Redefining ‘retirement’ as FI creates unnecessary confusion

[Devil's Advocate]

ERE redefines retirement as FI. I think that needlessly confuses the issue without gaining anything in return.

I know why this is being done : that has been explicitly mentioned in the wiki. It is to counter the generally accepted trope of life-long work followed by retirement (a “laying out to pasture”, usually with a pension), to counter it and to replace it with the ERE paradigm. That the term retirement can carry different meanings to different meanings to different people is explicitly talked of to, for example, in the blog post about the three (four?) “generational” meanings. So it isn’t as if ERE doesn’t acknowledge multiple meanings. What I saying is, ERE insists on inserting an additional meaning that was not there before, which is : FI. And then going and trying to make the ‘FI’ meaning of the word ‘retirement’ the primary meaning. I say let go those last two steps, and undo the FI meaning of the word. For a number of reasons :
1. It is confusing. (Very much so to non-EREers, and at times even amongst EREers.)
2. It is an incorrect use of the word. (This second point is not particularly significant provided some additional nuance is thereby gained, that is how language evolves after all, but I say that is not the case here, quite the contrary. When we mean ‘FI’, why not just say ‘FI’, instead of saying ‘retirement’ and meaning ‘FI’?)
3. By accepting this terminology (retirement as FI) we run the risk of substituting the mainstream consumerist blinkers with equally hidebound blinkers of our own. Let me explain.

Retirement and FI two are two quite different animals. In thinking of them as one (or similar), we are equally guilty (as mainstream consumerists) of building up false tropes and apparently fixed sequences, because in practice we are quite free to have one without the other. It is quite possible to pursue and attain FI without actually retiring (or wanting to). It is equally possible to retire without first getting to FI. And this is what we run the risk of overlooking.

What we EREers are in effect saying is this, that a frugal non-consumerist lifestyle with high savings gets us to FI quickly, and FI lets us retire if we want to (which sort of implies that without FI we really cannot retire), and so FI is the same as potential retirement, so why not just think of it more or less as retirement? Why not indeed. Not, I say : because none of those assumptions is necessary, not even one. Those steps are not set in stone : they are merely suggestions (albeit very sensible suggestions). This retirement-equals-FI shorthand may be an efficient way of breaking the mainstream mould, but in so doing we run the risk of building up another unnecessary mould, of substituting one hide-bound and inflexible paradigm with yet another (potentially) hide-bound and inflexible paradigm. I do hope this “mould-building” and “blinker-ing” hasn’t already gone so deep that what I’ve just said in this paragraph raises the sort of shrill outcries among other EREers that ERE itself raises among mainstream consumerists. There are many ways to buck the trend, and ERE is just one of them (albeit the most ‘practical’ one, and the most one most likely to attain [fairly] widespread acceptance one of these days—plus the one all [or most ]of us here follow).

I suggest, then, that we stick to the generally accepted meaning of the term ‘retirement’ as, in this context, ‘withdrawing from one’s job or career’, nothing more and nothing less. FI has nothing to do with it. FI may or may not facilitate retirement, and FI is neither necessary nor sufficient for retirement. Two different things entirely! So, I say, Jacob is indeed retired from Physics, and continues to be retired from Physics, his second job notwithstanding (and will continue to be so, unless he returns to his old job or to a similar one). But because he’s got a full-blown second career going, no he isn’t “retired, period”. His FI is only incidental—speaking in general terms, that is, and without going into his particular motivations—to his being retired or not. (Do pardon the personal reference, Jacob, but I could think of no better example to make my point, none that everyone here would relate to quite as well!)

I know Jacob disagreed with what I’m saying here in his last post on my thread on Philanthropy, but then, Jacob, you did say as much in your interview with that chappie who wrote that HuffPo/FB article linked in the Lifestyles section here, that you wished you’d called this whole thing FI- Extreme instead. I wish that too. On the other hand “ERE” sounds distinctly ‘cool’! I say by all means let’s keep the term ERE, nice and catchy and now-established brand name that is, but let’s always remember it simply means “FI extreme”. Actual retirement (or even potential retirement) does not really come into it at all, at least not directly.

