Premium Air Travel & Car Rentals are Mustachian Now?

[Dicey]

I wonder if the Mr Money Mustache that appears in Netflix's 'Get Smart With Money' is the facepunch the clown car owner MMM or the pinkie in the air premium air travel and Tesla renting MMM?

Buying a few inches of legroom in Coach is still fucking Coach. It's paying extra for what used to be standard.

So many stone throwers on this thread. Yawn.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I wonder if the Mr Money Mustache that appears in Netflix's 'Get Smart With Money' is the facepunch the clown car owner MMM or the pinkie in the air premium air travel and Tesla renting MMM?

Buying a few inches of legroom in Coach is still fucking Coach. It's paying extra for what used to be standard.

So many stone throwers on this thread. Yawn.

I just couldn't help myself when you said you wanted to let it go...  sorry

[mm1970]

^^I read this with the screen blown up so I couldn't see the author.^^

I was nodding along, so I shrunk the screen to find out who was stringing these pearls of wisdom. Of course it was you,  @Laura33! Lol at "carpe me some diem." Totally stealing that.

Random thought, not directed at L33: how long after the event that triggered this thread is over will it still be dissected here? Let it go...

Yup

**Yeah, I'm probably over-sensitized on this one, but I am older and facing the prospect that some of my future plans may be physically beyond me if I leave them too much in the future.  Nothing bad, but the aches and pains and longer recovery times are making me feel likely future constraints in a very real way.  I just got back from an international trip, and I am hurting from the travel -- and that was with business class (Condor airlines, so price was normal-airlines economy, but still).  I have saved my whole life, always placed the future ahead of the now, and that has put me at a place where I need to carpe me some diem while my body can still manage it.  So, yeah, I totally feel the value in nonstop flights and more legroom, because I know up close and personal how not having those things puts a major crimp in my ability to enjoy a trip.

I am also overly sensitive to this.  I am ALREADY thinking and planning on how to manage a business trip to Asia.  I *know* my company won't pay for business class.  I have to really consider/ figure out if DH has enough airline miles to upgrade me to business class for the 11-12 hour flight because I DO NOT SLEEP ON PLANES.  At least, I do not sleep upright, or slightly reclined, with very little legroom, as someone who is barely 5'3".  So, how will I function and manage a foreign country, riding on two different trains, while not reading/ speaking the language, if I've been awake 24-36 hours?  Um, I'm 52.  Not well. 

(This leaves my choices as: 1. make sure I'm traveling with someone else at work, and take the same flight.  At least if it's overnight and I don't sleep, they can make sure I don't get lost. 2. Figure out how to upgrade to business, even if it means paying a couple to 5 thousand dollars. 3. Insist on flying during the daytime.  4. Flyi a day or two ahead of time so that I can at least adjust somewhat to the time zone before having to function.)

[Cassie]

I am 68 and went to Europe in June. I have back/neck problems from being rear ended a few times. I am also fairly tall. Riding in coach was definitely uncomfortable. Coming home I was offered a chance to sit in premium economy for 145 which included both flights. It was a extra 12” of leg room and what a difference that made. In the future when I fly if it doesn’t cost a fortune I will do that again. Mr MM’s philosophy is really just how most people lived both in my parents generation and mine especially when younger.

[ChickenStash]

I don't fly often but I'm going to have to start looking at whatever the next step up is to get more room for, at least, international flights. I'm 6-1, so not all that tall. A few years ago, I did a round trip from Chicago to Cairo (Egypt, not Illinois) in coach and it was pretty unpleasant. My knees were jammed into the seat in front of me and I could barely move anything in my lower body. I was fighting cramping and joint pain (I have a bad back) for most of the flights so there was no sleep. Obviously, I survived but it wasn't a great way to book-end a vacation.

I don't consider myself a "true Mustachian" so I'm not concerned with being labeled a spendthrift if I try to seek out travel that doesn't have me in pain for long periods. I just need some space to be able to move my legs around a little bit. Even the lack of sleep wasn't that big of a deal. I don't need champagne, hot towels, or a 7-course meal, just a bit of space. For my next trip, I need to see where the class boundary is that gets me some leg room.

As a side note, maybe I'm just a pleb, but I was impressed with the food and service in coach on the trans-Atlantic legs of that trip. The way over was British Airways and Air France on the way back - Air France was a little better (not shocked). If business or first-class is markedly better it would probably be lost on me.

