1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

[loutfard]

It could also be argued that if/when you retire from your job, the position will simply be filled by somebody else who will earn/consume at a new higher level

That would be quite a depressing thought indeed if I felt responsible for the consumption of the person taking my place. I'm happy I can say I don't.

while performing the tasks less efficiently. However, this process would clearly break down completely prior to the juncture at which one of the kids I am tutoring in math fills a $150,000/year software engineering position with Oracle.

I'm not sure I understand this one.

So, eventually might be more likely that the salary that a human would likely blow on consumption will instead go to energy demands of AI system, until the Unemployed Long Haul Truckers Division of The Ohio Valley Militia goes old school on the server farm in the Battle Against the Drones circa 2047.

There's a dystopian novel in there.

[jacob]

There's a dystopian novel in there.

viewtopic.php?t=12954 and "Ohio" by the same author.

[grundomatic]

- How do I identify investments that can thrive in a degrowth scenario? Are there any tools for that? Do they take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox into account? If we can positively identify that kind of investments, we might be able to avoid difficult ethical investing dilemmas alltogether.

- How can I deal with my inheritance efficiently as an EREmite? Because as an EREmite, I risk increasing consumption a lot after my death! Chances are my accumulated surpluses will be much more consumption oriented by whoever gets hold of them. If I don't arrange for proper inheritance, that is.

Here's a post from the blog that touches on investments for the future:
https://earlyretirementextreme.com/myth ... uture.html

There was also a thread around here about your second question, but I don't remember where the discussion happened. Maybe in someone's journal? Maybe our forum archivist, @mathiverse remembers.

Anyhow, I think it's probably best to focus on changing hearts and minds while you are still around, because you really give up control of your money when you are gone. I guess the local watershed activist and education group here had someone donate their house which got turned into their demonstration lab and offices. I mean, those offices are staffed with people who are probably spending their whole paychecks, but the group as a whole has changed the way water is viewed and handled in my locale, so that's something. Money is spent per usual, but at least they are changing people's minds about being frugal with water. Here's @jacob on the difficulty of getting rid of money "responsibly": viewtopic.php?p=268692#p268692

[7Wannabe5]

I said: while performing the tasks less efficiently. However, this process would clearly break down completely prior to the juncture at which one of the kids I am tutoring in math fills a $150,000/year software engineering position with Oracle.

loutfard said: I'm not sure I understand this one.

It's highly unlikely that the disadvantaged, left-behind 10 year olds I am tutoring will ever achieve the minimal math skills necessary to be a software engineer at Oracle*. It is more likely that an AI will fill such a position in the world of the future.

*I do feel kind of terrible and blasphemous typing this, because it violates the Faith in Free Will held dear at the Juncture of the Orange/Green society in which I was raised.

[loutfard]

@grundomatic, jacob, 7Wannabe5: thank you for your hints and comments.

@7Wannabe5: Reality might surprise you. People are more resilient than you might think. I know a few people who have bootstrapped themselves out of both a crazy '90s post-Soviet economic wasteland and "interesting" family contexts. The scars are there of course, but not superficially visible.

[7Wannabe5]

@loutfard:

I agree that because a bajillion factors are involved life can be wondrously unpredictable, and every human is deserving of support, but I would still not bet the big money on anybody who has not yet mastered multiplication by age 10 becoming a software engineer by age 30. OTOH, now that I think about it, I wouldn't have bet the big money on human who was morbidly obese at age 10 winning an Olympic track event, but the invention of Ozempic has now altered the field significantly. It's entirely possible that some new drugs that significantly improve brain plasticity into adulthood may come to market. However, it is less likely that they'll come up with one that will alter the prospects in meritocracy for somebody whose mother drank a bit too much during pregnancy resulting in mild structural brain damage, etc. etc. Every broken window has a ticker running on it.

[chenda]

@loutfard Remember half the population have a below average IQ. 15-20% of people aren't intelligent enough to join the army, who will typically take anyone they can get (the bottom 20% are usually functionally illiterate) Intelligence seems to be largely genetic determinated, although occasionally two dullards will produce a genius.

[mathiverse]

There was also a thread around here about your second question, but I don't remember where the discussion happened. Maybe in someone's journal? Maybe our forum archivist, @mathiverse remembers.

Unfortunately, that topic doesn't ring a bell.

[AxelHeyst]

My hot take:

The current arrangement (the System, the Machine, maaan) doesn't permit slam-dunk ethical behavior for a very, very broad range of activities even lying far afield from conventional lifestyles. You have to go to the extremes of Suelo and Boyle to argue No Harm Done and the extremes of Mother Theresa and Ghandi to argue Only Good Was Done Here By These People (and even then, people will argue against you, which, by the way, would be off topic here). tl;dr: no ethical consumption [behavior?] under capitalism (I prefer to say no ethical consumption under consumerism), and I do mean to include all of the irony and paradox wrapped up in what that meme has come to mean.

