Author Topic: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement (sort of) plan  (Read 172775 times)

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
I think it's actually impressive that MMM has been able to monetize his blog at all. I tried starting my own free financial advice blog and I wrote a couple hundred articles, but thanks to ad-block plus, I wasn't able to make any money with it (especially since nobody clicked on referral links) and I stopped doing it. The final nail in the coffin was when ad-block became available for iOS devices.

MMM isn't really retired, but he lives an attractive lifestyle. It's kind of like people who make a living as Beachbody coaches. Most people who become Beachbody coaches don't make any money doing it, but once in a while someone gets lucky and lives the easy life. Good for them.

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
A) interesting article. B) huh, I've been to MMM's brother's shows! Small world! :)

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
A fine executive summary, nereo. As the original poster who shared the link, can I add it to the first post of this completely insane thread?
Go right ahead... I don't think we're holding to any rules here anyway ;-)
Lovely. Done.

There are countless conversations and forum threads in my life that I've wanted to create a flowchart of the many tangents they have broken into.  Just last weekend I had a conversation with a friend that lasted over an hour straight and smoothly changed subjects at least four times without it feeling like we were starting over.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4815
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
I think it's actually impressive that MMM has been able to monetize his blog at all. I tried starting my own free financial advice blog and I wrote a couple hundred articles, but thanks to ad-block plus, I wasn't able to make any money with it (especially since nobody clicked on referral links) and I stopped doing it. The final nail in the coffin was when ad-block became available for iOS devices.
...

I think it's even more impressive that most visitors to the blog don't realize that it is monetized. Hopefully too many folks haven't signed up for the Betterment product he recommended instead of Vanguard.  Giving credit to MMM though, he has linked to his investment under-performing its benchmark http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/betterment-vs-vanguard/

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3619
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
MMM isn't really retired

YES HE IS. *stomps foot* ;)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
There are countless conversations and forum threads in my life that I've wanted to create a flowchart of the many tangents they have broken into.  Just last weekend I had a conversation with a friend that lasted over an hour straight and smoothly changed subjects at least four times without it feeling like we were starting over.

Reminds me of a snippet from this Zen Habits Article on No Goals that, thoughj it was published in 2013, I read today (due to being linked on these forums a few days ago).

The article opens:
Quote
Have you ever had a long amazing conversation with a friend, that took all kinds of turns neither of you could possibly have expected when you started the conversation? Wasn’t it awesome, to riff off each other, to explore unforeseen territory, to be free to wander and enjoy the time together?

What if, instead, you had a definite goal for how the conversation should go when you start out? A definite path and outcome of how you want the conversation to turn out? Let’s say you have an agenda, and every time one of you wandered off the agenda, you forced yourself to get back on it.

Would the conversation be better or worse, with a set outcome? Is it better to be free to wander, or to be set on one predetermined path?

I submit that the wandering is much better, much more amazing.

This is the goal-less path.

That's what a forum thread is like.  :)

As an aside, it's why Bogleheads locks so many threads for going off-topic: because they tend to wander.  If you try to keep them on topic, you're either deleting a lot of posts, or just locking them down after awhile.  Bogleheads goes for the latter.  We decide to just be okay with the wandering.  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

ShortInSeattle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
There are countless conversations and forum threads in my life that I've wanted to create a flowchart of the many tangents they have broken into.  Just last weekend I had a conversation with a friend that lasted over an hour straight and smoothly changed subjects at least four times without it feeling like we were starting over.

Reminds me of a snippet from this Zen Habits Article on No Goals that, thoughj it was published in 2013, I read today (due to being linked on these forums a few days ago).

The article opens:
Quote
Have you ever had a long amazing conversation with a friend, that took all kinds of turns neither of you could possibly have expected when you started the conversation? Wasn’t it awesome, to riff off each other, to explore unforeseen territory, to be free to wander and enjoy the time together?

What if, instead, you had a definite goal for how the conversation should go when you start out? A definite path and outcome of how you want the conversation to turn out? Let’s say you have an agenda, and every time one of you wandered off the agenda, you forced yourself to get back on it.

Would the conversation be better or worse, with a set outcome? Is it better to be free to wander, or to be set on one predetermined path?

I submit that the wandering is much better, much more amazing.

This is the goal-less path.

That's what a forum thread is like.  :)

As an aside, it's why Bogleheads locks so many threads for going off-topic: because they tend to wander.  If you try to keep them on topic, you're either deleting a lot of posts, or just locking them down after awhile.  Bogleheads goes for the latter.  We decide to just be okay with the wandering.  :)

Thanks for that. I like a bit of wandering. Bogleheads is so tightly moderated that I laugh sometimes.

Due to unexpected variation in thought this thread has been locked.