[zolotiyeruki]

Here's my take:  tl;dr: the audience for this post is different from several years ago.  Different life situation, different goals, so different advice.

longer version:
In days of yore, MMM's posts were directed at people who were sacrificing years of their lives to spend money on things that didn't make them happy.  Sticking with a bad job because they didn't have FU money.  On the smartphone upgrade treadmill because that's what the marketing told them to do.  Leasing a car because that's what their peers were doing.  Eating out three times per week because it was convenient.  And then complaining that "I'll never retire" or "I'm living paycheck to paycheck."

The recent article is speaking to a different audience.  This audience has already achieved their financial goals.  They've accumulated enough that their savings can not only support a joyful lifestyle, but also provide some money for splurging.

The message is this: If you're FI and never spend that extra money, it can never do you any good.  Spending it won't hurt your financial future (otherwise, you're NOT FI), and might make you a bit happier.

The person earning $30k/year can't afford an extra $1k.  The retiree spending $40k/year from a $2M portfolio can.

[ender]

The message is this: If you're FI and never spend that extra money, it can never do you any good.  Spending it won't hurt your financial future (otherwise, you're NOT FI), and might make you a bit happier.

The person earning $30k/year can't afford an extra $1k.  The retiree spending $40k/year from a $2M portfolio can.

But while I don't disagree, this is contrary to the entire initial premise that MMM had.

[zolotiyeruki]

The message is this: If you're FI and never spend that extra money, it can never do you any good.  Spending it won't hurt your financial future (otherwise, you're NOT FI), and might make you a bit happier.

The person earning $30k/year can't afford an extra $1k.  The retiree spending $40k/year from a $2M portfolio can.

But while I don't disagree, this is contrary to the entire initial premise that MMM had.

You may be right.  But the initial premise, at least the way I understand it, did not target "retirees who have money to burn."

[RetiredAt63]

The message is this: If you're FI and never spend that extra money, it can never do you any good.  Spending it won't hurt your financial future (otherwise, you're NOT FI), and might make you a bit happier.

The person earning $30k/year can't afford an extra $1k.  The retiree spending $40k/year from a $2M portfolio can.

But while I don't disagree, this is contrary to the entire initial premise that MMM had.

You may be right.  But the initial premise, at least the way I understand it, did not target "retirees who have money to burn."

But there are us retirees who are still in the prioritizing mind-frame who look at surviving travel with a body that is not as resilient as it used to be as definitely high priority, so that may mean that spending priorities shift.  So we may not have money to burn, but we have enough money to allocate to comfortable travel and will just spend less elsewhere.  In other words, when you are older and creakier (whatever level of older and creakier) then making travel comfortable becomes higher priority.  No point travelling if you pay a high physical price to do so.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

The message is this: If you're FI and never spend that extra money, it can never do you any good.  Spending it won't hurt your financial future (otherwise, you're NOT FI), and might make you a bit happier.

The person earning $30k/year can't afford an extra $1k.  The retiree spending $40k/year from a $2M portfolio can.

But while I don't disagree, this is contrary to the entire initial premise that MMM had.

You may be right.  But the initial premise, at least the way I understand it, did not target "retirees who have money to burn."

But there are us retirees who are still in the prioritizing mind-frame who look at surviving travel with a body that is not as resilient as it used to be as definitely high priority, so that may mean that spending priorities shift.  So we may not have money to burn, but we have enough money to allocate to comfortable travel and will just spend less elsewhere.  In other words, when you are older and creakier (whatever level of older and creakier) then making travel comfortable becomes higher priority.  No point travelling if you pay a high physical price to do so.

Are we saying that MMM has become old and creaky?  Poor fella was sliding down fireman’s poles to get to hot tub emergencies just a few posts ago…

[RetiredAt63]

The message is this: If you're FI and never spend that extra money, it can never do you any good.  Spending it won't hurt your financial future (otherwise, you're NOT FI), and might make you a bit happier.

The person earning $30k/year can't afford an extra $1k.  The retiree spending $40k/year from a $2M portfolio can.

But while I don't disagree, this is contrary to the entire initial premise that MMM had.

You may be right.  But the initial premise, at least the way I understand it, did not target "retirees who have money to burn."

But there are us retirees who are still in the prioritizing mind-frame who look at surviving travel with a body that is not as resilient as it used to be as definitely high priority, so that may mean that spending priorities shift.  So we may not have money to burn, but we have enough money to allocate to comfortable travel and will just spend less elsewhere.  In other words, when you are older and creakier (whatever level of older and creakier) then making travel comfortable becomes higher priority.  No point travelling if you pay a high physical price to do so.

