I think many people unwittingly place narrow constraints on the scope of personal decision making in their lives. An independent thinker in a free society, such as an EREr, will see nearly every aspect of their lives as something that can be shaped by personal choices. For instance, living in a van can be a healthy choice in accordance with personal values. Living in a suburban house can be too. In either case, it's a positive thing when it's a result of a deliberate decision, and can be a very negative thing when it's some kind of default choice or last resort.
A lot of these constraints are recited in the form "since I'm X, I must Y." Values of X might include American, upper class, middle class, working class, educated, uneducated, religious, atheist, a professional, a responsible person, a free spirit, etc. People straightjacket themselves into stereotypes all the time. A lot of those objections are responses to someone being an X but not following through with Y, which seems like a violation of the "rules." But very few of those rules really exist in a free society.
ERE Objections
-
veganprimate
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:25 pm
- Contact:
KevinW said, "A lot of these constraints are recited in the form "since I'm X, I must Y." Values of X might include American, upper class, middle class, working class, educated, uneducated, religious, atheist, a professional, a responsible person, a free spirit, etc. People straightjacket themselves into stereotypes all the time."
I see that all the time myself. I especially notice it with regards to music. I love music; therefore, I like all different kinds of music. But so many people feel that certain music is off-limits to them, even if it's good. "I have to like heavy metal b/c I'm a biker dude." "I can't listen to Pat Boone, Barry Manilow, or the Beach Boys because I'm a black gang banger. I have to listen to rap and hip hop."
There are a couple genres of music I dislike, based on objective aspects to the music, but then again, if I look hard enough I will find a piece here or there that I enjoy, even within a disliked genre. I don't feel that my taste in music is wrapped up in my identity at all.
I see that all the time myself. I especially notice it with regards to music. I love music; therefore, I like all different kinds of music. But so many people feel that certain music is off-limits to them, even if it's good. "I have to like heavy metal b/c I'm a biker dude." "I can't listen to Pat Boone, Barry Manilow, or the Beach Boys because I'm a black gang banger. I have to listen to rap and hip hop."
There are a couple genres of music I dislike, based on objective aspects to the music, but then again, if I look hard enough I will find a piece here or there that I enjoy, even within a disliked genre. I don't feel that my taste in music is wrapped up in my identity at all.
-
DividendGuy
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:58 pm
I usually just get a laugh and a head-shake when I bring it up to co-workers or family...and that's just when I bring up retiring before 50. I don't really mention ERE (vasectomy ideas, living car-free, shared living) very often.
I just laugh and shake my head the same way when I look at my finances and see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I just laugh and shake my head the same way when I look at my finances and see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Other than the obvious point that ERE will not reach the critical mass needed to make the question "What would happen if everyone quit work" irrelevant, there is another problem inherent in the assumption about the answer. People who ask that question to themselves or to others, assume that the world would otherwise be as it is now, only with no one working. That ofcourse would be chaotic. However, if no one worked in the way people think of working currently in our culture and society anyway, life would still go on, but in a different way. All of society would revolve around a different system that would then become the norm rather than the norm we have now. I am amazed how people cannot think outside the box concerning the current definition of work, considering that what it means to work and the system for work getting done has changed drastically from society to society and century to century. I think about how work used to be done by a family as the entity providing a good or service as opposed to
a company being the entity providing the services or goods. Each family pretty much owned their own business in those days, learned a trade or produced and sold goods together. A less flattering example is slave labor. In those societies those in power often did very little work if any and left much of it to the slaves. In more primative societies, I imagine that the hunting and gathering, the building of shelter and the like was not even bartered in the smaller groups who lived more like the way individual families do today. My only point about all of this is that this system which is what people are really talking about when they talk about working, is not the only system that can make a society functional. I would actually argue that our system for division of labor is actually terribly inefficient and seriously lacks fault tolerance. My personal preference would be the family based business, minus the pressure to have to be what your father was and that is just the way it is, attitude that came
along with that system. The benefit to this would be greater self sufficeiency within each family unit and thus in society. Also, I think its just more natural. No other animal sends its kids off to be raised by others of its species while it travels to another area to hunt for other animals not in its family in order to recieve water from them to give as payment to the ones who watched their offspring while they were away! See, very silly and inefficient. Nothing wrong with the barter system or with money, but just the way we work in such an inefficient way as to have to work extra to pay others to do things we would have been doing had we not been working to pay them to do those things. Yes, we still have to do work, but I think it is the chasing of the tail that gets to stressing out those who see through the current way of doing things. The inefficiency takes more time away from our lives than people were meant to spend working, I think.