:)




ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
  • Age: 33
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold
« Reply #407 on: February 26, 2016, 11:17:15 AM »
Our boys are into Pokémon, which means I am too, and Pokémon is even more bullshit than Magic. Older cards are not legal for tournament play, so no $20 boxes of 1000 cards from Amazon. And to be competitive you have to buy $20 and up "Mega-EX" boxes. It's a total racket.

Just FYI, the majority of MTG constructed tournaments are "Standard" format, meaning only cards in sets released within the last 2 years. There are other formats (modern, vintage, legacy, block) which allow older cards, but Standard was created so that the game is always changing over time.

The Friday Night Magic referenced in the article is typically a $15 entry fee, which gets you 45 cards to build a temporary deck with to participate in a tournament; these 45 cards are selected via drafting: you are handed 3 unopened booster packs, with 15 cards per pack; you open the first pack, pick one card, and pass right, pick a card, pass right, etc... next pack open, pick one card, pass left, pick one... last pack open, pick one card, pass right... until you end up with 45 cards. The host typically provides basic lands and other cards needed for deck-building. The top 25% at the end of the tournament get prizes in the form of additional booster packs. A person who is good at drafting could potentially play for free by consistently placing high in the tournament and selling the cards once they're done.

All I can say is WOW.  I never realized that there's such a regulated (and rigged to make money) set of tournaments and "official play" for both Magic and Pokemon.  Makes me want to avoid these things all together.

As a former preteen Magic enthusiast (luckily I quit around age 13 before I started working at all and could really start burning cash), of course it's "rigged to make money."  It's a business.  I'm as cynical as the next Mustachian about this sort of thing, but "rigging it" that way accomplishes two things: 1) Yes, it forces hardcore players to buy new cards every cycle and help their bottom line, but B) it keeps the game fresh and interesting for said hardcore players, as the card pool keeps changing.  Without that last piece, they'd lose ongoing popularity and the game would stagnate.  It's a win-win for casual at-home not-tournament players, as it keeps the game printing new cards, and lets many older cards get dirt cheap for casual play as they "cycle out" of Standard and people like MMM can buy 1000 cards for $20 online.

Magic is preteen INTJ heaven in terms of the critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, etc. involved in deck-building and playing.  Having a back-catalog of thousands upon thousands of cards to choose from amplifies that. 

Kudos to MMM for recognizing the value of Magic in his son's life, but also not letting him fall into the trap of turning it into a "transforming money into cardboard" hobby that it can so quickly become.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:

As an aside, it's why Bogleheads locks so many threads for going off-topic: because they tend to wander.  If you try to keep them on topic, you're either deleting a lot of posts, or just locking them down after awhile.  Bogleheads goes for the latter.  We decide to just be okay with the wandering. :)


Marus

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Burlington, VT
    • My Literature Blog
I really enjoyed the article!  Even though MMM comes off as very kooky at times, he also seems very authentic and human.    I know it shouldn't matter, but I like knowing there's a real person with flaws and foibles behind the MMM philosophy.  I didn't get the "hit-piece" vibe at all, though the misunderstanding about the magic cards does sound pretty frustrating.

tj

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Orange County CA
There are countless conversations and forum threads in my life that I've wanted to create a flowchart of the many tangents they have broken into.  Just last weekend I had a conversation with a friend that lasted over an hour straight and smoothly changed subjects at least four times without it feeling like we were starting over.

Reminds me of a snippet from this Zen Habits Article on No Goals that, thoughj it was published in 2013, I read today (due to being linked on these forums a few days ago).

The article opens:
Quote
Have you ever had a long amazing conversation with a friend, that took all kinds of turns neither of you could possibly have expected when you started the conversation? Wasn’t it awesome, to riff off each other, to explore unforeseen territory, to be free to wander and enjoy the time together?

What if, instead, you had a definite goal for how the conversation should go when you start out? A definite path and outcome of how you want the conversation to turn out? Let’s say you have an agenda, and every time one of you wandered off the agenda, you forced yourself to get back on it.

Would the conversation be better or worse, with a set outcome? Is it better to be free to wander, or to be set on one predetermined path?

I submit that the wandering is much better, much more amazing.

This is the goal-less path.

That's what a forum thread is like.  :)

As an aside, it's why Bogleheads locks so many threads for going off-topic: because they tend to wander.  If you try to keep them on topic, you're either deleting a lot of posts, or just locking them down after awhile.  Bogleheads goes for the latter.  We decide to just be okay with the wandering.  :)

Thanks for that. I like a bit of wandering. Bogleheads is so tightly moderated that I laugh sometimes.

Due to unexpected variation in thought this thread has been locked.

:)

I believe that Bogleheads has become more moderated over the years to fulfill certain IRS requirements for non-profit status.

RosieTR

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Location: Northern CO
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement
« Reply #411 on: February 26, 2016, 01:31:20 PM »
Did any body else notice the awesome picture of the wheelie with the mountains in the background? Great photography and great backdrop.
How far away are those mountains from the town, anybody know out of curiosity?

