisism and societal benefit rather then money or high income. What better way to reach FIRE then via a joyful career you are interested in and love even if it's lower paying.

People’s careers can develop in strange ways, but those who follow their muse—as you say, “out of personal interest, their joy in that career,  or a sense of altruisism and societal benefit”—have won the game. They’re the lucky ones. Some of them earn very little, some become wealthy, but if the job you have is the joy in your life you’re got a damned good life.

I’ve known a few people like this. None of them focus on significant voluntary reductions in their expenses with the goal of leaving their jobs and retiring as soon as they make their number — because they’re already doing what they love.

People generally love many things. Some which can't be done at the same time due to time limits or other factors. So wanting to leave your well loved but lower paying job early to pursue other things in life, and saving money by cutting expenses rather then changing careers to earn more, seems a very natural thing  to want to do. Throw in aging or other physical and life factors and desires that aren't compatible with your job and yeah,  people are still going to want FIRE and move on to other much loved activities. Getting to FI, even coast or lean FI, by reducing expenses and removing the need to work an additional 20 or 30 years can be a pretty sweet option to have. And it certainly doesn't mean someone is a lazy slacker if they are choosing a lower paid career (and maybe a much harder job) because they find it more fulfilling then other career options.

[spartana]

This strikes me as a “why are you booing [him], [he’s] right!” moment.

Yes saving for FI still makes sense if you love your job, because it provides security and enables you to get even richer as you continue working. Still, knowing you intend to continue working takes the pressure off the time horizon, and makes it much easier to let go a bit instead white-knuckling your way to maximal savings.

Liking your job, and specifically choosing it over higher paying jobs, doesn't mean you plan to work it forever. I really liked what I did and would choose to do that again if I wanted to a job again, didn't mean I didn't want to get to FI so I could leave to go do other things I was interested in - or at least have that option.

Anyways my point was more about Ron Scott's comment about lower income people are "dragging ass instead of kicking ass" at their jobs. I found that to be highly insulting to the legion of people who - due to life circumstances or choice - have lower income jobs.