I'm late to the thread, but I wanted to address pax's original posts. Here's the arguments as I understand them:
A:
Premise #1) we have a social responsibility to provide as much value to others as possible
Premise #2) paid employment provides more value to others than ERE does
Conclusion A) we have a social responsibility to choose paid employment
B:
Premise #3) to ERE you need high wages and high investment income relative to your expenses
Premise #4) if everyone ERE'd, high wages and high investment income would cease to exist
Conclusion B) if everyone ERE'd, it would not be possible to ERE
=====
Response to A:
Premise #1 makes me uncomfortable, but Premise #2 seems clearly false to me. I submit that in terms of value provided to others, we have:
an ERE pursuing meaningful work > paid worker > a lazy ERE
In other words, I assert that you can provide the most value to others by first becoming financially independent, and then pursuing meaningful work without the compromises involved with paid employment. In this case, the word "retirement" in ERE is misleading.
=====
Response to B:
You could be financially independent with no investment income, provided you had 70-80 years of expenses stored up, and your assets merely pace inflation. Considering that you're already at 25x or 33x in traditional ERE, saving up that much seems entirely possible, whether in a consumption based economy or not. In fact, in a hypothetical world where everyone EREs, this would be easier in the sense that you would not need to support unproductive people (or unproductive hole digging) in addition to yourself.
Ethics of ERE
-
Robert Muir
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:15 pm
I would say that free is a state of mind... FI can vanish pretty quickly in a changing market.-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15979
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@JohnnyH - Indeed, it's a state of mind. The best prison is the one you don't see. How can you break out of something that is invisible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM
-
paxprobellum
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:22 pm
@Jacob
>> Person 1 earns $100,000 and builds two houses
>> and rents one out which gives him enough rent
>> income to stop working. This gives Person 3 a
>> place to live.
>> Person 2 earns $100,000 and builds one house and
>> spends the other $50,000 on vacations and
>> restaurant food. He must continue working.
>> This does not give Person 3 a place to live.
>> I guess I fail to see how Person 2 is the moral choice.
Person 2's are supporting tourism and food service. Those people ARE Person 3. No Person 3's = No Person 1's.
>> Person 4 earns $100,000 and builds two
>> houses and rents one out which gives him
>> enough rent income to stop working but he
>> keeps working to build more houses. This
>> gives Person 3, 5, 7, ... a place to live.
In a simplistic sense, yes. Although I think the better analogy is that person 4 continues to work (remove money from the economy) and spend (add money to the economy) as well as save (capital investor). While theoretically possible to have:
Person 1: Worker
Person 2: Spender
Person 3: Saver
I don't think it really works like that in practice. In the end, my point is that ERE as a culture isn't sustainable. ERE only works because it's "extreme" -- fundamentally, it can't be mainstream.
>> In particular, it means that those who
>> worry about “what would happen if everybody
>> did it” got nothing to worry about. Instead,
>> they can start sending concerned letters to their
>> local cosmetology school worrying about what
>> would happen if everybody became hairdressers.
I admit it - I laughed. However, I'm not "worried" any more than I'm worried about General Relativity being (dis)proven. I just have a viewpoint I'd like to state.
Also, I sent my letter to my local Aveda. Hopefully that's enough to fulfill my social contract
>> Person 1 earns $100,000 and builds two houses
>> and rents one out which gives him enough rent
>> income to stop working. This gives Person 3 a
>> place to live.
>> Person 2 earns $100,000 and builds one house and
>> spends the other $50,000 on vacations and
>> restaurant food. He must continue working.
>> This does not give Person 3 a place to live.
>> I guess I fail to see how Person 2 is the moral choice.
Person 2's are supporting tourism and food service. Those people ARE Person 3. No Person 3's = No Person 1's.
>> Person 4 earns $100,000 and builds two
>> houses and rents one out which gives him
>> enough rent income to stop working but he
>> keeps working to build more houses. This
>> gives Person 3, 5, 7, ... a place to live.
In a simplistic sense, yes. Although I think the better analogy is that person 4 continues to work (remove money from the economy) and spend (add money to the economy) as well as save (capital investor). While theoretically possible to have:
Person 1: Worker
Person 2: Spender
Person 3: Saver
I don't think it really works like that in practice. In the end, my point is that ERE as a culture isn't sustainable. ERE only works because it's "extreme" -- fundamentally, it can't be mainstream.
>> In particular, it means that those who
>> worry about “what would happen if everybody
>> did it” got nothing to worry about. Instead,
>> they can start sending concerned letters to their
>> local cosmetology school worrying about what
>> would happen if everybody became hairdressers.
I admit it - I laughed. However, I'm not "worried" any more than I'm worried about General Relativity being (dis)proven. I just have a viewpoint I'd like to state.