Are we saying that MMM has become old and creaky?  Poor fella was sliding down fireman’s poles to get to hot tub emergencies just a few posts ago…

Nah I was saying I am old and creaky.    But most of the wear and tear issues I am dealing with now were started in my 40s, if not before.  So be kind to your bodies.

[zolotiyeruki]

But there are us retirees who are still in the prioritizing mind-frame who look at surviving travel with a body that is not as resilient as it used to be as definitely high priority, so that may mean that spending priorities shift.  So we may not have money to burn, but we have enough money to allocate to comfortable travel and will just spend less elsewhere.  In other words, when you are older and creakier (whatever level of older and creakier) then making travel comfortable becomes higher priority.  No point travelling if you pay a high physical price to do so.

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic.  By "money to burn" I meant "after meeting other requirements, there is discretionary income that can be (judiciously) spent, without worrying that such expenditures will negatively affect one's financial security."  The latter is specific, but wordy.  The former may be a bit indelicate, but it gets the point across.

Are we saying that MMM has become old and creaky?  Poor fella was sliding down fireman’s poles to get to hot tub emergencies just a few posts ago…

It's all a matter of degrees.  I noticed that creaks and aches started an upward trend at age 35...

[snic]

I don't fly often but I'm going to have to start looking at whatever the next step up is to get more room for, at least, international flights. I'm 6-1, so not all that tall. A few years ago, I did a round trip from Chicago to Cairo (Egypt, not Illinois) in coach and it was pretty unpleasant. My knees were jammed into the seat in front of me and I could barely move anything in my lower body. I was fighting cramping and joint pain (I have a bad back) for most of the flights so there was no sleep. Obviously, I survived but it wasn't a great way to book-end a vacation.

I don't consider myself a "true Mustachian" so I'm not concerned with being labeled a spendthrift if I try to seek out travel that doesn't have me in pain for long periods. I just need some space to be able to move my legs around a little bit. Even the lack of sleep wasn't that big of a deal. I don't need champagne, hot towels, or a 7-course meal, just a bit of space. For my next trip, I need to see where the class boundary is that gets me some leg room.

As a side note, maybe I'm just a pleb, but I was impressed with the food and service in coach on the trans-Atlantic legs of that trip. The way over was British Airways and Air France on the way back - Air France was a little better (not shocked). If business or first-class is markedly better it would probably be lost on me.

It's definitely harder to tolerate economy flights as one gets older. I've nearly(*) solved the problem by flying in business class for about the same price as coach. How? By playing the credit card points game very well. Basically, by opening a few credit cards with large points bonuses and always maximizing points earned on purchases, and transferring these points to airlines to purchase tickets, I've managed to fly my family of 3 on overseas vacations in business class every few years. There is a cost to the credit card points earned this way, in the form of annual card fees, extra fees for using a credit card vs cash (e.g., more expensive per-gallon cost of gas), etc. But it works out to no more than roughly the cost of a coach ticket per person to get the miles needed for business class. First or business class trips in the last 15 years include India, Cambodia, Thailand, Greece, and two trips to western Europe; a few transcontinental flights; and we have New Zealand tickets booked for next year. And we've banked enough points to think of a trip in 2024.

There are plenty of online resources on how to do this. Here's a good place to start: https://onemileatatime.com/guides/redeeming-airline-miles/

(*I say I "nearly" solved the problem because I still have to take other trips for work or family reasons that I don't have the points for, so I continue to be very familiar with coach. And when coach airfares are very cheap it usually makes sense just to pay for a coach ticket.)

[Dicey]

^^I agree with this^^, but want to remind everyone that Pete didn't do this. He just paid a a bit extra for a little more legroom IN FREAKING COACH!

I find it humorous that this thread persists long past MMM's actual trip.

[Fru-Gal]

I totally agree at @spartana and you inspire me! It really does take seeing options because humans are imitative group creatures so when somebody else says why take a taxi when I can walk 3 or 5 miles to the train station or as a woman I can go solo backpacking or bike packing (neither of which I’ve done, trying to work up courage) that’s the kind of thing that helps us break out of the box of having to do things a certain way.

You also said something really important which is that you don’t see hedonic adaptation being tied to age. I think that’s so important to avoid the causality excuse when it’s unproven.

[RetiredAt63]

I totally agree at @spartana and you inspire me! It really does take seeing options because humans are imitative group creatures so when somebody else says why take a taxi when I can walk 3 or 5 miles to the train station or as a woman I can go solo backpacking or bike packing (neither of which I’ve done, trying to work up courage) that’s the kind of thing that helps us break out of the box of having to do things a certain way.

