Author Topic: un-Mustachioed dissident  (Read 16305 times)

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
un-Mustachioed dissident
« on: June 09, 2015, 05:00:33 AM »
a. It's hypocritical. You don't work but you still want others to serve you.
b. Instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just the other side of the same coin.

Having said that I hate my job. I'm curious how much MMM makes with this blog - it sounds like a job to me. It's a free lance one however.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 09:13:03 AM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2015, 05:24:01 AM »
What?

redbird

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2015, 05:25:12 AM »
I don't think it's hypocritical. You're still paying for services even if you become financially independent or early retire. If you go out to eat, you're helping pay the cook and waitstaff. If you buy physical items, you are still supporting the people who made it, the company who sold it, the logistics companies who moved it from Point A to Point B, etc. MMM, for example, still goes to the grocery store. He still has to pay for the food. It's not like he walks out and steals it. That's supporting the people who work there.

No idea how much MMM makes with the blog, but MMM seems to consider a lot of side gigs he does as hobbies. He has enough money that he doesn't need to run the blog. He just finds it fun to do so.

Being early retired + financially independent doesn't mean you plan to never do anything that earns money ever again. It means you don't HAVE TO to put food on the table or to survive. You just do it because you choose to.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2015, 06:36:10 AM »
Troll.

Retired To Win

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1493
  • Age: 76
  • Location: Virginia
  • making the most of my time and my money
    • Retired To Win
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2015, 06:39:08 AM »

Faraday

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
  • Age: 62
  • Location: NC
  • Solar Powered Slice
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2015, 06:43:01 AM »
Troll.

Double troll!!

Good call. Triple troll!

IF that's all the bait it takes to draw us out, "What What What!?!?". This thread must die.

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2015, 07:39:57 AM »
Troll this troll that. My dad can beat up your dad. Answer the criticism.

You're showing off just the same as a raised up truck if you're playing a polo match, or doing some other activity that indicates a. you don't have to work. b. your above others who do.

Further, I am not saying mustache life is freeloading... just saying you don't want to show up somewhere at 9 o'clock every morning, but you want others to do so.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 02:10:07 PM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2015, 07:41:33 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2015, 07:46:56 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying.

Don't feed the troll.

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2015, 07:49:52 AM »
what don't you understand?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2015, 07:51:39 AM »
...

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2015, 07:52:11 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying.

Don't feed the troll.

I just don't understand the initial term. What is an un-Mustachioed dissident? What kind of category of person is the OP trying to criticize?

I get that the OP may be a troll, frankly the post is walking and talking like a duck, but I'd also like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if given the small opportunity to broaden their comments beyond cryptic title and random bullet points they can actually say something with a remote sense of substance. Even if it's substance you (or I or anyone) don't agree with.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2015, 07:53:49 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying.

Don't feed the troll.

I just don't understand the initial term. What is an un-Mustachioed dissident? What kind of category of person is the OP trying to criticize?

I get that the OP may be a troll, frankly the post is walking and talking like a duck, but I'd also like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if given the small opportunity to broaden their comments beyond cryptic title and random bullet points they can actually say something with a remote sense of substance. Even if it's substance you (or I or anyone) don't agree with.

I think. Dobedo managed pretty well above.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2015, 07:56:14 AM »
what don't you understand?

Maybe try rephrasing what you're trying to say. As I said in the previous post you have a cryptic title that means something to you apparently but not to me. Maybe try framing your point in a manner which is more understandable? You know the whole overarching thesis and supporting arguments way of talking to people...

It makes it more cohesive and understandable when you attempt to do that.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying.

Don't feed the troll.

I just don't understand the initial term. What is an un-Mustachioed dissident? What kind of category of person is the OP trying to criticize?

I get that the OP may be a troll, frankly the post is walking and talking like a duck, but I'd also like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if given the small opportunity to broaden their comments beyond cryptic title and random bullet points they can actually say something with a remote sense of substance. Even if it's substance you (or I or anyone) don't agree with.

I think. Dobedo managed pretty well above.

So we're the un-Mustachiod dissidents? Is that the people being criticized? Is the OP the un-Mustachiod dissidents?

