Do you really understand ERE?

[rube]

Now, I am wondering if Jacob requires all registered users to have posted here befor he give his definition of ERE

ERE is a forum to browse while at work and a method to drive others / family members crazy

And:

"ERE is a hack to get out of the 'common' society"

[7Wannabe5]

BTW said

Like a Mobius strip?

Right.

[Hankaroundtheworld]

There are a lot of positive side-effects with ERE, many are described over here, but to me, the essence of ERE is:
(a) Realizing that there is an optimal balance between spending and happiness, and that overspending (consumerism) does not lead to more happiness, plus you have to work all your life for that overspending. Also, by expanding your skills, you can avoid spending too much on Services (you create Value yourself)
(b) Realizing that if you safe enough in your early years, you become fast FI, which gives you the freedom to follow your heart

At least, that is what I see as the essence. The side-effects are plenty, like more healthy lifestyle (mind and body), etc..

[Hankaroundtheworld]

ooeepss, I misunderstood, the question was to describe ERE and avoid financial explanations, so, lets retry:

The essence is
(a) Follow a lifestyle that has an optimal balance between creating personal happiness versus providing the personal effort or spending time to reach this
(b) Ensure that you reach freedom early in Life (not being dependent on somebody else), so that you can follow your personal goals without any limitation set by others

Actually not easy to avoid financial or money related topics

[Ego]

The forum section of ERE is becoming something akin to Ben Franklin's Junto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto_%28club%29

[Chad]

The forum section of ERE is becoming something akin to Ben Franklin's Junto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto_%28club%29

True, but a lot of us don't need to concern ourselves with the details of saving money or investing anymore, as we have it, if not perfect, fairly close to perfect.

[saving-10-years]

ERE is about increasing choice/options by expanding your potential to personally thrive in a wider range of contexts, and often (though not necessarily) evidence this through your post FI activity. It seems to me that the younger that ERE is achieved and the more extreme the conditions under which it can be attained the greater the choice/options post ERE. Although it can be radical at any stage and even in the ERM varient there are (usually) physical limits and (usually) greater family ties and other resistence to exploring change as you get much older.

[GandK]

The beer?

[jacob]

When I want or need to use goods and those aren't automatically provided to me, I define that as "work" (for the purpose of this discussion). If I have goods that go unused, I define that as "pollution".

At its most fundamental level, ERE is about designing one's world so as to eliminate work (the kind that is required to satisfy needs and wants, not the fun kind that done voluntarily) and pollution (wasted effort, wasted goods, ...). When things are optimally designed goods will flow through me with little effort and waste.

In this way ERE is very similar to permaculture. It's a way of setting up a system that requires little maintenance. Compare to a conventional garden where deficiencies must be supplied by the gardener (work) and pollution must be carried away by the gardener with more work.

Human living is more complicated than nature because while the latter seeks to evolve towards a steady state, human living is a dynamical process. Therefore ERE also contains a substantial focus on the future. Specifically contingencies and backups. So the difference between ERE and permaculture is that ERE pays more attention to the time component and the probability space.

This, I would say, is how I understand ERE. It has two parts: Eliminating work and pollution and considering human living as a dynamic time and probability dependent process.

Now, there are standard solutions or designs. The live close to the job, in a small space with less stuff, exercise to work (walk/bike), and earn money to invest for passive income all have the goal of reducing "work" and "pollution". Having interesting/useful hobbies and making connections and staying active all have the goal of considering the time/probability components.

There are other solutions as well.

[Devil's Advocate]

Genius. That does cover everything your dojo offers. And no straitjackets, either.

Life/lifestyle/process designed/streamlined to eliminate unnecessary work and waste. Yes, says it all. And would apply to a money-less society as well. And yes, applies to any process, not just lifestyles.

. . . . . . .

A thought, though (triggered by your last blog post, on your post-"retirement" activities) : One level of waste you've stemmed, the level that assumes happiness/filfilment comes from goods and purchased experiences. What about the next level of waste : the one that assumes that happiness comes from constant stimulus, and therefore constant activity, constant engagement with the external? Might that suggest further streamlining from current ERE limits? The potential there is just as phenomenal.

The same definition would still apply.

[7Wannabe5]

Jacob said: so as to eliminate work (the kind that is required to satisfy needs and wants, not the fun kind that done voluntarily)

Yes, but...in practice, some of us (me) may not find it so easy to differentiate between required work and work that is fun, interesting and/or fulfilling. Few examples from my real life:

1) Received $25 of income last year from gig playing the part of the villain in a children's musical film independently produced by a friend. Had a good deal of fun but probably only worked out to about $1/hr in wages.

2) Received impossible to quantify amount of barter/relationship credit with my DH this week by helping him pave the driveway on the house he owns (which I also live in) with bricks. Also, made visible improvement on my triceps.

