Re: The ERE Wheaton Scale
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2022 7:27 am
---an online community leveraging 14 years of experience in resilient post-consumerist praxis
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/viewtopic.php?t=8103
Unless it has changed, I'm seeing (ERE Wheaton table v2, 2021 ed.) that Level 10 is described as "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment", "infinite games".jacob wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:07 amThe table is based on more than a decade of observing what could be called the main road from consumerism to post-consumerism in hundreds of journals and interactions. There are other roads, such as growing up like this already, but these are less common. The table is therefore not normative. You don't have to use this road. It is pretty rare to see someone jumping levels though. This is because it's not only about what you do but also how you think about what you're doing and that kind of rewiring can take many years. Whether you do it from age 4-16 or from age 24 to 36 is no matter. None of this is particularly complicated. It is complex though. As such WLs also contains an increasing development of internal complexity---more things to think about and more ways to think about them. What e.g. WL7 understand by using systems-theory is not how WL5 would think of it when hearing the word "system".
That's still the most recent version. The stages are described a bit in more detail here: https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com ... ton_Levelsblack_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pmUnless it has changed, I'm seeing (ERE Wheaton table v2, 2021 ed.) that Level 10 is described as "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment", "infinite games".
Just like having learned to walk doesn't move people away from using their legs. However, progressing up the WLs, money moves from #1 priority to one of several priorities to just an afterthought.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- Progressing up the ERE Wheaton Levels may move a person from consumerism to post-consumerism, but it doesn't move a person away from capitalism. At least, not for the vast majority of people here--probably the opposite.
At its heart capitalism is just the [interobjective] idea that every individual (or their representatives) can own private property AND that they can profit from using it (personally or via others). This idea is by no means trivial!!black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- Is capitalism an infinite game? (I'm not asking about "in theory", I'm asking about how it actually manifests in the world right now. Also, I doubt that companies being "going concerns" qualifies their outlooks/orientations as "infinite", but feel free to argue that point.)
Sort of depends on the situation. This reminds me of the argument that "billionaires" should pay for everything "because they have so much money". However, billionaires rarely have all that much money. Instead what they have is control over money (and sometimes they don't even really have that---it's in-name-only). Now, running a portfolio of $1M or $1B is not all that different than running a portfolio of $100k or $10k. As such the effort is the same.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- If ERE Wheaton Level 8 focuses on waste and "closing the loops", why isn't having a gigantic wad of cash/investment considered a flaw of the system? Nature abhors a vacuum. But equally, it also abhors excess. Why isn't having too much money considered waste?
I would say it's neutral. You can use it for good or evil but you are responsible. (I do wonder if it would be a good idea if shareholders were liable for more than their actual investment. It would certainly change the nature of the game. The fact that shareholders aren't is an arbitrary legal decision.)black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- Is having a gigantic wad of cash/investment benign from an "infinite game", "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment" perspective? In particular, I mean to say a giant stack of cash invested* in a corporation engaged in extractive, environmentally degrading, unsustainable, "finite game" behavior? Especially since, by this point in the high ERE Wheaton Levels, money is "irrelevant"?
Never really thought about it. Keep in mind that WL9 and WL10 are only there because "we" realized that there's more to life than reaching WL8. My current perspective is that one's [embodied] philosophy and virtues better make it possible to pursue infinite games.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- In ERE Wheaton Level 10, are the "embodied" philosophy and "virtues" assumed to be of the "infinite game" flavor?
In practice it's not that easy. This where the "render unto Caesar's what Caesar is"-argument comes from. The government(s) want their taxes paid in dollars. I don't get to pay taxes in pounds of zucchini, nor will they let me skip payment because "I'm a unique beautiful person" or somesuch. Even "moneyless" people like Mark Boyle only succeeded in pushing out the money problem to those he interacted with.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- If it is easily possible to "opt out" of a system that may have or likely does have nasty knock-on effects, why wouldn't someone? Is it "embodying philosophy, leading by example, virtuous fulfillment" if the answer to that question is largely, "because it's convenient" or "because I benefit"?
