Financial Independence: Methods, Mindsets and Cloth Diapers

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Financial Independence: Methods, Mindsets and Cloth Diapers

«‹›3 »

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

kloa posted:

How do you fellow goons balance striving for early retirement/FI but enjoying your life as you get older? I have such a weird conflicting mindset when it comes to hoarding money for any potential issues that could come up (being pessimistic most of the time), but then I'll drop a grand on a pair of headphones like it's nothing.

I'm pretty frugal when it comes to shopping for general stuff like household goods, clothing, and the like, because I know they will need to be replaced quicker than other items in the house. However, I tend to go for the higher-end gadgets as they're "worth it" in my mind and will last a lot longer than some cheaply made item. IE: I'd rather pay a higher price once (like the headphones above) and not need to replace it in the near future, than buy a cheaper initial item and end up upgrading it anyways for more money.

Money talk: I do max out my Roth IRA each year since graduation, put in enough in my 401k for employer match, and will continue to do so as long as possible. But then I have the leftovers just sitting there in my bank accounts until something comes up that I want to buy or something that needs to be replaced. I've had upwards of $10,000 in my bank a year after college just sitting there, but I was too scared of spending any of it, as I was always worried about my car needing repairs, the company letting me go, me being out of work due to any number of external circumstances, or whatever occupied my mind at the time.

One last thing, I am not religious by any means, but I do find Buddhism interesting and a lot of their beliefs to be what I want (or think I want) out of life. Reading about how a lot of life's dissatisfaction/suffering are due to desires in life resonates with me, maybe I'm just the type of person that will always be dissatisfied no matter what I do?

I'll bow out with a quote:

Check out stoicism.

I read A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy and it spoke to me as a secular, analytical person. It sounds like you may have a problem conceiving of "enough", though for you it's security.

# ¿ May 7, 2014 00:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:01

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Jeffrey posted:

PS I highly recommend researching charities to see how well they spend money. This is a cool site that rates charities based on how many lives they can effectively save per dollar donated. http://www.givewell.org/

I hate that they like Give Directly, but their rationale is sound so I gave money to Give Directly. :mad:

# ¿ May 9, 2014 01:39

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

froglet posted:

A question about financial independence, I've only had a full time job for a few years, should I prioritise saving to buy a flat closer to my work over buying into ETF's or mutual funds? Here in Australia there's a scheme to encourage potential first home buyers to save by giving a 17% match on the first $6000 you put into the account. I started one last year, but I'm wondering if I should continue putting money into it or if I should have my assets more liquid since you can't take the money out once it's in.

For what it's worth, I'm 23, sort of hate my commute and would really like to live closer to work, and have about half a years gross salary in my superannuation (Aussie retirement savings), roughly a quarter of a years salary in reasonably illiquid savings (the first home saver account and ETF's) and about a third of a years salary in savings. I'm leaning towards putting a certain amount into the first home savings account, topping up my liquid savings as needed then buying more ETF's every 6-12 months.

Edit: this is also on top of me sacrificing ~5% pre-tax into superannuation on top of the standard amount your employer has to put in.

Just do a bit of math and figure out the break-even point for moving and bike commuting vs staying and car commuting.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 13:15

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

I totally agree but the math is fun to do because the break even point is pretty low. Like, a bicycle costs fractions of cents per kilometre, most cars cost around thirty cents. If you can make the bike ride feasible and condition yourself with a cheap daily dose of harden the gently caress up, you'll be in the black pretty quickly in most cases.

An example (and I'm terrible at math so this may be incorrect):

Say a car costs $0.30/km to run. A bike is practically $0/km. More like $200/year, but yeah.

The old commute was 50km away from work but 800 in rent. This costs $30.00/day and about an hour of driving in traffic each way. (If you make $30/hour, that's hypothetically $90 in time and expenses. But that's a whole can of worms of an assumption.) Let's say $30.00/day * 25 days of work a month = $750/month to commute. This isn't a monthly cost but finds itself in insurance, car purchase price, fuel, and maintenance. Cars are expensive.

If you move to a new place with twice the rent but a 10km commute you manage by bicycle and get rid of your car completely, you're saving $750/month in delayed commuting costs. In a month you will break even. It's also like a 20 minute bike ride each way, so you save time as well. In a year your decision will have a return of 1125%.

Even if you keep driving and move to the same place, you'll get a 225% annual return and break even in less than six months.