[jacob]

It depends on who you're talking to because ultimately it's all about communication.

Let's split it into three categories.

1) Those who are already onboard and understand the concepts. They get it. There's no need to dabble in semantics or invent new words, etc.
2) Those who are not onboard but may be thinking about it. Early retirement comes fairly close---much closer, really, than does the mainstream understanding of financial independence (I'll get to that). Conversely, made up words or more technically accurate do not communicate the same message.
3) Those who are against. They may be deliberately obtuse. They might have defined "retirement" in their own heads under strict terms and see it as some kind of achievement badge. If others don't meet their conditions, they get prickly.

I think we can ignore group 3, because we're mainly interested in groups 1 and 2.

Financial independence comes with its own baggage because depending on who you ask, it might mean anything from "not having to get your parents' signature on your credit card application" over "being able to sustain yourself indefinitely through financial means" to "being incredibly wealthy" or "having so much money you don't need to worry about any kind of spending limits".

If I had called in FIE, then I'd be battling people from those other definitions instead.

As long as part of humankind live in group 3 and have ready access to the internet, there's no solution and no perfect word.

[C40]

Another naming option might have been FUME: Fuck You Money Extreme.

It's good because:
- "Fuck you money" is a fun term. Explaining the acronym itself might resonate well with people who hate their jobs, bosses, etc. It doesn't use "retirement" or "independence" so it might not carry the expectations of exactly what someone must be doing after FUMING. It's just about having the ability and option to walk away when you feel like it.
- FUME is good because it's also a word that you can say without having to pronounce individual letters.

The bad:
- People would think we're assholes even more than they currently do
- Using "Fuck" in the name would be a turn-off for some.

[jacob]

I think I inadvertently caused Jack Spirko the loss of one of his subscribers by calling it Fuck U money on his survival podcast.

But yes, FU money comes even closer to what I have in mind that either financial independence or early retirement.

[Seneca]

Hahaha, I love FUME!

Renaissance FUME'ers of the world, unite!

I don't hate my job or boss, but I still think FUME is one of life's most important attainments. I occasionally notice very different perspective from colleagues due to having many years worth of savings, and clean, simple finances. Usually it's sort of a slack jawed, shocked silence after I casually say something that seems normative to me.

[C40]

And it's even common enough to be used in rap songs, widening the potential audience:

http://rapgenius.com/Lil-wayne-megaman- ... te-1475528

[JamesR]

What did the chicken do when it reached Financial Independence?

It retired.

[Devil's Advocate]

Jacob : Actually I believe this confusion cuts across all three of the categories you mention. Many EREers are confused too. As are many fence-sitters. As for the third category, I do think many have set their ears back and turned their faces simply because they do not exactly understand what you are saying. For instance, those who are—rightly or wrongly—against the concept of early retirement (the you-are-shiftless-and-lazy argument; the God-commandeth argument; or the I-like-my-job argument; or even the DWYL argument), they may yet wholeheartedly embrace the frugality aspect and the non-consumerism bit, and welcome FI if they were not forced to carry our baggage of retirement as well. (As well, there are very many in the third category who would be dead against this even when things are very clearly explained. So right, forget about that subset of the third category by all means.)

I was going through the forum and blog posts made in the last four or five days, since I last logged in here. So many explanations are made unnecessarily circular and convoluted because we seem unclear on what we mean here. To take one example : 1taskaday’s question about why EREers sometimes seek secondary income streams, and the replies you and others here have given. I would have said to her : “Don’t be confused by the ‘R’ in ERE. That is just a historical accident. ERE means FI-E, no more and no less. In your mind, substitute ‘ERE’ with ‘FI’. And the answer to your question becomes obvious. ERE enables people to reach FI early. What they do after that is a function of who they are and what they are, and not a function of ERE. They may seek other sources of income because they simply like money ; or perhaps because they like the activities and the income is only secondary ; perhaps they are trying to add further buffers to their FI ; perhaps they are like reformed alcoholics who cannot keep away from an occasional binge, no matter their inner conviction. Whatever their reasons, their inner drives are responsible, not their ERE. ERE gives them FI, no more and no less. Whether they seek secondary sources of income after that, or even other primary sources, or for that matter retain their original primary income source, or else stay income-less other than pure investment income, that comes from their own inner drives.” I could have said all this to her, but I did not, because the crown of thorns and the cross are yours, Jacob. It’s my part to just put forward my two cents here, is all. This ERE thing is your baby after all, although we’ve all gotten to like the baby and started to feel somewhat possessive about it—at least I have.