Also, I sent my letter to my local Aveda. Hopefully that's enough to fulfill my social contract
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15979
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Pax - So essentially, you think the following is a good idea...
"I shall live 30 miles from my office in one direction, under a pine tree; my secretary will live 30 miles away from it too, in the other direction, under another pine tree. We shall both have our own car. We shall use up tires, wear out road surfaces and gears, consume oil and gasoline. All of which will necessitate a great deal of work ... enough for all." - The Radiant City (1935)
I guess my question is what's the purpose of supporting the food industry, and the tourism industry, or the car industry unless having such industrial activity is an end in itself, which seems to be what you suggest, rather than just means to an end, which is what I suggest.
Do you work in order to live or do you live in order to work? I fall in the first category but I'll be happy to give a job to anyone who falls into the second category. I need my lawn mowed.
"I shall live 30 miles from my office in one direction, under a pine tree; my secretary will live 30 miles away from it too, in the other direction, under another pine tree. We shall both have our own car. We shall use up tires, wear out road surfaces and gears, consume oil and gasoline. All of which will necessitate a great deal of work ... enough for all." - The Radiant City (1935)
I guess my question is what's the purpose of supporting the food industry, and the tourism industry, or the car industry unless having such industrial activity is an end in itself, which seems to be what you suggest, rather than just means to an end, which is what I suggest.
Do you work in order to live or do you live in order to work? I fall in the first category but I'll be happy to give a job to anyone who falls into the second category. I need my lawn mowed.
@DVDend
"In SS case, you get check from goverment that taxes workers. In ERE, you get dividends from companies that exploit workers. The main difference is that ERE requires 5 years of hard work."
You get a Social Security check from the government that is made up of the money YOU PAID THEM (into the general fund). In effect, your drawing back out YOUR OWN MONEY. Don't confuse Social Security (SS) with Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The SSI is the freebies. SS is what you have paid into the system, and are recovering back at age 62 or older. Most people will die long before they recover their investments in it. One must work 40 quarters (10 years) while paying in 7% of earnings (14% if self employed). You really only need a social security number and a tiny record of employment to suck the SSI side of the house. That is why it is a sugar stick for so many out there.
Of course the SSI can also be a lifesaver for someone who has worked say until age 52, has a major heart attack, and then applies for SSI disability payments. In this person's case, the heart attack is indeed disabling, and the law allows payments based on it's structure. And the "heart-attackee" has certainly paid in to be eligible for it.
The reason the government mandated Social Security program is there to begin with is not because people could not do better managing their own money, it's because the majority have no motivation to do so. Therefore the government would be burdened with these people at some stage of the game anyway. Hence, Social Security, and it's creepy and very easily abused sister, SSI.
On other threads here, I have sensed some comments that people have made concerning the Social Security and Medicare programs. Folks, your buying these items. Look at your W-2's and the block that say Social Security Wages, and Medicare Wages. I agree that social security is small change compared to some big wall street investor incomes, or some pension plans like the auto workers get. I also agree that Medicare alone does not really pay all that much of anyone's costs, plus at the Medicare eligible age (65), an individual is paying in $110.00 a month for it! I would only ask you to honestly evaluate where the country would be without these programs. And once again, a person is not simply entitled to them---Your buying them. And the other programs (SSI and Medicaid----aka freebies) you can get if you have NO money or resources. That's why grandma used to always say "Be filthy rich, or dirt poor, there is no ground on the in between"
"In SS case, you get check from goverment that taxes workers. In ERE, you get dividends from companies that exploit workers. The main difference is that ERE requires 5 years of hard work."
You get a Social Security check from the government that is made up of the money YOU PAID THEM (into the general fund). In effect, your drawing back out YOUR OWN MONEY. Don't confuse Social Security (SS) with Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The SSI is the freebies. SS is what you have paid into the system, and are recovering back at age 62 or older. Most people will die long before they recover their investments in it. One must work 40 quarters (10 years) while paying in 7% of earnings (14% if self employed). You really only need a social security number and a tiny record of employment to suck the SSI side of the house. That is why it is a sugar stick for so many out there.
Of course the SSI can also be a lifesaver for someone who has worked say until age 52, has a major heart attack, and then applies for SSI disability payments. In this person's case, the heart attack is indeed disabling, and the law allows payments based on it's structure. And the "heart-attackee" has certainly paid in to be eligible for it.
The reason the government mandated Social Security program is there to begin with is not because people could not do better managing their own money, it's because the majority have no motivation to do so. Therefore the government would be burdened with these people at some stage of the game anyway. Hence, Social Security, and it's creepy and very easily abused sister, SSI.