We can talk index investing all day but lifestyle changes seem incredibly powerful.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 16:18

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Nocheez posted:

Just out of curiosity, do you include the extra money you'll likely spend on things like food, shoes, and possibly doctor's visits that bicycling can cause? I agree it's cheaper by a large amount, but there are definitely more costs associated than just the bike and repairs.

I read an article that spoke about the cost per mile for running, and it was nearly the same as driving if you suffered any sort of moderate injury (and as a runner, I definitely have had my fair share!). I wish I could remember where I saw it.

edit: Tuyop lives in a progressive country with healthcare provided, but for us poor saps in the USA an emergency room visit can cost $1000 once all is said and done even if you have insurance.

I had a 70km round trip bicycle commute for like six months. That was pretty dramatic and required a bunch more calories, but it basically meant eating like an extra pound of peanuts a day. Maybe like $40 extra in groceries for all the nuts and olive oil I had to drench everything in.

I also have a herniated disc in my neck now which may be related to the hours of cycling, but it has cost me nothing except nerve pain so I don't know how to put a cost/km to it. Cycling causes way fewer injuries than running in my experience. It's more like swimming in that.

If you're cycling 20km/day none of that poo poo will apply, you're basically talking about a large 2k outlay for a beautiful bike and top of the line gear including touring trailer for large loads (all totally unnecessary but hypothetically why not?) and an extra fistful of trail mix per day in groceries.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 16:28

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Folly posted:

Remember, the estimate for cost per mile on a car includes a ton of hidden costs: regular maintenance, expected repairs, tires, etc. Even once you convert that into the added expenses for a bike, even including expected medical expenses, it's still much cheaper than driving a car. Running is also a bit more prone to repetitive use type injuries than biking seems to be. And as for traumatic injuries, remember that bike wreck statistics include children who have no road/driving training.

Also, invest in puncture resistant tires for your bike. They were totally worth it for me.

And a co2 pump. gently caress pumping for fifteen minutes in the rain while semi drivers coat you in discarded condoms and industrial filth.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 17:18

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Nocheez posted:

I thought this was about finances? It's a relevant thing to discuss.

I'm training for my first xterra triathlon in July, so I get all the costs of driving AND from sports equipment and injuries.

A triathlon is my loving white whale. I'm jealous.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 17:54

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

My hot tip is: don't buy new things.

# ¿ May 13, 2014 19:53

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

baquerd posted:

Anyone who doesn't contribute up to employer match is either financially retarded, or has a *illegally* bad 401k that they should really report to the DOL. Max out 401k to contribution limit, max out Roth IRA - that's the bare minimum to do if you want to be financially independent at a relatively early age. The people retiring at 30 are saving* $70-100k a year in today's environment.

*Or spending 35k/year forever.

Edit: and yeah, I've made beef jerky a few times. It only saves money because it's cheaper than the stuff from the store. The real money is in not eating meat, or only eating meat twice a week.

tuyop fucked around with this message at 05:42 on May 30, 2014

# ¿ May 30, 2014 05:38

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

GoGoGadgetChris posted:

Has anybody read the Four Hour Workweek? I'm halfway through and can't tell if I want to finish it or toss it in a furnace. His approach to FI appears to be "Hire India to live for you and sell workout supplements online"

Also his definition of work is hosed up.

And yeah, the book was loving insufferable in many places.

# ¿ May 30, 2014 16:02

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

It's practically useless unless you have a very specific skillset and ideals. If you're a knowledge worker who needs to help people face-to-face (think social workers, teachers, any medical professional) in order to feel worthwhile - which is most people in my experience - then outsourcing your life in order to satisfy your hedonistic desires will really not make you happy.

A better strategy is YMOYL's, which is like, "love your job as much as possible, but it behooves you to efficiently satisfy your wants and bank the rest so that when or if the day comes that you no longer love your work you can leave and do stuff you do love."

# ¿ May 30, 2014 17:08

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Jeffrey posted:

This sounds like typical mind fallacy and I don't think it's true of most careers that people choose.

Well then take out "which is most people." I should probably hedge that with "which is most people who are actually conscious of exploring their ideals and the purpose of their lives" since that narrows the set a great deal.

No Wave posted:

In my experience, the only way past hedonism is through it - if you're tempted by material stuff you need to indulge in it to see that it's not the right end goal. This, I think, is why Ferriss recommends that people get exactly what they want immediately (such as by leasing that Mercedes) in a non-permanent way. If a thing is really important to you, it's probably cheaper to at least rent than you think, and it probably matters far less than you think.