Another example : I was seeing some discussions about the DWYL argument here. Again, easy answer. Sure, go ahead and DWYL if you can. No problem there. But ERE (which is to say, FI), can make your DWYL far healthier and more enjoyable and less stress-free. (Actually if I amn’t mistaken you said something like that yourself in reply to a comment in one of the discussions, either in the forums or in the blog.)

But if you see my OP, and re-read #3 point there : my primary objection was not so much about the semantics, nor even about the confusion. I mean those apply, absolutely : but there is a far deeper and more fundamental problem in looking at ERE as ‘Early Retirement’. Since neither you nor any others seem to have seen this, I’d like to elaborate what I meant at some more length if I may (even at risk of pushing TLDR boundaries).

Everyone here, perhaps even you yourself Jacob, seems to believe that the road to retirement is this and only this : frugal life, leading to FI, and then retirement. Right? (I have very clearly observed this in all your own writings, and more so in EREers’ blog comments and forum postings. I have heard so many people saying at different places “I have so many months or years left before I can retire” or “I must somehow fortify myself to weathering the next eight months or two years or four years of work, then I will be free to retire”. ) Now I say this sequence is great, that works for many, indeed it works for most (and it has for me too), but let this not ossify into an unchangeable pattern. See, that is the main problem with the consumerist paradigm, that people do not realize that they can go beyond it. In breaking that rotten paradigm, let us not set up another set-in-stone paradigm that hinders people’s freedom.

I don’t know if I have been able to get my meaning across? Let me take an example. Let us say there is this person, X. X is a not-extremely-young person who works a Mcjob, lives in rented accommodation, and has near-zero savings. Salary is quite OK though. Now X has a burning passion, he wants to be a classical musician. He does have the basic grounding necessary, and he’s talented, but not quite so good yet that he can immediately start giving concerts. He has just heard of ERE, and has embraced the frugal lifestyle. He calculates his FI at, say, 5 years from now. Now his job takes up most of his day and almost all his energy, so he can’t work as well as practice and/or train further. (Let’s take this assessment of his at face value. It’s his life after all.) So what does he do? The ERE sequence would have been to keep working for 5 years more, but X finds the urge to get seriously into classical music too strong and too immediate, and he takes a different route. He carries on with the ERE-frugal lifestyle, saves money for six months or a year. He is still very far from FI, but he still takes the plunge and quits his job, he retires. His savings carry him for a while. Meanwhile, he trains, practices, and although not yet solo concert material, his music starts bringing in some money, less at first, then more, and he soon starts supporting himself on his music and stops drawing on his scant savings (while carrying on his ERE-frugal lifestyle and shunning overt consumerism). He is now living the life he wants, and is well on his way to realizing his dreams (although of course we do not know yet how it finally turns out).

Now this is what I am saying : A regular EREer may not even realize that he has the option of doing what this wannabe musician did. Because he is so used to thinking of retirement as the same as FI, he doesn’t even realize there can be retirement without FI. Just as the consumerist does not realize he can retire without a pension or that he retire before he is 60. That is what I meant when I said we don’t want to replace one set of chains with another set of chains. The chains here being blinkered thinking, thinking in set sequences, imagining set sequences where actually there is freedom and choice.

Did the musician take a risk? Sure he did! Should everyone do it? Certainly not! But the important point is, he has the freedom to do it if he wants to.

And think : the regular consumerist might argue along the same lines about, say, Jacob retiring. When I talk to a consumerist about his idea of retirement, I might ask him these same questions. Did Jacob take a risk (the risk that he may change his mind, or his wife may change his mind, that they may want cars and elaborate holidays every year, and realize they (perhaps) can’t do it? Sure he did! Should everyone do what Jacob did? Certainly not, not unless they in their own heart want and choose this kind of life! But the important point is, they have the freedom to do it if they want. And if you keep on thinking (I say to the consumerist) that retirement equals pension, that retirement equals age 60, then you deny yourself (and others like you) that freedom.