About 12 miles to the lowest mountains. The high ones in the backdrop (covered in snow) are likely the most southern portion of Rocky Mountain National Park or part of the Indian Peaks Wilderness. Yes, it is beautiful!

As for the article, I thought it was interesting to get to know the person. The discrepancies between what the press writes and what actually happened (based on Pete's explanation) doesn't surprise me at all. I've had a few situations where I knew the backstory, so to speak, and saw how slanted, or sometimes flat-out inaccurate, journalists can be. I also understand that any audience has a certain view and if one pushes it too far then the audience just shuts down. But will there be some folks who read this and think "huh?" and check out the blog? Of course. Will some of the New Yorkers read this and think "wow there's some crazy people out west!" Yep.

On a completely personal note, DH and I did go to the meetup mentioned in the article (though so crowded that I didn't get a chance to meet Pete himself) and I think I may have met one of the people listed at the end! So now I feel the touch of fame! :-)

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
There are countless conversations and forum threads in my life that I've wanted to create a flowchart of the many tangents they have broken into.  Just last weekend I had a conversation with a friend that lasted over an hour straight and smoothly changed subjects at least four times without it feeling like we were starting over.

Reminds me of a snippet from this Zen Habits Article on No Goals that, thoughj it was published in 2013, I read today (due to being linked on these forums a few days ago).

The article opens:
Quote
Have you ever had a long amazing conversation with a friend, that took all kinds of turns neither of you could possibly have expected when you started the conversation? Wasn’t it awesome, to riff off each other, to explore unforeseen territory, to be free to wander and enjoy the time together?

What if, instead, you had a definite goal for how the conversation should go when you start out? A definite path and outcome of how you want the conversation to turn out? Let’s say you have an agenda, and every time one of you wandered off the agenda, you forced yourself to get back on it.

Would the conversation be better or worse, with a set outcome? Is it better to be free to wander, or to be set on one predetermined path?

I submit that the wandering is much better, much more amazing.

This is the goal-less path.

That's what a forum thread is like.  :)

As an aside, it's why Bogleheads locks so many threads for going off-topic: because they tend to wander.  If you try to keep them on topic, you're either deleting a lot of posts, or just locking them down after awhile.  Bogleheads goes for the latter.  We decide to just be okay with the wandering.  :)

Thanks for that. I like a bit of wandering. Bogleheads is so tightly moderated that I laugh sometimes.

Due to unexpected variation in thought this thread has been locked.

:)

You scared me for a minute. I thought that ARS locked us down.  Do not break out the red pen, even in jest!

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9613
  • Age: 46
  • Location: New York City
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement
« Reply #413 on: February 26, 2016, 02:07:23 PM »
The discrepancies between what the press writes and what actually happened (based on Pete's explanation) doesn't surprise me at all. I've had a few situations where I knew the backstory, so to speak, and saw how slanted, or sometimes flat-out inaccurate, journalists can be.

I was interviewed for one of the not-that-good New York dailies one time (they sent out a photographer and everything) and I sent them some things via e-mail that they quoted in the story. Except they went in and deliberately changed the text I'd e-mailed them and literally made it sound like I was trying to deal with corporate IT/internet connectivity problems by picking up the phone and dialing '0' to talk to the operator at the phone company. Ugh. I think they were trying to dumb down my writing for their readers but didn't actually understand it well enough to translate it into dumb-ese.

I actually have some particular hostility towards the New Yorker since they did a piece about an influential jazz musician that I really like, and they fucked him over in a pretty bad way - he had a stalker, and they went and interviewed the stalker and printed everything the stalker said at face value, and they basically made it sound like the musician/stalkee was totally paranoid and crazy. So the piece they'd told him would be a profile of his life/work/etc. turned out to be half a profile of his stalker and half a piece trying to make him look crazy. Tons of people wrote in protesting the piece and they never printed a correction or retraction. Completely irresponsible journalism. :-(  I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd painted a much worse picture of MMM than they did.

purple monkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
MMM isn't really retired

YES HE IS. *stomps foot* ;)

MMM does odd jobs for money, Ms. MMM receives paid commission from home sales, gets freebies when he comes to your lovely getaway town, makes 400K from his blog.  Pays for accountant, but not moderators. 

Retired:  adjective
Simple Definition of retired : not working anymore :

MMM and his wife do what they want, but report (via posts and articles) to WORK an enormous amount (on their own terms, of course).
They are the king and queen of efficiency, so their hourly wage is INCREDIBLE.

Our lovely and brilliant Moderators WORK even more.  Thank you MODERATORS FOR ALL YOU DO!

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
MMM isn't really retired

YES HE IS. *stomps foot* ;)

MMM does odd jobs for money, Ms. MMM receives paid commission from home sales, gets freebies when he comes to your lovely getaway town, makes 400K from his blog.  Pays for accountant, but not moderators. 