Yeah I can agree that this is a good way to learn, whatever your brand of hedonism is.

# ¿ May 30, 2014 19:49

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

The designated hitler is the guy at the hitler party who makes sure everyone stays in character. And gets home safe.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2014 00:45

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Folly posted:

I'm not quite on that wagon, and I'll explain why. I mean, assuming the whole website isn't a complete farce, then it's not like the guy needs the money AND his core philosophy is about ignoring the poo poo you don't need. So if it's fake, it's most likely just laziness. If so, why make it so long? Basically, none of it adds up well enough for me to distrust it, especially given the number of times we've seen this same basic argument on /r/personalfinance. If anything is fake, the most likely part would be that he got it in an email instead of finding it on some forum editing it to make it look like an email. And it seems too long even for that. I mean, if he copies too much then you can probably plug it in to google and find where it came from. He's got to know that.

To try and kill a derail, we just replaced the two of our toilets that had a 3.5 gallon flush. Despite the amount of water they used, the 40 year old engineering on them was bad enough that they still clogged regularly. The best part? My wife decided that she wanted to do the work so that she knew how. And she did. I only helped to lift the old one out. I have no idea how long it will take them to pay for themselves because it's not easy to estimate toilet use. These are the two most used toilets in the house: the upstairs hallway toilet and the main floor toilet.

Next up: Adding insulation to the attic.

Wait... You replaced them. With what?

PLEASE BE BUCKETS AND SAWDUST

# ¿ Jul 21, 2014 15:39

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Man, using TD's mutual fund switching thing with my LIRA is way worse than using an actual trading platform through QT.

That's all, really.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 17:57

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Blackjack2000 posted:

Yeah, that's why I'm still reading, I do think he has some good ideas, and I think he could offer some interesting perspectives.

I have another criticism that applies more to the whole emerging "financial independence" industry in general: I'm tired of them offering their vision of what the world would look like if their ideas went mainstream, and the general population began consuming less and saving more. It seems like they're mostly all guilty of this, including Mr. Money Mustache.

First of all, I don't believe that there are any indications that this actually happening, or even beginning to happen, so who cares? Second of all, nobody has any clue what the result of that would be. They all seem to want to offer this happy horseshit vision of everybody living like a bunch of hippies, working less, consuming less, and hanging out on their front porches instead of watching TV. There's no specific reason that that scenario is wrong or not possible, it just ignores this enormous reliance we have on fossil fuels to feed ourselves and not freeze to death in the winter, and more broadly, it ignores our reliance on industrial solutions in general. I'm not arguing that these are insurmountable obstacles, just that there is no way to ever anticipate how they would be surmounted, and what the world would look like on the other side of that.

The same way that people sixty years ago thought we'd have flying cars and robot maids, but didn't anticipate hybrid cars or the internet. The FI movement has some excellent ideas, I think they should focus on the world we live in today, and adjust their advice as the world around us evolves.

I think all of these posts/chapters or whatever are to head off the inevitable, "If everyone lived like you, it would be a disaster!" Criticism. MMM has written explicitly about the need to address that before, and I like to think of it more as a way to torpedo inevitable excuses ("But I NEED my cable because without it the economy would fail and...!") than as an actual vision or goal.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2014 14:18

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

What you actually choose to do depends on your life philosophy. I couldn't be a monk because my whole life philosophy is about helping others. I'd be miserable dedicating my days to finding nirvana or something. There doesn't seem to be a consistent life philosophy based on Tim Feriss professional bragging (you have no power over how impressive your life is to others) or shallow hedonistic consumerism (pleasure would best be achieved through heroine or something). MMM is a bit more consistent because he focuses on doing his best to find joy in the things within his power. He could do many things that are similar to this (being the best nurse possible, for instance), but we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt that his daily life is probably filled with joy and his choices have made it more efficient for that end, not less.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2015 05:29

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

I LIKE COOKIE posted:

It's the opposite for me. I don't read any of these blogs but I love the BFC wisdom and atmosphere and at 21 have saved up some serious money by being a extremely frugal spender. I don't need "stuff". Every single person I knows just blows money left and right on the dumbest poo poo. I just don't get it.