These are things that keep me up in the morning ;)

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2015, 07:58:32 AM »
a. it's hypocritical. you don't work but you still want others to to serve you.
b. instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just another side of the same coin.

Having said that I hate my job ...I'm curious how much MMM makes with this blog - it sounds like a job to me. It's a free lance one however.

Your points are pretty weak.

A. Obviously they did work, or they wouldn't be able to retire.  How else do you think they got the income? Also, it doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the DIY ethos of this blog because most of the service is performed by Mustachians themselves. They do it themselves instead of hiring out.

B. Their conspicuous leisure is less likely to destroy the planet.  Going for a hike doesn't cause global warming.

Hope that helps, Mr. Troll.  Have a great day.

Yeah that was really helpful.

A. Where did I say that they didn't work at one time or another? The aim is not to however, or only to do so for a limited time. Also how many DIY tasks can you really do for it to really count ? How about a DIY infrastructure? How about DIY city planning? How about a DIY roads and highway? How about DIY commercial air flying? I mean really your points are ridiculous.

B. Environment has got nothing to do with it. But I guess I see where you're coming from. My point is conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same.   
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:31:59 AM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2015, 08:06:02 AM »
a. it's hypocritical. you don't work but you still want others to to serve you.
b. instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just another side of the same coin.

Having said that I hate my job ...I'm curious how much MMM makes with this blog - it sounds like a job to me. It's a free lance one however.

Your points are pretty weak.

A. Obviously they did work, or they wouldn't be able to retire.  How else do you think they got the income? Also, it doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the DIY ethos of this blog because most of the service is performed by Mustachians themselves. They do it themselves instead of hiring out.

B. Their conspicuous leisure is less likely to destroy the planet.  Going for a hike doesn't cause global warming.

Hope that helps, Mr. Troll.  Have a great day.

Yeah that was really helpful.

A. Where did I say that they didn't work at one time or another? The aim is not to however, or only to do so for a limited time. Also how many DIY tasks can you really do for you fir it to really count ? How about a DIY infrastructure? How about DIY city planning? How about a DIY roads and highway? How about DIY commercial air flying? I mean really your points are ridiculous.

B. Environment has got nothing to do with it. But I guess I see where you're coming from. My point is conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same.

So you write something vague, I attempt to answer your vague questions by guessing at the meaning of your questions, and then you criticize me for not answering your vague questions.   Comedy gold.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

"Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum argument and disruption."

A good clue that one might be a troll: When this is his very first post to said message board. And that the only posts he has made have been to this thread.  His reasons for being here are pretty clear.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:15:15 AM by Kris »

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2015, 08:19:07 AM »
I changed it to singular dissident. Hopefully that clears it up.

Mustache is hyperbole on this blog for early retirement ethos. Mustachioed is having a mustache - un-mustachioed is not having one. I guess you also have to know what conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure means.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 08:25:04 AM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2015, 08:21:45 AM »
It sounds to me like you knew perfectly well what I was saying as you set up a straw man argument to refute it.

I haven't answered your points yet...

As for the title I changed it dissident instead of dissidents.

the blog makes a play on words of moustaches for money; so un-mustachioed dissident would mean someone who is not a subscriber to the moustache philosophy. 

Oh so you are coming into a forum just to piss in the soup. That's pretty much the definition of troll.

a) There's nothing hypocritical about using your savings to pay for things. Savings are in fact just deferred expenses. Those expenses will be goods and services we pay for. It is no different if you are working when you buy them or are not, the source of the money used to pay for those expenses is the same.

b) We advocate conscious consumption. An Anti-"keeping up with the Joneses" if you will. Our purchases aren't designed to show how wealthy we are like conspicuous consumption is. It is designed to maximize happiness/value in our current and future lives. I in fact advocate anyone who starts dick measuring contests in regards to how "mustachian" they are to re-evaluate their priorities. Comparing yourself to others is a fools way to measure your life.

But if you hate your job why shit on a path that would allow you to leave your job. It's simple really, save your money and you buy future options, including the possibility to leave your job. :)

Have a great day.

