Great insight that is worth repeating.

One of my biggest problems with FIRE discussions is how much they reinforce the idea that retirement is a prerequisite for achieving happiness. This leads a lot of FIRE-minded people to double down on jobs they hate that consume too much of their time and energy, only because they think it will better enable them to be happy later.

For the lucky few who can be early employees at unicorn startups, that might be true. For the average FIRE person working a $100-200K/year job, they might be better off scaling back to a sustainable 40hr/week job and making a point of taking vacations and doing activities in their off time. Even if that means taking a paycut and delaying their target retirement date.

You don't have to wait until FIRE to start taking vacations, doing hobbies, or working on projects. If a job is consuming so much of your life that you feel you don't have time to do anything else, it's time to reevaluate the job.

On the FIRE subreddit, anyway, they're very clear that:

1. It's the FI part that really matters. RE is just one possible choice of what to do with it.

2. It's silly to make yourself miserable until you're FI.

3. FI is not magic. It will not meet your expectations unless you've carefully thought through what it is you want to do with that freedom.

Another way of looking at that situation is to ask why this cohort of some of the most driven, value-sensitive people in the labor force are so miserable with their leadership that they will voluntarily subject themselves to such a regime for the rest of their life, not for sipping mai tais on the beach but just to implement "...but without that leadership". It is nearly a truism people leave managers (doesn't even have to be direct managers) and not companies.

And if you do not accept that truism, the question still stands, just in a different area. Why are our workplaces so systemically dysfunctional that it gives rise to this behavior in a cohort that arguably should be highly coveted and aggressively retained by their employers?

There are a lot of posts in FI subreddits/forums where people have retired early and are totally lost, asking what they should do to find meaning or enjoyment out of life now that they're not working. They've spent so much of their time and energy of their prime years on working and saving that they haven't had anything left over to discover what sorts of things really bring them fulfillment, and it's incredibly disheartening to see.

The buried lede on those stories is they will not spend out of their FIRE budget on activities to bring that fulfillment, leaving them with somewhat limited choices depending upon their personalities and proclivities (see below), and many have not even planned for how much that will cost.

There are very few personality types that would be happy as a clam spending a hundred years puttering around the stacks of libraries researching a particular scholarly pursuit, then spend another hundred on another specific area, for example. The list of what we do not know is practically infinite, and were I immortal, I could burn a few thousand years researching subjects I find fascinating. Cheap for someone on even lean-FIRE.

There are still quite a few areas of the world that are very sparsely-mapped and their microbiomes sparsely-cataloged to help preserve their bio-diversity. I could spend quite a few centuries just doing that, while hiking and camping. Relatively cheap as pursuits go.

Refurbishing and repairing old artifacts would require some spending on tooling and supplies, but still cheaper than say, learning to fly. I could spend a few thousand years just learning different trades to master craftsman skill levels.

I find the RE experiences others relate that they feel aimless baffling, but only due to my personality. So it is not surprising to me that different personalities cannot conceive satisfaction within the same pursuits. Pursuits that could cost far more than they realized they needed to budget for. FIRE is more about knowing your self than hitting an appropriate total that survives a 2% SWR.

I used to think this way, now I severely disagree, I think nowwhat you want in life cant be anticipated with thought, it can only be hewn out of a rough stone through trial, error, success, and reflection. Atleast thats been my arc over the last 16 years working towards happiness and freedom.

For example, have you ever had a long term regret that you finally faced only to come away thinking, "Now that Im in this position, I should have never regretted not being here." The regret disappears and you feel much more confident in your ability to steer yourself.

You only gain true perspective through actions, not thought, how could you, your thoughts are siloed from reality.

As an analogy, I'm a big believer in caloric intake determining weight for most people. Consume more calories than you use and you will tend to gain weight. Consume less and you will tend to lose weight. So to get a caloric deficit you can exercise more or eat less. But... it's 90-95% diet.

Bringing this back to FIRE, the key lesson I think is that what matters in having financial freedom is controlling costs not maximizing income. Expenses can (and often do) _easily_ rise to your level of income. People fall in these traps of thinking they need a $5m house instead of a $2m house, or a bigger boat or a third vacation home.

But if you control your expenses AND can be happy then you doubly benefit: you increase your savings (and thus the time required until you have financial independence) AND you decrease how much money you need in retirement because you're accustomed to lower costs.

So the point of FIRE is (IMHO) not to seek satisfaction through material things but rather through your approach to life and your experiences.