The thing is though, that I'm 21. Maybe I should be living a little and not worrying so much about these things because honestly, I don't need to at this point. I'm good, I've got my poo poo together, is it so bad to be irresponsible as hell for a weekend and blow through hundreds and hundreds partying and just having fun? I honestly don't think I can do it. I think all the fun would be ruined because I'd feel guilty as hell after like 1 good night

You need some higher reason guiding your actions other than just not being stupid. It's true that it's stupid to spend for the sake of spending, but it's also true that it's stupid to save for the sake of saving (this is the wisdom and source of confusion of MMM's complainypantses). Save instead because you love freedom or want to spend your life traveling instead of working, or getting high all day or raising your kids full time or whatever.

The freedom thing is personally very compelling for me, and timely, because most schools are totally hosed and I'd feel really lovely as a person working for them so the only reason I would is to feed myself. Since I save enough that I don't "need" their stupid lovely job dehumanizing children all day, I can find a job on my own terms.

I think many people end up using their poor savings rate and wasteful lifestyles to justify their lovely jobs. Like, "sure I spend all day tearing up nature in the tar sands and burning my children's oil, but you've gotta eat!"

# ¿ Jan 25, 2015 07:19

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Inverse Icarus posted:

A lovely job is a lovely job, it'll gently caress up your whole life. A bad mood will follow you out of the office every day. As others have said, focus on that.

Meditation and practicing mindfulness can be a great stress reliever. It sounds crazy to some people, especially if you see meditation as an Asian or hippie-dippie "sit lotus style near some incense and say ommmm a whole lot," but just sitting or laying down in a quiet place, breathing slowly, and focusing on yourself, on actually being in that moment, can really help get your head sorted.

I say this as someone who was completely skeptical of mediation three years ago, but after being diagnosed with a stress-based immune disease (when I get freaked out my body starts killing its platelets and I risk bleeding to death internally) and trying different drugs and therapies I stopped rolling my eyes and actually tried meditation. I'm a believer now. I can calm myself down in stressful situations by closing my eyes, breathing, and focusing on the moment. During the first three years I was dealing with my illness, I was bouncing from drug to drug, being weened off one, seeing a flareup, get lightheaded with "blood rashes" from broken capillaries at best and almost die at worst, and trying another one. Since I started meditating three years ago, I've been off medication with no flareups. Zero. I'm also more of a positive person than I was as I've started to reflect how great my life is, even if a particular moment or part of it is stressful or painful.

I try to meditate every morning now, before my shower, for ten minutes. Sometimes if I'm running late I'll just do it for a minute before hopping in, or before taking a poo poo, or when I'm sitting in the parking lot before walking in to the office. I just take a moment to be present and to remember that all things end. Even this, for whatever "this" happens to mean in that moment. Soon, I'll be home with my family and my dogs.

It changes the way you think. Not at first, not all at once, and not if you're not actually trying.

I'm not saying that mediating will solve all your problems, that you'll suddenly love your job after doing it for ten minutes a day, or that you should spend hours a day doing it. Get some video/board games or take up walking/hiking/cycling to kill time, if you need to kill time. If you feel productive, make something. Find a hobby you enjoy that might one day make you some beer money and do it.

Okay that's enough meditation talk for the FIRE thread.

Yeah, I'd echo this.

But if you want something cheaper than video games to kill time before you find your ~dream job~ then hit up the library and read some ~~lovely~~ awesome novels.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 03:06

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

A new game costs like $70 now, right?

Most places I've been, 70 bucks is like a couple's sushi night out with drinks. You might prefer the sushi night (I genuinely do), but the 20+ hours of stress recuperation you get from the game is probably a better use of money than the 3+ hours you get from the night out if you're striving for efficiency.

My point is not that we should min/max our stress recuperation purchases, it's that this is something to be aware of, which is why we're talking about it now. You'll probably be just as happy if you choose one recreation purchase, but most people will mindlessly choose both and cheapen the benefits of each by failing to reflect on the whole thing.

It's also kind of a weird argument that old games are better than new ones. I wouldn't say that Doom is a better FPS than COD Modern Warfare Vietnam 3000 Edition 4. They're insufferable for different reasons but the modern game is objectively better in a lot of ways other than graphics that generally make it more pleasant. Same with Civ 2 vs. Civ 5.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 17:37

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Radbot posted:

Let's be honest, the big divide is how much you make. For a family, saving 50% on $250k a year means I still get to have a nice place and a new car every few years, saving 50% on $32k a year means drying used paper towels and stocking up on condiments at Burger King.

