classical_Liberal's Semi-ERE

[Scott 2]

My view of the helping professions is overly idealized. It isn't surprising to find same pressures are everywhere, but damn. That sucks.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[Frita]

Remember, I like what nursing could be, not what it is, so I don't think it's a long term solution.

A version of this needs to go in the adulting handbook. It applies to jobs/careers, relationships, and other life aspects. What we do needs to be based in reality. Helping professions manipulate this big time. People who survive, at least in education, either lose their ideals/vision or never were under such delusions in the first place. It used to be better, say 30 years ago, or maybe being FI ripped off the blinders.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[Frita]

Wow, I feel profoundly sad to read this.

The split between helpful careers, nursing versus education, is interesting. While both idealists and pragmatists can be squeezed for profits, the medical business model supports higher salaries. In education, where inflated costs cannot be passed onto consumers, other workarounds have been created: Teach for America, provisionally certified, alternately certified. All these scabs work for a fraction of pay and most do couple year stints. I even believe that lack of appropriate behavioral intervention has the secondary gain of churning cheap staff.

Over the years I have worked with some exceptional educators. Most left early, in their 50s. These were the people who tutored kids for free, spent tons of their own money on supplies and anonymous Christmas gifts/food/clothes for families with nothing, worked 60-80 hour weeks, and provided an enriching and individualized class experiences. If you were a kid transferring in several years behind, you would be caught up in a few years with these workhorse teams. I loved to be part of that. Educators don’t work this way anymore. It’s too hard and people resent you. In four years here, grades 6 to 9, my son has had one such teacher. That means that his classmates who really needed the extra support and push just missed out. It is such a waste.

Oops, I hijacked your journal. My point is that I understand being willing to be paid less and go in the wayback machine to actually help people. I would teach for free if the school and staff were actually doing their jobs, I could do mine, and we were treating each other respectfully in a safe environment. It seems that running failing schools is actually more profitable. Kids need extra for pay services, they do another year or two in the system, and with the “college for all” BS funded with grants and loans can take another year or two of remedial classes in uni. Of course, this is just some but enough to benefit running a shoddy system.

The irony is that my son wants to be a nurse. He doesn’t want to “waste“ the time in med school but still help people. As parents, we figure it’s better than going into education. From what you share, it might not be much better.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[2Birds1Stone]

I'm still over here waiting for your epic marriage post

[7Wannabe5]

Caring professions, blech.

ENTJ/ENFP natural marriage match, but you will end up with some variety of “babies.”

[Frita]

@Frita
I don't wanna burst your sons bubble. There are certainly a large share of caring, compassionate people coming out of school still. It's just not the vast majority it used to be. If he wants to be a nurse to be helpful, there's hardly a more admirable career. It's just tough. I'd encourage him to works towards his own FI soon after school, just to have options.

Thanks, I think it’s good to be realistic. He has just enough idealism to be caring.

The FI motivation is present, supplemented by saving 75%+ of his paychecks this summer. His other parent has been helping with the investment side. Since we haven’t really figured out how to spend down and he’s our only living kid, he will inherit a tidy sum. Our goal is for him to have the skills to manage when he discovers how much money we have.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Without that planned income though, I’m looking at living on a variable SWR in the range of 12-18K a year. Certainly plenty for many, I can do it (my monthly minimum cash burn in my current lifestyle before travel & entertainment is about $800), but I feel as if I’m closing the door on other potential lifestyle opportunities in the future. I’m losing some level of imagined future freedom.

I've definitely had similar thoughts myself. I do think there is a certain fear in being stuck with only $800/mo to spend. You're guaranteeing yourself limits in the future, and that can be a hard pill to swallow. I'm still not sure if it's the case that this fear is actually rational after all or if there's some paradox of choice going on. The fact is, money can buy stuff that sometimes not even skill can get you. There's also the fact that certain goals may require years of FT work to get. Like if I wanted to be a big managing director someday, I'm only going to get there if I make it my life goal. Or maybe I don't want to be stuck spending $800/month when I'm 65 and can't make up for it with youth any more. It's a hard problem, and I'm still wondering the solution myself.