The solution is not to punt but to satisfice.

The Secret is that life is better as a post-consumer, so no sacrifice is actually required to live a good and largely more-ethical life as long as you're willing to unlearn your societal programming, change how you think, and undergo a multi-year/infinite project of changing all of your relationships with the material world, status, expectations, obligations, etc.

Put another way: the System is set up to trick people into being Stupid or Helpless. Post-consumer praxis pushes us into either Bandit or Intelligent quadrants (intelligent here being proxy for 'ethical'). A small handful of intentional decisions pushes you into the Intelligent quadrant/keeps you out of the Bandit quadrant, net. How far up and to the right you want to be is a personal call.

[loutfard]

@loutfard:

I agree that because a bajillion factors are involved life can be wondrously unpredictable, and every human is deserving of support, but I would still not bet the big money on anybody who has not yet mastered multiplication by age 10 becoming a software engineer by age 30.

I was under the wrong impression you were teaching disadvantaged kids with a normal distribution across the intellectual spectrum. In that case, there are bound to be a few intellectually gifted ones amongst the ones you teach. The bootstrapped adults I have in mind are smart. Never mind they had a temperamental alcholic as a father, coo coo sectarian as a mother, parents very low wages not being paid reliably for months on end, ramping inflation and not always food on the table. They turned out surprisingly allright.

Still, you're handing your students invaluable tools of survival. Many will use them. Some will even remember you fondly.

[loutfard]

The Secret is that life is better as a post-consumer

I obviously do agree with that. My main question was mostly about runaway surpluses I guess. An ERE lifestyle with some luck will produce those, just because of one's post-consumer choices. Let's say I live on 1 JAFI, owning 150 JAFI and growing at age 50. That very likely is at least 100 JAFI more than I'll ever use as a post-consumer. Now what?

A clean and simple solution is to just keep investing surpluses in generic ways and make sure they get dumped into effective altruism after my death. Is that the best I can do though?

I love to fool my mind though by exploring clever hacks towards scaling ERE and/or lowering consumption globally. Maybe it's a side effect of seeing free and open source software bloom and grow from a few hippies on the fringes to the core of communications worldwide.

It's tempting to try and find economically sane investments compliant with an ERE/post-consumer ethos. Questions like:
- Can I find investments that will decrease global consumption while increasing consumption of what I invested in? Birth control perhaps?
- (for ecologically minded EREmites) Can I find investments that make people consume more, but pollute less? Aargh, I think I just invented NetFlix!

[Scott 2]

My main question was mostly about runaway surpluses I guess.

This assumes continuous economic growth. When looking at real goods like food, land and energy - we're already seeing increased competition. That is going to escalate as climate change progresses.

The implications are already visible in harsher areas of the world. When you see a refugee crisis - that's not only a distant tragedy. It's a lense into your future. Eventually those conditions of scarcity are headed to the first world too.

So in real terms, runaway growth probably is not feasible. Unless you consider fortnite skins an acceptable substitute for bananas.

I see economic surplus today as a way to extend my insulation from the climate crisis. Hopefully beyond the duration of my lifetime. Eventually though, there comes a point where no amount of money will be enough. We can't predict if it will be a slow burn (inflation) or a catastrophic event (war).

That's when knowing how to live on 1 Jacob really comes into play. Because it means you have the tools to navigate an unstable and inhospitable environment. Some percentage of the population will persist through the eventual existential crisis

Practicing now raises those odds. Look at someone like Axel - building life in a desert and crossing the country on bike. He's probably making it. Or animal - trekking 1500 miles through mountains, baby in tow. Those 1 JAFI lifestyles carry a hearty dose of preparation.

The global problem is likely intractable at this point. I think planning for survival (or choosing not to!) is all one can really do. Debating morality of investment strategy is a little like pissing into a wildfire, IMO.

Personally, I'd put the money into scaling ERE2 strategies. Since those are the skills that will work, when money cannot solve every problem. Well, my strategy is to live well now and die in crisis. But if I was more future orientated, I'd lean my wealth into ERE2 style growth.

[AxelHeyst]

I like your post Scott.

The global problem is likely intractable at this point. I think planning for survival (or choosing not to!) is all one can really do. Debating morality of investment strategy is a little like pissing into a wildfire, IMO.

I'll add to/riff on the bit I bolded: the way I think of it is that I'm trying to build/work on/experiment in the direction of the successor cultures that will follow this one in a cascading looped flow over the next several centuries.