If you're a mustachian, it probably just hurts to admit that someone making that much money can basically just cut out their Pappy Van Winkle budget and they'll be saving more than you are making rice and beans everyday.

You're missing the spending half of the equation, and that's what MMM harps on so much. A person saving 50% at 250k will reach FI at exactly the same time as a person saving 50% on 32k. The difference is in the lifestyle each person wants to live. That's also the source of derision, because in both cases lifestyle and savings rate are matters of want and prioritization rather than raw ability.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 03:09

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Well, news flash you can't just hang out and be worthless and think that you're going to have a meaningful life. MMM doesn't do that, and most people don't consider what he does "retirement." :shrug:

I don't think that most people derive much coherent purpose from their jobs, though. And I work with teachers.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2015 18:24

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

That might be a strawman. The unspoken premise of Rick Rickshaw, as I understand it, is that the people who aren't in favour of FI or early retirement also hate their jobs but can't imagine a life with meaning without those jobs. Hence, they're financially and existentially enslaved to someone else's dream. This is not you or me. I mean, I worked literally 80 hours last week for absolutely no pay because I love my vocation. That love also makes me care a lot about my savings rate because I never want anyone to force me to work against my morals.

Nobody is saying that working=slavery. If I read them correctly, the poster you're arguing against is saying that identifying with your job=slavery. Even if you're being paid to do something you do want to do, it behooves you to save and have a strong, independent conception of yourself in case that ever changes (and it only takes a bit of creativity to imagine something like that. Say, a change in your duties or falling in love with some new, unpaid or lower-paid hobby like MMM's carpentry). When I start to look for teaching jobs in June, I know that the "sacrifices" I've made will allow me to tell anyone who wants me to, as I see it, abuse children and call it education, to gently caress right off. Or I could decide that I just want to travel for a bit to recharge. My occupation would be much better if everyone rolled this way.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2015 04:41

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Mofabio posted:

- and you know that traveling's easier and cheaper and usually better when you can leave on a Tuesday morning and spend a month somewhere. Full time career = week-long vacations = travel without language immersion or learning cultures deeper than a guidebook

Yeah, all of my good traveling experiences have been at least three weeks long, and the ones I really want to do (like hike the AT) take 4-6 months. Hiking 8 hours a day for 160 days straight isn't an occupation but it is very time consuming. My wife and I are trying to plan a vacation now from April 3-11 and it's just dumb. Spend a week being a suck at a resort or bumbling around some country with some small, persistent amount of stress over language and time to try to get a better experience? They both suck and cost like $3000 because her work has forced us to move to a place that's far away from everywhere and where we would never choose to live.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2015 14:23

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

It's probably true that many people derive a sense of purpose and well-being from being needed. Many other people probably don't give a gently caress and find certain activities intrinsically valuable. Think of all the dancers (or aspiring dancers), musicians, artists, actors, etc. who find their occupations intrinsically valuable regardless of the "need" they feel that others have for them.

You're saying that an occupation is important because it's a means to an end (being needed). Even if that's true, I can imagine many ways to spend time that are closer to ends in themselves because people might find them more intrinsically valuable than most careers. Hell, even being a full-time volunteer meets your criteria for value and gives you the freedom to get out if you need to, so I'd say that I disagree, an "occupation" (read: job) is unnecessary for a life well lived.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 04:57

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

BossRighteous posted:

Some people think that fundamental human change starts (and ends) with the individual.

Edit:
Furthermore, I'd go as far as to say that protesting political issues is much more naive and less likely to affect change that altering your immediate sphere of influence of 3-5 people and letting others in to your way of life through a blog.

This, MMM is pretty explicitly a Stoic. Stoics don't believe in wasting time or effort on things that you can't control (because fussing over global carbon emissions or whatever-the-gently caress will upset your tranquility for no good reason). All the protestors in the world can't directly, individually control what governments or companies do, so a Stoic is not very likely to protest unless they get off on straight-up vitriol.

Now, if everyone shared that life philosophy and critically and consciously considered the things within their control and how to align them with their values and morals, the world would be very different. Of course, the only part of this over which you have any control is whether you do it yourself, and maybe whether you tell others about it. MMM has fulfilled his stoic duties with his lifestyle and blog.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 03:14

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Nail Rat posted:

The assertion that most people are ill-informed on everything and the best people are still ill-informed on many things is pretty true though. I don't like the solution of "just don't vote" though because then the agenda of the rich and powerful runs completely unchecked.

