Work Convo - Coworker Accuses MMM of Being Hypocrite

[LibrarIan]

I had an IM conversation with a coworker who started reading MMM yesterday. I've saved it and it is viewable via the link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2yriQzYxPx2RUFUYjZaTXRnOTQ&authuser=0

Please forgive the casual manner of communication. It's instant messaging and there is a lot of shorthand and lots of typos. But I think you'll get the drift.

The gist is that my coworker, Anthony, has read a couple posts and accuses MMM of being hypocritical. His reasoning is that, since MMM has said he flies places (like other continents), that his abrasive manner in calling out "car clowns" is hypocritical. The reason being that cars are waste, but so are planes, therefore MMM is a hypocrite for using planes but not cars. Give it a quick read and tell me what you think. I am not very good at defending my own position, by the way. I was never debate team worthy!

[retired?]

My first thought is that with driving MMM has an alternative, biking, but when he does drive, it is with the knowledge of the true cost.

Flying to Peru or internationally does not have a practical alternative. 

He's not saying "don't do enjoyable things" but choose a wise way to do it.

AND, for me, he is really highlighting something he feels (and probably correctly) that most people are truly ignorant of - the actual cost of driving.  Take the govt estimate of 50+ cents per mile.

And, all the trucks are stupid - I live in Texas and see it all the time.  Neighbors across the street have two SUVs and a Jeep and I am pretty sure they do nothing that requires 4WD or the towing capacity.

I think your friend just doesn't like the tone and the mirror being turned on him.  Whereas most people that come to the site/forum realize that is exactly the sort of "coach" they need to achieve what they want financially.

If one doesn't want to be FI or to RE, then they don't really need the site.  But, aside from RE, I think everyone wants FI.  Having $$ is better than not - you can always give it away.

[Retire-Canada]

Flying to Peru or internationally does not have a practical alternative. 

Sure it does - not flying to Peru. There is nothing about Peru that is essential to MMM's life.

If the goal is to attend/present at a workshop you can do that virtually from your home via the internet.

-- Vik

[Retire-Canada]

The gist is that my coworker, Anthony, has read a couple posts and accuses MMM of being hypocritical. His reasoning is that, since MMM has said he flies places (like other continents), that his abrasive manner in calling out "car clowns" is hypocritical. The reason being that cars are waste, but so are planes, therefore MMM is a hypocrite for using planes but not cars. Give it a quick read and tell me what you think. I am not very good at defending my own position, by the way. I was never debate team worthy!

What I'd say about that is that MMM points out all throughout the blog he lives a super luxurious fancy lifestyle. He calls himself out on his travel.

If MMM was trying to use the absolute least amount of energy and generate the absolute least amount of pollution he'd be a failure.

That doesn't invalidate the reality that his overall footprint is a lot less than most North Americans and that by reducing living costs he's able to work less and live with more financial freedom.

-- Vik

[Sibley]

Sounds like he's aware enough to feel threatened in his lifestyle choices. He may or may not progress past that point. Don't push it though, or he'll reject it.

Yes, I realize I sound like you're trying to convert this guy...

[Cpa Cat]

I don't agree with everything that MMM writes. Some thing I take to heart and incorporate into my life. Other thing (a lot of other things), I roll my eyes and choose to dismiss.

And it's ok.

Because this isn't a cult.

[marketnonsenses]

Who cares either way. MMM presents and idea that makes people think. He could be 100% lying about every part of his life and using the blog as a scam but that doesnt mean lots of people arnt wasting money on expensive cars.

Your friend is logically thinking about things and found an area he disagrees in. That is awesome. I think half the stuff people say around here is freaking weird, anti social, or waste of time. But it makes me think and reevaluate what I do or how I think about stuff. That is what really matters.

[2ndTimer]

I don't agree with everything that MMM writes. Some thing I take to heart and incorporate into my life. Other thing (a lot of other things), I roll my eyes and choose to dismiss.

And it's ok.

Because this isn't a cult.

What do you mean this isn't a cult?  I was promised a cult on the webpage and if I don't get one I am going to be very pissed.