Retired:  adjective
Simple Definition of retired : not working anymore :

MMM and his wife do what they want, but report (via posts and articles) to WORK an enormous amount (on their own terms, of course).
They are the king and queen of efficiency, so their hourly wage is INCREDIBLE.

Our lovely and brilliant Moderators WORK even more.  Thank you MODERATORS FOR ALL YOU DO!

Color me confused... so... MMM is not retired....?  And the moderators are even less retired?


purple monkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
MMM isn't really retired

YES HE IS. *stomps foot* ;)

MMM does odd jobs for money, Ms. MMM receives paid commission from home sales, gets freebies when he comes to your lovely getaway town, makes 400K from his blog.  Pays for accountant, but not moderators. 

Retired:  adjective
Simple Definition of retired : not working anymore :

MMM and his wife do what they want, but report (via posts and articles) to WORK an enormous amount (on their own terms, of course).
They are the king and queen of efficiency, so their hourly wage is INCREDIBLE.

Our lovely and brilliant Moderators WORK even more.  Thank you MODERATORS FOR ALL YOU DO!

Color me confused... so... MMM is not retired....?  And the moderators are even less retired?

MODERATORS make $0.00, so they are not retired, this is their hobby.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Color me confused... so... MMM is not retired....?  And the moderators are even less retired?

MODERATORS make $0.00, so they are not retired, this is their hobby.

This clarification made me even MORE confused!

Because I make $0.00 at my hobby, I'm not retired? :)

As I said earlier:
No one's gonna change anyone's mind at this point, so probably time to just move on.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9613
  • Age: 46
  • Location: New York City
This clarification made me even MORE confused!

Because I make $0.00 at my hobby, I'm not retired? :)

In Retirement Bizarro World, MMM is retired while making $400k/yr from his hobby, and you are still slaving away at your moderator job, which would probably literally pay peanuts (or almonds or whatever nut was on sale that month) if you stopped by the "corporate office" in Colorado for a beer and a snack.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
I tried working for peanuts, but quickly became exhausted.

I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Jsn

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
This clarification made me even MORE confused!

Because I make $0.00 at my hobby, I'm not retired? :)

In Retirement Bizarro World, MMM is retired while making $400k/yr from his hobby, and you are still slaving away at your moderator job, which would probably literally pay peanuts (or almonds or whatever nut was on sale that month) if you stopped by the "corporate office" in Colorado for a beer and a snack.


This concept is so central to mustachianism that it's difficult to see why anyone on this forum could dispute it. According to Merriam-Webster, "retired" does not mean does nothing for renumeration. It means "withdrawn from one's position or occupation: having concluded one's working or professional career."

MMM's career was programming. He doesn't do that any more. He's retired.

Conversely, "hobby" doesn't mean something you don't get paid for, it means "an interest or activity engaged in for pleasure."

MMM has fixed up houses, and written a blog post or two. But you can't hire him to do either. He'll do them when he wants and where he wants, and only to the proportion that he finds it pleasurable. They are hobbies.

I retired in 1999, at the age of 37. Since then, everything I've done has been motived by what I find enjoyable and rewarding. Have these activities made money for me? Some of them: yes, indeed. Did I do them FOR the money, or out of NEED for money? Nope.

The narrow (and linguistically incorrect) definition of "retirement" almost willfully ignores the heart of what MMM is trying to convey, namely that "retirement" can convey a long and busy phase of one's life; it's not just death's waiting room. In fact, there's even a post entitled "Early Retirement Doesn't Mean You'll Stop Working": http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/.

liberty53

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
This clarification made me even MORE confused!

Because I make $0.00 at my hobby, I'm not retired? :)

In Retirement Bizarro World, MMM is retired while making $400k/yr from his hobby, and you are still slaving away at your moderator job, which would probably literally pay peanuts (or almonds or whatever nut was on sale that month) if you stopped by the "corporate office" in Colorado for a beer and a snack.


This concept is so central to mustachianism that it's difficult to see why anyone on this forum could dispute it. According to Merriam-Webster, "retired" does not mean does nothing for renumeration. It means "withdrawn from one's position or occupation: having concluded one's working or professional career."

MMM's career was programming. He doesn't do that any more. He's retired.

Conversely, "hobby" doesn't mean something you don't get paid for, it means "an interest or activity engaged in for pleasure."

MMM has fixed up houses, and written a blog post or two. But you can't hire him to do either. He'll do them when he wants and where he wants, and only to the proportion that he finds it pleasurable. They are hobbies.

I retired in 1999, at the age of 37. Since then, everything I've done has been motived by what I find enjoyable and rewarding. Have these activities made money for me? Some of them: yes, indeed. Did I do them FOR the money, or out of NEED for money? Nope.

