More signs of an ERE apocalypse

Dragline · Post by **Dragline** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:14 am

This article appeared today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... the-world/
I was most impressed by:
"Take Jeff Kaufman. A Cambridge, Mass.-based developer at Google, Kaufman and his wife, Julia Wise, managed to live on $10,000 in 2012, they say. Together, they give away at least 45 percent of their income each year (the rest goes to savings and taxes). Kaufman and Wise meticulously document their spending on their blogs. In 2010, for example, they spent a measly $164.44 on groceries each month and gave themselves $38 apiece to spend each week on nonessentials (including all non-grocery meals). In 2012, they moved in with Jeff’s family, which saved even more money, they say."
This represents a complete shift from consumerist values. The point is not that they choose to spend the excess cash on charity (that's a different point), but that they choose to live on less.
The other point is that this is a positive article in a mainstream publication. Yet they still have not connected the dots between this and retiring early.

Hotspur · Post by **Hotspur** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:41 am

I think moving in with your in-laws is a serious blow in the quality of life department and not worth the money saved.

Dragline · Post by **Dragline** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:50 am

I suppose that depends on your in-laws. A surprising percentage may prefer them to their own parents.

secretwealth · Post by **secretwealth** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:55 am

What I found most interesting was how hedge fund analysts make so much less than most people think.

bluejoey · Post by **bluejoey** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:10 am

I usually sort by most liked comments and read from there. And here I agree with a lot of the folks who point out that using bad money to do good things doesn't erase the fact that you're using bad money to begin with. It's wonderful that they're living on less, and it's wonderful that they're giving money to those in need. But in my book, hedge fund money is no different from other kinds of lucrative but morally bankrupt employment.

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:25 am

Bluejoey - I get what you are saying but I am always careful about making those kind of sweeping generalisations. If you can tell me a vocation that doesnt have a morally dubios side then I would like to know.
In a consumer capitalist society just about everything (job wise) can be construed in amyriad of ways as depeleting resources, mainting social status quos and sending money from the poor to the rich. Even education (teachers) are part of a bigger game, as are doctors who push pharmaceuticals, farmers who wreck the soil and create methain and priest who act like scoundrels.
One can be a ethical hedge fund manager. Its not the job but how you do it.

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:48 pm

I don't think hedge fund managers/money are inherently evil. Just because John Paulson saw the mortgage backed security debacle coming and bet on that doesn't make him evil.
Now Goldman and other investment banks made some very questionable moral choices during this time period, as they pushed bad product at the same time they bet against it.
It's like anything else, it can be used for good and evil.

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:54 pm

After having read the article and realized he is part of a high frequency trading firm I'm leaning toward the evil side of the hedge fund industry for him.
I'm not a big fan of his charity choice either (seems a short-term, as opposed to long-term solution), but it's by no means evil.
Though, he is certainly hitting a lot of ERE principles.

jennypenny · Post by **jennypenny** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:14 pm

Traders are not evil

I know there's been a lot of positive press recently, but has anyone seen any evidence of a change in attitude towards ERE/anti-consumerism in their personal life? Are people you know warming to the idea?

secretwealth · Post by **secretwealth** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:22 pm

Why are hedge funds inherently evil?

dragoncar · Post by **dragoncar** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:36 pm

Not to be a complainypants, but someone working for google should have a $0 grocery and restaurant budget.

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:22 pm

@jennypenny
No. But, I also don't know anyone in real financial trouble to spur it.

secretwealth · Post by **secretwealth** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:33 pm

@jennypenny: Actually, I'm seeing the opposite. People who are exhausted from years of savings are eager to go back to spending. I think a lot of people won't leverage as much as they used to, but they're still a long, long way from ERE.

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:40 pm

As a side note on the hedge fund conversation: SAC Capital (one of the top tier hedge funds of the last decade) is currently imploding.

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:27 pm

I like the fact that the story portrayed their fearlessness. They are operating on the assumption that they will continue to earn enough to live comfortably for decades to come, not because their income will be high but because their needs are extremely low.
That's the same assumption Boomers lived by, only upside-down. The Boomers spent with the assumption that their income would always rise to cover the costs. These kids understand something most Boomers never learned, that their expenses can be managed to fit within any amount of earnings. I like that.
So much news today is fear and spectacle. The fact that they showed these kids as self-confident in their ability to deal with the great unknown future.... is wonderful.

Dragline · Post by **Dragline** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:18 am

Jenny said "I know there's been a lot of positive press recently, but has anyone seen any evidence of a change in attitude towards ERE/anti-consumerism in their personal life? Are people you know warming to the idea?"
I really only see it among the younger crowd. For example, a fair number of the 20-somethings I work with do not own cars and don't plan to buy them. And they purposefully live close to work so they can walk or bike. That was unheard of when I was that age.

C40 · Post by **C40** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:34 pm

Many of the young people I work with also appear to spend less than people did ten years ago. They live closer to work, in smaller homes, and drive older cars