@ Mo: Unless one lives as a hermit one will be affected by society and its expectations to some degree. I haven't heard your quote, but the way I heard it said 30 years age was "the masses are the asses."
We are in agreement. So why the implication in saying "(t)hus, if some people fail to meet their goals this does not invalidate the concept of ERE"?
I just take issue with the term of "early retirement" (intrinsic your "concept of ERE") because what you call ERE may be many things, but it is *not* retirement.
Are you over 50?
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
HSpencer wrote: "Edit--I am personally well over 50, and due to that I have at times thought about withdrawing from the forum, but in effect this is for everybody and all ages. The information is too valuable to any age to not participate, and besides that, I haven't been run off as yet!"
@H: The way things are going, I can see why you might think that!
BTW, I enjoyed your thoughtful, insightful post. I intended to respond to it but I'm too busy being put on the defensive by some...
@H: The way things are going, I can see why you might think that!
BTW, I enjoyed your thoughtful, insightful post. I intended to respond to it but I'm too busy being put on the defensive by some...
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Rufousdog, that's why it's called ERE and not simply "retirement.". See also: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/why-e ... -name.html
I think you are getting too worked up about terminology. I know that when you were a child, "wife" meant "stays at home and cooks me food," "technology" meant "calculates slower than a slide rule" and "president" meant "rich white man," but things change and vocabulary changes with it.
I think you are getting too worked up about terminology. I know that when you were a child, "wife" meant "stays at home and cooks me food," "technology" meant "calculates slower than a slide rule" and "president" meant "rich white man," but things change and vocabulary changes with it.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
My mom is 66. She was a university chemistry professor. Income from her investments cover her regular monthly expenses. She does a few hours of private tutoring a week, for which she is paid. I consider her "retired". Do you?
Jacob is mid 30s. He was a university physicist. Income from his investments cover his regular monthly expenses. He does a small amount of paid work weekly. I consider him "retired". Do you? If not, why? To me the difference only seems to be age.
I don't know if I fully understand your question:"So, why the implication in saying "(t)hus, if some people fail to meet their goals this does not invalidate the concept of ERE"?".
My point with that statement is that if some of those who post in these forums fulfill your prediction: "I don't think they will be able to retire any time soon, let alone retire "early".", it does not invalidate the concept of limiting monthly expenses in order to allow for retirement at an earlier date-- and the extreme extrapolation of this concept: extremely limiting monthly expenses to allow for retirement at a much earlier date (ERE).
I have long thought of the concept of conventional retirement as indicating the state that one enters after he has markedly reduced his professional activities at, or after age 65, and then uses investments/savings to cover his expenses. Early retirement would be the same thing, with the exception that the age of the person would be younger-- perhaps under 60, or under 55 (the exact age being arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately meaningless). I never understood it to be imperative that all productive activity cease, and that one live in a state of perpetual leisure or functional disability in order to qualify as retired. What justifies this as a requirement? Is it the connotation that things are retired when they are at or near the end of their useful life?
Jacob is mid 30s. He was a university physicist. Income from his investments cover his regular monthly expenses. He does a small amount of paid work weekly. I consider him "retired". Do you? If not, why? To me the difference only seems to be age.
I don't know if I fully understand your question:"So, why the implication in saying "(t)hus, if some people fail to meet their goals this does not invalidate the concept of ERE"?".
My point with that statement is that if some of those who post in these forums fulfill your prediction: "I don't think they will be able to retire any time soon, let alone retire "early".", it does not invalidate the concept of limiting monthly expenses in order to allow for retirement at an earlier date-- and the extreme extrapolation of this concept: extremely limiting monthly expenses to allow for retirement at a much earlier date (ERE).