The narrow (and linguistically incorrect) definition of "retirement" almost willfully ignores the heart of what MMM is trying to convey, namely that "retirement" can convey a long and busy phase of one's life; it's not just death's waiting room. In fact, there's even a post entitled "Early Retirement Doesn't Mean You'll Stop Working": http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/.

Thank You Jsn! Clearest post refuting the IRP that I have seen. Well said.

purple monkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

Feel so sorry that the moderators receive no monetary compensation.

BRAVO  MMM.

purple monkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
This clarification made me even MORE confused!


In Retirement Bizarro World, MMM is retired while making $400k/yr from his hobby, and you are still slaving away at your moderator job, which would probably literally pay peanuts (or almonds or whatever nut was on sale that month) if you stopped by the "corporate office" in Colorado for a beer and a snack.
MMM has fixed up houses, and written a blog post or two. But you can't hire him to do either. He'll do them when he wants and where he wants, and only to the proportion that he finds it pleasurable. They are hobbies.


Independent contractor or side hussle for everyone else in the world but MMM.

Basenji

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Location: D.C.-ish
+1 awesome: 

And on hobbies (from wiki):
Quote
The pleasure of a hobby is usually associated with making something of value or achieving something of value. "(S)uch leisure is socially valorised precisely because it produces feelings of satisfaction with something that looks very much like work but that is done of its own sake."* "Hobbies are a contradiction: they take work and turn it into leisure, and take leisure and turn it into work."*
* both from Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America, Steven M. Gelber, 1999.

Dollar Slice

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9613
  • Age: 46
  • Location: New York City
This clarification made me even MORE confused!

Because I make $0.00 at my hobby, I'm not retired? :)

In Retirement Bizarro World, MMM is retired while making $400k/yr from his hobby, and you are still slaving away at your moderator job, which would probably literally pay peanuts (or almonds or whatever nut was on sale that month) if you stopped by the "corporate office" in Colorado for a beer and a snack.


This concept is so central to mustachianism that it's difficult to see why anyone on this forum could dispute it.

Just for the record, I was making a joke :-) 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re:- Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement (sort of) plan
« Reply #426 on: February 27, 2016, 12:06:02 AM »
Thanks for that. I like a bit of wandering. Bogleheads is so tightly moderated that I laugh sometimes.

Due to unexpected variation in thought this thread has been locked.

:)

No one suggested anything other than indexing, did they?

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

Late to the thread, but thank you so much for this.

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
hello
« Reply #428 on: February 27, 2016, 01:09:10 AM »
From Mrs. MM, "Yea, he's a weird dude." Love it.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

Feel so sorry that the moderators receive no monetary compensation.



Chill about the mods no pay thing.  I like to joke about it (see: MMM doubling our salary comment), but you seem to be serious based on your last few comments about it, so let me set the record straight:

The mods are volunteers.  Volunteering for something is very different than slavery.

The mods can quit at any time.  We asked to do it.  We enjoy it.

:)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20745
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
We used to joke when I was a Beaver/Cub leader - when we take this training they will double our salaries.  Yup, 2x0 = 0.  Lots of work, all volunteer, all free.  I am sure lots of volunteers joke like this, and it is a joke.

Mods, feel the love from all of us here.

Only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

Feel so sorry that the moderators receive no monetary compensation.



Chill about the mods no pay thing.  I like to joke about it (see: MMM doubling our salary comment), but you seem to be serious based on your last few comments about it, so let me set the record straight:

The mods are volunteers.  Volunteering for something is very different than slavery.

The mods can quit at any time.  We asked to do it.  We enjoy it.

:)

tomsang

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement (sort o
« Reply #431 on: February 27, 2016, 10:03:44 AM »
I read the article a few days ago and did not really like the tone or the message.  I think a huge mistake that MMM made was releasing what his blog made.  I have read a few other articles since then and they all talk about or focus on the fact that he is now making $400k. Readers will focus on this guy making big money vs. a guy who engineered his life to live on $24k.  This has probably been stated a few other times as I did not read all the comments.

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Here are my thoughts on the hypocrisy of the blog and it's earnings:

I think Pete is somewhat hypocritical by continuously capturing the waste (aka $) he constantly ridicules by running ads and promoting any type of product whatsoever. Just because it's "automatic" and he is making money by sleeping doesn't mean it's any better than staying tied to a job. One could argue that he's tied to "income", which really doesn't matter how that income manifests as long as one is still focused on income itself.

Can I blame the guy for doing what he does and capturing the "waste"? Not really. We are multi-dimensional beings. We don't solely want to live a certain way - we just want to be balanced, so I can't really judge him.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Here are my thoughts on the hypocrisy of the blog and it's earnings:

I think Pete is somewhat hypocritical by continuously capturing the waste (aka $) he constantly ridicules by running ads and promoting any type of product whatsoever. Just because it's "automatic" and he is making money by sleeping doesn't mean it's any better than staying tied to a job. One could argue that he's tied to "income", which really doesn't matter how that income manifests as long as one is still focused on income itself.

