BaristaFIRE, CoastFIRE, LeanFIRE, FatFIRE, PovertyFIRE etc

[7Wannabe5]

According to the “Sex and the City” model of standard lifestyle narrative choices, there are 4 quadrants. You can focus on career (financial success), kids (family), coupling (romance), or arts and adventure (yolo.) Seven years is enough time to make a significant investment down any of these paths at any time in your life, so most of us could do all 4 twice over. But, when you are only 30 years old, it’s likely you will have only focused on one or two, so the internal pressure to do whatever you haven’t done yet can be pretty strong.

Also, as somebody who is currently old and sick, I think choosing 7 old and sick years to be your wage slave years might be best, because it’s not like you can have much fun with your leisure anyways.

[zbigi]

Also, as somebody who is currently old and sick, I think choosing 7 old and sick years to be your wage slave years might be best, because it’s not like you can have much fun with your leisure anyways.

I would love it to be that simple. Unfortunately, most well-paying jobs require a linear and continous progression ("career") that starts sometime in twenties or MAYBE thirties. That's the reason why divorced middle age women become real estate agents and not say chemists or even corporate project managers.

[ducknald_don]

I think there was some kind of famous experiment where children were offered a sweet immediately or two sweets later in the day. Those who opted for delayed gratification were more likely to invest in pension schemes later in life it was suggested or something.

I don't know what that says about agency when it seems these habits are established by the time someone is five years old.

[7Wannabe5]

That's the reason why divorced middle age women become real estate agents and not say chemists or even corporate project managers.

The 1980s called and they want their stereotype back .

I’m 57 divorced female and I’m working on a masters in data analytics. If my health improves, I might never even attempt the career, but otherwise I’m pretty sure I’ll end up in a management role very quickly.

[prudentelo]

@zbigi

Maybe. Pool of high ability people that try to start career at 40 is small. Most, though not all, people starting at that age do so because something wrong with them. So, most 40 starters are not fair comparison to 20 starters.

Counter example I would give to high ability ex-housewives is entrepreneurs who go bankrupt several times over course of life ("career reset") but keep making the money back.

Broader point with entrepreneur example is "linear progression" part of economy is only one part of economy and is designed to keep employee chasing carrot where carrot is as small as employer can get away with offering. I.e. one can argue linear progression part of economy is really psychological attack targeting people who are not good at negotiating. As evidence: Even within this space, compare pay rise offered for internal promotion vs job switch. Notorious by now.

[7Wannabe5]

You also have to consider the difference between 57 year old new to a profession vs 57 year old who has put in 30 years at same desk as known entity.

Anyways, grain of salt, because my ENTP bias would be towards reinventing/exploration vs success/security. Poker vs chess.

[zbigi]

The 1980s called and they want their stereotype back .

I’m 57 divorced female and I’m working on a masters in data analytics. If my health improves, I might never even attempt the career, but otherwise I’m pretty sure I’ll end up in a management role very quickly.

I've worked in positions adjacent to data analytics/data science for years and know the market for such positions. At least in places I've worked at, they wouldn't hire 57 yo who just finished a masters and has no relevant work experience, because they can hire eager 30 year olds who are either fresh off a prestigious data-based STEM PhD or have relevant non-PhD education plus years of relevant work experience already. In other words, you competition for junior positions have both credentials AND age [1] going for them. That's my experience from startups and corporate world at least. Maybe there are is a parallel world that I'm not familiar with (education? government jobs?) where the employers can't be as picky.

[1] And let's not be fooled, the age bias against people over 50 is very strong. Men die their hair before going to interviews to deal with this etc.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Also, if one attempts to go YOLOing in their 30s or 40s, one will also find oneself utterly surrounded by 20-year-olds.

The age segregation in our society is kind of depressing.

I will add my favorite quote from Snow Crash:

Software development, like professional sports, has a way of making thirty-year old men feel decrepit.

[M]

I have worked in software development my entire career. Can confirm blatant age discrimination beyond what I once thought was legally possible given age discrimination laws. Have watched companies fire everyone over the age of 60, hiring managers blatantly stating they won't hire anyone over 40, etc. I am surprised more companies don't get sued.

An older developer once told me this is just the male equivalent of working at a strip club. You get your money when you are young and then get out when you are older or switch to some sort of unique niche e.g. MILF, legacy code, etc where you are still valued well.

