Being open about ERE at work/interviews?

[IlliniDave]

I would say avoid it in a job interview. I don't make any big secret about it at work. It's fairly obvious from the way I live my life that I resist spending money unnecessarily, and when people ask why I just tell them I have a goal to retire early. I have encountered none of the resentment or negative consequences people warn about. It's prompted a few of my friends/colleagues (and two of my bosses) to be willing to look at things from a different perspective. I'm not out to make converts: ERE or even ER isn't the best path for everyone.

One caveat is that I am very careful not to be an ass about it. I don't go around with my chest puffed out bragging about having a bunch of FU money. I don't denigrate work in general, my job/employer in specific, or people who prefer to work longer in exchange for a higher consumption lifestyle. That's not disingenuous--I just don't have animosity towards any of that. My thing is that I have places I need to be from a deeply personal perspective that are simply disjoint from my present career. If you put it in human terms people can understand, they will be understanding.

So depending on your own ability to be diplomatic and humble, and maybe how mature your coworkers are, you might want to tread carefully at work. I don't think there are a lot of bosses out there who obsess over what their employees longer range plans are as long as they are doing their job well today. But flaunting either wealth or power over your employer is just all-around bad form.

[cmonkey]

As everyone else has said the answer is absolutely NO on the interview. You wouldn't stand a chance of getting hired.

As for while you are at work it depends on your team, how far along you are toward FI, etc...

Early on it would be dangerous as others have stated. Most large companies aren't looking for a high turnover rate. My company looks for lifers who will fill positions for their entire career (or for large portions of it at least).

Later on, it could give you more power over your work, the work load itself, telecommuting opportunities (if its available, etc...


That said, there are some days when I really feel like telling certain co-workers about how ridiculous their views on retirement are. Most of my team are young baby boomers (early 60's) that just don't think they have enough yet! Just this morning a couple of guys were talking about someone here who has 44 years in with the company (how on earth can anyone do this?), is 62 years old and yet can't retire because his wife "thinks finances are too tight". It took quite a bit of will power to bite my tongue and not start talking about folks that can quit after just a few years of working and tell my co-workers just how stupid they are for not looking into it, and how I will probably be done working before them despite their decades of "service and loyalty".

My cooler self prevailed.

I also had an experience this past weekend while making cider with an old co-worker friend where he started talking about his 401K and how he's "moving money around in it" and having it managed by someone to "maximize his return" or something like that. I can't remember. I had a strong urge to say "ya know I could get you out in 5 years".....but I knew he wouldn't understand. The friendship is worth more than trying to bridge that gap.

On the other hand, you could also 'test the water' so to speak with folks that you suspect might enjoy the ERE mindset. I did this with an ex-coworker who has since moved to a new job (we still chat often) by sharing an article from the ERE blog and casually saying "this is a neat look blog I wonder if its worth reading?". He loved the article. Now that he is in a new company I eventually let him know of my plans and he thinks its amazing.

[Scrubby]

That said, there are some days when I really feel like telling certain co-workers about how ridiculous their views on retirement are. Most of my team are young baby boomers (early 60's) that just don't think they have enough yet! Just this morning a couple of guys were talking about someone here who has 44 years in with the company (how on earth can anyone do this?), is 62 years old and yet can't retire because his wife "thinks finances are too tight". It took quite a bit of will power to bite my tongue and not start talking about folks that can quit after just a few years of working and tell my co-workers just how stupid they are for not looking into it, and how I will probably be done working before them despite their decades of "service and loyalty".

I think the majority of the population never gets over the pocket money stage. They view their income as pocket money, and anything that comes in is intended to be spent on candy and toys. Someone has to control the flow of money for them, be it the parents, employer or pension system. Finances will always be tight in this situation because they will spend whatever they make, no matter what they make. Taking complete economic control of their own lives is inconceivable to these people.