Can I blame the guy for doing what he does and capturing the "waste"? Not really. We are multi-dimensional beings. We don't solely want to live a certain way - we just want to be balanced, so I can't really judge him.

1) What makes you think he's tied to or focused on it?  He'd be doing it if he wasn't making money, just for the enjoyment (and, indeed, did).  That seems the opposite of tied to income, to me.  It sounds like a hobby people pay him boatloads to do because they find value in it.

2) His ads are only on things he promotes, and finds in line with his values.  I don't find this hypocritical.

3) He's all about efficiency.  Not capturing this income stream, with the very little effort it takes, would just give those same companies more money (if he linked to the products he liked still, but without the affiliate income from it), instead of him capturing it for his use, whatever he sees fit (hopefully some sort of charity, or more spreading of the Mustachian message, as he's indicated before).  Making the income is more Mustachian than not.  Because Mustachianism isn't about not making money.  It's about not consuming.  His consumption hasn't changed, despite the ridiculous amounts of money he's making.  If anything, it shows how committed to the life he is, and how much he really believes it..
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Here are my thoughts on the hypocrisy of the blog and it's earnings:

I think Pete is somewhat hypocritical by continuously capturing the waste (aka $) he constantly ridicules by running ads and promoting any type of product whatsoever. Just because it's "automatic" and he is making money by sleeping doesn't mean it's any better than staying tied to a job. One could argue that he's tied to "income", which really doesn't matter how that income manifests as long as one is still focused on income itself.

Can I blame the guy for doing what he does and capturing the "waste"? Not really. We are multi-dimensional beings. We don't solely want to live a certain way - we just want to be balanced, so I can't really judge him.

1) What makes you think he's tied to or focused on it?  He'd be doing it if he wasn't making money, just for the enjoyment (and, indeed, did).  That seems the opposite of tied to income, to me.  It sounds like a hobby people pay him boatloads to do because they find value in it.

2) His ads are only on things he promotes, and finds in line with his values.  I don't find this hypocritical.

3) He's all about efficiency.  Not capturing this income stream, with the very little effort it takes, would just give those same companies more money (if he linked to the products he liked still, but without the affiliate income from it), instead of him capturing it for his use, whatever he sees fit (hopefully some sort of charity, or more spreading of the Mustachian message, as he's indicated before).  Making the income is more Mustachian than not.  Because Mustachianism isn't about not making money.  It's about not consuming.  His consumption hasn't changed, despite the ridiculous amounts of money he's making.  If anything, it shows how committed to the life he is, and how much he really believes it..

Since I think (2) and (3) are just the side effect of (1), I'll just answer your first question:

"1) What makes you think he's tied to or focused on it?  He'd be doing it if he wasn't making money, just for the enjoyment (and, indeed, did).  That seems the opposite of tied to income, to me.  It sounds like a hobby people pay him boatloads to do because they find value in it."

He's focused on it because he chooses to run ads, which is of course obvious. We don't know whether he'd be writing if there was no possibility for making money from it or not. We simply don't know, and there's no use in speculating on it. All we can do is see that he's focused on the income side of things by way of running ads. I don't trust any human being to make good use of waste (by donating it to charity, starting some other movement, etc), not even MMM.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358

He's focused on it because he chooses to run ads, which is of course obvious. We don't know whether he'd be writing if there was no possibility for making money from it or not. We simply don't know, and there's no use in speculating on it. All we can do is see that he's focused on the income side of things by way of running ads. I don't trust any human being to make good use of waste (by donating it to charity, starting some other movement, etc), not even MMM.

I've seen no increase (and probably a decrease) in his postings since the blog started.   If his primary motivation were money, I suspect the opposite would be true.

The guy has a website which (intentionally or accidentally) generates a lot of traffic  Seems obvious to take advantage of the income opportunity when it involves little to no effort.

When the website first began to take off, I suspect the additional traffic may have cost him money (that's pure speculation).

If he inherited a substantial sum would that impact the theme in your mind?  He's been financially independent/retired for years. 

Now he's come into some money with little additional effort (relative to the amount generated).
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 10:51:44 AM by Midwest »

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Since I think (2) and (3) are just the side effect of (1), I'll just answer your first question:

"1) What makes you think he's tied to or focused on it?  He'd be doing it if he wasn't making money, just for the enjoyment (and, indeed, did).  That seems the opposite of tied to income, to me.  It sounds like a hobby people pay him boatloads to do because they find value in it."

He's focused on it because he chooses to run ads, which is of course obvious. We don't know whether he'd be writing if there was no possibility for making money from it or not. We simply don't know, and there's no use in speculating on it. All we can do is see that he's focused on the income side of things by way of running ads. I don't trust any human being to make good use of waste (by donating it to charity, starting some other movement, etc), not even MMM.