Yeah, so the number of people are WL9 or 10 is very small, so this is all speculation. We're nowhere near having the N(umbers) to talk about likelihoods.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- Is it more likely for someone at ERE Wheaton Level 10 to have $1MM+ dollars invested in various broad-market funds or for them to be (nearly?) fully divested? If divested, how much cash do they have/keep? *It doesn't even have to be kept in a bank account (a bank could make loans based on that). It could be just be cash in a safe deposit box.
This [underlying structure] holds at all the levels. It's part of the design.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 7:27 pm
- People more than 2 ERE Wheaton Levels away from 8-9-10 are likely to find people at 8-9-10 to be absolutely nuts.
black_son_of_gray wrote:Progressing up the ERE Wheaton Levels may move a person from consumerism to post-consumerism, but it doesn't move a person away from capitalism. At least, not for the vast majority of people here--probably the opposite.
I was thinking more along the lines of the broader systemic importance of money and its usage system (i.e. capitalism) rather than shifts in someone’s personal perspective (i.e. #1 priority shifting to one of several priorities shifting to afterthought.)jacob wrote:Just like having learned to walk doesn't move people away from using their legs. However, progressing up the WLs, money moves from #1 priority to one of several priorities to just an afterthought.
If I understand your response: At the level of the individual, no. At the group (business level), “semi-infinite or finite-but-large”, which I would classify as “no” (explanation to follow). At the top level, you say “yes”. But I think we are using different definitions of “infinite game”.black_son_of_gray wrote:Is capitalism an infinite game?
What is gained from thinking that way? What is lost?jacob wrote:I'm an elitist meritocrat who do believe in capitalism.
So then you wouldn’t call spending years of your life earning/allocating* financial capital that you will not need (and may ultimately work contrary to your own beliefs about consumerism) in any way a waste?jacob wrote:I think the only way that the waste argument could be made is if one was running a real-estate "empire" personally managing 30 houses making $30,000 each month but only needing $500/month to live on.
Agree.jacob wrote:You can use it for good or evil but you are responsible. (I do wonder if it would be a good idea if shareholders were liable for more than their actual investment. It would certainly change the nature of the game. The fact that shareholders aren't is an arbitrary legal decision.)
Agree. I suppose the only reason why these questions have been bouncing around in my head is because the infinite game, the continuation of life on earth, seems to be under such serious strain...and the trajectory is so bad.jacob wrote:My current perspective is that one's [embodied] philosophy and virtues better make it possible to pursue infinite games.
So then money is not irrelevant at the higher levels as the ERE Wheaton Level table suggests? (Or is this just an “it would be inconvenient” argument?)jacob wrote:In practice it's not that easy. This where the "render unto Caesar's what Caesar is"-argument comes from.
Agree! Isn’t that, therefore, a goal? When and for whom along the journey does it become a goal? The handful of people categorized as WL9?jacob wrote:The focus of WL9 essentially turns to connecting these capitals to other people instead of hoarding them for yourself. Basically, at WL9 one operates from an extreme level of privilege. One can therefore afford to be magnanimous.
I don't think this is a good assumption. Some might indeed spend a lot of time trading, but if so it's because they enjoy it (assuming a highly homeotelic wog, which we are because high WL). Beyond an appropriate threshold of "enough" and "low-risk", the high WL person (who isn't intrinsically interested in trading) will set their stash on autopilot and ignore it, roughly speaking.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pm*I assume even ERE Wheaton Level 7+ continue to spend, over the course of their lives, quite a few hours researching/trading stocks/managing accounts/balancing portfolios etc. These are hours they will not get back for money they do not need that will ultimately just fuel more of the consumerist economy. Why?