On other threads here, I have sensed some comments that people have made concerning the Social Security and Medicare programs. Folks, your buying these items. Look at your W-2's and the block that say Social Security Wages, and Medicare Wages. I agree that social security is small change compared to some big wall street investor incomes, or some pension plans like the auto workers get. I also agree that Medicare alone does not really pay all that much of anyone's costs, plus at the Medicare eligible age (65), an individual is paying in $110.00 a month for it! I would only ask you to honestly evaluate where the country would be without these programs. And once again, a person is not simply entitled to them---Your buying them. And the other programs (SSI and Medicaid----aka freebies) you can get if you have NO money or resources. That's why grandma used to always say "Be filthy rich, or dirt poor, there is no ground on the in between"
-
paxprobellum
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:22 pm
@Jacob
>> Do you work in order to live or do you
>> live in order to work? I fall in the
>> first category but I'll be happy to
>> give a job to anyone who falls into
>> the second category. I need my lawn mowed.
That's a specious argument. Of course I'd rather be the one whose lawn is mowed rather than the mower. But the fact is, no one's lawn gets mowed unless *someone* is the mower. Everyone can't have their lawned mowed by no one.
>> Do you work in order to live or do you
>> live in order to work? I fall in the
>> first category but I'll be happy to
>> give a job to anyone who falls into
>> the second category. I need my lawn mowed.
That's a specious argument. Of course I'd rather be the one whose lawn is mowed rather than the mower. But the fact is, no one's lawn gets mowed unless *someone* is the mower. Everyone can't have their lawned mowed by no one.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15979
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Pax - I mow my own lawn. So that must mean I'm working. So we're good now, eh? Or does it only count if work is part of some kind of exchange e.g. I work on your stuff and you work on mine and we exchange money and pay each other.
What I'm advocating is a step back from the hyperspecialization of today when people can barely fix a leaking faucet or a flat tire. You really don't need to pay a plumber or a mechanic to do that. If everybody started doing it themselves that doesn't mean that plumbers or mechanics would be out of work. For one, the plumbers would do things like lawn mowing instead of hiring a Master of Mowing.
Now someone is going to quote their economics101 teacher on the law of comparative advantage, but frankly I can fix a leaking faucet much cheaper than I can work to pay a plumber to do it for me. It is much too simply to be outsourced. (The problem with that law is that it ignores the friction of trading, transportation, and distribution.)
That's a major point of ERE.
As it is there's a tremendous amount of resources wasted because the economy is INefficient where it should be efficient. ERE takes advantage of this inefficiency. However, if you think work for its own sake is inherently good, then inefficiency is good because it creates work where there doesn't need to be any. If this is your position we simply have irreconcilable positions. I see work as means to an end, not the other way around.
What I'm advocating is a step back from the hyperspecialization of today when people can barely fix a leaking faucet or a flat tire. You really don't need to pay a plumber or a mechanic to do that. If everybody started doing it themselves that doesn't mean that plumbers or mechanics would be out of work. For one, the plumbers would do things like lawn mowing instead of hiring a Master of Mowing.
Now someone is going to quote their economics101 teacher on the law of comparative advantage, but frankly I can fix a leaking faucet much cheaper than I can work to pay a plumber to do it for me. It is much too simply to be outsourced. (The problem with that law is that it ignores the friction of trading, transportation, and distribution.)
That's a major point of ERE.
As it is there's a tremendous amount of resources wasted because the economy is INefficient where it should be efficient. ERE takes advantage of this inefficiency. However, if you think work for its own sake is inherently good, then inefficiency is good because it creates work where there doesn't need to be any. If this is your position we simply have irreconcilable positions. I see work as means to an end, not the other way around.
-
Freedom_2018
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:10 am
Well..well..well.
Status is very important to some people. So is looking thin to some..even though they might have to indulge in bulimia/anorexia to do so.
@Pax: Ok you win. Yes, ERE only works on the micro scale. In fact most things work well on the micro scale. Nature loves diversity...including in lifestyles. Tumors and ebola virus have aspirations of unbounded growth...you know how that ends.
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Status is very important to some people. So is looking thin to some..even though they might have to indulge in bulimia/anorexia to do so.
@Pax: Ok you win. Yes, ERE only works on the micro scale. In fact most things work well on the micro scale. Nature loves diversity...including in lifestyles. Tumors and ebola virus have aspirations of unbounded growth...you know how that ends.
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Even if we concede "if everyone did it, it wouldn't work", it does not automatically follow that it is immoral for anyone to do it at all. That argument still has to be made.
As Jacob pointed out, if everyone wanted to become a hairdresser, that wouldn't work either, yet it isn't immoral to be one yourself.
As Jacob pointed out, if everyone wanted to become a hairdresser, that wouldn't work either, yet it isn't immoral to be one yourself.
we have so far dealt with the very micro:individual and ERE, and the mega-macro: the world and ERE. i think another perspective worthy of consideration, and a most practical one at that, is that of things in between.