Hmm, where in the world did you get the idea that MMM was against earning money, even in retirement?  I don't get that at all, so maybe I'm missing something?

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Quote from: Midwest
I've seen no increase (and probably a decrease) in his postings since the blog started.   If his primary motivation were money, I suspect the opposite would be true.

Correlation does not equal causation, nor am I even interested in the cause.

Hmm, where in the world did you get the idea that MMM was against earning money, even in retirement?  I don't get that at all, so maybe I'm missing something?

Where in the world do you get that I think MMM is against earning money? I said he is against waste. Isn't having more than you need of anything wasteful? That's all I'm saying.

You guys are digging too deep into this. I was only noticing what I interpret to be a slight inconsistency to the tune of $400k. I'm not throwing him under the bus.

tomsang

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement
« Reply #438 on: February 27, 2016, 10:57:08 AM »
He's focused on it because he chooses to run ads, which is of course obvious. We don't know whether he'd be writing if there was no possibility for making money from it or not. We simply don't know, and there's no use in speculating on it. All we can do is see that he's focused on the income side of things by way of running ads. I don't trust any human being to make good use of waste (by donating it to charity, starting some other movement, etc), not even MMM.

This website has 1/10 of the ads that other websites I visit.  In fact if you are on the chat boards, I don't think there is advertising.  This is exactly why I don't think it helps his message to talk about the $400k+ that he makes.  He can never put it back in the bag, but his message has always been about expense side of things vs. earn more money so you can have the Ferrari.  Now the messaging is all about the money, the fact that he still works, and everything else vs. the steps to becoming financially independent which is not dependent on starting a blog that makes $400k. 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 10:58:40 AM by tomsang »

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement
« Reply #439 on: February 27, 2016, 11:00:37 AM »
He's focused on it because he chooses to run ads, which is of course obvious. We don't know whether he'd be writing if there was no possibility for making money from it or not. We simply don't know, and there's no use in speculating on it. All we can do is see that he's focused on the income side of things by way of running ads. I don't trust any human being to make good use of waste (by donating it to charity, starting some other movement, etc), not even MMM.

This website has 1/10 of the ads that other websites I visit.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: tomsang
This is exactly why I don't think it helps his message to talk about the $400k+ that he makes.  He can never put it back in the bag, but his message has always been about expense side of things vs. earn more money so you can have the Ferrari. 

No, his message was (is) never to do what you want after you get tons of money. It was to stop wasting. Now. Period.

Quote from: tomsang
Now the messaging is all about the money, the fact that he still works, and everything else vs. the steps to becoming financially independent which is not dependent on starting a blog that make $400k.

I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Quote from: Midwest
I've seen no increase (and probably a decrease) in his postings since the blog started.   If his primary motivation were money, I suspect the opposite would be true.

Correlation does not equal causation, nor am I even interested in the cause.

There is no logic to this.

Quote
Hmm, where in the world did you get the idea that MMM was against earning money, even in retirement?  I don't get that at all, so maybe I'm missing something?

Where in the world do you get that I think MMM is against earning money? I said he is against waste. Isn't having more than you need of anything wasteful? That's all I'm saying.

You guys are digging too deep into this. I was only noticing what I interpret to be a slight inconsistency to the tune of $400k. I'm not throwing him under the bus.

Passing up free money is the waste.

He already had more than he needs, now he's earning it for charity/whatever other causes he sees fit.  That's not wasteful in the slightest.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement
« Reply #441 on: February 27, 2016, 11:05:37 AM »


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

waste - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

Since the money is reportedly unspent at this point, by definition it's not wasted.  PS - I don't care how he spends.  If he wants to waste (suspect not), that's his business.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 11:08:58 AM by Midwest »

tomsang

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
Re: New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement
« Reply #442 on: February 27, 2016, 11:07:13 AM »
Ricky- I am not sure where you are taking this, but I believe MMM wants to get the message out for free on how to take control of your life so that you can become financially independent.  The best way to do that is to do interviews, articles, etc.  If that is what he wants to do with his life then why do you have a problem with it?  I had to go find the advertisements on the website, because I could not recall seeing them.  No pop-up, no sign up here to continue.  This website is about as clean as it gets for advertising.  I understand that you don't approve of anything related to his running of the blog, but the good news is MMM is financially independent so he can do what he wants and you can stay or leave. 

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

wast - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

In the verb sense, sure. I'm clearly not referring to what he's doing with the waste. I'm referring to the waste itself, which in that sense is an adjective:

"eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."

Therefore, if it's not longer useful or required, why try to get more of it? Must we get into semantics?

Quote from: Midwest
I've seen no increase (and probably a decrease) in his postings since the blog started.   If his primary motivation were money, I suspect the opposite would be true.

Correlation does not equal causation, nor am I even interested in the cause.

There is no logic to this.