The problem, the parts I like are really barely even part of the job anymore. It really feels more like a healthcare assembly line.

I'm going to write more about this in my journal because software development is exactly the same damn problem. As far as I see it, the assembly lining of any job is a structural problem. It's an attempt to solve what management calls "the bus problem." That is, if Alice is the rockstar developer who has all the knowledge about the software, and she gets hit by a bus, the organization is now in trouble[1]. It's really brittle to rely on employees themselves because they may quit, get sick, get mad at management, etc. So management responds to this risk by removing all the complexity from problems and instead using bureaucracy instead. It's almost a systems theory thing--they've reduced coupling (of employees) by increasing complexity (of bureaucracy).

The problem is that the complexity is what made the job enjoyable in the first place. There's no agency or mastery with bureaucracy. Instead you're just doing one tiny interchangeable, rules-based thing. This tends to make the job extremely unsatisfying. After all, you as the employee want to work on varied, interesting problems. But management wants to make the organization not overly reliant on one person. And since management gets to make the decisions, we have the structural assembling lining problem.

[1] Yes, I have literally heard this referred to as "the bus problem" by management. It's a little disconcerting to imagine they only care about the employee insofar as worrying what impact their death would have on the organization, and not the fact the employee is, you know, now dead. But if I had a penny for every time management accidentally told us what they really thought about all us employees, I'd be FI by now.

[jacob]

Having a monthly ceiling is not nearly as limiting as having a capital (operating money) ceiling. Most people get around such a ceiling by taking out loans for cars, houses, home equity, education, ... but if you have that sort of money in an account beyond the capital supporting the regular bleed (say $800/month) having a limit on monthly spending is not limiting in terms of what you can do as long as you don't waste it and treat its use more like an investment than consumption.

This kinda ties into the "depreciation" or "rent" perspective of owning things. E.g. $800/month would limit you if you think of it in terms rent or money lost. There are literally limits to where you can live because the monthly rent can not exceed $800/month, say. However, if you look at it in terms of depreciation, then if you have the money, say $20000, you could drive a $20000 motorcycle for 12 months insofar you can resell it for slightly less than $20000 (or more).

You would lock yourself out of cash-bleed options, such as, say, an expensive wine habit or spending $1000/month on restaurants.

OTOH, those who FIRE right at the bleeding edge would not have this/any operating "walk-around" money to facilitate such transfers and depreciation games. I agree that would suck.

TL;DR - IMHO, it's worse to have a total one-time spending limit than it is to have a monthly limit.

[jacob]

Compare

a) $300k => $750/month budget limit
b) $200k => $500/month budget limit + $100k in operating capital

Which would you find more limiting?

[ThriftyRob]

This is a brilliant insight. For most who ERE, presumably, the allocation between operating capital and 'monthly funding' capital is abitrary/notional as the total sum would probably all be held in the same investments.

The risk I anticipate with the 'depreciation' option is that it is hard to predict. I know people who have been early owners of new Porsche models who claim to have avoided depreciation (I suspect they exaggerate, because they forget the cost of options and extras when they compare their selling price after one/two/three years vs. the basic list price, not what they actually paid). However, negligible depreciation is a function of supply < demand and changes in the economy can cut demand drastically.

I'm inclined to keep our monthly budget limit as low as possible consistent with comfort, safety, etc., leaving more operating capital to play with or pass on to the kids.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[2Birds1Stone]

d00d, Jacob hit the nail on the head re: the operating capital.

Thankfully we don't live off of a small pension or annuity. I'm right there with you as my plan calls for capping my monthly spending @3% of portfolio value/12. BUT, I also have an operating fund (which I do track in NW), but have no problems making larger purchases insofar that they align with my goals/priorities, and don't cause/accelerate catastrophic failure of the whole system.