Sam E

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2015, 08:23:19 AM »
a. it's hypocritical. you don't work but you still want others to to serve you.
b. instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just another side of the same coin.

Having said that I hate my job ...I'm curious how much MMM makes with this blog - it sounds like a job to me. It's a free lance one however.

Your points are pretty weak.

A. Obviously they did work, or they wouldn't be able to retire.  How else do you think they got the income? Also, it doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the DIY ethos of this blog because most of the service is performed by Mustachians themselves. They do it themselves instead of hiring out.

B. Their conspicuous leisure is less likely to destroy the planet.  Going for a hike doesn't cause global warming.

Hope that helps, Mr. Troll.  Have a great day.

Yeah that was really helpful.

A. Where did I say that they didn't work at one time or another? The aim is not to however, or only to do so for a limited time. Also how many DIY tasks can you really do for you fir it to really count ? How about a DIY infrastructure? How about DIY city planning? How about a DIY roads and highway? How about DIY commercial air flying? I mean really your points are ridiculous.

B. Environment has got nothing to do with it. But I guess I see where you're coming from. My point is conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and provide my answer to point A.

You work when you're younger, retire when you're older, then younger people take over. This is the cycle that has always happened, MMM just shows that it doesn't have to be a long cycle of slavery, but can instead be a shorter cycle that leads to freedom. Being financially independent or retired doesn't mean you never lift a finger again. Plenty of people continue working in retirement doing the things they want to do. Some people even reach financial independence and choose to remain in their career. Not everyone is the same, so some people will work less than others, others more; this isn't any different without retirement in the picture.

If everyone became a Mustachian and subsequently financially independent, the world wouldn't just halt because everyone over age 30 was "done working," because they largely wouldn't be. First of all, they would never start at FI, they would have to work to get there. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, not everyone would even want to stop working at all and others would work in varying amounts. This is not even mentioning that fact that different jobs pay different amounts and allow for different retirement timelines (if I continue my current job I won't be financially independent for about 20 years because I make ~$30k per year) so not everyone would retire at the same age anyway.

Patrick A

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2015, 08:31:09 AM »
I know you're not supposed to feed trolls, but I really wanna correct all that grammar and spelling. 



coppertop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2015, 08:37:52 AM »
I know you're not supposed to feed trolls, but I really wanna correct all that grammar and spelling.
I second that.  It's really annoying to read all of those errors.

coppertop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2015, 08:39:32 AM »
My point is conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same. 

Oh, and it's "one AND the same."  Pet peeve of mine. 

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2015, 09:25:26 AM »
A. Yes you do. You don't want to work but expect the benefit of others who do.

Are these really subtle points that I'm making geez

B. Financial independence is conspicuous leisure arguably.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 09:31:07 AM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

Retired To Win

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1493
  • Age: 76
  • Location: Virginia
  • making the most of my time and my money
    • Retired To Win
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2015, 09:30:52 AM »
... Instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just the other side of the same coin...

Okay, I guess I'll play.

What is conspicuous leisure?  Is my taking 3 hikes a week at times when there's the least number of people on the trails conspicuous leisure?  If I spend a couple of hours by myself in front of a pc writing an article or participating in this forum is that conspicuous leisure?  If I sit back and read a book is that conspicuous leisure?  How about being able to get up in the morning whenever I want?

Conspicuous to whom?  Where's the audience in front of whom I am being conspicuous?

Or is the troll's way-off-the-mark impression that Mustachians go out of their way to conspicuously eat caviar and drink champagne at chic outdoor cafes?

Brother...

Terrestrial

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2015, 09:37:11 AM »

If everyone became a Mustachian and subsequently financially independent, the world wouldn't just halt because everyone over age 30 was "done working," because they largely wouldn't be. First of all, they would never start at FI, they would have to work to get there. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, not everyone would even want to stop working at all and others would work in varying amounts. This is not even mentioning that fact that different jobs pay different amounts and allow for different retirement timelines (if I continue my current job I won't be financially independent for about 20 years because I make ~$30k per year) so not everyone would retire at the same age anyway.