a company being the entity providing the services or goods. Each family pretty much owned their own business in those days, learned a trade or produced and sold goods together. A less flattering example is slave labor. In those societies those in power often did very little work if any and left much of it to the slaves. In more primative societies, I imagine that the hunting and gathering, the building of shelter and the like was not even bartered in the smaller groups who lived more like the way individual families do today. My only point about all of this is that this system which is what people are really talking about when they talk about working, is not the only system that can make a society functional. I would actually argue that our system for division of labor is actually terribly inefficient and seriously lacks fault tolerance. My personal preference would be the family based business, minus the pressure to have to be what your father was and that is just the way it is, attitude that came
along with that system. The benefit to this would be greater self sufficeiency within each family unit and thus in society. Also, I think its just more natural. No other animal sends its kids off to be raised by others of its species while it travels to another area to hunt for other animals not in its family in order to recieve water from them to give as payment to the ones who watched their offspring while they were away! See, very silly and inefficient. Nothing wrong with the barter system or with money, but just the way we work in such an inefficient way as to have to work extra to pay others to do things we would have been doing had we not been working to pay them to do those things. Yes, we still have to do work, but I think it is the chasing of the tail that gets to stressing out those who see through the current way of doing things. The inefficiency takes more time away from our lives than people were meant to spend working, I think.
-
themoneymonk
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:02 am
- Contact:
Love this thread, very intriguing. I too have come across a strange emotional reaction from nay people when it comes to early retirement and financial independence.
I wrote a post about it at my blog with rebuttals to many of the objections listed above, but most can be refuted with one simple argument:
Everybody plans and expects to retire at some point, and spend the rest of their days living off of income generated by work that was done earlier in their lives. Whether this is at age 65 living off a retirement fund and social security, or at age 30 after saving 85% of your earnings for 5 years, is irrelevant. Any delineation between the two would be arbitrary. Any argument the could be used against retiring at 30 could just as logically be used against retiring at 65, or ever. So realize that many of these objections are defeated by that simple argument already, and will need no further rebuttal.
if you guys are interested in checking out the rest of my article just go to www.themoney-monk.blogspot.com
I wrote a post about it at my blog with rebuttals to many of the objections listed above, but most can be refuted with one simple argument:
Everybody plans and expects to retire at some point, and spend the rest of their days living off of income generated by work that was done earlier in their lives. Whether this is at age 65 living off a retirement fund and social security, or at age 30 after saving 85% of your earnings for 5 years, is irrelevant. Any delineation between the two would be arbitrary. Any argument the could be used against retiring at 30 could just as logically be used against retiring at 65, or ever. So realize that many of these objections are defeated by that simple argument already, and will need no further rebuttal.
if you guys are interested in checking out the rest of my article just go to www.themoney-monk.blogspot.com
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
"6) You say you want to be free of money as an influence on your actions, but now you're spending *more* time concerned about money, not less."
This is the only one I've encountered that actually hits home. I used to be more along the lines of the free-spirit types that others mentioned in this thread, for whom even thinking about money at all means you've succumbed to the world of "the man". And I do sometimes regret the hours and energy that goes into the whole ERE system of increasing income and decreasing expenses. I know my younger wannabe Beatnik-self would probably scoff. Of course, I would scoff back at his overpriced clothing and shake him for his impending purchase of a new car.
I have to remind myself I'm merely front-loading the effort of worrying about money now, so I don't have to worry about it later. Non-FIRE types have a lower basal worry rate now, but their worry will last forever (and probably increase in old age, when you'd least want it to) whereas mine will eventually decrease to near zero. It's a trade-off.
How anyone could think ERE is "short-term thinking" is beyond me. Unless they truly don't grasp (or refuse to accept) the concept of saving enough to last a lifetime.
This is the only one I've encountered that actually hits home. I used to be more along the lines of the free-spirit types that others mentioned in this thread, for whom even thinking about money at all means you've succumbed to the world of "the man". And I do sometimes regret the hours and energy that goes into the whole ERE system of increasing income and decreasing expenses. I know my younger wannabe Beatnik-self would probably scoff. Of course, I would scoff back at his overpriced clothing and shake him for his impending purchase of a new car.
I have to remind myself I'm merely front-loading the effort of worrying about money now, so I don't have to worry about it later. Non-FIRE types have a lower basal worry rate now, but their worry will last forever (and probably increase in old age, when you'd least want it to) whereas mine will eventually decrease to near zero. It's a trade-off.