3) Made the majority of my cash income over the last 12 years going to used book sales with one of my sisters, which is not very different from what I used to do for fun with her when we were kids (inclusive of the stop at the penny candy store on the way to the library-lol.)

4) Will go out to my vegetable patch this evening and harvest some salad greens for dinner.

5) Taking a 5 mile run this morning while listening to the Pixies.

Etc. etc. etc.

Note: Entirely possible we are exactly on the same page. I am trying to better understand, not quibble.

[Hankaroundtheworld]

Hi "7wannabe5", nothing stops you to continue with work that you like, even if you are Financial free, but as Jacob mentioned before, most of the people would stop working with what they do now if there were Financial free, and then search for more meaningful things to do (related to personal goals), but if you are one of the lucky persons that creates income from fun work, well done!

[saving-10-years]

When I want or need to use goods and those aren't automatically provided to me, I define that as "work" (for the purpose of this discussion). If I have goods that go unused, I define that as "pollution".

I like this approach, especially the part about pollution, but I am wondering about the 'automatically provided to me' part because of the recent discussion about benefits/state subsidy in a different thread and previous discussions here about lifestyles that are based around claiming benefits as chosen and substantial part of a strategy for living more cheaply. If you have arranged your life so that you qualify optimally for subsidy then would you meet this ERE criteria? There seems to be a very active sense in which those in ERE get to and maintain the 'no-need-to-work' part of RE.

One of my earlier reads in the Journal forum was from someone who was also on disability benefits but working and managing her affairs very actively to make impressive progress to being more FI within those bounds. I felt that she could have 'just' claimed benefits, but she was actively managing what she did around this. So your description (and I realise that its for the purpose of this discussion) feels a little too passive for my taste.

[jennypenny]

When I want or need to use goods and those aren't automatically provided to me, I define that as "work" (for the purpose of this discussion). If I have goods that go unused, I define that as "pollution".

I like this approach, especially the part about pollution, but I am wondering about the 'automatically provided to me' part because of the recent discussion about benefits/state subsidy in a different thread and previous discussions here about lifestyles that are based around claiming benefits as chosen and substantial part of a strategy for living more cheaply. If you have arranged your life so that you qualify optimally for subsidy then would you meet this ERE criteria? There seems to be a very active sense in which those in ERE get to and maintain the 'no-need-to-work' part of RE.

@S10Y--I took the 'automatic' part of that to mean the needs that are met by the ERE system we've designed for ourselves. We're all building systems that in one way or another provide us food and shelter, and help us meet our individual social needs. Beyond that the system might provide for travel, adventure, or a creative outlet depending on how we design it. Anything we want that isn't designed into the system would require 'work' to obtain.

I'm not sure what jacob meant, but that's how I read it.


* edited to include social needs as a basic need (friends, partners, or family)

[jacob]

That's how I meant it.

[saving-10-years]

@JennyPenny - thanks. That works well for me and appreciate the response from Jacob to confirm.

Its a neat definition but I probably would still quibble with the word 'automatic' as I think that we adjust (creatively) as we go along and even within retirement and that word suggests that it does not take effort, reflect change or require a certain vigilence to stay on track. Definitely like the 'designed for ourselves' part of your explanation.

[Dragline]

Very succinct. Looks like wiki material to me.

[jennypenny]

@S10Y--I suppose there is a lot of 'work' built into our days, but once it's habitual we stop viewing it as such. I never give a second thought to making coffee in the morning or brushing my teeth or showering. I complete those tasks without even realizing it sometimes (like the way you can arrive somewhere and not remember driving there).

Your ERE system will require more effort than brushing your teeth at first, but I still think most of it will become more like habit and less like work after a time. If you personalize the design enough to suit your skills and interests, most of the 'work' will become pleasurable.

Exercise is definitely 'work' when you first start out, but those that stick with it don't see it as such anymore. It becomes either a habit or a pleasure if they've chosen the type of exercise wisely. I see that and the ERE system the same way.

[saving-10-years]

@JennyPenny I suppose that because I am new to the ERE side of things I am still at the questioning every decision. It seems a long distant goal that this will be automatic and I am not sure that that is a desirable aim from where I am now. When I was in work _that_ was automatic. But not in a good way. I am enjoying the thinking about every little thing (having the time to think about it and question whether this or that is the right thing to do) so the word 'automatic' brings me out in a rash.

[jacob]

@s10y - If you want [parts of] your environment to be non-automatic because you want to provide some input, just set it up like that instead.

Examples,

1) You're FI but you still have to drive 10 miles to get groceries and you don't like the drive. That drive is work.
2) Same situation, but you enjoy the drive---perhaps on a bicycle. Not work. You might deliberately set it up (by not buying everything you need for a while) so you have to go regularly.
3) You don't like the shopping nor the driving. No-effort (permaculture) garden in backyard.
4) Ego-example. You want occasional radical change because you don't want to get complacent. Design for opportunities with non-permanent solutions.