Well...yes and no.  Yes people work after becoming FI, but all 'work' is not the same in terms of utility to society.  I'll go out on a limb and wager that almost all people who are FI aren't doing the gritty jobs that make the world go round like picking up the trash, stocking the store shelves, working the manufacturing line in a souless factory in china, doing paperwork in a cubicle to keep a business grinding along, etc.  I think it's valid to postulate that for the world as we know it to function, the proportion of people who are FI at a relatively early age and can chose not to do these jobs (or do them only if they chose to, however doubtful that is) HAS to be a somewhat small % of the population.  Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with myself or anybody else being (or trying to be) in that small percentage, but I think the notion that everyone or even a sizable proportion of people can retire early and be free to make that choice is not realistic for our society to function as currently set up.  Maybe in 100 years when we have robots to do everything, but even then I dunno...George Jetson still had to go to work to make his sprockets every day j/k.

I have a good job that I enjoy (as much as one can like a job i guess), I make a decent wage, its something that contributes positively to society, and I still wouldn't even do this job any longer than needed if I was FI, let alone one of the hundreds of jobs that supports my lifestyle every day that I would probably downright hate.  I may go work in a bike shop or a microbrewery or flip a house as a 'job' after FI, but only because these are already hobbies of mine...how many bike mechanics and artists and writers and national park hiking guides etc etc (whatever one's passions are...the kind of jobs FI people are more 'likely' to have) does a society support.   On the flip side how many people will take up being a garbage man or widget assembler as their preferred FI job of choice.  How many people will chose to remain/become farmers to grow all of our food...is it an important job, absolutely, but it's hard work...is it one that most people will chose when they have the money not to, probably not, at least on a large 'commercially viable to feed people' scale and not a small 'hobby' scale. 

Before someone quotes the 'what if everyone was a mustacian' article to me, yes I have read it, but I also have a brain for independent thinking.  I agree society could be 'better' with less consumerism, especially stupid consumerism, but the point still remains, someone still has to pick up the garbage, someone still has to put together the computers that everyone uses to read the MMM articles, someone still has to mine the metal to build the bikes everyone rides around, and these are not jobs that most people will chose to have, nor is the demographic distribution of our society conducive to people only doing these jobs from 18-35.


« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 09:41:00 AM by Terrestrial »

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2015, 09:39:36 AM »
I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying.

Ditto.  Apparently confused troll is confused.

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2015, 09:40:33 AM »
a. It's hypocritical. You don't work but you still want others to serve you.
b. Instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just the other side of the same coin.

(a) You lend money to 1000s of US companies to invest in R&D, tooling and new products instead of (b) buying cheap crap from China.


Faraday

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
  • Age: 62
  • Location: NC
  • Solar Powered Slice
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2015, 09:43:20 AM »
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

"Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum argument and disruption."

A good clue that one might be a troll: When this is his very first post to said message board. And that the only posts he has made have been to this thread.  His reasons for being here are pretty clear.

Kris is hitting it on the head. I did a quick search and this person has only begun to post. Either Troll, or someone who thinks they know something important that the (thousands?) of us have missed. The spelling errors hint that the OP is very young, possibly still in high school. (due to the "Invented Spelling" curriculum that took hold in schools about 25 years ago...)

Either way, this thread is not going to generate any useful knowledge. I'm out.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 09:46:52 AM by mefla »

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2015, 09:48:43 AM »
a. it's hypocritical. you don't work but you still want others to to serve you.
b. instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just another side of the same coin.

Having said that I hate my job ...I'm curious how much MMM makes with this blog - it sounds like a job to me. It's a free lance one however.

Your points are pretty weak.

A. Obviously they did work, or they wouldn't be able to retire.  How else do you think they got the income? Also, it doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the DIY ethos of this blog because most of the service is performed by Mustachians themselves. They do it themselves instead of hiring out.

B. Their conspicuous leisure is less likely to destroy the planet.  Going for a hike doesn't cause global warming.

Hope that helps, Mr. Troll.  Have a great day.

Yeah that was really helpful.