But most other people would make use of that wealth to buy egg cookers. Only half joking. If I have really low expectations of what use other people will make of my wealth, I don't have much moral incentive to spread it around. The high WL person got high WL by internalizing the idea that One of the Big Problems Round Here is that everyone assumes money is the solution to all problems. That somewhat deflates the notion that it'd be easy or trivial to 'do good' by making their excess wealth available to other people.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pmAlso, isn’t hoarding resources to a level that is way beyond personal marginal utility when other people might make use of it…isn’t that known in common parlance as “greed”?
I see the reason spending can be reduced 90%+ from typical as twofold: 1) changing desires - by forgoing certain "wants" you'll automatically spend less and 2) increasing skills - by becoming a producer in various fields, you should be able to capture more of the producer surplus (on top of your already-present consumer surplus) while at the same time enjoying the process of getting better at production.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pmI was thinking more along the lines of the broader systemic importance of money and its usage system (i.e. capitalism) rather than shifts in someone’s personal perspective (i.e. #1 priority shifting to one of several priorities shifting to afterthought.)
If a philosophical aim of ERE is, as the forum’s subheading proclaims, “resilient post-consumerist praxis”, then I start to wonder about the systemic links between consumerism and capitalism (again, not in theory, but as “consumerism” and “capitalism” actually manifest currently in the real world). Consumerism seems to be anathema to ERE, surely. But modern-day consumerism also seems to be inextricably linked to modern-day expressions of capitalism, which is to say that the vast majority of business ventures (particularly a lot of the largest ones that make up a typical Western economy) are selling products and services that are ultimately unnecessary to a continued, reasonably comfortable life on earth and those companies "do better" the more consumerism there is. Case in point, this is precisely why it is possible to reduce spending some 90%+ from typical levels—most of the spending is consumerism! The raison d’etre underlying most modern capitalism seems to be consumerism.
I see "winning more over time" as a subset of "keeping the economic system that allows us to win for our stakeholder's benefit" and thus, infinite. With respect to individuals, you can construct discrete "win conditions" (early retirement! generational wealth! etc) if you must, but as you proceed higher and higher on ERE Wheaton levels you might want to focus on non-pecuniary capitals (social, human, intellectual & spiritual, per Hughes) - and discover that interrelations between those are nigh-infinite.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pmIf I understand your response: At the level of the individual, no. At the group (business level), “semi-infinite or finite-but-large”, which I would classify as “no” (explanation to follow). At the top level, you say “yes”. But I think we are using different definitions of “infinite game”.
I was assuming Carse’s definitions as: “A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”
To that end, I don’t think blends like “semi-infinite or finite-but-large” actually exist in that framework*, nor does the number of possibilities matter (i.e. one might dream up an infinite number of different sports, but if they are framed as “winning vs. losing”, they are all “finite” games.)
*To the extent that business have a broader outlook, "a going concern", their orientation is, to my thinking, much more concerned with "winning more over time" than "keeping the economic system afloat for everyone's continued benefit". Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I see how the C-suite compensates themselves.
Having spent enough time volunteering for, consulting with, and (part-owning) cooperatives, there's many uses of profits. One of them is better facilities/equipment/services at cheaper prices for coop members. Vanguard's continuous focus on reducing fees is but one example.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pmI think your definition of the heart of capitalism is very useful! I could maybe see how (1) owning private property and (2) profiting from it might in theory be removed from a “winners vs. losers” framework, but at the same time, I think most people in the world--including the titans of industry that actually have power in the system--don’t think of it that way. There’s only so much stuff in the world at any given time, and so owning some of it (winning) in practice means that others don’t get access (losing). Similarly with profiting, those with more profits have more ability to make more profits (winning) while those with less have less ability (losing). Again, I’m just talking about the current world as I see it.
But maybe I'm way off. To the extent that capitalism as a system is actually an infinite game, is actually interested in the “long-term continuation of play”, it’s difficult to reconcile the trajectory of the world towards multiple existential crises over the last ~200 years while capitalism has been the dominant system. One might think capitalism would have steered away from the iceberg by now if that was an actual goal of the system.
What is gained from thinking that way? What is lost?