What about voting allows a person (or, for the sake of argument, a group of people of any size) to challenge the agenda of the rich and powerful?

# ¿ Mar 5, 2015 20:21

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Dwight Eisenhower posted:

Tons of things, like 40 hour work weeks, minimum vacation periods, minimum maternity leave periods, requirements to document justifiable causes for firing, to name a few.

Just because these are not all laws in the U.S. does not mean that they were laws put in place by any mechanism other than voting. All of them are legislation enacted in various European countries, and all by people who were accountable to voters.

The U.S. has a unique talent for convincing poor people that they are just temporarily embarrassed rich people who should vote in the interests of rich people, so that they will have an even better ride when they get to the RichPersonVille.

Like other people have said, your examples (except for maybe maternity leave, which is relatively benign compared to, say, civil rights) have nothing to do with voting and everything to do with challenging the critical point(s) of the "agenda of the rich and powerful". Political power has never been that critical point. In the past, that mass had to do with the mechanisms of production, so strikes and unions were effective. Now, that's been taken care of with globalization and the system has a new critical point. It would make sense if that new point were something like profits or money, because so much work is done to convince people that corporations and their products are necessary. If the new point is profit, then by opting out of purchasing more than you legitimately need, you challenge the "agenda" the same way a coal worker striking challenged the system and won.

I like Zinn because he explains how it can be true that (a) living conditions marginally get better for enough people over time and (b) a system increases inequality over hundreds of years. Voting (and the mythology about its efficacy) is one mechanism used to legitimize such a system, which is in nobody's best interests. Our problem is that the system grows more perfect over time so any meaningful change becomes harder to see, let alone enact.

Edit: And this is the best derail ever, IMO.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2015 04:32

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

KingFisher posted:

Hey Goons,

So I will finally have my student debts paid off this eyar and need to get serious about retirement investing.
I already set aside 4% of my gross and get 2% matched from work.

I have tried those retirement calculators and I have no sense of what is "too much or "too little".
Some say I need to save what look like impossible amounts.

http://www.money-zine.com/calculators/retirement-calculators/early-retirement-calculator/
im 31, have 20k in assests, want to retire at 50, want 70k a year, 3% inflation, 7% returns,

Says I need to save 4,865 a month? 2,382,636 total, How is anyone suppose to do that?

Somehow learn to spend less than 95-120k/year. The rule of thumb around these parts is to take your expenses and multiply them by 20 or 25 and assume a 4-5% safe withdrawal rate to keep up with inflation.

70k is a very high spending rate into retirement for FI folks, and a couple million is not an extraordinary estimate of required savings given inflation over a few decades and a conservative withdrawal rate.

So, if you bring your spending down to 45k, you'll "only" have to save 900-1100k. Spend only 25k/year and you only need 500-625k. And so on.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 05:40

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

I'm just going to rent forever.

Or live in a yurt. You know. :shrug:

# ¿ Mar 8, 2015 14:26

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Swingline posted:

What's the FI consensus on renting vs buying? Could it ever make sense to rent forever (assuming of course you invest the cash flow you would save from buying/maintaining a house/apartment). Seems like it could make sense in high-property prices and high-property taxes areas like NYC metro. Buying a home just seems like a never-ending money pit to me unless you happen to be very handy (which I am not).

It's an interesting debate. Someone posted this awhile back:

quote:

My pal James Altucher calls homeownership a part of The American Religion, so I know I�m treading dangerous ground here. But before you get out the tar and feathers, let�s do a little thought experiment together.

Imagine over a cup or coffee or a glass of wine we get to talking about investments. Then maybe one of us, let�s say you, says:

�Hey I�ve got an idea. We�re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?�

Well, let�s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let�s make a list. To be really terrible:

It should be not just an initial, but if we do it right, a relentlessly ongoing drain on the cash reserves of the owner.

It should be illiquid. We�ll make it something that takes weeks, no � wait � even better, months of time and effort to buy or sell.

It should be expensive to buy and sell. We�ll add very high transaction costs. Let�s say 5% commissions on the deal, coming and going.

It should be complex to buy or sell. That way we can ladle on lots of extra fees and reports and documents we can charge for.

It should generate low returns. Certainly no more than the inflation rate. Maybe a bit less.