And that is what I say to you, Jacob. That if you keep thinking that retirement equals FI, then you deny yourself (and other EREers) the freedom to do what this musician chappie did. (Incidentally, that musician is a real-life example, with some of the details masked.)

Words are very potent things. They both represent what we already think, and also greatly influence our future thinking. We have broken one shackle : the consumerist shackle. Let’s not build up another shackle : the FI shackle (by mixing together the concept of retirement with the concept of FI, and making ERE about retirement rather than only about FI).

The word ‘retirement’ is a simple word, an innocent word if I may call it that. It simply means ‘go away from’, ‘recuse from’, ‘remove oneself from’. In the context of work, it simply means ‘go away from your career’ or ‘quit your career’. The baggage that consumerists have added to this word is this, they say (or imply) that ‘retirement’ means ‘quit career at age 60 with pension’ or ‘quit career with 20 million or more after selling your business’, and that baggage imprisons them to a certain lifestyle. We EREers too are, it seems, adding our own baggage to this word by saying (or implying) that ‘retirement’ means FI, that is, ‘retirement’ means ‘quit career or not, but absolutely do reach FI’; and in so doing, we are imprisoning ourselves to another set of unnecessary restrictions. I’m saying, let’s not do it.

So Jacob, I’m not really not talking just semantics, or worrying only about a spot of confusion (although that is a factor too, but there is a far more important factor, I’m saying). How one defines one’s basic terms and premises, one’s axioms so to say, can have far-reaching effects well beyond semantics. If you start out with a less-than-perfectly-tuned premise, then going ahead you end up with positions and arguments that may be unsound. Who would understand that better than a mathematician/scientist? In fact you made this same point, didn’t you, about the far-reaching potency of words, with respect to the word ‘freedom’ in your argument in that other thread on Philanthropy?

As for the baggage that the FI term itself carries (as you point out), well, point taken. So let’s think of something else? Or if we can’t, let’s then mangle the FI concept instead of the retirement concept. Less harm done that way, as I’ve pointed out above. (But no reason why we “can’t”, it’s not such a big deal thinking this up, is it?)

[Devil's Advocate]

C40 : FUME’s funny! Guaranteed to elicit a smile, that one! But you know (if I may be allowed to solemnly dissect a joke), I myself don’t follow the “fuck you money” premise at all. Quite the contrary. I think it is the consumerists who have a totally dysfunctional relationship with money. They are slaves to money, and often I suppose they dislike this and resent their slavery, can’t do anything about it, and in frustration cry out in impotent fury : “Fuck you, money!”—and then go drink themselves silly or burst a coronary or whatever, and then get back to crawling on all fours to their cars and their gee-gaws. We EREers, on the other hand, have a very healthy relationship with money. We treat it with respect (and in return, as it happens, it treats us with respect too). In fact what we feel towards money (in sharp contrast with consumerists) is a “Love you, Money” kind of thing. But LUME sounds so tame and not-catchy!

What did the chicken do when it reached Financial Independence?
It retired.

No, actually. The answer is : It retired (or not), per its own predilections and desires and principles. (See my reply, in post above, to Jacob.)
Also, if you were to turn the question around to : When did the chicken retire? You might be tempted to answer : When it reached FI.
And I’d disagree with that as well, and say instead (in a rather long-winded, multi-sentence and less catchy reply): It retired when it wanted to. Perhaps when FI. Perhaps when part-FI. Perhaps when not FI at all. But after have clearly thought this whole thing out. And after having benefited from such aspects of ERE as applied to it and resonated with its chicken brain and chicken heart at that particular point in time.



Actually there already is a fairly common term that directly addresses this (not that I’m advocating that particular term). Back in pre-War literature, you often come across people described—not ironically, but in a matter-of-fact way—as being “of independent means”. That captures what we mean exactly, doesn’t it? Of course, that term wouldn’t work for us, first because it’s so obviously dated as well as boring-sounding, and secondly and more importantly because the FI that it represents is extremely-evil-FI, predicated as it is on extreme social inequity.