How anyone could think ERE is "short-term thinking" is beyond me. Unless they truly don't grasp (or refuse to accept) the concept of saving enough to last a lifetime.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6856
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
I'm glad this thread popped up today. Made me feel better. I got into a weird conversation with someone close to me. They questioned why we were both going to retire before our kids left home. They thought we were setting a bad example. I said I was glad we would do it while they were home to see how it's done. They said (in all seriousness) "So you're raising them to be bums?"
*sigh* I think I need a PR person. I'm clearly not explaining ERE correctly.
*sigh* I think I need a PR person. I'm clearly not explaining ERE correctly.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Hi akratic,
It is funny to read this thread from over a year ago for the first time with many of the same faces.
Supper cool of you to host the Chicago meet up. Ya, alcohol might be related to useless babble
I totally understand what you were saying in your journal about most new friends not being worth the investment…after they move on. I also like the program for rate of returns with age. Anyway, in response to this thread:
1. True, I’m privileged in that I know HOW to be productive, but F that. People choose to be lazy and not improve.
2. I don’t have kids, but I have witnessed that the more spoiled the child the worse the individual. A sense of entitlement is the worst thing you can give someone who has never provided for theirself.
3. The answer is always yes to someone who asks this question.
4. No, this would be like trying to convince everyone to save money before they purchase something. Not many people understand that it is better to not finance most things.
5. If it is so lazy, why can’t the individual who made this statement claim FI?
6. It is hard to not obsess about current forms of slavery.
7. Working for needs or bartering services is not short sighted. I guess our desire to immediately withdrawal from the burden of working society could be seen as short sighted, but isn’t that the goal!
I don’t get many negative comments because I think most people see the benefit, they just realize they don’t want to make the sacrifice “today”. I think I have convinced a few people to stop buying new cars every two years and to max out their 401k. Now getting people to also contribute to a Roth is harder. I can tell some people want to do what I do but they have too many friends that influence what THEY think.
It is funny to read this thread from over a year ago for the first time with many of the same faces.
Supper cool of you to host the Chicago meet up. Ya, alcohol might be related to useless babble
I totally understand what you were saying in your journal about most new friends not being worth the investment…after they move on. I also like the program for rate of returns with age. Anyway, in response to this thread:1. True, I’m privileged in that I know HOW to be productive, but F that. People choose to be lazy and not improve.
2. I don’t have kids, but I have witnessed that the more spoiled the child the worse the individual. A sense of entitlement is the worst thing you can give someone who has never provided for theirself.
3. The answer is always yes to someone who asks this question.
4. No, this would be like trying to convince everyone to save money before they purchase something. Not many people understand that it is better to not finance most things.
5. If it is so lazy, why can’t the individual who made this statement claim FI?
6. It is hard to not obsess about current forms of slavery.
7. Working for needs or bartering services is not short sighted. I guess our desire to immediately withdrawal from the burden of working society could be seen as short sighted, but isn’t that the goal!
I don’t get many negative comments because I think most people see the benefit, they just realize they don’t want to make the sacrifice “today”. I think I have convinced a few people to stop buying new cars every two years and to max out their 401k. Now getting people to also contribute to a Roth is harder. I can tell some people want to do what I do but they have too many friends that influence what THEY think.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6856
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@spartan--I just went with it and said I preferred the term "hobo" and was teaching them all about welfare and food stamps. What else could I say? This person is family. I was kind of shocked at what they said.
Why are people instantly pissed off by the idea of ERE? And we're in our 40's, so it's not even ERE just ER. (and why do I still care?!)
Why are people instantly pissed off by the idea of ERE? And we're in our 40's, so it's not even ERE just ER. (and why do I still care?!)
Well, when I first discovered ERE my objection was that it only makes sense for people with an above average salary. Sure, if you make 100k per year you can save 75% and live on 25%, but how does the person making $25k live on $6,250 per year? Even at the average family income of $50k it's hard to see how a family could raise children on $12,500 per year without some pretty severe budget cuts. I still say that this option is not really available to about half of the population. However, I think everyone can get something out of the philosophy and learn how to make the best of what they have.
My family income for last year was <35,000. Am I going to be able to retire in less than 10 years? No. But I can eliminate all debt and save about 30% That is still better than the vast majority of people and enough to get some FU money in a few years. If you make enough that you can ERE, do it! Not everyone has that option.
My family income for last year was <35,000. Am I going to be able to retire in less than 10 years? No. But I can eliminate all debt and save about 30% That is still better than the vast majority of people and enough to get some FU money in a few years. If you make enough that you can ERE, do it! Not everyone has that option.
-
dot_com_vet
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:07 am