this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
23 points (82.9% liked)
FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early)
1157 readers
2 users here now
Welcome!
FIRE is a lifestyle movement with the goal of gaining financial independence and retiring early.
Flow Charts:
Personal Income Spending Flow Chart (US)
Personal Income Spending Flow Chart (Canada)
Personal Income Spending Flow Chart (Australia)
Personal Finance Flow Chart (Ireland)
Useful Links:
Mr. Money Moustache - a frugal lifestyle blog
Related Communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like we both value the intangibles, but are still slightly disagreeing on what they mean in this discussion. Having said that, it's your discussion, your question, and I'm just trying to answer in a way that adds value
I don't mind how you've picked apart my examples, but you have to acknowledge it's still primarily through economic analysis. Output, competition, and cost benefit analysis all imply an economic lense
The discussion is getting pretty long, so I'll keep myself to these 5 points:
I don't think everyone should grow their own produce. It comes across as a straw man (because I never said we should decentralise) and we always have to be careful not to say that what is good for one is good for all (see Idle Kantianism)
Non-economic benefits are devalued through economic analysis. My mental health is improved, it's physical exercise, the nutrient value is likely higher, it contributes to a local ecosystem etc. I agree that none of these has much economic value
In the same way that economies of scale have efficiency value, specialisation and expertise in scientific and policy fields has efficiency value. Transitioning to research and policy simply because you have amassed capital will likely generate diminishing returns (even if you remain close to your industry/experience)
Government can and should allocate resources to important issues. If we require more resources for these goals we can raise taxes, keeping more people working for longer, and achieving some measure of additional economic contribution per person
A competitive society implies some other society against which we compete. Humanity has enough resources to raise the living standards of all. Why do we need to keep maximising productivity within separate societies if the problem is distributive?
I tried not to only focus on economic value in my counter arguments. I just wanted to use monetary value as a proxy for general value for society.
Regarding the transition to research and policy my argument would be that you will have more impact when taking a full time research position instead of retiring from the working world. I would still consider most research positions a part of the working world.
With a competitive society I actually meant that there are groups that will not support early retirees. These groups will dominate society after some time. An example might be China vs US. If many people in the US retire early, the US will not be able to compete and in the long run will stop existing together with all its values.