So let’s keep thinking a bit more : Surely thinking up a simple word/term won’t stump us intrepid EREers!

[jacob]

@DA - There's not a single word that describes ERE (as described in the book, which I consider somewhat canonical). FIE comes closer, but that's not it either. I am definitely not on the ERE through FI team. There are a few on these forums who are pursuing ERE without the cash. If you read the book, you will see that financial capital is just a minor part of ERE.

The problem [of communication] is that ERE is a philosophy which means it's a way of thinking. Now, pick up any technical philosophy book (not a popularization but a real one) and the author will be spending the first 90% of the book just trying to define the terms. This is almost always the hard part of understanding a [to the reader] foreign concept. Once you speak the "language", the ideas become rather simple.

Now, the problem of teaching it a pedagogical one. People come to ERE at all sorts of levels and with all kinds of preconceptions. Intellectual baggage if you want. This is why it is 10x easier to explain ERE as I see it to a permaculturist than to a personal finance expert. The permaculturist already has the right way of thinking, they just don't have the words. The PF-expert has the right kind of words but the wrong kind of thinking. Those are really hard.

I don't think it's possible to do what you ask, that is, to find/use a universal word or definition that describes ERE that allows everybody to instantly grasp the concept and all its implications regardless of their background. It doesn't exist yet.

[Ego]

Words are powerful. By wrestling the word retirement from those who cling to the traditional definition, we kill that old definition. We shift the paradigm from the linear Educate>Work>Retire>Die to something less assembly-line. It makes life more nomadic, more variable, more flexible. Change as change is necessary.

[subgard]

Ole' Mustache doesn't seem averse to making up words.
So, since ERE is often seen as a more extreme form of mustachianism, ERE would be full beardism.

As in, "I found MMM's blog, and then found Jacob's site and that's how I became a full-blown beardist."

"Badassity" is the catchall MMM term for the skills necessary to live well on a low income. So let's call the beardist version "hardassity".

So, Hardass Beardism is the only logical term to describe the ERE philosophy.

[C40]

But we want women! (Without physical beards)

[Carlos]

The concept of Fuck You money is very might aligned with the idea that you don't have to be FI to pursue your passion. FU money could be as little as say six months expenses, enough to have the certainty to push back against your source of income/employer when it goes against your point of view. I suppose for some that might be a few months expense in savings, for me it would certainly be more. It depends on the difficulty in replacing the income.

The premise that has been discussed here and via MMM is one's WR. If you FIRE very early 4% may not be a very SWR. If you had ZERO desire to work for compensation again 3% might be a better target. IF however you want to transition to a new career or purse something that may provide some level of income 4, 5 or an even higher WR might be okay as it's temporary.

[JamesR]

Devil's Advocate,

I find your posts to be major wall of texts, and as a result my eyes glaze and I give up reading them pretty quick. It's hard to figure out what point you're trying to make, and I have trouble finding the logic in your writing.

I would really appreciate if you could find a way to be more concise and to the point. A good rule of thumb that I try to follow is 3 sentences per paragraph, and generally short sentences. Barring that, you could give TL;DR summaries somewhere

[EdithKeeler]

2. It is an incorrect use of the word. (This second point is not particularly significant provided some additional nuance is thereby gained, that is how language evolves after all, but I say that is not the case here, quite the contrary. When we mean ‘FI’, why not just say ‘FI’, instead of saying ‘retirement’ and meaning ‘FI’?)
3. By accepting this terminology (retirement as FI) we run the risk of substituting the mainstream consumerist blinkers with equally hidebound blinkers of our own. Let me explain.
...
Retirement and FI two are two quite different animals. In thinking of them as one (or similar), we are equally guilty (as mainstream consumerists) of building up false tropes and apparently fixed sequences, because in practice we are quite free to have one without the other. It is quite possible to pursue and attain FI without actually retiring (or wanting to). It is equally possible to retire without first getting to FI. And this is what we run the risk of overlooking.