A. Where did I say that they didn't work at one time or another? The aim is not to however, or only to do so for a limited time. Also how many DIY tasks can you really do for it to really count ? How about a DIY infrastructure? How about DIY city planning? How about a DIY roads and highway? How about DIY commercial air flying? I mean really your points are ridiculous.

B. Environment has got nothing to do with it. But I guess I see where you're coming from. My point is conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same.

A.  MMM has a post about "what if everyone did this" or some such.  I'm not saying it would work as well as he dreams about there, but he makes some really good points.  Points that when combined with the reality that not everyone would even want to do this, reveals that there's no real issue with doing it.

B.  Conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same is your point.  I see where you are coming from.  But for most of the people in this community it isn't leisure that we are seeking, it is freedom.  I may very well go play racquetball until 10 am every morning once FI.  But I'll probably still work 40 hours a week for many weeks out of the year.  High wage part time work is just much harder to come by, so I'd like to be in a position where the wage isn't something I need.

I personally don't see anything wrong with spending everything you earn.  What is bizarre is how many people fail to own it.  You are correct that there are alot of people on this forum that get pretty haughty when talking about those who overspend and don't have any savings.  But all of us face similar sentiments from those people in the workplace regarding our saving, and we just have to grin and bear it.  And all of those people seem to also have the same problem the MMM community has, that we'd ultimately like more time off to pursue other things.  But they fail to connect the time-suck of work to the money-suck of consumption.

The median MMMer, within two standard deviations I'd say, has identified something in their life (work-life balance for me) that they would like to correct, and is taking positive action to fix it.

The median person I work with, within two standard deviations I'd say, has identified something in their life (don't own the newest biggest/truck/house/vacation), that they would like to correct, and is taking no action to fix it, so they borrow money and work until they die.

That's probably where some of the high and mighty attitude comes from.  I have absolute faith that there are enough people out there who can't be bothered that certain jobs will always be covered.  But lets examine that thesis for a second:

Commercial airline travel:  This isn't actually necessary.  You don't need to get somewhere all that quickly if you don't have to be back at work by Monday.  And lots and lots of air travel happens in personal planes flown by owner.  Not precisely an MMM level hobby, but I think MMM principles could be applied to it to make it much more affordable.

DIY roads and highways:  If we all switched to riding bikes, we'd need alot fewer roads and highways.  And there's going to be plenty of folks who need to work for 10 years building the fewer roads and highways we do need, as they save up their stache.

And nothing about MMM philosophy has anything to do with others.  I don't care if you go to work every day or not.  Go for it, if that's what gets you off.  But if you hate your job, that's sort of your fault, particularly long term.  There's another way, if you want it.

RoadLessTravelled

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2015, 10:55:24 AM »
a. It's hypocritical. You don't work but you still want others to serve you.
b. Instead of conspicuous consumption -- it's conspicuous leisure. Just the other side of the same coin.

Having said that I hate my job. I'm curious how much MMM makes with this blog - it sounds like a job to me. It's a free lance one however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

Well, actually the OP'spoint is clear if you understand the theory.  But it seems the OP does not understand the theory or he would not be saying they are 'one and the same.'  Sport for example is conspicuous leisure.  So yes, having the time to go for a hike 3 times a week (example) is conspicuous leisure.  The difference is spending money vs. time.  "Conspicuous consumption is the application of money and material resources towards the display of a higher social-status (e.g. silver flatware, custom-made clothes, an over-sized house); and conspicuous leisure is the application of extended time to the pursuit of pleasure (physical and intellectual), such as sport and the fine arts. Therefore, such physical and intellectual pursuits display the freedom of the rich man and woman from having to work in an economically productive occupation."

Given that definition, anyone who has FIREd and does whatever they do with their time, for pleasure, out of the freedom to choose that FI gives them, is in fact exercising 'conspicuous leisure'.  The only real question would be what is wrong with it?  The implied answer is that if you are not being a productive member of society there is something inherently wrong in that.  ie. it's wrong to selfishly pursue your sports, hobbies, activities if they only benefit you and not society in general.  You can agree or disagree with that viewpoint but it is a separate topic, not related to what is or is not 'conspicuous leisure'.   