If you want to try to drive a wedge into this thinking you should probably start by suggesting that they save up for retiring a few of years early, not when they're 30 or 40. That's hard to see the benefit of when you're young, but if you also have some who are close to retirement and would really have liked to retire now you can point to them to explain why. It's not really in our best interest to convince others to retire early, though. High volume and specialization are what make goods cheap. If everyone started to retire early then the volume of goods sold would be much lower, and the cost of living higher.

[jacob]

I think the majority of the population never gets over the pocket money stage.

If you don't mind terribly much, I'm going to steal that term [with citational fame due if so desired]. You totally nailed it! That's exactly how I used to think about money before I started this ERE thing.

Now what's a good word for "it's alright to borrow money to spend it on stuff I can't afford yet"-stage? A never entered that but for many that's the next stage until FI(E)RE. Entitlement-stage?

[Jean]

I said it all around and I've been unemployed for a year now.
So that's a very poor strategy.
But Interviewer always asks questions where not mentioning ERE would be lying.
But unemployment benefits are high enough so I don't get engough motivation for lying.

[jacob]

I don't think not mentioning ERE would be lying. Rather, mentioning ERE would be irrelevant. Why does your potential employer/colleague need/want to know how you conduct your personal affairs/live your life?

[Jean]

They always ask where I'de wan't to be in five years, or if i'm in an emergency to find a job.

[jacob]

1) "That depends. I'm flexible but also opportunistic. I don't want to be doing the same thing forever."
2) "No. I'm trying to find the right place for me."

[Jean]

I wouldn't feel confortable saying just this while theire decision would be different if they knew more.
Especially evasive response like those tend to lead to more precises questions where I always end up mentioning that I'm on the way to saving enough so I don't have to work anymore in a near future.
But maybe I am just dumb.

[jacob]

Consider that you might actually want to work for many years if they provided you the optimal conditions of doing so, i.e. complete flexibility, interesting activities: a win-win situation. Personally, I'd work forever if someone kept me entertained doing interesting/useful work and paid me at the same time. Realistically that's probably not going to happen forever but it's a possibility and it's up to both parties to explore/figure out whether it's possible---It probably won't be---but while it's going on, you're both operating on good faith.

[Jean]

I have problems motivating myself to work on anything for a few months, so considering that I might want to keep a job for several years is clearly delusion.
But I Know that this attitude is going to keep me out of a carreer.

[jacob]

But what if your employer kept changing your "job"/task/assignment to something you'd prefer?

(My timescale is about 3-5 years ... not 3-5 months ... so easier for me.)

The main purpose of interviews is to figure out whether you're compatible. It's like dating.

[7Wannabe5]

Maybe depends on the job? For instance, I am maybe willing to hire a personal assistant. This would be a VERY interesting job involving constantly changing tasks. For instance, if I had a personal assistant showing up this morning, the list of tasks to complete would be:

1) Walk around the neighborhood and scavenge 21 abandoned tires and stack them neatly on my vacant lot.
2) Do some research on the identification of roses and propagation from cuttings. Prepare brief report or presentation for me.
3) Set up some kind of light box and take some decent photos of assortment of collectible dolls I wish to sell.
4) Tune up my bike. '
5) Take 3 Australian Cattle dogs for healthy run through abandoned industrial complex.

The rate of pay would be room (cot in basement, tent on vacant lot, averse-possession of abandoned house next to vacant lot or directions to nearby spacious bridge environment under I-75), board (guaranteed better than just lentils, maybe some meat twice a week), public pool pass, free use of guest bike (Huffy Storm), calendar of free activities within biking distance, and some amount of spending/saving cash to be negotiated ($20/day?) This would be a sort of morph of a WWOOF volunteer opportunity and day contract piece work. So, the other SUPER upside to this job would be that as soon as you complete the list of EXTREMELY INTERESTING tasks I presented you with each day, your time would be your own.

[bottlerocks]

I wouldn't feel confortable saying just this while theire decision would be different if they knew more.