With all due respect: who cares? Some people may "retire" according to the "correct" definition of the word. Some may be at FI. Some may just use the ideas to quit being a wage slave, but neither retire nor immediately reach FI but instead choose to work at something that earns less that they like more and/or allows more flexibility.. (I like the idea of fuck you money, too).

I don't understand why you would have a problem with the nomenclature. If a person is so hung up on the words that they don't get the concept, well, they've got bigger problems, IMHO.

[Devil's Advocate]

Jacob, I’m afraid what you say smacks of intellectual laziness to me. You seem to agree with me that such a catch-all and clear definition would be useful, but say “it’s not possible to find … (such) a word”, that such a word “doesn’t exist yet”. Come on, you’ve practically invented the whole ERE canon single-handed (not the idea itself, but its formal structure), would a mere word stump you? Especially when you’ve got your faithful horde (yours faithfully included) piping up with all manner of suggestions?

The need remains. A canon cannot afford loose spots, and would be well advised, in the interest of coherence, to cover them up when it can.

That said, this is no biggie as far as I am concerned. I just wanted to point out what appeared to me to be a very conspicuous loose brick in the ERE structure. I would have imagined the scientist in you would have jumped to fix it! But either way, I leave it to you. If you wish to let it go, I’m cool. I’m content to give in with good grace. (Extreme—and verbose--bad grace, some might find it, I suppose! Tomaytoes, tomahtoes, whatever! )



Ego, my point is, we’re shifting the paradigm from one particular assembly line (the consumerist one) to another (the FI-RE) assembly line. Both are particular instances, not generalizations. See, there’s nothing evil as such in the consumerist lifestyle per se. If McJobber thought out this whole sequence, and after full consideration said to himself : Hey, this is what I want to do : I have a nice secure job with great benefits, and I wish to keep on working at this job, and since I love spending and love the high life, I wish to save next to nothing and just enjoy life by splurging, I won’t bother to save, and then retire with benefits at age 62. If McJobber actually introspected and decided he wanted that for himself, surely no one here will grudge him that (just as I would laugh at, but not try to stop, the crackpot billionaire stumping up huge sums for a child’s doodles in the name of abstract art—I’ll grant him his own logic, provided he’s thought it through himself). The reason consumerism is unhealthy is because it has become, as you say, an “assembly line” paradigm, one that everyone seems to gets caught up in, whether it agrees with them or not. Now if our ERE paradigm ended up becoming a similar assembly-line paradigm (for people at large, or even for a smaller subset of people, as here), I would argue that it runs the risk of doing similar harm. Actual harm, by having people imagine such and such is the only sequence to follow, when in fact there is no such sequence at all. And that is what I was trying to address. To actually ensure the flexibility, the “change as change is necessary” that you yourself advocate.



Subgard : “Hardass Beardism” is positively hysterical! “Badassity” and “hardassity”, eh? Nice, if only as insider jokes. I haven’t read MMM myself, except a guest blog of his on this ERE site. I must look MMM up, thanks for the reminder. With me the journey has been backside-up : I first grew a thick mustache and flowing beard myself (that is, went ERE, got to FI, and retired), all by myself (intrepid me!), and after that discovered this ERE movement. (In fact I haven’t even purchased or read the Book yet, tight-fisted skinflint that I am—although I suppose I will one of these days.) I was thrilled to find this whole group of intelligent and articulate people here who think (and not just think, but act) as I do on this point. It was a nice You-Are-Not-Alone moment for me, finding this website.



C40 : Heh, women with beards sounds decidedly unappetizing! And no-women (or few-women) is the epitome of extreme frugality, eh?

Not to derail my own thread, but you know, I’ve often wondered about that : Is this ERE thing a primary guys thing? I know some of the fair sex are regular (and very articulate) participants in these forums, but most do seem to be men ; and well, not to be sexist, but my own gut feeling too would have been that guys would take to this more easily. Asceticism (broadly defined) is more a guys thing, I would imagine—not that we’re ascetics, we enjoy life, we have a ball, all that, but you know what I mean. This site doesn’t have Male/Female markers for registered users, else Jacob could have settled this issue definitely for us (at least as regards this website, if not for all EREers).