In a more serious vein, sounds like the coworker is having one of those forest vs. trees vision issues

[Bracken_Joy]

I don't agree with everything that MMM writes. Some thing I take to heart and incorporate into my life. Other thing (a lot of other things), I roll my eyes and choose to dismiss.

And it's ok.

Because this isn't a cult.

What do you mean this isn't a cult?  I was promised a cult on the webpage and if I don't get one I am going to be very pissed.

All meetups are now required to serve koolaid.

[Midwest]

I don't agree with everything that MMM writes. Some thing I take to heart and incorporate into my life. Other thing (a lot of other things), I roll my eyes and choose to dismiss.

And it's ok.

Because this isn't a cult.

+100 (although some would differ)

PS, I own 2 SUV's, a boat and a jeep (all paid for).  If others on this website look down on me for that, who cares.  I don't need to justify my decisions to others.  Just as others don't need to justify their decisions to me.

For me, it's about conscious decision making.

[Neustache]

I feel pretty much zero desire or need to defend MMM's decisions to anyone. 

The hypocrite bit is almost always used as a deflection - people feel like if they can discredit someone as imperfect, they don't have to listen to them.  As if anybody ever 100% lives up to their own ideals.  (Cue for people to chime in saying they are the exception, and they do, 100% of the time, live up to their own ideals). 

[jmusic]

The gist is that my coworker, Anthony, has read a couple posts and accuses MMM of being hypocritical. His reasoning is that, since MMM has said he flies places (like other continents), that his abrasive manner in calling out "car clowns" is hypocritical. The reason being that cars are waste, but so are planes, therefore MMM is a hypocrite for using planes but not cars. Give it a quick read and tell me what you think. I am not very good at defending my own position, by the way. I was never debate team worthy!

For long distance travel, airplanes are actually more efficient than cars (especially if traveling solo).  Planes get ~70 seat miles per gallon. For a large family though, driving is usually cheaper as even a 16mpg Suburban would get 96 seat mpg with 6 people onboard.

http://www.mpgillusion.com/2011/03/more-on-airplane-mpg.html

[retired?]

Flying to Peru or internationally does not have a practical alternative. 

Sure it does - not flying to Peru. There is nothing about Peru that is essential to MMM's life.

If the goal is to attend/present at a workshop you can do that virtually from your home via the internet.

-- Vik

Aw, geez.  The point of MMM's philosophy is NOT to deprive yourself of things that you value.  It provides a framework for becoming FI and in a relatively quick manner. 

Peru is probably some place he wanted to go and holding a workshop there likely made it a cheap thing to do cost and 'tax wise'.

[jmusic]

I feel pretty much zero desire or need to defend MMM's decisions to anyone. 

The hypocrite bit is almost always used as a deflection - people feel like if they can discredit someone as imperfect, they don't have to listen to them.  As if anybody ever 100% lives up to their own ideals.  (Cue for people to chime in saying they are the exception, and they do, 100% of the time, live up to their own ideals).

Psychology is a funny thing.  99% of people feel that their beliefs are consistent despite the fact that the brain can simultaneously hold two viewpoints that conflict with each other.  This is because the human brain is a neural network, not a 100% logical CPU.  Think of it like a probability weighing machine that is always looking for the most efficient path, or if you prefer, the lazy way. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy#Psychology_of_hypocrisy

[HazelStone]

Can't access the link from here, but no one has to take a blogger's advice 100%. An important detail is becoming fully conscious of your spending choices. MMM rants at length about big, luxurious cars. However, he is in the prime of life and blessed with good health (slight assumption here). He also lives in a relatively low population density area.

I live a few miles outside DC. The drivers here are insane. Driving a Honda Fit or similar I consider an unnecessary risk if I can reasonably afford otherwise. If I'm in an accident, it will probably be some idiot texting while "driving" their Suburban. Small cars do not win in that scenario. I drive a Subaru in order to have a snowball's chance if that does happen. I'm not getting a Suburban; that is more vehicle than I need anytime soon. It was a choice that DH and I discussed and did consciously. While a WRX would have been lots of fun, it was not justifiable. We could have spent more in other areas, but we don't.