I have long thought of the concept of conventional retirement as indicating the state that one enters after he has markedly reduced his professional activities at, or after age 65, and then uses investments/savings to cover his expenses. Early retirement would be the same thing, with the exception that the age of the person would be younger-- perhaps under 60, or under 55 (the exact age being arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately meaningless). I never understood it to be imperative that all productive activity cease, and that one live in a state of perpetual leisure or functional disability in order to qualify as retired. What justifies this as a requirement? Is it the connotation that things are retired when they are at or near the end of their useful life?
@ dragoncar: Thank you for providing a reference link to the crux of the current discussion.
I will quote the reference you cited and respond to it.
"This is why early retirement extreme is a bad name.
Maybe financial independence extreme would be a better name?"
It certainly would. But why use the "extreme" modifier? What meaning does it have?
"Well, here the problem is that financial independence also has come to have many different meanings. For me it means having enough savings to pay for (finance so to speak) all my needs over a lifetime."
That is the traditional meaning of it. Why be concerned that that distinct concept might not appeal to others?
"Yet, for some it simply means not having any debt; for others it means having enough income to pretty much purchase whatever they want."
Those definitions are not the original meaning of the phrase. Actually we are in complete agreement, in that your first definition was accurate. I suggest you refer back to my earlier comments about redefinition of words having become a trend in the past two decades and how it affects communication and understanding.
"These definitions are even further removed from what I intend."
But having given us your definition of financial independence, (and I concur that it is the accurate one) what is it that you intend? (The intention was left unstated.)
"Another suggestion is “Independently Wealthy”. This is actually pretty accurate, except many people confuse “wealthy” (having money) with “rich” (spending money)."
I just consulted a dictionary and (predictably) the words "wealthy" and "rich" are synonymous in meaning HAVING money or material abundance. "Rich" does NOT mean "spending money" - in no way, whatsoever. This is a common misconception of those who are not rich, and probably never will be. I am wondering why you would want to accommodate those who have such an erroneous belief, even to the point of altering or redefining a concept.
This confusion stems from living in a consumer driven economy, something peculiar to the last two decades in the extreme to which such foolishness has been perpetuated. No one ever spent their way into prosperity. Perhaps the government can try to do it with deficit spending and the ability to literally print money, but no one else can.
*****
Some here have said I am "hung up" on semantics. I'm not into "newspeak" or conceptual blurriness. I suggest you also be concerned with terminology and specificity. If for no other reason it facilitates communication and thinking, and it helps retain the clarity of concepts by keeping them distinct.
I will quote the reference you cited and respond to it.
"This is why early retirement extreme is a bad name.
Maybe financial independence extreme would be a better name?"
It certainly would. But why use the "extreme" modifier? What meaning does it have?
"Well, here the problem is that financial independence also has come to have many different meanings. For me it means having enough savings to pay for (finance so to speak) all my needs over a lifetime."
That is the traditional meaning of it. Why be concerned that that distinct concept might not appeal to others?
"Yet, for some it simply means not having any debt; for others it means having enough income to pretty much purchase whatever they want."
Those definitions are not the original meaning of the phrase. Actually we are in complete agreement, in that your first definition was accurate. I suggest you refer back to my earlier comments about redefinition of words having become a trend in the past two decades and how it affects communication and understanding.
"These definitions are even further removed from what I intend."
But having given us your definition of financial independence, (and I concur that it is the accurate one) what is it that you intend? (The intention was left unstated.)
"Another suggestion is “Independently Wealthy”. This is actually pretty accurate, except many people confuse “wealthy” (having money) with “rich” (spending money)."
I just consulted a dictionary and (predictably) the words "wealthy" and "rich" are synonymous in meaning HAVING money or material abundance. "Rich" does NOT mean "spending money" - in no way, whatsoever. This is a common misconception of those who are not rich, and probably never will be. I am wondering why you would want to accommodate those who have such an erroneous belief, even to the point of altering or redefining a concept.
This confusion stems from living in a consumer driven economy, something peculiar to the last two decades in the extreme to which such foolishness has been perpetuated. No one ever spent their way into prosperity. Perhaps the government can try to do it with deficit spending and the ability to literally print money, but no one else can.
