An issue I always have with early retirement is whether it is morally acceptable. When retiring early from a skilled profession you are depriving society of a big contribution you could have given, that was also expected and invested in by society. Utilising a power dynamic by having more money and knowledge to capitalise on other people exacerbates this issue.

How are you dealing with this? Are you of the mindset that you do not owe anything to society? That it is completely fair, as you earned that money and there is a perfect market that trades all aspects in a meritocratic fashion (e.g., delayed consumption should be gratified this hard)? Or that you were not just lucky to have the talents to earn so much money?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got different moral issues with it, the same as TheButtonJustSpins, but in terms of not providing value I don't think is an issue because

Just because the value you provide to society isn't captured by capitalism in the form of renumeration doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Caring for the sick/injured, volunteering, guerrilla gardening, open source work all provide value even if you're not paid.
I strongly believe that by and large, people want to provide value for others. If you're at the end of FIRE, you're not likely just sitting around drinking alcohol all day. You're probably painting, or helping out a community.
People like to do things they're good at, so they'll probably provide value in a way they're well equipped to do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because the value you provide to society isn’t captured by capitalism in the form of renumeration doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable

I couldn't agree more. I think equating the value you provide to society entirely to remuneration is sure to backfire.

So much of our salaries are purely dependent on the industry we're in. My job doesn't demand anything particularly special from me - the field as a whole just has a lot of money sloshing around and can afford to let more of it trickle down to me. I could do the same job in another industry, or another location, and get paid 1/3 of my salary.

You could argue that my field has this money because they are providing so much value to society, but I don't think that always holds, at least in the short term. We live in a world of corruption, regulatory capture, investor bubbles etc. - while a market should find an optimal balance in the long run, in the short term I think there's a lot of room to make an outsized salary considering the contribution you actually make, just by being in the right place at the right time.

Is this fair? I don't really think so. But it's all too easy to overthink things and tie yourself up in knots. I just try and live life, have fun and do what I think is right at the time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm in a similar boat, I think of it as "rich people have a lot of money to throw around, so their needs get overemphasized and industries that should be niche become massive."

Markets accommodation is indifferent to usefulness, it cares about money and the larger the wealth gap is, the further those terms become divorced from each other.