My MIL drives the sort of StatusMobile derided on this site. She has some major joint issues, so getting a more "spartan" ride is a very different value proposition for her than it would be for MMM, who is still quite spry. Leg/knee airbags have not reached middle-market cars yet, as far as I am aware. MIL paid cash for the thing and she has all her other financial ducks in a row. My base model Subaru was less than half the cost of her car, and its seats do bother some people's backs. MIL is bothered a lot more. Hers was also conscious spending. Yes there's lots of bells and whistles that she likes, too, and it's a nice and pretty car. But she isn't leasing it to keep up with the Joneses. The Joneses can go hang as far as she is concerned.

Someone might tell me I spend "too much" on food because you see lamb or lox in my fridge. You are welcome to your own opinion, but you will not be welcome to dinner with that attitude. :)

Facing the line items in your budget where you may have screwed up is an uncomfortable feeling. Some people may be willing to buy a smaller house if they can drive nicer cars. Others might be willing to trim clothing budgets to free up food/entertainment money, or vice versa. Others may be content with a week in Branson rather than an overseas trip. If you have credit card debt, if you're behind on your retirement savings, or have gobs of student loans, you need to take a harder look at your budget. And that IS uncomfortable. But if your coworker doesn't prioritize travel and does prioritize a slightly roomier car... why feel defensive over different priorities?

...so long as your other ducks are in a row. If they aren't, you SHOULD feel uncomfortable- but the car might not be the first place you economize. Just start the process according to what works best in one's own case.

[mathlete]

Didn't read the whole thing, but Anthony sounds a lot like me.

MMM or anyone else who lives in a first world country trying to be the arbiter of what is and is not wasteful is pretty laughable.

I also find myself eyerolling at MMM's elitism too.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out that Trucks are very fuel inefficient and expensive and that many people who drive them don't really utilize the extra power.

When you start in with name calling though (for example, when he calls people weak for driving or using machines instead of biking or using manual labor), nothing good can really come of that.

The name calling in the blog can really serve only two purposes:

1.) As I mentioned in the other thread, it gives affirmation to his audience. "We live life the RIGHT way. Look at all these fools who are obviously doing it wrong because they're not doing it our way." You hear a lot of this in conservative talk radio too.

2.) It shames weak-willed people into adopting his proposed changes. If MMM convinces people not to drive a truck because biking is healthier and cheaper, I think that is awesome. I have no doubt that he convinces a lot of people to make changes this way. If he convinces someone to bike instead of drive because he calls them a wuss or weak though, that's not really so great. Shame isn't really the healthiest motivator and it can cause people to make choices based on fear and emotion rather than choices that are rooted in logic and reasoning.

I don't really fall into either category so the elitism and name calling stuff doesn't really do anything for me. The blog would be better without it though. Lots of people disagree I'm sure, and that's fine. The stuff obviously doesn't stop me from reading.

[Bracken_Joy]

Didn't read the whole thing, but Anthony sounds a lot like me.

MMM or anyone else who lives in a first world country trying to be the arbiter of what is and is not wasteful is pretty laughable.

I also find myself eyerolling at MMM's elitism too.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out that Trucks are very fuel inefficient and expensive and that many people who drive them don't really utilize the extra power.

When you start in with name calling though (for example, when he calls people weak for driving or using machines instead of biking or using manual labor), nothing good can really come of that.

The name calling in the blog can really serve only two purposes:

1.) As I mentioned in the other thread, it gives affirmation to his audience. "We live life the RIGHT way. Look at all these fools who are obviously doing it wrong because they're not doing it our way." You hear a lot of this in conservative talk radio too.

2.) It shames weak-willed people into adopting his proposed changes. If MMM convinces people not to drive a truck because biking is healthier and cheaper, I think that is awesome. I have no doubt that he convinces a lot of people to make changes this way. If he convinces someone to bike instead of drive because he calls them a wuss or weak though, that's not really so great. Shame isn't really the healthiest motivator and it can cause people to make choices based on fear and emotion rather than choices that are rooted in logic and reasoning.