*****
Some here have said I am "hung up" on semantics. I'm not into "newspeak" or conceptual blurriness. I suggest you also be concerned with terminology and specificity. If for no other reason it facilitates communication and thinking, and it helps retain the clarity of concepts by keeping them distinct.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17131
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@rufousdog -
Yes, I write a blog on the internet called earlyretirementextreme.com ... I've also started some forums; you're looking at them. I've also written a book about it (available from an online bookstore near you).
You can read more about me here
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/about
I use the "I am a writer and I live from my savings" line whenever I talk to people in real life who "don't get it". I mean no offense by this. I have run into several people who can not wrap their head around the fact that there's a guy who 1) Spends several times less than they do; 2) Is financially worth several times as much as they are; and 3) Is a couple of decades younger than they are.
In the beginning I tried to explain how and why when people asked, but I quickly realized that it's much easier to keep a low profile. The sentiment is similar to the one where people don't discuss their salaries publicly.
In reality my net worth exceeds a quarter million dollars, money which I have saved while I was working and which have since grown in the stock market. Realize that I have retained almost ALL the money I ever earned while working(!)---or about 80% anyway.
I write the blog and book for fun. If you follow the blog for any amount of time, you'll quickly realize that I only write whenever I feel like it. I did make some money on the book, but that was unexpected. The money is nice, but I don't need it. The 1099 income from my investments exceeds my expenses by a substantial margin. I also do other things such as bicycle repair, martial arts, and yacht racing---this year I'll probably start a garden. However, I spend most of my time writing, so I say I'm a writer. Judging by income, I should say that I'm a capitalist... I tried that line too, however---it didn't work too well.
Yes, I write a blog on the internet called earlyretirementextreme.com ... I've also started some forums; you're looking at them. I've also written a book about it (available from an online bookstore near you).
You can read more about me here
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/about
I use the "I am a writer and I live from my savings" line whenever I talk to people in real life who "don't get it". I mean no offense by this. I have run into several people who can not wrap their head around the fact that there's a guy who 1) Spends several times less than they do; 2) Is financially worth several times as much as they are; and 3) Is a couple of decades younger than they are.
In the beginning I tried to explain how and why when people asked, but I quickly realized that it's much easier to keep a low profile. The sentiment is similar to the one where people don't discuss their salaries publicly.
In reality my net worth exceeds a quarter million dollars, money which I have saved while I was working and which have since grown in the stock market. Realize that I have retained almost ALL the money I ever earned while working(!)---or about 80% anyway.
I write the blog and book for fun. If you follow the blog for any amount of time, you'll quickly realize that I only write whenever I feel like it. I did make some money on the book, but that was unexpected. The money is nice, but I don't need it. The 1099 income from my investments exceeds my expenses by a substantial margin. I also do other things such as bicycle repair, martial arts, and yacht racing---this year I'll probably start a garden. However, I spend most of my time writing, so I say I'm a writer. Judging by income, I should say that I'm a capitalist... I tried that line too, however---it didn't work too well.
@ Mo; The "fly in the ointment" (excuse the expression) in your concept of retirement is that your mother probably has several decades left to her life at most whereas Jacob probably has many more. I said earlier that the concept of retirement has an implication of being age related. It sounds more like the case you cite of Jacob is that of being marginally employed, which is not the same as being retired.
One thing is for certain, if Jacob's money runs out (due to unexpected circumstances?) he will no longer be "retired" - he would need either need to re-enter the work force or go on welfare. In the case of your mother, she has fewer years left of her life expectancy. As I said previously you are still young and are not taking into consideration the effects of aging, which have a bearing on what retirement is. Apparently, from what you describe, she is genuinely retired.
I am convinced as I grow older that the old do not think the same way as the young do. There is nothing wrong with this, as it is natural. But consider that the old may have a slight advantage in their perception of life: they have been young, whereas the young have never been old.
