The ERE Wheaton Scale

[Dragline]

Necessarily, no. But potentially, yes, as people often consume more of what they like and move further in whatever direction that happens to be, especially if they have already concluded that they should ignore the crowd, which would push them back towards the middle in preferences.

[ThisDinosaur]

Doesn't the ERE Wheaton Scale ultimately have to lead into the Actual Wheaton Scale? If you've reached the point where money is irrelevant, aren't you are a permaculturalist (or else forager/"wildcrafter")?

How many of you actually grow all or most of your own food?

[BRUTE]

it probably can, but has to? brute doesn't grow ANY of his own food, and isn't planning on. seems like food is just one of many things that can be outsourced or insourced, depending on other lifestyle factors.

[ThisDinosaur]

Outsourcing implies dependence. Usually on money. That's not a bad thing, of course, but level 8 on Jacob's chart entails independence FROM money. Since Jacob gets to define ERE, he also gets to define where nomads, subsistence farmers, and capitalists are in relation to each other on the scale.

[7Wannabe5]

@ThisDinosaur:

I don't think it is necessary to grow or forage your own food, but those are two strategies for feeding yourself that do not require money. Another reasonably straight-forward strategy would be to trade your cooking skills for the provision of groceries by others. Another strategy might be to trade salsa dancing lessons for free dinner and drinks.

Let's say you had 5 appealing strategies for feeding yourself dinner, and only 1 of those strategies required money, and the strategy that required money only required $1, and you had 5 different appealing strategies or flows of money that readily provided that $1, and only one of them was your investment proceeds, then you could say that your ability to provide yourself with dinner was extremely independent of the behavior of the stock market. I don't think money can ever be completely irrelevant to providing yourself with dinner as long as it is a possible direct option.

Thinking about this thread really helped me get unblocked about further reducing my shelter expenses, because I suddenly realized that what would make me feel more secure about moving from a $300/month solution to an approximately $80/month solution would be having 5 different possible $80/month solutions for shelter. Just like how I would like to have 5 different solutions for water for my permaculture project. Of course, one possible problem is if the maintenance or transition "costs" for 5 different solutions ends up being greater than the savings. For instance, establishing dating relationships with 3 different men meant that I ended up rarely going 2 days in a row without somebody providing me with dinner or other desired services, but it made me sort of crazy. IOW, the weak link was probably the limit of my social extroversion.

IMO, one of the interesting things about Level 6 or 7 is coming to recognize or experience all the great variety of limiting factors besides money or time that exist.

[ThisDinosaur]

@7Wannabe5
Would you consider yourself ERE? Where on the scale would you place yourself? Where would you place BRUTE? Or Ego, FByer....?

@BRUTE
Do you consider yourself ERE? Where on the scale are you? Where would you place 7Wannabe5?

I think brute's point that there are at least three axes/dimensions (financial, DIY, social capital) worth measuring here is very relevant.

What is ERE if it is more than just extremely frugal FI ? What are we measuring with this chart? What do the members of this board all have in common beyond a desire to avoid employed work and consumption?

[7Wannabe5]

@ThisDinosaur: I think I am at Level 6.78.

[BRUTE]

What do the members of this board all have in common beyond a desire to avoid employed work and consumption?

anti-social nerds

brute can't easily answer the binary question if he considers himself ERE, without going into a detailed and complicated diatribe about what a unique snowflake he is. he evaluated himself on the jacob-table somewhere earlier in this thread.

on the 3 areas FI/DIY/social capital, brute isn't very high on any of them. he's an unemployed loner who couldn't craft his way out of a wet paper bag. brute's strength, in ERE terms, is lack of many desires. brute has very little desire to impress humans or increase his status, with a few exceptions.

[Dragline]

We all find each other interesting or entertaining enough to keep coming back here. Duh!

I'm either off the scale or well beneath the scale. Depending on which Dragline you are thinking about or looking at during a given moment.

[ThisDinosaur]

We're all unique snowflakes, Brute. I'm an antisocial nerd. 7W5 is probably a prosocial bookworm.

The Wheaton scale starts with a very specific starting point (mindless, dependent consumer) and proceeds one-dimensionally toward a specific end point (self-reliant, composting homesteader). An ERE equivalent would have to incorporate multiple, uncorrelated skill sets or qualities.