My premises are something like:
1. The global arrangement is self-terminating (unsustainable, literally).
2. Humans won't totally die out within the next few hundred years.
3. The actions we take now will or can have some effect on what comes later, in the same way that the stuff people did 200, 500, etc years ago had some effect on our current arrangement.

The self-terminating nature of the current arrangement means that lots of disruption/disturbance is coming. Going with the analogy of succession from ecology, that means that various pioneer species will play an important role in shaping successor cultures, for good and bad. I do think a lot of what I consider bad will shake out (ecofascism, authoritarianism, etc). But I see the next fistful of decades as formative for those next-couple-hundred-years successor cultures.

Long story short I think post-consumer praxis is meaningful 'work' to engage in because I assume the future will be largely post-consumer, having exhausted the biophysical limits that have so far allowed a consumer society to exist. The sooner we get good at it the better. Not only will we have less destructive impact and increase the chances that we individuals will muddle through to old age, but we'll have a greater chance of building new seeds of arrangements relevant to the future we're actually likely to get.

[Western Red Cedar]

Personally, I'd put the money into scaling ERE2 strategies. Since those are the skills that will work, when money cannot solve every problem. Well, my strategy is to live well now and die in crisis. But if I was more future orientated, I'd lean my wealth into ERE2 style growth.

This gets back to what I mentioned upthread about local investments in the community as an alternative to traditional financial instruments. It isn't simply about the ethical aspect of the particular investment or dollar amount, but the effects that ripple in both monetary and non-monetary fashions in your life. This approach fosters relationships and can produce different forms of capital.

This won't necessarily result in more ERE 1 folks getting together if that is what someone envisions as ERE2; but it could result in more traditional community development.

[Western Red Cedar]

I suspect if you plotted this you'd quickly see that as COL goes up the ethical weight of decisions goes up, no matter if you've got FI stash or doing semiERE work.

Another dimension is uncertainty wrt ethics of certain consumer and investment decisions.

Uncertainty, aka the inability to know for certain what the ethical impact of money spent or invested will be, plays a big role in how I think about this stuff. There are more knowable facts about this issue than I myself know, and I ought to educate myself further in them, but at some point there does exist for all of us a threshold of uncertainty beyond which we simply can't know anything further about the ethical implications of our actions.

@AH - I like that decision-making framework a lot. Accepting some level of uncertainty is probably key in considering my personal ethical stance as it relates to COL and consumption.

There may also be ethics attached to not working, not investing, or not spending money.

This is where the discussion in @grundomatic's journal was heading - viewtopic.php?t=11956&start=120

I think about the ethics of not working a lot. I routinely see a need for bright, diligent people to work on problems in the built, social and natural environments. I also see the impact in a variety of fields from these people.

The uncertainty with this question is much broader though. It is also difficult to navigate because the platform for doing the work may require an ethical compromise or restrictive environments, as seen by some of the stories on the forum about teaching, nursing, and other emotional labor.

[Scott 2]

This gets back to what I mentioned upthread about local investments in the community as an alternative to traditional financial instruments.

The challenge of alternative investment, is it requires becoming a different person. I can click a couple buttons to divest myself of tobacco holdings.

Of course, it's the rebuilding of one's self that develops the non-financial forms of capital. Interestingly - when I think of such businesses I patronize, they inevitably scale into consumer capitalism or close due to excessive labor demands.

I don't know how you escape that problem. Maybe look to life in areas money has already left behind? What do those people who remain build? Other cultures and geographies have already been through collapse.

The few I know who still fight, undergo continuous reinvention. Every day is a hustle, constantly changing to stay afloat. They are hardened people who could cash in by selling out. Perhaps it's a symptom of where I live.

IMO persisting is the selfless strategy. It's an order of magnitude harder than out running your neighbor. Motivation depends on deeply held principles, like Axel raises. The long term payoff is there, but it is not financial.

[chenda]

1.5 JAFIs. Not too bad but I think I can get this substantially closer to 1 over the next year or so.

I think spending is more meaningful than carbon calculators which seem to vary a lot with the same inputs.

[Western Red Cedar]

The challenge of alternative investment, is it requires becoming a different person. I can click a couple buttons to divest myself of tobacco holdings.

Of course, it's the rebuilding of one's self that develops the non-financial forms of capital.

And this is why I'm attracted to ERE. The realization that the harder, less orthodox approach is actually more intriguing/exciting/adventurous.

[jacob]

I should also note that if we're talking about morals we should not AFI the J. Rather redo the original calculation which results in a approximately the same nominal answer.

[7Wannabe5]

Adjusting for PPP may move the number up while still being moral.