It should be leveraged! Oh, oh this one is great! This is how we�ll get people to swallow those low returns! If the price goes up a little bit, leverage will magnify this and people will convince themselves it�s actually a good investment! Nah, don�t worry about it. Most will never even consider that leverage is also very high risk and could just as easily wipe them out.

It should be mortgaged! Another beauty of leverage. We can charge interest on the loans. Yep, and with just a little more effort we should easily be able to persuade people who buy this thing to borrow money against it more than once.

It should be unproductive. While we�re talking about interest, let�s be sure this investment we are creating never pays any. No dividends either, of course.

It should be immobile. If we can fix it to one geographical spot we can be sure at any given time only a tiny group of potential buyers for it will exist. Sometimes and in some places, none at all!

It should be subject to the fortunes of one country, one state, one city, one town�No! One neighborhood! Imagine if our investment could somehow tie its owner to the fate of one narrow location. The risk could be enormous! A plant closes. A street gang moves in. A government goes crazy with taxes. An environmental disaster happens nearby. We could have an investment that not only crushes it�s owner�s net worth, but does so even as they are losing their job and income!

It should be something that locks its owner in one geographical area. That�ll limit their options and keep �em docile for their employers!

It should be expensive. Ideally we�ll make it so expensive that it will represent a disproportionate percentage of a person�s net worth. Nothing like squeezing out diversification to increase risk!

It should be expensive to own, too! Let�s make sure this investment requires an endless parade of repairs and maintenance without which it will crumble into dust.

It should be fragile and easily damaged by weather, fire, vandalism and the like! Now we can add-on expensive insurance to cover these risks. Making sure, of course, that the bad things that are most likely to happen aren�t actually covered. Don�t worry, we�ll bury that in the fine print or maybe just charge extra for it.

It should be heavily taxed, too! Let�s get the Feds in on this. If it should go up in value, we�ll go ahead and tax that gain. If it goes down in value should we offer a balancing tax deduction on the loss like with other investments? Nah.

It should be taxed even more! Let�s not forget our state and local governments. Why wait till this investment is sold? Unlike other investments, let�s tax it each and every year. Oh, and let�s raise those taxes anytime it goes up in value. Lower them when it goes down? Don�t be silly.

It should be something you can never really own. Since we are going to give the government the power to tax this investment every year, �owning� it will be just like sharecropping. We�ll let them work it, maintain it, pay all the cost associated with it and, as long as they pay their annual rent (oops, I mean taxes) we�ll let �em stay in it. Unless we decide we want it.
For that, we�ll make it subject to eminent domain. You know, in case we decide that instead of getting our rent (drat! I mean taxes) we�d rather just take it away from them.

tl;dr: Buying a house and paying it down aggressively as an investment will mean that you're extremely exposed to geographic risks with dubious returns - your home and your job will be tied to the fortunes of the area where you live and work. If you end up with a portfolio of 1mil, and a house that's 400k, then 40% of your portfolio + your earning power are tied to Bumfuck, Wherever, earning a return that's on par with a balanced portfolio.

Edit: A friend of mine, whose household income is about 110k gross, bought a 350k house last year, 0% down, and remodelled the basement into a rental suite. It cost him 25k and he figures it adds about 35k to the value of the home. So he's up like 10k. But oil just bottomed out and now nobody is buying poo poo in this city, and he just got word from the army that he has to move in September! Meanwhile, my wife and I, who have a slightly higher income, have invested and saved aggressively in that time and made about 20% returns in the last 18 months, so we're up like 8k. But if we don't like the weather there are no obstacles keeping us here, not to mention a crazy remodelling project eating up our time for pursuing qualifications and enjoyment. I prefer it our way. A house is not an investment, it's just a place to live that has benefits and risks.

tuyop fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 9, 2015

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 02:02

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Radbot posted:

The vast, vast majority of people I know who think they have stable jobs do not, in fact, have truly stable jobs. You may in fact have a rock-stable job, but let's face it, virtually no one does in reality.

I mean, I work for a massive corporation, get great performance reviews, in a revenue-generating department, etc. - but who's to say I'm not going to get outsourced because of some McKinsey gently caress's misguided ideas?

Did someone say my name?

# ¿ Mar 13, 2015 23:10

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Putting it into action is even better. I'm being pressured to work at this school, which is a spectacularly messed up place. The politics are particularly intense and admin will regularly move a teacher three or four times in a year. So a social studies teacher could go from grade 7, to grade 9, to grade 12, then on to like grade 8 drama or some random thing. It takes a teacher a year or two to develop a quality program for one grade-subject so there's very little quality programming going on here.