That's definitely not a two way street for most businesses. If they have information that will make employees start shopping around they're going to keep it wrapped up as long as possible.

That's fairly relevant to the topic...Altruism doesn't mix with capitalism very well.

[Scrubby]

If you don't mind terribly much, I'm going to steal that term [with citational fame due if so desired]. You totally nailed it! That's exactly how I used to think about money before I started this ERE thing.

Feel free to use it any way you like.

Sorry, I don't have anything regarding borrowing.

[RealPerson]

In a job interview you talk about the company and how you are excited about their service or product and the long term potential. You talk about the company and not yourself. Got it?

As someone who has conducted many hiring interviews, I can guarantee you that my bullshit alarm goes off when I hear a pile of bullshit like that. That is why I keep a barf bag in my desk. The entire purpose of the interview is for me get to know the person and determine whether he/she is qulified for the job and a good fit personality wise. Them BSing me about how great my company is, only suggests to me that they have stuff to hide.

I look for people who lead a responsible lifestyle, because I think those people are far more likely to think and act responsibly on the job. If people can't handle their own money, how could I trust them to handle the money of my company? The applicant doesn't necessarily have to discuss their ERE plans, but I do like to see evidence that they act with common sense in their personal life.

[thrifty++]

I say no for quite an important and practical reason. That reason is if you fuck something up at work and the company you work for is questioning whether to sue you, if they know you have a massive stash of cash they will be way more likely to do so.
As for the power dynamics I think its just as good to know you have they leverage without telling them. They don't need to know why you are so confident and behave like you have lots of leverage but from the energy you emanate in your negotiations they will know they need to work with you rather than dictate the rules to you. My vote is on being mysterious!

[Stahlmann]

interesting as small stash in my bank made me a bit too picky wrt to objective reality near me.

[nomadscientist]

My view is it's a solidly bad idea.

The corporate system works in part by using workers' cashflow problems to suppress their pay. The deal is we guarantee* you the same amount every month and you pay for this the way you would pay for insurance by accepting less total money. What you are doing by trying to leverage your lack of cash flow problems is swap that around so the company pays you more per month but doesn't have to guarantee you stable cash flow. Problem: corporations have no mechanism for changing their payroll system to optimise pay streams to individual employees and have no interest in paying the overhead to do so. You are offering them a deal they can't accept. They can accept it by taking you on as a contractor but not within the standard HR system for employees.

It also works in part by dangling long term rewards in front of you and getting you to run after them. From the company's point of view, the next promotion is usually a very cheap way of motivating you to overperform relative to your nominal duties in your current job. The performance gap between the marginal employee who is not quite bad enough to fire, and the gunner who wants to be first in this year's appraisals is enormous and costs the corporation almost nothing. Few corporations want to hire someone who doesn't care about getting the next promotion.

*at least when times are good

In all circumstances leverage comes from actually being willing to walk. Are you really willing to walk without a new job to go to? If so you can try and see if they counteroffer to retain you, but unless you're already FI you probably don't want to walk without another job offer and if you are already FI what are you doing still working? Which puts you in much the same situation as any other employee without a competing offer.

I say no for quite an important and practical reason. That reason is if you fuck something up at work and the company you work for is questioning whether to sue you, if they know you have a massive stash of cash they will be way more likely to do so.

This is very astute and an underrated issue.

Same goes for landlords too. I found it very difficult to find renters insurance that covers accidental damage by me to the landlord's property. The assumption seems to be that I'm renting so I'm broke and in that case the landlord's insurance company will pay any damage and not bother trying to recover from me. If that's known not to be the case, though, the landlord's insurance company will definitely come after me and I seemingly can't insure against it? Uncomfortable.

[sky]

Just say that in 5 years you hope to be in a company that fully develops your skills and talents and makes good use of them, and that you hope to be in a management position with appropriate compensation.