Is an aquarium within your living quarters a waste? Or an aesthetic pleasure?black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pmSo then you wouldn’t call spending years of your life earning/allocating* financial capital that you will not need (and may ultimately work contrary to your own beliefs about consumerism) in any way a waste?
Would you think it worthy to actively invest in companies with the aim of changing its focus from short-term consumerism (high dividends, buybacks, crappy products, big bonus for executives) to long-term quality products and a preference for investment instead of remuneration? Isn't it one way of dealing with the system as is, and to align our unwillingness to support consumerism with the tools at hand?black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:31 pmTo accumulate a massive chunk of capital and then use it to bankroll/buy partial ownership in corporate activities that are, ultimately, driving forces in consumerism (and then benefiting financially when said consumerism is successful) feels a little like a half-baked philosophy that makes sense narrowly but not systemically.
Yes, I agree, but this constitutes a default to Level Blue unless/until welfare issues are integrated into systems design at Level Yellow/Turquoise. IOW, if welfare is not a tax-funded government provided service then the default is that it will fall upon unpaid or underpaid females to provide welfare/social/comfort services. For example, there are no young men tutoring disadvantaged kids in math and reading for $18/hour in the county where I reside.jacob wrote:"welfare should not be exclusively thought of as a tax-funded government-provided service."
Which is exactly where/why WL8+ is going, no?
Thank you! I’m trying to do the same thing – the point of all my questions is to try to understand underlying assumptions that I and others have and whether they align with the values I’d like to live by. In other words, I’m concerned with “embodying philosophy,” “virtuous fulfillment,” etc. I certainly don’t have all the answers.Smashter wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 4:29 pmThat said, I really appreciate you brining up this topic! I have been thinking a lot about how my ethics are not reflected by investing the way I do. For instance, I vehemently oppose the practices of our biggest meat producers and factory farming companies, yet I invest in them by virtue of buying the S&P 500. I don’t feel great about it, but I haven’t been able to muster the energy (courage?) to only select stocks where I am ethically aligned.
No, but then again, I haven’t been in stocks for some time now. My asset allocations are not due to this kind of inquiry (yet?).
I feel like there is a “be the change you want to see in the world” in there somewhere. If some of one’s ERE1 behaviors are supporting rather than challenging the ERE0 status-quo, and it is trivially easy to be less supportive of ERE0…
I would think it’s a good idea to periodically check the underlying assumptions of a worldview? Am I only asking these questions because I don't have enough money?
I get that some people enjoy trading. If it is an entertainment thing, which is fair, there are plenty of trading simulators out there, right?AxelHeyst wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 6:43 pmI don't think this is a good assumption. Some might indeed spend a lot of time trading, but if so it's because they enjoy it (assuming a highly homeotelic wog, which we are because high WL). Beyond an appropriate threshold of "enough" and "low-risk", the high WL person (who isn't intrinsically interested in trading) will set their stash on autopilot and ignore it, roughly speaking.
I dunno, I think there are a lot of creative options possible. Effective altruism is not particularly new. Moreover, I think it is worth distinguishing “doing good” and “not doing harm”. One could argue that not providing capital to corporations that feed consumerism is more along the lines of primum non nocere: “given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." Which is a main point of the questions I’m asking. When it comes to whether or not a person should use their excess capital to “do good”, I’m honestly not sure what I think.AxelHeyst wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 6:43 pmIf I have really low expectations of what use other people will make of my wealth, I don't have much moral incentive to spread it around. […] That somewhat deflates the notion that it'd be easy or trivial to 'do good' by making their excess wealth available to other people.