One thing is for certain, if Jacob's money runs out (due to unexpected circumstances?) he will no longer be "retired" - he would need either need to re-enter the work force or go on welfare. In the case of your mother, she has fewer years left of her life expectancy. As I said previously you are still young and are not taking into consideration the effects of aging, which have a bearing on what retirement is. Apparently, from what you describe, she is genuinely retired.
I am convinced as I grow older that the old do not think the same way as the young do. There is nothing wrong with this, as it is natural. But consider that the old may have a slight advantage in their perception of life: they have been young, whereas the young have never been old.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17131
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@rufousdog - The problem with terminology and dictionary definitions is that
1) Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it's precise. It just refers to what common usage is. Sometimes dictionaries will define A as "a kind of B" and B as "a kind of A".
2) For precisely that reason, new concepts often don't have the proper word. Old words therefore have to be used laboriously to describe the new concept. If you ever read a philosophy book (the real kind), probably 90% of the book is in trying to define what we're actually talking about.
I think you just gotta accept that the language is in a flux. It used to bother me tremendously that the word "awesome" is thrown around like it means nothing these days, like "Wow, that's an awesome picture of your cell phone!" compared to it was an awesome moment when the space shuttle launched. (Also see, amazing, ridiculous, remarkable).
Then I realized that the word I used to use when I was younger to describe such pictures of cell phone and other not particularly remarkable things was "cool". When I said cool, I didn't refer to the temperature of the subject. It was just a word.
I'm sure my grand parents were thrown off by the expression "far out".
Being annoyed by these things is just a sign that you're either getting old or more accurately not keeping up with the language changes (yes, I know someone who's 55ish AND an "awesome dude").
Like dragoncar said... it's a bit like insisting that a female spouse who gets a job is no longer a wife because wife="someone who stays at home and cooks me food".
Or the example I made when a 45 year old goes back to school; such a person would be a student even as student usually implies someone between ages 5 and 25. If you agree to this, you have to agree that I'm retired as well.
I guess my advice would be to just "let it be" (I guess that's a 1960ish expression) and look the terms up again in the version of Webster's that'll be published in 2025. Then everything will become clear
1) Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it's precise. It just refers to what common usage is. Sometimes dictionaries will define A as "a kind of B" and B as "a kind of A".
2) For precisely that reason, new concepts often don't have the proper word. Old words therefore have to be used laboriously to describe the new concept. If you ever read a philosophy book (the real kind), probably 90% of the book is in trying to define what we're actually talking about.
I think you just gotta accept that the language is in a flux. It used to bother me tremendously that the word "awesome" is thrown around like it means nothing these days, like "Wow, that's an awesome picture of your cell phone!" compared to it was an awesome moment when the space shuttle launched. (Also see, amazing, ridiculous, remarkable).
Then I realized that the word I used to use when I was younger to describe such pictures of cell phone and other not particularly remarkable things was "cool". When I said cool, I didn't refer to the temperature of the subject. It was just a word.
I'm sure my grand parents were thrown off by the expression "far out".
Being annoyed by these things is just a sign that you're either getting old or more accurately not keeping up with the language changes (yes, I know someone who's 55ish AND an "awesome dude").
Like dragoncar said... it's a bit like insisting that a female spouse who gets a job is no longer a wife because wife="someone who stays at home and cooks me food".
Or the example I made when a 45 year old goes back to school; such a person would be a student even as student usually implies someone between ages 5 and 25. If you agree to this, you have to agree that I'm retired as well.
I guess my advice would be to just "let it be" (I guess that's a 1960ish expression) and look the terms up again in the version of Webster's that'll be published in 2025. Then everything will become clear
When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
there will be an answer, let it be.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!
For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see,
there will be an answer. let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on me,
shine until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
there will be an answer, let it be.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!
For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see,
there will be an answer. let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....
And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on me,
shine until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me,
speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be, .....