I've seen this with coworkers who convince themselves they need $50,000pa/child for private school, $500k+ plus to pay for each child's Ivy League education and so forth and kill themselves to achieve that. Worse, they can become bitter and unhappy as they realize how long that will take them to achieve even as the top 1% of earners.

So not only are they working super-hard for longer they're seeing their families less and bringing home this negativity and entitlement. All of that is a prison of your own making.

FIRE philosophically is about really examining what you need and what's really important.

In software right now, I think it’s not difficult to have a sustainable low-six-figure job where you take vacations and have activities and off time to enjoy them.

These jobs have things like accrued PTO, limited perks, and relatively inflexible time-off tolerance that is highly dependent on the manager's whim.

"Not difficult" is relative, really.

40hr/week is the unsustainable part.

I think 20h/week is a more reasonable target if you want to enjoy things beside work.

Of course it's okay to work 40h/week if you really want to, or even more, if you enjoy it, but you should really think hard about whether that's really what you want, or if it's just what your employer wants you to do.

That's what I have an issue with.

When I'm working on a problem, I cannot simply forget about it at 3pm and head to the beach to enjoy life. The problem will be in my head 24/7 until one of us gives up.

But now I'm the age that he was back then, and I find I can compartmentalize or turn off work thinking easily. I'm not suggesting it's a factor of age, exactly, but perhaps some other change that occurs over time? Not really sure, but something in my head definitely changed.

This is also something you can learn through techniques that fall under what HR might call mindfulness. After a while, you have a mental git stash that you can just pop. It's not entirely lossless, but the benefits to life are immense.

https://walletburst.com/tools/coast-fire-calc

It's significantly more than 50% of the time that's available to me, by the time you factor in the things that i do because of work it's getting to around 70%.

Not that many people have done it their entire lives in the way we do today. Now we have the majority of millennials with 2 people trying to do a 40 hour week along with all of the other things that need to be done. I would argue a 40 hour work week + extras is great if i'm not cooking, cleaning, doing much childcare etc.

If we look back at pre-industrial humans we'll see that the striking thing is quite how much time they spend not doing anything productive.

Terrible at math (heh) but its something like multiply 24% by 2/3. Aka 24/3=8

Any suggestions?

Might only take a few years to save the required amount.

20k? did you miss a digit? That's less than my rent for the year...

for 3 days anything that pays more than $18 an hour and allows for flexible scheduling

you don't need a degree for this.

Medical transcription, coding and billing, working as a PA, Truck driving, nursing the list goes on.

This is not at all "average" in countries outside of the US. Here in India, for example, a $100K job is kinda like winning the lottery.

For reference, going by the exchange rate it equals somewhat close to 7.5M in local currency. Handymen and people in other labour-heavy jobs don't earn this much in their entire life, considering a 30 years of active work life. Only the top 0.01% (yes, we are an extremely populous country) people have that kind of jobs.

Going by the PPP ratio[0] of 21.99, you still need to be earning upwards of 2.2M annual, which is hardly 1% of the population, and majority of them have taken upwards of 8-10 years of work to reach there (which means 1/3rd of work life is gone).

The argument could also be made that buying stuff is cheaper in countries like ours, but that doesn't stand for _good_ quality items. As an example, the laptop you can buy for $1k in the US is far superior to what you can buy for 22k and slightly comparable but still better than what you can buy for 75k. If you are lucky enough with means to import, good luck with ~78% import taxes and duties. You don't make these purchases often, but when you do it breaks you. Things like dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, etc are so much more common in the US and almost considered a basic necessity whereas owing to cheap labour (and traditional lifestyle) we subscribe to househelp, which isn't really "cheap" or scalable and the cost of these items is high too.

All of this, to say that

> they might be better off scaling back to a sustainable 40hr/week job

is neither practical nor helps in a poor country where an "average" person is working more than half their lives just to make ends meet.

[0]: https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p...

But seriously it can also get tiresome when people constantly have to call out others for failing to formulate every observation in globally inclusive terms that cover all humans rich and poor.

- Salaries are decided monthly and unless you are an hourly billed consultant, you cannot negotiate your working hours to be lesser. - Part-time jobs do exist, but only low paying labour intensive jobs which won't leave enough energy for you to be working 2 jobs. - Shifts are again meant only for such jobs as described above. - Employment agreements explicitly prohibit you from "working" to earn in any other way. Getting a passive income is okay, but you cannot work / render services elsewhere to earn.

From junior to senior level employees, almost everyone in all sorts of jobs is overworked. Average workday last close to 10 hours, excl commute et al. Pandemic and WFH have worsened this if anything.