It's very different to HAVE to live on $800/month vs. choosing to live on $800/month but having nearly half a mil in the bank at your disposal. You were the one who encouraged me to loosen the purse strings during my whole planning phase last year, sometimes you spend more, sometimes you spend less, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

My advice would be to make that operating fund larger if it gives you peace of mind, and consider your own bucket approach to investments/spending. It's not like you will blindly spend 3-4% of original portfolio per year as you watch your assets evaporate over a decade or two. This is where having a written out personal IPS is priceless.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[2Birds1Stone]

Would more experienced system thinkers view this as a step backwards? Because I'm individualizing two nodes of financial capital. Or a step forward, because I'm looking to make the capital I have work best for my system and freeing up my perceived ability to allow that capital to flow into and out of other realms more freely?

While I certainly don't fit the bill there ^, I don't think it's a step backwards. With our level of spending, 65+ is covered. And assuming slightly below market returns over the next decades, you've taught me to work backwards in buckets. If 65+ is covered by theoretical SS/new gov bennies, then you have to think about the decade leading up to that. If that ends up being whatever is left in tax deferred retirement accounts (IRA's, 401k, etc) then so be it. Beyond that, a taxable brokerage account to cover your expenses from 10+ years from now, and then less risky assets to cover therein gap .....So if you have your general bucket structure, there is no harm in having some capital set aside to cover those lumpy discretionary lifestyle expenses, so long as you keep it as an operating fund which doesn't lose any significant (to you) value.

For me, it's part of the NW as I previously mentioned, but it's (checking/savings outside of CD's) fair game for any of the types of expenses you outlined, plus travel.

My fallback is 5 years in CD's, which I would use to fund life while the rest of my portfolio recovers or grows.

You will gain much by continuing to lower your expenses. I talk a mean game now, but it's only because I oversaved, and I'm trying to prevent others from making that mistake!)

[classical_Liberal]

...

[mooretrees]

It's fun to read your thoughts through this. As an aside, I see van conversions going for 20-45K on craigslist these days (solar, composting toilet, etc). I think the skills gained are invaluable, though there is a cost to that too. I can imagine a time where DH will be proficient enough with building that living with someone else's building choices will be intolerable. Likely far away and really not a bad trade off.

I am also curious about the big M. We share expenses, but I think we're old-fashioned. Also, DH is the primary caretaker of our son, so it's really only fair that my income is our income for now. Nowadays it seems like couples have so many different options. One couple I know puts some 'fair' percentage into a joint account for mortgage and shared bills and then whatever is leftover is each individual's money. Another couple married 30 years just started separating money within the last five years. My friend, the wife, said the fights about money are a distant memory. They have a paid off house and I sorta think his pension is still available to her in old age?

Anyway, my opinion is that if you have a current system that works beautifully, they why change it just for marriage?

[2Birds1Stone]

The problem with accounting the way I do it though, is it forces salaryman thinking. Lemme provide an example.

So, If I want to spend 10-20K to buy a van and build it out into an adventure/living vehicle. Today I look at that as 10-20K in spending, so it doubles my annual spend for the year. I also look at it as a more/less permanent decrease in month cashflow of $50-100 a month

Re: the first bolded part, maybe you could conservatively estimate depreciation and amortize that cost over the total time of ownership*. As for the second, there certainly is an opportunity cost of having that money tied into a van, and until you recapture that capital into a different, income producing form, it is definitely a decrease in cashflow, on top of that, something like a van in your example has ongoing costs (most likely). This is why I err on the side of caution and think it's important to have a nice buffer in our spending and in our capital fund.

ETA: This is exactly what I did when I purchased a sports car in March of 2016, and resold it in October of 2019, took the total depreciation (~$8,300) and evenly spread it out over the 43 months of ownership. It helped smooth things out from a progress perspective, and was the most accurate way I could think of to account for and understand the TCO.