You also said something really important which is that you don’t see hedonic adaptation being tied to age. I think that’s so important to avoid the causality excuse when it’s unproven.

Some of it is age (believe me, I'm there) and some of it is just hedonic adaption independent of age.  The trick is to keep examining options to see when is really acknowledging an older creakier body and when it is just being indulgent.

[Villanelle]

^^I agree with this^^, but want to remind everyone that Pete didn't do this. He just paid a a bit extra for a little more legroom IN FREAKING COACH!

I find it humorous that this thread persists long past MMM's actual trip.

I think it's morphed from "Pete did this" to just a general hedonistic adaptation discussion now. Which is always a good topic IMHO. Because I'm a long term forum member I remember the early days when the idea of throwing a bunch of money towards a couple of hours of comfort instead of bucking up would have been super face punch worthy. Even if already FIRE. I miss those days ;-).

I miss those days, too, even though my lifestyle has always been pretty punch-inducing by those standards.  I felt like it pushed me to really evaluate my choices.  Before I'd say I was 75% on the spectrum of crazy frugal---->consumer sucker, relative to the posters here.  Now, with almost nothing about my and my choices changing, I'd say I'm at 25%.

[snic]

Thanks although I LIKE being uncomfortable ;-). Are you a  stoic if you like it and it makes you feel good, happy, and is more challenging and makes you feel more powerful? Probably not since you are enjoying it!

I do agree with most people who say aging does facter into seeking greater comforts and willingness to pay for them. Not everyone of course and challenging yourself be be a bit uncomfortable or do something hard can be pretty rewarding regardless of your age or ability.  But I do think there are a lot of  young healthy fit people (MMM) who find it easy to throw some extra money at something hard and more challenging to make it softer and easier.

Nothing is absolute. It's possible to really enjoy hard physical labor despite the muscle aches and pains, yet absolutely hate the discomfort of sitting upright in a chair in a confined space surrounded by other people. At some level, even an extreme Mustachian has to say "you can't take it with you" and spend some money for comfort now. It really just comes down to where you draw the line.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say the dentist charges $20 extra for anesthesia. Would the ideal Mustachian forego anesthesia and endure an hour of pain that's 20 on a scale of 1 to 10? The ideal, as I understand it, is to push yourself to tolerate what you think you can't, and when you decide whether you need to pay extra to avoid what you think you can't tolerate, factor in all the future costs of deciding to spend the money and all the opportunity cost of not investing the money you'd otherwise save. Most of us, even the most Mustachian, are going to pay the $20 even after carefully considering the costs and benefits. But maybe someone with only $100 in the bank would not. Similarly, someone with $20M in the bank is likely to pay a few hundred or even thousand extra for comfortable airline seats, which most of us with smaller piles of cash wouldn't even consider. My point is that the equation is not just the cost of current pleasure/comfort/benefit vs the return you could get if you forego that pleasure -- it also includes the size of your cash pile in relation to the cost of the pleasure. MMM has historically discounted this factor. Now that he's wealthy, not too surprisingly, he isn't discounting it as much.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

This is what is concerning about this 'lifestyle drift' from MMM himself.  Mustachianism was never meant to be Early Retirement Extreme, but it also wasn't supposed to cater to FatFIRE.  It was that happy spot in the middle where you acknowledge the ridiculous luxury already present in everyday life, that we all have an exploding firehose of income to meet our current needs, and a challenge to the status quo of taking everyday luxury for granted - like defaulting to accepting long commutes, the lunacy of using drive throughs, that biking is only for the Tour de France and kids, etc.  That core of Mustachianism, in Pete's latest posts and on the forum, is drifting more toward 'well, if you have the money, efficiency for its own ends isn't all that important'.  Pete might be getting soft...  but that also doesn't mean 'true Mustachianism' is ERE either.  I hope we haven't lost the plot here.

[JupiterGreen]

This is what is concerning about this 'lifestyle drift' from MMM himself.  Mustachianism was never meant to be Early Retirement Extreme, but it also wasn't supposed to cater to FatFIRE.  It was that happy spot in the middle where you acknowledge the ridiculous luxury already present in everyday life, that we all have an exploding firehose of income to meet our current needs, and a challenge to the status quo of taking everyday luxury for granted - like defaulting to accepting long commutes, the lunacy of using drive throughs, that biking is only for the Tour de France and kids, etc.  That core of Mustachianism, in Pete's latest posts and on the forum, is drifting more toward 'well, if you have the money, efficiency for its own ends isn't all that important'.  Pete might be getting soft...  but that also doesn't mean 'true Mustachianism' is ERE either.  I hope we haven't lost the plot here.