Be mindful. Informed. Increase your knowledge, consider alternatives, and make decisions given an expanded list of options. (Don't just go with the default, common, mainstream way of thinking that leads to people retiring at age 65 after decades of hating their job.)

I'm a proponent of many of the concepts of FIRE, but in some ways, the attitude started way before I started reading Get Rich Slowly, and Mr. Money Mustache. I'm all about putting effort into things I really care about, while being efficient and judicious with effort being put into things I don't care about. Work is usually not at the top of my list on things I care about. So I have changed jobs frequently to find ones that pay better than the last, and are also a better fit for me. Shorter commute. Better team. More engaging work.

Along the way, spending below my means and ensuring money I do spend actually provides the result I expect (i.e. lasting happiness that a lot of spending doesn't really provide) has been instrumental in making thoughtful decisions while also accumulating that cushion that can eventually wean me off paid work as a necessity.

In other words, I don't choose jobs that suck because they pay well, so I can get to a "finish line" faster. I put all the variables into play, and make sure I'm enjoying life now while also expanding the flexibility I'll have in the future.

While we agree on a lot of things, maybe we read different "FIRE discussions" because many of them factor these things in. Compulsory work limits your options, and even more so, spending all your money or beyond your means limits your options indefinitely. That doesn't mean retirement creates happiness, or is a prerequisite for a good life, but getting beyond that work requirement can certainly give you a lot more freedom in how you choose to use your time.

Often, happiness is simply "what addresses the imbalances in my life right now?"

Today, you're probably busy working a 9-5 (or longer). You spend much of your time overwhelmed by the complexity of your job, delaying gratification and doing things you don't want to do. You're stuck inside all day and working through the nicest months of the year.

In that context, of course all you want to do is sit outside at a beach, play some leisurely videogames, and eat good meals. But that's because your life right now has a distinct absence of downtime, nature, and leisure.

When you are retired, the entire context is different and thus what makes you happy will shift too. Once you no longer have a job, you'll likely find videogames boring and understimulating. When you start taking a walk every day in the woods, you might not crave moving to Hawaii quite as much. And when you have the time to cook and savor meals every evening, eating out loses some of its lustre.

Whenever the situation of your life changes, expect your happiness goals to shift too.

I think that's dangerous. Maybe in a world without work the incentives would change and these platforms might not exist in the same way. But as it stands now >50% of the people I know with too much time on their hands end up self-admittedly pissing most days away. A few of them have already decided to return to work even though they don't need to.

But that's not how our emotions work at all. Thanks to the hedonic treadmill, it's not possible to experience long-term joy over any consistent period. Active joyful enthusiasm is by nature an ephemeral experience.

Instead of happiness, what we want long term is something more akin to peace, satisfaction, or tranquility. A sense that all is right with where we are in the world.

And the model for that is much more like hunger and satiety. No one thinks that if eating one steak is good then eating a hundred steaks is great and a million is amazing. Hunger exists to address an imbalance. The goal of it is to get you back to a comfortable neutral point where you are satieted but not unpleasantly stuffed.

Unhappiness works in a similar fashion. It tells us something is off balance in our emotional life. So when you find yourself craving some experience or activity and thinking "this will make me happy", it means "this will fix a thing making me unhappy". It doesn't mean that scaling that craving up will make you extra super happy.

It doesn't take very long at all for the honeymoon to be over.

So what exactly was making you happy there, when you could only eat that meal occasionally in that restaurant? Was it really the food?

It doesn't have to be a very high one though.

I quit my job and spent 2 years driving from Alaska to Argentina. I poked lava with a stick, paddled with icebergs, climbed a 20,000ft active volcano, surfed, etc. etc.

It cost $1,200 per month for absolutely every expense [1]

Before the trip I was earning $48k CAD (about $38k USD).. I just didn't spend much.

Later on I quit my job and spent three years driving all the way around Africa (35 countries around the perimeter, 54,000miles). I rode a camel and camped in the Sahara, I carried Chimpanzees, saw gorillas, petted a cheetah, saw tens of thousands of elephants in the wild, heard to lions roaring while sitting around the campfire, surfed, hiked, ate street food with friendly locals, etc. etc.

That trip cost about $1,650 per month for absolutely all expenses. [2]

Before that trip I was earning $72k CAD (about $57k USD). Again, I just tried hard to save and not spend much money while going to work for years)

I've met plenty of people that have driven their own vehicle to 100+ countries over a ~decade for about $1,500 a month. It doesn't have to be expensive.