Carlos : You know, I hadn’t thought of it that way! FUME can indeed be thought of to express exactly what I myself was saying, that—as you point out—money itself (“financial FI”, as Jacob put it) need not necessarily drive ERE. Point taken.



JamesR : I am so sorry to have caused your eyes to glaze. Do I say “there, there” now? Attention deficit is truly the curse of our age, as is consumerism. My difficulty stems from the obverse of both. Attention surplus as well as tight fists, I have discovered, can be party poopers. But then I don’t really party much these days.

Also—and note the scrupulous line gap between sentences here in this reply to you, indicating a separate paragraph, complete with very small paragraphs, all for your eyes—my reply to you in my last post, at least, was short enough, surely. Or wasn’t it? I mean, how the heck does one TLDR-summarize an eight- to ten-sentence reply?

All that said, point taken. Thanks for the feedback. (And pardon the knee jerk, but I haven’t quite reached Buddha-hood yet you know.) I’ll keep your feedback in mind. Not that I’ll necessarily act on it, at least not always, but seriously, I will keep it in mind.

Incidentally, about the wall. I generally go online only once every three days or so, and stay online for no longer than perhaps two or three hours. A form of extreme frugality and deliberate non-consumerism (of the Internet), if you will. So I log in here to this website just once or perhaps twice a week, and spend not very long here. And tend to read up what's written and reply, all at one go. So the wall. (You know, I agree. There is a wall. So now, the wall's still there, but this time there are easy-to-navigate pug-marks in the form of bold names and gaps between replies, all thanks to your input.)

And now, James, stop fidgeting and making excuses, and go back to my last post right now, and read up on why the chicken crossed the road. (Don't miss the smiley, which essentially says I'm just a friendly chap just ribbing you a bit for fun, as opposed to an aggressive SOB.)



Edith : It doesn’t really matter to me, or to you I suppose. To those of us who already ‘get it’, of course it doesn’t matter. But if we’re trying to build a cohesive pattern, a full-blown paradigm, a quasi-movement so to say, surely getting our basics right is important? Think of a mathematical construct, or a logical construct, that you’re trying to teach your child. To you or to me, small errors in the basis may not matter since we’ve already ‘got it’, but to the child it will indeed matter. And what is more, it will matter to the perfectly honest teacher as well. (To take a random example, think of the very many times Jacob would have gone round in circles and got his, well, trousers in a knot, trying to explain why he isn’t not-retired despite working again. To me that is a classic example of wholly unnecessary complications arising directly from having imprecise premises/bases/definitions, in this case the very basic ERE-definition.)

That said, I was just trying to point out what appeared to me to be a gaping hole in the basic foundation of the ERE structure. That’s what the Devil’s Advocate does. I do defer to Jacob’s take on this (that every new philosophy can—and often does—make up its own definitions and goes on to base its arguments on those definitions, and it’s the reader’s responsibility to make sure he’s got it right and not the other way round), my own very valid disagreements notwithstanding, with good (if verbose) grace.

[jacob]

Here's an analogy which might be helpful.

ERE is like a dojo. People come to dojos for different purposes. Simply want to lose fat, gain muscle, and get in shape. Some want a quick course in self-defense. These two groups comprise the majority of students. A smaller group wants to spend years learning all the techniques of the system. A really small group wants to study the art of the system.

If my dojo wishes to cater to all kinds of students what should I put on the sign on the front door?

1) "Self Defense"
2) "Fitness"
3) "Dr. Fisker's Complex System for Mastery of Efficient Living To Be Revealed Through Much Study and Introspection"

I'd probably pick something like Self-Defense. Then it would quickly dawn on people that in order to throw a good punch, they'd also have to be fit. So we'd be training both. Soon, there would be confusion between whether the dojo is teaching fitness or self-defense. Depending on goals, the students would argue it's either one or the other. I'm trying to bring them to the next level of insight by pointing out that they can be seen as two aspects of the same thing. That they are deepling intertwined. In modern physics, they would be arguing whether things are waves or particles and I would be trying to say that it depends on the situation. At even higher levels I would teach about psi-functions, but not at this level.