I really wish there was some sort of job sharing option in America that was common. E.g. Work until satisfied with finances, then coast fire for a while at half pay working half the hours/days sharing job with someone else. Then just negotiate with other person when you want to take off weeks at a time to go hiking A.T. or whatever and vice versa. Unfortunately part time jobs only seem common in certain industries. I have never once seen part time software developer job with health insurance.

[mathiverse]

I have never once seen part time software developer job with health insurance.

These roles exist.

Amazon has a few part time roles on their job portal.

Google offers part time roles with benefits to known entities. Also, potentially, to unknown entities with solid negotiating skills and who have gotten lucky on team matching. That is, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility from day one of being hired, but it's not as easy as doing this once an employee since they have a specific policy for existing employees, but not for new employees.

I've also gotten offers from two start ups willing to hire me as a part time employee with benefits (24 hours/week).

[AnalyticalEngine]

It's a real challenge because FT, salaryman jobs are more of a lifestyle than anything else. Benefits like health insurance, money, etc can all be found elsewhere. But the salaryman lifestyle where you work with other salarymen and have salarymen friends and own a suburban house is such a cultural paradigm within that world that leaving it can feel like your entire identity and worldview and social circle is dying. Because it's a way of life, the deprogramming required to downshift is not easy.

I think this is why breaking the mold in software is so hard. Employers have in their mind an archetype of <young, male, right mental beliefs, right background> for software jobs. Deviate from those things and you increasingly get pushed out. There's also minimal upward mobility at the ten year/senior dev/tech lead mark, at which point you basically plateau forever unless you go into a niche or management.

[7Wannabe5]

In other words, you competition for junior positions have both credentials AND age [1] going for them.

An older developer once told me this is just the male equivalent of working at a strip club. You get your money when you are young and then get out when you are older or switch to some sort of unique niche e.g. MILF, legacy code, etc where you are still valued well.

Exactly. The trick is not to make yourself into a commodity with competition against which you can easily be measured. The more you deviate from the standard, the more likely you can find or create a niche for yourself. And the more frequently you have not made the standard choices in life, the more likely you will have some special sauce on the offer.

[7Wannabe5]

I think this is why breaking the mold in software is so hard. Employers have in their mind an archetype of <young, male, right mental beliefs, right background> for software jobs.

If this is true, then given that the obvious sub-text for how to do standard FIRE is Step1: Get a tech job, it kind of devolves the whole process into something very boring and always true since Roman times (at least.) IOW, here’s how to be free = be born into it or near enough.

[M]

These roles exist.

I should clarify.

I live in a small Midwestern town...The school is the biggest employer here...followed by the gas station. You can still buy livable houses here for 30k . This is probably why I have struggled to find these roles.

Of course - so many jobs are remote now. I assume the positions you mentioned were/are all remote?

[AnalyticalEngine]

If this is true, then given that the obvious sub-text for how to do standard FIRE is Step1: Get a tech job, it kind of devolves the whole process into something very boring and always true since Roman times (at least.) IOW, here’s how to be free = be born into it or near enough.

At a very high/average level, I actually think this is true. I'm talking mostly mainstream FIRE here where people are spending $40k-$60k/year (which is about average for an American household) and get there through the salaryman path. If you look at the average background of the average FIRE SWE, most of them come from decently privileged[1] circumstances. FIRE in this case is essentially just cashing out existing privilege by ditching middle class normative social expectations for something less stressful.

And again, if you look at the average FIRE SWE outcome, it's still inline with existing privilege. Of note, MMM has recently been writing about how you should just quit early because you're going to be fine and people are over-saving. Which is actually true! If you come from a privileged background, you're basically going to be fine no matter what you do because of your background.

(Now obviously, anyone can make poor choices and lose privileges they were born with, like health, social connections, money, etc. Therefore, average FIRE might be better framed as a game you try not to lose rather than a game you try to win.)

I have a fair number of friends who come from poverty-class background, and FIRE as a concept doesn't even register in their heads. They also don't often succeed at the SWE salaryman game because being poor requires a decently high level of entrepreneurship that runs counter to the salaryman mindset of "being a team player." That is, poverty is a fiercely competitive environment and the skills you learn to survive in that (being competitive at times to a fault) can sink you in cooperative environments with a strong requirement to conform (SWE).

Ironically, a lot of my poverty-class friends are already living ERE-style! Except that without the cushion of available financial capital, even the slightest unexpected expense is catastrophic. And given that people who grow up in poverty often lack stability, a lot of people in this class also have a lot of learned maladaptive behaviors (things like C-PTSD, other psychiatric conditions, etc all caused by traumatic upbringing) that keep them stuck in that lifestyle rather than letting it be a choice.