It’s interesting to think about these two options, in particular what happens to one’s overall impact on consumerism as investments become very large and/or expenses become very small. Let’s use an extreme case as an example: Let’s say someone accumulates $100MM and invests it in “the stock market”, say the S&P500. That is a lot of money supporting pro-consumerist forces in society. Let’s say this investor makes a tidy 2% dividend (and also assume that none of the corporation’s earning are retained and reinvested with a business—this is clearly not reality). Then the investor reaps $2MM a year in pro-consumerist profit-taking, which is then either 1) spent (pro-consumerism), or 2) re-invested (pro-consumerism, but compoundingly so). In contrast, if that same individual had no investments to speak of, but worked for a company that generated $30k revenue on the individual’s labor and paid out say $20k in wages/benefits...which option is overall more pro-consumerism? Of course, the accounting of how pro-consumerism it is for a given chunk of cash invested in the stock market is horrendous and probably impossible. Maybe even impractical. How much investment would it take to be more pro-consumerism than working a basic job? $100MM? $10MM? $1MM? Conceivably, the cross-over point could be well within range of some people's stash (vs. very low lifestyle expenses), and one might start to wonder if the biggest support for consumerism in one’s life comes from investing, not from lifestyle…AxelHeyst wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 6:43 pmmy pragmatic options are "work for the system and make sure not to earn more money than I need" or "invest my money in the system and be 100% time-free". I choose the latter, and to work on development of my abilities/skills etc and maybe in the future I'll figure out how to purge my wog of this whole icky capitalism business. My ears are entirely open to pragmatic solutions in the meantime.
I mean, if we take the Wikipedia definition of consumerism, “a social and economic order in which the aspirations of many individuals include the acquisition of goods and services beyond those necessary for survival or traditional displays of status,” it sounds like you’ve just made my point for me. Your (1) is essentially reducing the purchase of goods that you might “want” but don’t need for survival, and (2) upping skills so that you don’t have to purchase services you might “want” but don’t need for survival.xmj wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 12:32 amI see the reason spending can be reduced 90%+ from typical as twofold: 1) changing desires - by forgoing certain "wants" you'll automatically spend less and 2) increasing skills - by becoming a producer in various fields, you should be able to capture more of the producer surplus (on top of your already-present consumer surplus) while at the same time enjoying the process of getting better at production.
I think we might be using different definitions of “infinite” here. Wanting to preserve a system that one benefits from is not necessarily “infinite game” play, per Carse’s framework. What do you think the time horizon is for the typical Fortune 500 company? When was the last time that a corporation willingly gave up capital, profits or competitive advantage for the long-term health and survival of society? (Yay, 1% for the planet! One whole percent!) Is that the standard way that corporations operate? Is that the standard way that capitalism operates?
Oh, I agree! I don’t mean for my questions to suggest asceticism at all. I think a lot of things at the small scale collapse down to matters of preference. Do you want an aquarium? By all means, go get you one (they are probably difficult to build, but maybe that is also an option?). Live your life! I think most of us would agree, given participation on this website, that buying an aquarium on a whim and then throwing it away in a few months and then moving on to the next whim, ad nauseam, is a waste. An aquarium purchased used, taken care of for years (decades?), then eventually sold to another person, just as an example, does not sound like consumerism to me.
You mean like voting as a shareholder? Being an activist shareholder? If you think that would actually be possible/effective, I don’t see why not. It would be trying to get people to go against their short-term economic interests, though, which would be tough.comandante wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 5:14 amWould you think it worthy to actively invest in companies with the aim of changing its focus from short-term consumerism (high dividends, buybacks, crappy products, big bonus for executives) to long-term quality products and a preference for investment instead of remuneration? Isn't it one way of dealing with the system as is, and to align our unwillingness to support consumerism with the tools at hand?
I agree that lots of creative options are possible, my point is that the field of iatrogenics/understanding unintentional negative effects of well intentioned effort must be well understood before one goes schlanging around millions of dollars, and thus isn't a trivial endeavor. You can find lots of critiques of EA etc.black_son_of_gray wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 3:27 pmI dunno, I think there are a lot of creative options possible. Effective altruism is not particularly new. Moreover, I think it is worth distinguishing “doing good” and “not doing harm”. One could argue that not providing capital to corporations that feed consumerism is more along the lines of primum non nocere: “given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." Which is a main point of the questions I’m asking. When it comes to whether or not a person should use their excess capital to “do good”, I’m honestly not sure what I think.