Mr Chin Stubble, we live in the real world we live in.  We are confined by the rules society forces us to live within.  So given a choice of being a member of the working class or the leisure class, which would you prefer to be?   You do get to make a choice between those. 

You can choose to be working class and even avoid conspicuous consumption.  You can live in a small house, ride a bike, eat pasta and rice even while earning a lot of money.  Give your excess money to a worthy charity perhaps.  Or you can be a member of the leisure class who does not need to work and also avoid conspicuous consumption in the same way.  You can also be a member of the leisure class and avoid comspicuous leisure by using your free time in a PRODUCTIVE but UNPAID way. 

You seem to have assumed that you cannot be leisure class AND avoid conspicuous leisure.  You can easily do so IF you believe conspicuous leisure is wrong. 
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 10:59:00 AM by RoadLessTravelled »

regulator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2015, 11:17:14 AM »
I guess I am still struggling to get my mind around what "conspicuous leisure" might be.  How would anyone know that I am a wealthy layabout by choice when they see me at the fishing hole on a weekday?  How would anyone know that I am not working from home when I stumble to the front door in my PJs on Tuesday at 10AM?

Ditchmonkey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: un-Mustachioed dissidents
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2015, 11:22:22 AM »
B. Environment has got nothing to do with it. But I guess I see where you're coming from. My point is conspicuous leisure and consumption are one in the same.

That makes zero sense.

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2015, 11:47:23 AM »
Conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure are both the same in the sense that they are both status seeking and not economically sound things to do. Yet one is a ok here the other not so much. It's a double standard.

@ RoadLessTraveled

Explain to me how you're going to retire at 30 live till you're 80 or 90 and still lead an economically productive life?

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2015, 11:52:42 AM »
Explain to me how you're going to retire at 30 live till you're 80 or 90 and still lead an economically productive life?

Because savings are deferred expenses. You'll still be purchasing goods and services for the 50-60 years where you're not working. Work != economically productive. In our consumer society it is much more important to consume than it is to work in order to be participating in the economic society.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2015, 11:55:21 AM »
Conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure are both the same in the sense that they are both status seeking and not economically sound things to do. Yet one is a ok here the other not so much. It's a double standard.

@ RoadLessTraveled

Explain to me how you're going to retire at 30 live till you're 80 or 90 and still lead an economically productive life?
Easy answer here: Time is what the majority of visitors to this site value.  Things are less so.  Other people have different values.  We're here because we've decided that we want to direct our money and energy toward buying time.  However, buying time vs. buying things are equally economically sound.  Because of the types of investment required to live without working, we are contributing even after our (hopefully shortened) working careers. 

Another note is that something being economically sound is not inherently a good reason to do something.  Some might argue that morally sound or environmentally sound things to do are more important.  That's a values question.

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2015, 01:23:05 PM »
By economically productive I mean as it pertains to your fiscal house, and not whether youl buy or do not buy things in a "consumption based" economy .
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 01:29:09 PM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

iamlindoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
    • The Earth Awaits
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2015, 01:48:20 PM »
By economically productive I mean as it pertains to your fiscal house, and not whether youl buy or do not buy things in a "consumption based" economy .

My job is not to shovel as much money into the burning white-hot furnace of the economy as possible.  It is not anyone's responsibility to consume as much as they can in order to be "economically productive."  If you think it is, then it is a huge pity, and I feel sincerely bad for you. 

My job is to take care of the people I love, live a life of integrity, and to fill it with moments that I cherish.  I define what my life should be, not you or anyone else.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2015, 01:52:11 PM »
Um, this entire thread, so what?  The goal of my life is to get to the point where I can sit around watching Netflix whenever I feel like it and if someone tells me to do something, I'll be able to tell them to go to Hell without any negative consequences from it.  That sounds like a great goal to me.

regulator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2015, 02:30:11 PM »
By economically productive I mean as it pertains to your fiscal house, and not whether youl buy or do not buy things in a "consumption based" economy .

Um, what the hell does that mean?  Fiscal house?

asiljoy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2015, 02:32:18 PM »
The goal of my life is to get to the point where I can sit around watching Netflix whenever I feel like it and if someone tells me to do something, I'll be able to tell them to go to Hell without any negative consequences from it.  That sounds like a great goal to me.