@jacob
You said,

"Wheaton levels for ERE is more about how far one is from the city-center in any direction, metaphorically speaking, and behavior could take many many directions and combinations."

So what if, instead of a chart with rows and columns, you have a sunburst chart, with ERE in the center. There are multiple roads to FI, but they all intersect at ERE. The periphery would represent specialists in one particular corner of the world.

In one direction lies savings rate, financial know-how. Reading includes MMM, Portfoliocharts. Later, economics and investment analysis texts.

Another direction is minimalism, living in low COL countries. YMOYL, Travel Bloggers, Stoic and Bhuddist philosophy, wants vs. needs. Brute's in here somewhere, maybe.

The social capital direction might have readings on human nature and barter systems. Dragline's website, Kahneman. 7W5 sits along this line.

Another is DIY; plumbing, tiny house building. Permaculture might be in here, too. Or you could have the original Wheaton chart incorporated into one of the rays, with Jacob Lund Fisker sitting next to Sepp Holzer.

Someone with a question about one of these fields may not necessarily be ready to progress along the others. The systems thinking may come later once they've made notable progress along the other fields.

[BRUTE]

not a bad idea. brute's problem with the sunburst chart would be that it would be pretty hard to see where the goal is, wouldn't it? it would be the outer edge with extreme specialization (level X executive with very high salary). but combination of skills and synergies is pretty important to ERE. how would one determine that ERE has been reached when every sunburst is only at levels, say, 3-7? it would again imply that the goal is to maximize every skill, whereas ERE (in brute's mind) claims that it's actually more effective to combine several lower level domains instead of specializing in one.

brute doesn't know much about diagram types. what would be a good graphical way to intuitively display the following things:
1)the starting position is individual
2)the target is individual
3)for the same starting position and target, the way can be different

brute keeps thinking of building blocks as a mental model, but will admit that he doesn't know of a building block chart.

[George the original one]

What do the members of this board all have in common beyond a desire to avoid employed work and consumption?

It's not necessarily avoiding employed work and consumption, more a matter of being masters of ourselves and our time. ERE recognizes many paths to find that freedom and about the only commonality is removing/reducing money as a limitation.

[ThisDinosaur]

ERE goal is at the center. Implying multiple strategies available to get the desired outcome. The renaissance EREer could choose between strategies given the circumstances. Hence, nomads and homesteaders can be on equal standing along differing paths. As they approach the center, some paths begin to overlap (i.e., gardening and DIY home repair merge into homesteading, investment strategies and minimalism merge into FIRE)

While writing that post, I initially considered the Center as the Employee Consumer that we are all travelling AWAY from in different directions. ERE would be the periphery. That would only make sense if the periphery was replaced by a more generic FI, or independence from employment/consumerism.

The ERE-center/target way makes the central objective more obvious, and incorporates the idea that the center of multiple overlapping specialties is a system really understood only by generalists. Specialists are too far away from each other to see the whole picture.

[ThisDinosaur]

Yes, our targets can be different. And they can change. That's life.

But I don't think the ERE WS needs to reflect that. The original Wheaton Scale shows a linear path from consumer to permaculturalist. Very few people are expected to choose "Awesome at Permaculture" as a life goal.

The assignment here is to create a path from consumer to EREer. Necessary features include that those more than two steps away from each other have difficulty communicating about the subject, and may dismiss each other because of it. Done. The Sunburst chart would even magnify that effect because the expatriate and the homesteader might also clash (as they have in this thread). An ERE generalist might see that both lifestyles have a place in the world and could benefit from components of eachother's knowledge.

[stand@desk]

After thinking about it, the highest levels of ERE would likely apply most to NF Idealist types. They likely haven't gone through the whole ERE progression in a financial sense but go through a parallel progression in an emotional sense. NTs still want to get some utility out of money because they have worked for it but NFs not being programmed that way just go straight to the end of the spectrum because of their idealism.

[Fish]

As I understand it, what we’re trying to construct is:

1. A one-dimensional Wheaton scale along the spending efficiency ("skill of living") axis described in http://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com ... 322#p99322.
2. A Dreyfus map explaining the different mindsets and goals as mastery is developed along the personal finance journey.