I don't really fall into either category so the elitism and name calling stuff doesn't really do anything for me. The blog would be better without it though. Lots of people disagree I'm sure, and that's fine. The stuff obviously doesn't stop me from reading.

I think it's to attract attention though. No one will debate over moderates. You quietly agree and go on your way. Exposure comes from vehement disagreement. I'm not saying I like it or I appreciate the names, and heaven knows I would never do the same, but I do see its value as a "shtick" to gain exposure. It's marketing, basically. It's a persona to increase readership. And obviously it has worked.

[sheepstache]

The air travel thing is like if I got mad at an olympic athlete because they were eating an ice cream sundae. An ice cream sundae is unhealthy but that obviously has no effect on the fact that they have superior health in general.

I get so annoyed with this legal-ish way of arguing where an accusation of hypocrisy is supposed to be a death blow. As though we're evaluating formal logical proofs so all that's needed is one contradiction.  You can't just point out a contradiction, you have to explain why that contradiction matters.   And then you have to accept that a lot of times it doesn't.  But in a world where people have trouble voicing the difference between right and wrong or trouble understanding logical arguments, hypocrisy becomes an easy target, because it doesn't require reference to any larger ethical or intellectual framework.

Or as Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (I think in context it's more about being willing to change your mind, but that's also kind of relevant.)

[mathlete]

I think it's to attract attention though. No one will debate over moderates. You quietly agree and go on your way. Exposure comes from vehement disagreement. I'm not saying I like it or I appreciate the names, and heaven knows I would never do the same, but I do see its value as a "shtick" to gain exposure. It's marketing, basically. It's a persona to increase readership. And obviously it has worked.

You're 100% correct. No doubt if he were as passive about evangelizing this lifestyle as I would be, he wouldn't have gotten popular.

If he really looks down on other people for living other kinds of lives or if he really silently judged the other attendees of a kid's birthday party like he posted about a few weeks ago, then MMM is an a-hole.

He is probably a good guy that just plays it up to get attention though. I hope most people can see that.

[Midwest]

I think it's to attract attention though. No one will debate over moderates. You quietly agree and go on your way. Exposure comes from vehement disagreement. I'm not saying I like it or I appreciate the names, and heaven knows I would never do the same, but I do see its value as a "shtick" to gain exposure. It's marketing, basically. It's a persona to increase readership. And obviously it has worked.

You're 100% correct. No doubt if he were as passive about evangelizing this lifestyle as I would be, he wouldn't have gotten popular.

If he really looks down on other people for living other kinds of lives or if he really silently judged the other attendees of a kid's birthday party like he posted about a few weeks ago, then MMM is an a-hole.

He is probably a good guy that just plays it up to get attention though. I hope most people can see that.

If MMM hasn't admitted it directly, I've inferred that the persona he plays on this website is a persona meant to draw attention.  I'm fine with that and realize the humor and intent as such.  I don't find it elitist because it's meant to be over the top.

The humor and style has made me realize even more how truly lucky we are to have the abundance we do.

OTOH, when people lecture others because they aren't following his "principles" sounds a bit like a cult. 

[NumberCruncher]

I don't agree with everything that MMM writes. Some thing I take to heart and incorporate into my life. Other thing (a lot of other things), I roll my eyes and choose to dismiss.

And it's ok.

Because this isn't a cult.

Shun the nonbeliever! Shun!

;)

[choppingwood]

I'd be encouraged by having a co-worker who has started reading mmm. It is natural that every idea isn't going to sit well, especially when the blog is new to your co-worker. And you don't need to defend mmm -- you can simply say you are finding that there is a lot that you can apply. You aren't required to convert anyone.

[jmusic]

MMM or anyone else who lives in a first world country trying to be the arbiter of what is and is not wasteful is pretty laughable.

I also find myself eyerolling at MMM's elitism too.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out that Trucks are very fuel inefficient and expensive and that many people who drive them don't really utilize the extra power.

When you start in with name calling though (for example, when he calls people weak for driving or using machines instead of biking or using manual labor), nothing good can really come of that.