:: Two thumbs up ::

RoadLessTravelled

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2015, 04:08:58 PM »
Conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure are both the same in the sense that they are both status seeking and not economically sound things to do. Yet one is a ok here the other not so much. It's a double standard.

@ RoadLessTraveled

Explain to me how you're going to retire at 30 live till you're 80 or 90 and still lead an economically productive life?

Umm, no Mr Chin Stubble, both are not the same even though both are as you say in a sense about status seeking.  One is about showing you have more money than you need and the other is about showing you have more time than you need.  They are as different as they are the same.  Different in what they show an excess of, the same in what they are about.

But that may be too nit-picking for you, so let's move on.  The flaw in your thinking is when you write, "Yet one is OK here the other not so much."  That is an assumption on your part and as such merely an opinion, not an expression of fact.

Just as some working class people participate in conspicuous consumption, you have to be able to see that not all do.  Some can't simply because they don't have the money to do so.  Some choose not to even when they have enough money to do so.  Would you disagree with that?  Have you never met or heard of anyone who lived well below their financial means?

In the same way, some leisure class people participate in conspicuous leisure and may also participate in conspicuous consumption while others may not.  Your assumption appears to be that everyone who is in the leisure class (does not need to work for a living) automatically participates in conspicuous leisure.  But it's just an assumption and as I wrote already, someone in the leisure class is just as free to contribute to society as anyone in the working class.  The only difference is that the leisure class particpant doesn't need to earn money while doing so.

You write, "Explain to me how you're going to retire at 30 live till you're 80 or 90 and still lead an economically productive life?"  Well first, you would have to define what YOU mean by an economically productive life.  For example if you work at making TVs, are you living an economically productive life?  I could argue that you are not.  What you are producing does not feed, shelter or cloth people.  You would in fact be producing something that is part of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure.  If someone professes to be against CC and CL, would that person then not be guilty of a 'double standard'?  Is everyone who does not produce food, shelter or clothing for society not then guilty of participating in CC or CL?

But let us suppose that you retire at 30 and spend the next 50 years growing food and giving it away to the poor.  Would that meet your definition of someone leading an economically productive life AND not participating in either conspicuous consumption or conspicuous leisure?

You see CC and CL as negative terms and to be avoided.  You want to accuse those here of all being 'guilty' of at least CL.  That logic is flawed and if you apply your flawed logic to yourself, unless you produce food, shelter or clothing, you yourself are guilty of participating in CC and/or CL.   But the truth is that none of us are perfect in this any more than we are in most other things.  You have to look at a balance rather than at absolutes.  Someone who has the time to hike 3 times a week but also volunteers to cook free meals at their church each week is not a bad person because they are participating in CL with their 3 hikes.  Nor is someone who drives a Ferrari and gives $100k to charity each year.  They are seeking a balance that works for them.  Should either feel 'guilty' because they don't cook free meals 7 days a week or give $200k to charity?

Mother Theresa did not need to work, she spent all her time helping the poor.  You could argue that that was conspicous leisure.  After all she spent ALL her time doing something just because she wanted to.  Was that not 'showing off' how much leisure time she had?  Was that not 'status seeking' by showing it, on her part?

Your thinking is too simple minded Mr Chin Stubble.  Wait until you have a long grey beard rather than just some youthful chin stubble.  Perhaps by then you will understand a little more.   



surfhb

  • Guest
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2015, 04:20:03 PM »
Um, this entire thread, so what?  The goal of my life is to get to the point where I can sit around watching Netflix whenever I feel like it and if someone tells me to do something, I'll be able to tell them to go to Hell without any negative consequences from it.  That sounds like a great goal to me.

Exactly!   Fuck whatever people do or think....Im looking out for me and the ones I love.

Checkmate!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 04:23:08 PM by surfhb »

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2015, 05:15:05 PM »
@ roadlesstraveled

Yes mother Theresa total conspicuous leisure right there.

I'm dead serious.