After a few days of other teachers telling me that they hoped I'd work here, I was talking to a teacher I'm close with and looked around and said, "You know, I don't think you could pay me to work in this place. :smug:

" That's gently caress-you money, even if it's just enough to keep me in house and home while I travel or decide to work for a year as a sub or something.

tuyop fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Apr 1, 2015

# ¿ Apr 1, 2015 02:09

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

I think it's bizarre too but I imagine that functional and mature adults are perfectly able to communicate about these things without driving a wedge between them. The issues brought up are equally concerning for couples who combine all their finances, if less complicated logistically.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2015 22:40

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

This is a disagreement about the definition of separate and shared finances.

What the OP here mentioned sounds on its face like what my wife and I do except with separate bank accounts and some more admin. Both partners are committed to their shared life together and are willing to negotiate what that means. What you're assuming is more like some kind of roommate situation plus children, where the relationship is an accessory to the sharing and so the only way to maintain a healthy relationship is to make use of some arbitrary notion of equity, like some roommates do. The problem you're imagining wouldn't be an issue in a healthy relationship since I'm sure the FI partner is going to want to share his/her time with the non-FI partner since that's kind of the intent of most healthy relationships, and the finances would balance out around that.

The same imaginary problem could come up for a traditional shared finance couple with fewer accounts. An FI person is savvy enough to know when 80% of their nest egg originated from one partner but both partners are benefitting. If the relationship or individual is dysfunctional, resentment/contempt will follow just as easily.

This isn't a financial issue, it's a relationship one. The administrative details of the finances are irrelevant.

I still think it's bizarre though, because that level of administration is inefficient and a drain on a lifestyle, unless you enjoy it or get some benefit out of it because of the obligatory "syncing" meetings or something.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 04:16

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

What does a really nice hotel room actually get you? Like, what's the benefit?

I'm pretty content grabbing a six pack from the store and drinking in the common room in a hostel and sleeping relatively well in a dorm. I can't see how the experience would be like, 10-100x better if the dorm was just a really fancy room with a nice bathroom, so I imagine that there must be some other aspect to staying at a $1000/night hotel in order to justify the difference. Is there a difference?

I've worked in a Radison suite hotel and it was a good 300-400 a night in downtown Halifax and it looked like people just used it to have nice little house parties or sleep after their day of doing business poo poo, which would be exactly the same in a place costing like a quarter of the price.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2015 23:32

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

I have a feeling most people would look at a lot of us that way as well. Like, you have 30k in your bank account, why are you watching a 40 inch tv!!??!?

Well, a 40 inch tv is actually pretty awesome and a bigger one is not like 6x more enjoyable, so...?

# ¿ May 8, 2015 14:25

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

With his worldview described as one with regular reflection, mindfulness and constant gratitude, I think he's being honest when he describes his spending as "ridiculous".

From his perspective he hasn't made a sacrifice in years. Most Americans would consider biking your groceries through a snowbound park some kind of egregious hardship, but he has a very different view that shuts that kind of thinking down immediately.

This is also a view that most people could benefit from as long as it doesn't distract them from issues of justice and empowerment. Though at the same time, in an anarchic sense, that perspective may be the only way to live and think justly.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 18:58

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

Crazy Mike posted:

He's too set in his ways. More likely the fall form grace will come from his son. Is it likely he will fall to the temptations and attractions of materialism, or grow resentful at not indulging in them when the means to do so is right there?

Well, that's really speculative. I'm sure it's easy to find cases that go both ways. Wealthy Buddhist parents have child who continues their ways, and the opposite. Taking his child out of school probably did a lot to help prevent the latter.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 19:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:01

tuyop: Sep 15, 2006; Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted; Fun Shoe

I'm pretty sure the point of money is freedom. :colbert:

We're looking at spending like 15k traveling around SE Asia for a few moths in September, including rent on a place in which we won't be living (looking for subletters and roommates now). This is possibly the least FI thing I can imagine, but we can only do it because we've spent a couple of years not buying a bunch of bullshit. I mean, we're FI enough to take a four month break from careers and poo poo, that's sort of FI, right? Right?

# ¿ May 10, 2015 22:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Financial Independence: Methods, Mindsets and Cloth Diapers

«‹›3 »