This is why I find the psychological and life style design aspects of ERE a lot more interesting than standardFIRE. StandardFIRE is a solved problem (grow up in a family that makes being a SWE easy, be in the right circumstances that make being a SWE easy, become a SWE, don't overspend like all of your friends will), but finding ways to get people to see beyond what they grew up with is a hell of a lot harder.

[1] - By privileged, I mean middle or upper middle class. People who come from true, elite-class privilege don't really pursue FIRE because they're busy running the world. FIRE is basically just "be middle class, don't spend on stupid stuff, profit."

[chenda]

I don't know what that says about agency when it seems these habits are established by the time someone is five years old.

I have a savers mentality and my sister has a spenders. When we were children she would eat all her Easter eggs in one go, where I would slowly savour them over many weeks. By which time they had often gone mouldy, which taught me why we use money rather than barter

@jacob - that was it, marshmallows, it is a great slogan...

[mathiverse]

Of course - so many jobs are remote now. I assume the positions you mentioned were/are all remote?

Google allows fully remote employees. Both start up positions I was offered were remote. I don't know about the Amazon roles.

[jacob]

... finding ways to get people to see beyond what they grew up with is a hell of a lot harder.

... because that's asking for a self-transformative approach. "Effective literacy", which I'll define as the ability to translate information into personal action, is essentially what Modernism is about. That's what the entire schooling/indoctrination system is about. Cogs following written procedures. Even postmodernists are a bit handicapped here. Because they "grew up" doing everything in groups, it's hard to break out and do anything on their own. They need to have conversations in order to do anything. Traditionalists don't follow written words as much as they follow authority.

Of course they can all read to various degrees, it's what they [can] do with what's written that matters. The ends are different. Most of the FIRE movement still favors the Modernist mindset: "Here are the instructions to FIRE". A Traditionalist would need to fall(?) into a position where someone they trust AND follow someone who already understands FIRE. A Postmodernist group would need a supermajority of members to have some understanding of the concepts before the group moves---minority opinions will get drowned out.

The process of casting FIRE into traditionalist or postmodernist forms is not as far along yet.

[7Wannabe5]

I wonder to what extent the adoption of any of the above listed FIRE or ERE lifestyles towards wanting to "do something more interesting" is consistent or indicative of Level Yellow or the metamodern perspective? For instance, when my musician sister and I were running our not-extremely-profitable book business together, she had enough leisure time to build an animatronic drumming bear to be part of her band, which is more interesting than having enough money saved up that you can do whatever you want all the time, but you still only do boring things.

Getting a masters degree in data analytics is only not boring because I am attempting it as age 57 female currently suffering from debilitating chronic illness. And I don't mean it is interesting from external perspective, as in "Wow, 90 year old runs marathon!" I mean it is interesting because I'm bringing some unique "ingredients" to the experience, so even I don't know what might pop out or where I might end up along this path, which is only one of several paths I am currently hacking out.

Hanzi notes that the foreguard of the movement into the metamodern are the hippies, hipsters, and hackers. Maybe HHH-ERE or HHH-FIRE should be a thing.

[jacob]

I wonder to what extent the adoption of any of the above listed FIRE or ERE lifestyles towards wanting to "do something more interesting" is consistent or indicative of Level Yellow or the metamodern perspective?

Depends on which part of the FIRE movement we're talking about. I'd posit that mainstreamFIRE is very much but the traditional early-retired millionaire dressed up in contemporary terms; SWE-FIRE just reaches millionaire status a bit faster. It's only that FIRE is high fashion now and so these are the words people use to now.

Before FIRE was popularized for the MOPs, the adherents (geeks) were much more eclectic and many didn't fit in with the conventional idea that the height of human experience was to become expert in a specialized field and maybe rise to the top of it. (Stage 3/4 of Cook-Greuter). I might misremember but it seems it was more of a pursuit of positive freedom-to than the more recent freedom-from thinking. Some wanted their life to be about more than sipping cafe latte, granite counter tops, and TPS reports. Now, FI has almost been reduced to a status symbol even if people are happy about 9-5 until 65.

I think once the post-conventional threshold has been crossed, it becomes hard to find meaning and satisfaction in "being the best cog you can be". I do remember that stage of my life. I don't think I can become that person again.