What I'm saying is I'm not concerned with why he started the blog no more as I am with what he's doing with the money or will do. I'm only concerned with, and stating, what I can see.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 11:12:43 AM by Ricky »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

wast - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

In the verb sense, sure. I'm clearly not referring to what he's doing with the waste. I'm referring to the waste itself, which in that sense is an adjective:

"eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."

Therefore, if it's not longer useful or required, why try to get more of it? Must we get into semantics?

Semantics?  It's a serious stretch to define excess money as waste even under that definition.  You could define the time spent in the effort as waste, but I don't agree.

MMM keep doing what you're doing.

The waste going on here is the time spent on this argument (on both sides) ;)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 11:19:00 AM by Midwest »

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

wast - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

In the verb sense, sure. I'm clearly not referring to what he's doing with the waste. I'm referring to the waste itself, which in that sense is an adjective:

"eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."

Therefore, if it's not longer useful or required, why try to get more of it? Must we get into semantics?

Semantics?  It's a serious stretch to define excess money as waste even under that definition.  You could define the time spent in the effort as waste, but I don't agree.

Is it? You read this site, don't you? This entire site is based upon getting just enough money as you need, retiring, and not worrying about money anymore.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

wast - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

In the verb sense, sure. I'm clearly not referring to what he's doing with the waste. I'm referring to the waste itself, which in that sense is an adjective:

"eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."

Therefore, if it's not longer useful or required, why try to get more of it? Must we get into semantics?

Semantics?  It's a serious stretch to define excess money as waste even under that definition.  You could define the time spent in the effort as waste, but I don't agree.

Is it? You read this site, don't you? This entire site is based upon getting just enough money as you need, retiring, and not worrying about money anymore.

He's not worrying about it, he's taking it.  As far a I can tell he hasn't been worried about money for quite some time (with or without the site).  Living his life on his terms and financially independent which is the point of the site (with some enviro thrown in).

If someone handed you winning lottery ticket would it be wasteful to collect it even if you don' t need the money?

PaulMaxime

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Age: 60
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Absolute power doesn't corrupt, it reveals.
I don't trust any human being to make good use of waste (by donating it to charity, starting some other movement, etc), not even MMM.

Why is it any of our business what he does with the money?

Ricky

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

wast - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

In the verb sense, sure. I'm clearly not referring to what he's doing with the waste. I'm referring to the waste itself, which in that sense is an adjective:

"eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."

Therefore, if it's not longer useful or required, why try to get more of it? Must we get into semantics?

Semantics?  It's a serious stretch to define excess money as waste even under that definition.  You could define the time spent in the effort as waste, but I don't agree.

Is it? You read this site, don't you? This entire site is based upon getting just enough money as you need, retiring, and not worrying about money anymore.

He's not worrying about it, he's taking it.  As far a I can tell he hasn't been worried about money for quite some time (with or without the site).  Living his life on his terms and financially independent which is the point of the site (with some enviro thrown in).

If someone handed you winning lottery ticket would it be wasteful to collect it even if you don' t need the money?

The act of placing ads on your site means you're "thinking" about making money. No he's not worried in the sense that he will starve if it doesn't do well.

To your second paragraph: if I had all the money I already needed, then it absolutely would be wasteful. Have you seriously not understood anything I've said so far? Anything beyond what's "required" is considered waste. I don't need two refrigerators or two coffee tables. That's pretty obvious. Whether I would or wouldn't pick it up is irrelevant: it's still wasteful.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 11:54:22 AM by Ricky »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358


I'm actually not focused on the actual dollar amount at all. I'm focused on the fact that he is focused on income even after having way more than enough, which is by definition: waste.

wast - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

In the verb sense, sure. I'm clearly not referring to what he's doing with the waste. I'm referring to the waste itself, which in that sense is an adjective:

"eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."

Therefore, if it's not longer useful or required, why try to get more of it? Must we get into semantics?

Semantics?  It's a serious stretch to define excess money as waste even under that definition.  You could define the time spent in the effort as waste, but I don't agree.

Is it? You read this site, don't you? This entire site is based upon getting just enough money as you need, retiring, and not worrying about money anymore.

He's not worrying about it, he's taking it.  As far a I can tell he hasn't been worried about money for quite some time (with or without the site).  Living his life on his terms and financially independent which is the point of the site (with some enviro thrown in).

If someone handed you winning lottery ticket would it be wasteful to collect it even if you don' t need the money?

The act of placing ads on your site means you're "thinking" about making money. No he's not worried in the sense that he will starve if it doesn't do well.

To your second paragraph: if I had all the money I already needed, then it absolutely would be wasteful. Have you seriously not understood anything I've said so far? Anything beyond what's "required" is considered waste. I don't need two refrigerators or two coffee tables. That's pretty obvious. Whether I would or wouldn't pick it up is irrelevant: it's still wasteful.

Ricky - I've understood what you said, just don't agree with your definition of waste.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!