The name calling in the blog can really serve only two purposes:

1.) As I mentioned in the other thread, it gives affirmation to his audience. "We live life the RIGHT way. Look at all these fools who are obviously doing it wrong because they're not doing it our way." You hear a lot of this in conservative talk radio too.

2.) It shames weak-willed people into adopting his proposed changes. If MMM convinces people not to drive a truck because biking is healthier and cheaper, I think that is awesome. I have no doubt that he convinces a lot of people to make changes this way. If he convinces someone to bike instead of drive because he calls them a wuss or weak though, that's not really so great. Shame isn't really the healthiest motivator and it can cause people to make choices based on fear and emotion rather than choices that are rooted in logic and reasoning.

I don't really fall into either category so the elitism and name calling stuff doesn't really do anything for me. The blog would be better without it though. Lots of people disagree I'm sure, and that's fine. The stuff obviously doesn't stop me from reading.

I can definitely understand your viewpoint, but I think that in order to challenge conventional thinking that is so deeply rooted in most people (like driving 3 blocks to the convenience store to buy a useless energy drink), you practically have to shout.  Even Dave Ramsey says, "Nothing moves unless it's shoved!"

[Argyle]

Mustachianism is not about giving up fun trips to Peru.  It's about maximizing the savings (e.g. seeing if you can make the trips tax-deductible) and living daily life frugally, for instance by using a bike rather than a car, so that you can do the non-frugal things when you want to.  Like fun trips to Peru! 

The co-worker here is saying "MMM's a hypocrite because he does expensive fun stuff!"  Yeah, MMM does expensive fun stuff because he has a ton of time and money to do expensive fun stuff.  Because he's come off the typical American path of mindless everyday high spending.  It's the mindless everyday high spending that's the target of the blog, not occasional fun things you've decided are worth it and that you enjoy to the max.

[Middlesbrough]

I would say anyone participating on this forum would be some type of elitist, but I guess that is none of my business.

[Eric]

I would say anyone participating on this forum would be some type of elitist, but I guess that is none of my business.

You have to have at least 1000 posts to qualify for Elite status.

[2527]

I once heard an economist compare savings and investments to a ball held underwater.  Eventually it will become loose and surge to the surface.

When people save and invest and live a frugal lifestyle, eventually they accumulate a lot of money, and eventually they (or their children) begin to spend it on something.  Golf, trips, a nice house, a nice car, education.

Really, it's inevitable.

The main point, though, is MMM is doing these things after he became FI, not before.  Not just after he had a high income, after he became FI.

[Ricky]

I agree that Anthony is missing the point. It's more of a "do as I say, not as I do" type vibe. I appreciate that MMM is transparent and IS hypocritical. Everyone is. What a stupid, naive thought to think that anyone has ever lived a non-hypocritical life. He could frame the blog much different, leaving out personal details, but he comes across more human when he doesn't.

It's not about what is inefficient and what isn't. It's about the extents of your efficiencies in order to become FI. The blog never stated a purpose of changing the world by ending all starvation, drought, and stopping global warming. It's simply a framework for becoming FI and living a simpler, but more satisfying life. Does that mean you can't ever travel by plane? No. Does that mean you can't ever own and operate a car more than necessary? No. It's recognizing the RIDICULOUSNESS in either one of these things, even if BOTH methods of transportation are "necessary" for your job or your life. Recognizing one ridiculous thing at a time helps us realize what we really value rather than unconsciously jumping from doing one ridiculous thing to the next.

I live a few miles outside DC. The drivers here are insane. Driving a Honda Fit or similar I consider an unnecessary risk if I can reasonably afford otherwise. If I'm in an accident, it will probably be some idiot texting while "driving" their Suburban. Small cars do not win in that scenario. I drive a Subaru in order to have a snowball's chance if that does happen. I'm not getting a Suburban; that is more vehicle than I need anytime soon. It was a choice that DH and I discussed and did consciously. While a WRX would have been lots of fun, it was not justifiable. We could have spent more in other areas, but we don't.