Though experiment: Say, a country existed, hitherto undiscovered by the world at large, whose inhabitants all strictly adhered to the tenets of ERE. Also, assume for convenience's sake, that this country is as developed, as rich/poor in natural resources etc as the average nation. Also assume this country turned ERE overnight and was not so until very recently (to do away with the complexities involving alternate history)
Now this country, one fine day, is discovered. Fast forward fifty years. What do you think would have happened to this country? Could it have maintained its EREness,sustained itself, defended itself, grown etc etc etc. (let's also assume the said country is sufficiently big to matter to the world...this to do away with the arguments of 'it is entirely possible to cut yourself off from the world and not let the world bother you..like maybe only a small island nation with a population of a few thousands could do)
i think this hypothetical country's fate would speak much for the ethics of ERE in the practically-macro scale. (unlike the currently impractical mega-macro world scale considered here ) We have already established that it is perfectly possible for an individual to ERE in a developed economy and society (a much necessary requirement for ERE- the 'live off of investments' version of it at least, which is what interests most people and not the 'outmuscle or outrun' version of ERE, of the doomer's future world)
could this presently developed economy and society support everyone's ERE aspirations for very long?
sure...rampant consumerism/100% textbook-capitalism lead to resource depletion yadda yadda...but the fact is they put growth (of the industrial variety) on steroids..and with growth comes power. now what about the hypothetical nation that takes the opposite approach and preserves its natural wealth. can it keep the all-powerful consumer-capitalist's hands off it for long? if not...then what's the point?
let's think about morality, but without losing sight of practicality for even a moment. (textbook philosophy often has a big disconnect with practicality)
to the 'why ERE?' question, the 'smarter than thou' answer is beyond scrutiny IMHO, but the 'holier than thou' answer may have to be taken with a pinch of salt ( this despite me personally finding it more acceptable to be ERE than a rampant consumer, and finding this morally superior (but not foolproof and the answer to everything moral, mind you). IMHO, and like I had stated earlier in the thread, there is no definite answer and you do the best you can is all you can do.
Though experiment: Say, a country existed, hitherto undiscovered by the world at large, whose inhabitants all strictly adhered to the tenets of ERE. Also, assume for convenience's sake, that this country is as developed, as rich/poor in natural resources etc as the average nation. Also assume this country turned ERE overnight and was not so until very recently (to do away with the complexities involving alternate history)
Now this country, one fine day, is discovered. Fast forward fifty years. What do you think would have happened to this country? Could it have maintained its EREness,sustained itself, defended itself, grown etc etc etc. (let's also assume the said country is sufficiently big to matter to the world...this to do away with the arguments of 'it is entirely possible to cut yourself off from the world and not let the world bother you..like maybe only a small island nation with a population of a few thousands could do)
i think this hypothetical country's fate would speak much for the ethics of ERE in the practically-macro scale. (unlike the currently impractical mega-macro world scale considered here ) We have already established that it is perfectly possible for an individual to ERE in a developed economy and society (a much necessary requirement for ERE- the 'live off of investments' version of it at least, which is what interests most people and not the 'outmuscle or outrun' version of ERE, of the doomer's future world)
could this presently developed economy and society support everyone's ERE aspirations for very long?
sure...rampant consumerism/100% textbook-capitalism lead to resource depletion yadda yadda...but the fact is they put growth (of the industrial variety) on steroids..and with growth comes power. now what about the hypothetical nation that takes the opposite approach and preserves its natural wealth. can it keep the all-powerful consumer-capitalist's hands off it for long? if not...then what's the point?
let's think about morality, but without losing sight of practicality for even a moment. (textbook philosophy often has a big disconnect with practicality)
to the 'why ERE?' question, the 'smarter than thou' answer is beyond scrutiny IMHO, but the 'holier than thou' answer may have to be taken with a pinch of salt ( this despite me personally finding it more acceptable to be ERE than a rampant consumer, and finding this morally superior (but not foolproof and the answer to everything moral, mind you). IMHO, and like I had stated earlier in the thread, there is no definite answer and you do the best you can is all you can do.
-
paxprobellum
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 8:22 pm
Your fictional country is probably not sustainable. Unemployment goes to ~80% when all the ERE's start retiring, depending on their reproduction rate. I doubt 20% can keep stores, governments, etc. running.
Also, assuming they have their own currency, it'll be very weak against anything else. Since there is functionally nothing in which to invest in the fictional country, all your investments will be in foreign economies.
Everyone will, however, cut their own lawn & hair.
Also, assuming they have their own currency, it'll be very weak against anything else. Since there is functionally nothing in which to invest in the fictional country, all your investments will be in foreign economies.
Everyone will, however, cut their own lawn & hair.