I like how you put this, this blog is a sort of goldilocks between FatFire and LeanFire. I believe that is what kept me coming back to it. I appreciate that MMM is environmental and as a woman it is refreshing to read his writing about becoming financially independence without the toxic-masculinity (looking at you FATfire). But I don't think the concept of hedonistic adaptations will be sullied because Pete bought a little leg room. The MMM philosophy (if I may can call it that) challenges our abilities and tolerances (as has been mentioned). While I haven't been on these forums for long, I've been reading the blog since (almost?) the beginning. So I am not coming at this as a noob. I think MMM has done his job. Anyone who wasn't around in those early days to read the blog could start today from the first post and still get a lot out of the content he has provided the world for free. His blog is very generous to those who give it the time it deserves. I'm sure you all remember when he didn't use his name, Pete strikes me as a guy who doesn't really enjoy the spotlight (just a guess) but ended up under one because he has good ideas and is inspirational. Perhaps he slipped a little by buying a little more legroom on a flight, I really don't care though because I think he has done the work to earn it. The question about whether he should have mentioned it on his blog is fair criticism. However, I have no problem accepting the blog as the aspirational MMM persona.

Personally, I appreciate where the conversation in this thread has been going and have enjoyed reading the different perspectives about the post. 

[snic]

he has the money so he can do what he wants. It does delute his message of badassity and toughing it out can be rewarding and even fun just for its own sake and that hedonism is not as awesome as we've been told.

That core of Mustachianism, in Pete's latest posts and on the forum, is drifting more toward 'well, if you have the money, efficiency for its own ends isn't all that important'.  Pete might be getting soft...  but that also doesn't mean 'true Mustachianism' is ERE either.  I hope we haven't lost the plot here.

I'm not so sure it dilutes the message, at least if you think about it mathematically. One way of looking at it is simply that Mustachianism encourages you to change the definition of "what you can afford." If you make $100k per year, you can afford to spend $100k pre-conversion to Mustachianism, but after conversion, you can only afford to spend $40k. The answer to the question, "HOW can I possibly do without $60k worth of crap?" is "figure out how to enjoy what $40k buys you, and look, here is this blog and forum to tell you all the ways." The current message is the same, just shift the decimals to the right a few notches if you happen to have the cash to do it. And if you can't because you don't have enough zeros, keep the decimals where they are. Based on that logic, I'd argue that someone with MMM's wealth is being Mustachian simply by not buying first class tickets and going for premium economy instead.

I guess it boils down to: if it's Mustachian to make $100k/year and live off $40k, why isn't it also Mustachian to make $1M/year and live off $400k?

[ender]

I guess it boils down to: if it's Mustachian to make $100k/year and live off $40k, why isn't it also Mustachian to make $1M/year and live off $400k?

I suspect Pete of 5-10+ years ago would say that spending $40k is what makes someone Mustachian. So would facepunch the second person.

[tooqk4u22]

I guess it boils down to: if it's Mustachian to make $100k/year and live off $40k, why isn't it also Mustachian to make $1M/year and live off $400k?

I suspect Pete of 5-10+ years ago would say that spending $40k is what makes someone Mustachian. So would facepunch the second person.

This^. Also if you make $400k/year but choose to live on $40k/year (which can be pretty nice for many here) then you only need to work a short while to FI.

To be fair the $40k (including imputed rent) he spent back when the blog started is equivalent to $53k today.   So give yourself a raise!

But really a few bucks for a bit more comfort...who cares, buti get it can be a slippery slope.   

On one hand MMM has always spent more than was characterized but on the other he always spent well below his means, and since the blog took off way below and way below what would be frugal for anyone else with that income. 

There's also the distinct possibility that when resources were less, at the beginning, it was a forced level of spending and not desired level and then as income and assets grew his spending migrated more to a desired level of spending, which is still way less than typical though.   

I personally always liked the message but always thought there was a dose of hypocrisy with it, but that's ok and quite common for most blogs.   I mean fictional books are fake stories, but I still enjoy them. 

[snic]

To be fair the $40k (including imputed rent) he spent back when the blog started is equivalent to $53k today.   So give yourself a raise!