OK please tell me the snowball pun wasn't intended, because if not, that's hilarious! But seriously, DC is one of the most bike-able cities in America. And AWD is useless in DC...so...face punch. That said, I don't blame you for driving there, I probably would too. But there is a relatively large amount of bike commuters in DC that would whole-heartedly disagree with you, rest assured.

2.) It shames weak-willed people into adopting his proposed changes. If MMM convinces people not to drive a truck because biking is healthier and cheaper, I think that is awesome. I have no doubt that he convinces a lot of people to make changes this way. If he convinces someone to bike instead of drive because he calls them a wuss or weak though, that's not really so great. Shame isn't really the healthiest motivator and it can cause people to make choices based on fear and emotion rather than choices that are rooted in logic and reasoning.

I don't think MMM is literally calling anyone a complete fat slob that doesn't want to bike over drive. It's not like he doesn't drive himself. Again, it's more of a "do as I say, not as I do". Just because we all strive to "do unto others...", we obviously don't always. I'm perfectly fine with being called a wuss for not biking to work, even though my location isn't conducive to biking AT ALL. Why? Because cars weren't always around, nor was all this amazing technology that makes our lives TOO FLIPPIN' EASY. If you stop and look around you at how 90% of the populace actually acts and consider how they would be acting 200 years ago (excluding sociological factors), you WOULD punch everyone in the face right then and there. This is not to suggest that MMM isn't in tune with the demands of a modern society, it's just recognizing there are many excesses to go around.

[Prairie Stash]

Anthony had a point. You could've just said he's right and moved on. Flying anywhere is wasteful and so is driving. Who cares about the reason for driving or flying, just accept they both pollute.

I think you both got bogged down on a pointless discussion. I don't care if MMM is a hypocrite, a Canadian or a computer geek. Don't confuse the message with messenger. MMM as a person doesn't matter, long after he actually retires I hope people will still be inspired to try for something better.

[HazelStone]

I agree that Anthony is missing the point. It's more of a "do as I say, not as I do" type vibe. I appreciate that MMM is transparent and IS hypocritical. Everyone is. What a stupid, naive thought to think that anyone has ever lived a non-hypocritical life. He could frame the blog much different, leaving out personal details, but he comes across more human when he doesn't.

It's not about what is inefficient and what isn't. It's about the extents of your efficiencies in order to become FI. The blog never stated a purpose of changing the world by ending all starvation, drought, and stopping global warming. It's simply a framework for becoming FI and living a simpler, but more satisfying life. Does that mean you can't ever travel by plane? No. Does that mean you can't ever own and operate a car more than necessary? No. It's recognizing the RIDICULOUSNESS in either one of these things, even if BOTH methods of transportation are "necessary" for your job or your life. Recognizing one ridiculous thing at a time helps us realize what we really value rather than unconsciously jumping from doing one ridiculous thing to the next.

I live a few miles outside DC. The drivers here are insane. Driving a Honda Fit or similar I consider an unnecessary risk if I can reasonably afford otherwise. If I'm in an accident, it will probably be some idiot texting while "driving" their Suburban. Small cars do not win in that scenario. I drive a Subaru in order to have a snowball's chance if that does happen. I'm not getting a Suburban; that is more vehicle than I need anytime soon. It was a choice that DH and I discussed and did consciously. While a WRX would have been lots of fun, it was not justifiable. We could have spent more in other areas, but we don't.

OK please tell me the snowball pun wasn't intended, because if not, that's hilarious! But seriously, DC is one of the most bike-able cities in America. And AWD is useless in DC...so...face punch. That said, I don't blame you for driving there, I probably would too. But there is a relatively large amount of bike commuters in DC that would whole-heartedly disagree with you, rest assured.

2.) It shames weak-willed people into adopting his proposed changes. If MMM convinces people not to drive a truck because biking is healthier and cheaper, I think that is awesome. I have no doubt that he convinces a lot of people to make changes this way. If he convinces someone to bike instead of drive because he calls them a wuss or weak though, that's not really so great. Shame isn't really the healthiest motivator and it can cause people to make choices based on fear and emotion rather than choices that are rooted in logic and reasoning.