As such, the jacob-table provides the desired insight in its current form, but suffers from the design being incompatible with the readers. Additionally, given the objectives, it seems destined to being misused as a personal awesomeness chart.

there are at least three axes/dimensions (financial, DIY, social capital) worth measuring

These dimensions are simply various manifestations of capital. In a strict personal finance sense, the mindset doesn’t change based on the form of alternative capital used. It just cares that the need is addressed without money. This is congruent with the focus on spending efficiency.

I agree that ERE is multidimensional. The specific lifestyle solutions will vary due to temperament and relative abundance of the different types of capital. What we have in common is that we think about money in a very similar way. What you’re proposing is a roadmap showing the various ways in which people can achieve ERE. This is a separate project (note the book and blog already do this in an uncondensed form). However, there’s lot of interest for it in this thread, and not so much for personal finance mindsets. Maybe Jacob had a point about needing the infographic to keep ERE relevant into the next decade and beyond.

[ThisDinosaur]

@Fish
Its only assumed that the chart should be linear because it was inspired by Wheaton's and Dreyfus' linear tables. I agree that the issue here is the current incompatibility with readers. Another issue is that ERE is multimodal. Wheaton and Dreyfus are not. Wheaton's is essentially a Dreyfus chart focusing on a specific skill.

If ERE is qualitatively different than other forms of FI, then the difference lies in a diversity of self-sufficiency enabling skills. If multiple skills are needed for the comprehensive goal, then multiple converging Dreyfus charts are needed in the final infographic.

[Fish]

@ThisDinosaur: If the purpose of the chart is to explain ERE to a non-ERE audience, it is agreed that multiple dimensions are needed. As a refresher on Level 1-5 mindsets to help the ERE-minded recommend the appropriate resources to PF newbies, a single dimension suffices. We're likely seeing the intended use of the chart differently.

[jacob]

@ThisDinosaur - Jacob's table is essential a Dreyfus scale designed for the people on wisebread's blogging list where/when the focus is on FIRE and travel. The choice of FIRE and travel as outward manifestations of one's learning level captures A LOT of the personal finance community these days.

One can make a similar Dreyfus scale for other aspects, e.g. minimalism, simple living, permaculture, survivalism, ...

Note that 90% of the disagreement in this thread comes from forumites who aren't taking the standard pf-road or who have just started.

Also note, that in the real world, a random person is way more likely to have a money focus than a simple living or a permaculture focus.

Also, as noted approximately 500 times above, the point of the Wheaton scale or the table in this thread is not to rank people according to 'bestness' but to figure out how to communicate with others (friends and family) who are far from being on the same page. Internally (on these forums), the jacob-table has very little use.

For anyone who wants to make their own Wheaton scale for some other domain than FIRE and travel, proceed as follows.

1) Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_m ... tage_model and http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/ ... -level.pdf
2) Did you skip the first step? If so, do not proceed. Go back and read those links.
3) Check to see if the difference between levels would be obvious to an outside observer. If so, stop. The table will not follow the Wheaton law because there's no mutual fog-of-comprehension. For example, there are no Wheaton levels of basketball or juggling. To a garage level player, Michael Jordan does not appear extreme or crazy. Rather he appears to be obviously good.
4a) Figure out what characterizes the domain-specific [mentally] operational modes of each Dreyfus level. For example, the advanced/expert level for personal finance is systems thinking which is appropriate since pf deals with complex systems. However, the advanced/expert level for simple living might be some kind of authentic/Zen-mind and have nothing whatsoever to do with thinking or systems-theory.
4b) Feel free to add intermediate levels to the Dreyfus framework realizing that they inherently have some overlap.
5) Figure out what the outward manifestations or habits for a given Dreyfus level (as given by 4) is. In the jacob-table those are the SWR focus, the travel, and to some degree the savings rate (when adjusted for high income or low income earners).

[jennypenny]

I think the chart can still be linear, even if the range of possible components within each level seems non-linear. The chart can measure a person's progress towards securing their financial independence by compressing expenses well below available resources, regardless of whether a person is relying on financial resources alone or developing or procuring non-financial resources to provide what they need. Or both. The recipe might be different for each person within a certain level, but the sophistication and durability of their individual ERE plans are probably comparable.

I guess I assumed it was measuring the relationship between expenses and resources, so the 'highest' level would be expenses shrinking infinitely smaller while resources increased infinitely larger? (not just in quantity like $1K - $1M but in type, so from money alone to money + skill + social capital, etc)

edit: sorry jacob, I didn't see your recent post before posting this