But really a few bucks for a bit more comfort...who cares, buti get it can be a slippery slope.   

On one hand MMM has always spent more than was characterized but on the other he always spent well below his means, and since the blog took off way below and way below what would be frugal for anyone else with that income. 

There's also the distinct possibility that when resources were less, at the beginning, it was a forced level of spending and not desired level and then as income and assets grew his spending migrated more to a desired level of spending, which is still way less than typical though.   

I personally always liked the message but always thought there was a dose of hypocrisy with it, but that's ok and quite common for most blogs.   I mean fictional books are fake stories, but I still enjoy them. 

If I remember right, MMM once wrote that when the blog took off and he got rich off it almost by accident, he decided not to touch that money and live as if it didn't exist. That would make a lot of sense from the perspective of someone writing a blog on how anyone can become frugal and FIRE: his advice wouldn't be very credible if he used the "accidental" blog earnings to do it.

So I guess I don't sense a lot of hypocrisy. As to whether he's become more hypocritical by now starting to spend a few pennies more on creature comforts - well, I don't see that as hypocritical either because even if he earned his blog money in a way that most of the people he's addressing in his blog cannot (i.e., by blogging), his financial future would be pretty secure even if he dramatically increased his spending. I mean, when we laugh at clown car drivers and clown house owners, it's because they've spent extravagantly to have these foolish things now instead of being more sensible in order to ensure a stable financial future. Do we laugh at the Bill Gateses of the world for their clown houses? Their future is stable no matter what they do, so if the antics of the rich entertain us, it's not because we think they're making poor financial decisions. (Well... not always, anyway.) And compared to your average wealthy person, MMM is still pretty frugal relative to his wealth.

[Laura33]

OK, I know it's beating a dead horse, but boy we're nitpicking stuff that most of us do every day.  Look at what he actually did:

-- Drive + park at airport:  $150 vs. $50 + 3 hrs for round trip bus fare
-- $80 for better seat on plane.
-- Rent a Tesla for the travel -- Ca $870. 

So really, the $1K "lifestyle" upgrade was a total of $230.  The major chunk was renting a car.  And for that, the splurge isn't actually $870 -- it's how much more he paid above what the cheapest option would have been (and even those are going to be significant).  Even if he could have gotten a low-end rental for half that, with gas $7/gal. and 800 miles to travel, he's still going to be out something like $600 total.  Or depending on where he was going, he could also have presumably taken buses or trains.  I'm assuming those would be less (unlike where I live**).  But those also have additional costs (e.g., Ubers to train station), and when you're visiting several places and traveling 800 miles total, juggling the bus and train schedules can cost you a huge chunk of time over what you'd spend just hopping in the car whenever you want.  So overall, we're talking maybe, what, another $200 in extra costs associated with renting a Tesla instead of taking the cheapest option -- not even counting the hours saved?  For a guy with both an environmentalist bent and a total fascination with electric vehicles in general and Tesla in particular, that seems like a reasonable splurge. 

Seems to me that most of what he spent money on wasn't for personal comfort, it was buying his time back -- 3 hrs for the airport run, however many hours for his travel within Canada.  The exception is the airplane seat, and those tickets were still under $300 total.  If he were in debt, or trying to get to FIRE, sure, I'd jump on him for blowing $150 on parking when he could have sucked it up and spent $50 for the bus.  But once you're FIRE, you are at a place where, almost by definition, your time is more valuable than money.  So as long as your budget can handle the approx. $30/hr it costs for the privilege of driving and parking, it's a reasonable choice to decide that it's worth the upcharge to get 3 hrs of your life back. 

Really, isn't FIRE all about valuing your time over money?  We all work and save and suck it up for years because we value -- prize, really -- the freedom to spend our days however we want once we are financially free.  And most of us give up more than $30/hr when we retire; if you make $100K, that's $50/hr for a "normal" work year.  So how is it Mustachian to walk away from $50/hr or $100/hr or however much you're paid at your job, but it's the poster child for hedonism when you have way more money than you need and use a teensy bit of it to buy 3 hrs of your time back at $33/hr? 

*Even if you get 40 mpg, which is unlikely with any city driving, that's still 20 gallons of gas and $140.

**I don't know Canadian train pricing, but every time we've wanted to take a weekend trip to NY, it always works out that its cheaper to drive, even counting the NJ Turnpike tolls and NY parking prices, because 4 train tickets get ridiculously pricy.  I'd hope Canada has a more functional system, but you still have to factor in that he'd need 2 train tix, not just 1.