Yes, I am a fan of "drive-by" puns. :) I also grew up in snow country, my family is still there, so while AWD isn't an absolute necessity (I made do without until this point) it is very much a Nice to Have and I personally consider it worth it. Also, Maryland utterly sucks at road maintenance/plowing. This area also gets plenty of heavy rain, which is one scenario where AWD does help. Accident avoidance is as important as crash safety- being able to accelerate out of a bad traction position quickly when you have an idiot sliding up behind you is a concern. Threaten face punches all you like - :P I've lost two friends so far to car accidents and I have evaded several nasty rear-endings by fleeing quickly to the shoulder so the idiot had enough stopping distance not to hit the poor guy in front of me.

Also, I drive north to work- I don't work in DC. Last year I bought a nice bike, but it's recreational right now- parks and rail-trails. Biking on a busy road still scares the shit out of me- mainly because people drive like idiots and jerks around here. If I swing a job closer to home, I might bike to work at least part of the week. Cross that bridge when I come to it.

[CheapskateWife]

I once heard an economist compare savings and investments to a ball held underwater.  Eventually it will become loose and surge to the surface.

When people save and invest and live a frugal lifestyle, eventually they accumulate a lot of money, and eventually they (or their children) begin to spend it on something.  Golf, trips, a nice house, a nice car, education.

Really, it's inevitable.

The main point, though, is MMM is doing these things after he became FI, not before.  Not just after he had a high income, after he became FI.

Ah, but what many do is borrow someone else's ball with the promise to return two...we are just making sure we have earned our own first :D

[MandalayVA]

I don't agree with everything that MMM writes. Some thing I take to heart and incorporate into my life. Other thing (a lot of other things), I roll my eyes and choose to dismiss.

And it's ok.

Because this isn't a cult.

What do you mean this isn't a cult?  I was promised a cult on the webpage and if I don't get one I am going to be very pissed.

This made me laugh so hard.

I also liked this from the IM:

"But, for instance, his car rant."

"Which one?"

I also believe that Triple M is a persona rather than who Pete really is.  I went to a local meetup a few months ago and someone there had met Pete and said while he was really nice he was also kind of quiet.  Pete himself has said that he's introverted. 

I enjoy reading the blog and it's given me a lot of ideas, but I don't take it as gospel.  I haven't ridden a bike in nearly twenty years and I'm not about to re-learn.  I could walk to work and have a couple of times when I've had to work on Saturdays, but a woman walking alone at night in downtown Richmond is asking for trouble.  My DIY skills are minimal.  However, I am debt-free, stashing away and on the path to retire at 54, which is old by Mustachian standards but young by Sucka standards.

[ender]

It's very difficult to become popular without being antagonistic in some sense.

[k290]

I think you can do what you want as long as you're aware on it's impact it will have on being able to FIRE.

You should also enjoy the present. I value hitting the gym and lifting weights and I have to eat a lot more too. That is because I enjoy it and value it in the present. If some people enjoy SUV's or value the time that it saves them in traveling e.g. if you don't enjoy cycling for an hour then so be it.

As someone else said, this is not a cult. MMM presents various ways that you can make yourself more efficient and achieve FIRE, but you DON'T HAVE TO sacrifice everything if you don't want to. It does not make you a lesser human. I can't be arsed to walk/cycle to work. I am well aware of the costs involved and it's totally worth the extra time I get at the end of the day to pursue my hobbies.

Saving money is not a one size fits all approach. It sounds great theoretically but people value different things. Some people value their time and pay for someone else to do something for them. Some people value owning big SUVs for whatever reason. Some of my friends are car guys and its their hobby and it wouldn't make sense for them to give up their passion. You don't have to be a pennypinching tightwad all the time to FIRE. You can enjoy the present as well if you feel you're making a rational decision and following your values, and still FIRE but possibly a bit later.

[lemanfan]

While I'm very accepting to MMMs personal choices (since I'm doing similar "hypocrite" choices myself sometimes), I can fully understand parts of the hypocrite argument since I get annoyed by similar situations in other domains. 

Take e.g. wealth building and if you found out that a  person famous for creating a good book on building wealth have only gotten rich thanks to that book.  Would you consider that hypocracy?