And to answer the rest ... Yea I think for starters: you have a job unless you're older than 60

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2015, 05:38:51 PM »
I'm dead serious.

That's good!  This is a very serious topic.  I, personally, am terribly afraid of how I'll be perceived by my peers once I become a man of leisure.  In fact, in order to combat that fear, I'm considering chaining myself to a cubical for 50 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, until I'm 67 years old.  That way, even though I'll be missing out on a life of freedom and pleasure, I can avoid having to answer such terrifying inquires as "What do you do all day?" and "You rode a bike in the rain?". 

iamlindoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
    • The Earth Awaits
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2015, 05:44:48 PM »
And to answer the rest ... Yea I think for starters: you have a job unless you're older than 60

Yeah, no.

big_slacker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1350
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2015, 05:57:29 PM »

Mr_Chin_Stubble

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2015, 07:24:10 PM »
Look there are some great ideas here. And I come here for inspiration on saving money. But thrift and frugality are means - not an end in of itself.

I don't even know about retiring at all let alone now in my 30s. I still have my best working years ahead of me. And accomplishing something is worthwhile or at least trying to.

Mother Theresa despite being a conspicuous leisure person by the strict definition of it -- did in fact accomplish a lot. If you can tell a story like hers about your life,  than tell it. However, that is not the same thing at all as saying something like "I don't like having a boss"
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 07:42:50 PM by Mr_Chin_Stubble »

iamlindoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
    • The Earth Awaits
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2015, 07:37:46 PM »
Look there are some great ideas here. And I come here for inspiration on saving money. But thrift and frugality are means - not an end in of itself.

There is not a single person here who would argue the thrift and frugality are the end.  They are most decidedly the means.  If you're actually telling the truth and not just trying to sow discord, then realizing that others have goals which don't match or align with yours is step one.  If you don't want to retire or achieve the freedom to at least have the *option* to quit a job when you no longer feel it's worth it to you, fine.  Just recognize that it places you in a distinct minority here, and suggests that you have missed the entire point of the site.  "Prime working years" is a phrase that makes me feel really bad for you.  Working is what's making me miss out on my prime adventuring and living-life-to-the-fullest years.

You can stay and participate in topics of interest to you-- but you'll need to show respect and acceptance for the prevailing goal. If you try to label the vast, vast majority of the community here as leeches, unproductive, or lazy, well then...


Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2015, 07:51:06 PM »
I don't know which is worse:

A. OP is a troll and a lot of people got sucked in to that.

B. OP sees not working at a job as somehow not fulfilling some abstract goal of being a worthwhile member of society (see quote about job to 60 somewhere above) plus a notion of mustachianism being some sort of way to show off. That combination, and what it implies, applied to a life over time could lead to much lost opportunity for contentment.

C. Not recognizing a pattern of arguing a point into the ground without listening (assuming not intending to troll).

regulator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: un-Mustachioed dissident
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2015, 08:47:41 PM »
Look there are some great ideas here. And I come here for inspiration on saving money. But thrift and frugality are means - not an end in of itself.

I don't even know about retiring at all let alone now in my 30s. I still have my best working years ahead of me. And accomplishing something is worthwhile or at least trying to.

Mother Theresa despite being a conspicuous leisure person by the strict definition of it -- did in fact accomplish a lot. If you can tell a story like hers about your life,  than tell it. However, that is not the same thing at all as saying something like "I don't like having a boss"

In time you will gain wisdom, grasshopper.  When your best working years turn to crap and your dreams and aspirations are thwarted by megacorp assfuckery, sociopath bosses, lengthening hours, periodic layoffs and minimal raises that do not cover the rising cost of health insurance, you will realize that you damn well better accumulate financial capital as your human capital drains away.  Then around age 50 you can start looking forward to gradual age discrimination.  Oh, and anything in your work that you think is accomplishing something will gradually be taken away until one day you wake up and realize what you produced over the prior year is landfill.

As for the Mother Teresa thing, I don't understand why you would think that only large-scale, very public works can be good and worthwhile uses of one's non-working time.  I find that having a fulfilling marriage and raising two bright, healthy kids is a great use of my time.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!