For now, fitness and self-defense instructions are just pedagogical tools to get to "Dr. Fisker's Complex System". It's pointless for me to argue which of them is the correct term of DFCS. They're both aspects of it, sure, but the rabbit hole goes deeper than that.

People be taught in different ways because they have different goals. You can't learn the five-finger death punch if you don't know how to punch. You can't punch effectively and thus you don't _know_ how to punch if you're not strong enough to do push-ups.

Furthermore, as it often happens when learning increasingly complex concepts, you have to unlearn the "pedagogical baggage" that was necessary to learn the previous insight. The foundation must be built up and once material gets sufficiently complex, that's never possible in a linear fashion. It becomes much more circular and we start to revisit old concepts with "new eyes".

A lot of people wrongly think that ERE is an extreme sacrifice (in the surrender sense) of consumerism.---That because we live on $14000 (out of which $10000 is rent), we only enjoy a quarter of the quality of MMM who spends $21000 (add another $18000 if they had to rent their house). As far as I can tell from this example and from seeing how many in the middle class live spending even more than that, that's not the case. We all seem to live in very similar ways in terms of stuff, excursions, travel, food choices,...

The difference is that ERE accomplishes these same end goals quite differently with much less money. ERE is not a scaled down version of uninformed consumerism (most people). It's not even informed consumerism (most personal finance blogs). It's something different altogether.

In general, to increase efficiency in any kind of system, you have to increase complexity. Indeed, ERE contains aspects of retirement and indeed ERE contains aspects of financial independence. But the sum of the parts is not the sum of the whole. ERE is more complex than that.

I believe spending is a very good measure of internal complexity/expertise of living. The less one spends to reach the same quality of life, the more one has mastered the art of living.

“A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work and his play; his labor and his leisure; his mind and his body; his education and his recreation. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence through whatever he is doing, and leaves others to determine whether he is working or playing. To himself, he always appears to be doing both.”
— François-René de Chateaubriand

Similarly, in dojo-vernacular ... the less one needs to rely on physical strength and brute punching force in order to win a fight, the more one has mastered the art of "war". The best might not need to fight at all, at least physically. Sun Tzu makes no sense at the push up or punching level, but eventually it makes a lot of sense.

To me FI and RE are part of the big picture. They are closely related as well which is why they are often used together, like FIRE. However, they're not the whole picture. I would even say that once you start mixing them together, you are beginning to see that they are different manifestation/aspect/projections of a larger and more complex concept. Before seeing that concept it will appear to be confusing though. Wait wait?! Is it a particle or a wave? Tell me which because it has to be either one or the other. Otherwise it's just confusing.

Like fitness is the foundation of self-defense, I see financial independence as something more fundamental than retirement. However, realizing that there are different kind of fitness and FI, I also recognize that those that allow self-defense or retirement are more useful than others to what I'm trying to accomplish.

However, to me they are still just pedagogical tools. They're just a small part of the big picture. It would be like discussing whether the elephant is more like its trunk or more like its ears.---That the trunk is not the ears. And I'd be say, yeah sure, but my point is that they're both part of the elephant and that there's even more to the elephant than that.

[jacob]

@DA - According to quantcast (back when I used it) there is a slight majority (55% or so) of women on this site.

Edit: I just checked alexa according to which there's an overwhelming majority of males. Note that I no longer use alexa (or quantcast) so these numbers depend on whoever have installed the respective toolbars (likely mostly software engineers).

[jacob]

TL;DR of my long response above:

Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_ ... phant#Jain

Then realize that RE is like the trunk. FI is like the leg. And ERE, as far as I know, is the elephant for which we don't have a word which is in universal use. This of course makes it hard to talk about elephants.

Now, you can study the trunk and talk about the elephant in trunk terms; or you can study the leg and talk about the elephant in leg terms, or you can try to talk about the elephant itself in which case it will probably sound like psycho-babble insofar you're not familiar with the trunk and the leg parts. Also see,

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1OS1JQBY3 ... 145360121X