Now I do this "for a living". I keep my expenses low and have adventures around the world. I just flew to Australia, and I'm preparing now to spend about 18 months driving all over to all the wild and remote corners I've heard about but have never seen.

[1] http://theroadchoseme.com/the-price-of-adventure

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeR3SncZkv0

I bumped into this family driving the length West Africa, one of the toughest routes in the world! They had an amazing time, and last we chatting they're busy saving money to go on another massive adventure!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc61AxCQQR4

I have kids now and when they are old enough to move out, I’ll quit my job (programmer, and I love it) and get back out there because “The mountains are calling and I must go”

Private bathrooms I gave up on when I realized those attract many bugs I did not want to share my room with. Actually I could say you end up sharing the bathroom one way or the other. Common ones are fine as long as they can be locked and are cleaned regularly. Before I checked in at any place, I’d check the common bathrooms to make sure if I should…

I would pretty quickly get adjusted to the local way of avoiding heat, which is to get up really early in the morning, rest in the afternoon and then go back out during the evening.

Another pro tip that requires some planning ahead and available time is to go to the “south” during winter and to the “north” or the mountains during the hot summers.

I don't mind 'common' bathrooms, but I despise public restrooms with stalls. I want a clean, lockable bathroom / shower.

Lately I'm finding joy in all sorts of pursuits that I had never thought about. A willingness to try new things was necessary.

So yeah. I'm just sitting at home, playing video games and ordering takeouts. Pricetag is not that high.

And that's the current best answer to "What makes me happy?"

There was a Catch-22 for me, in that "working" at any organization for any normal sized paycheck just seemed ridiculous if it didn't 100% hit on all the "passion" buttons. And honestly, no organization will be free of BS that makes work work. So making that tradeoff became REALLY hard.

So I decided that if I was going to work, I should just make a ton of money. At least the bank account fills while I search for the next thing.

Probably not in the grand scheme of things.

But it's fun to push yourself to your limits with other smart people.

There is a pile of merge requests I need to review when I get time. And the reason I want to review X, Y, and Z is because I personally desire to see improvements X, Y, and Z to the niche FOSS software I maintain.

Funny thing is, we are on a forum named "Hacker News" and I'd speculate that I'm the outlier and yours is the common case.

The most absurd part of it all is how little happiness I got from all that money. Meaning and purpose are things you have to make up. If you can find happiness in a day job, in some ways you're better off than the aimless millionaire.

I'm lucky that I have a huge passion in music and have been focusing more on that lately. It's definitely weird for me to work on something without a direct financial incentive. Yet there are many people in the world, rich or poor, living for purposes outside money.

I haven't really had too many people to talk about this with. But it feels good to share a bit. DMs open to those in similar boats

It was almost as if I didn’t know myself, and in retrospect I suppose that was true.

After several years I’ve started working again but in my own way (roci.dev). I’m a lot better at predicting what activities will feel good, and managing my time so that end of day/week I feel deeply good about how it was spent.

Strongly recommend ^ approach of “rolling with it” for several years and trying not to pass judgement with you conscious mind on where your unconscious is taking you.

Best of luck getting to know yourself.

In my working life, I've only ever taken about a month off at a time, but every time I've taken a longer break like that, I end up ultimately feeling dissatisfied with myself. I go into it with what a I think is a reasonable list of chores/projects that I want to make progress on, but ended up just puttering around— paradoxically, I get a lot more done when I have short bursts of time and have to force myself to bite off a manageable chunk and actually see it through.

I've heard people argue that a few weeks just isn't long enough to trigger productive restlessness, and that's why a sabbatical is more like 6-12 months. But this is what I worry about for myself if I were ever in a position to retire young.

In your second paragraph you mention trying to be as productive as possible during your time off. Seems like you'd be setting yourself up for disappointment there. If you instead approach that time off with 'whatever happens, happens' approach you'll be more forgiving of yourself and may actually be able to relax so you can be more productive later.

The theory I'm exploring is that happiness is healthy. By living happily, perhaps I am repairing whatever damage I did when I was so intensely on the career grind (it was rewarding but, ultimately unhealthy in a burnout way). And, by doing that repair, perhaps I'll be better suited to be even more productive.

Or by more productive, are you referring more to building more dams rather than working more?

If you’re a software developer (or a plumber or a CPA etc) you can always get back into the workforce after some amount of time. If it takes you 1 year to leetcode and find a new job, you just need to keep 1 year of expenses as cash on hand.

Tail risk is a different story, but you can spend your whole life working and not save enough to handle all tail end scenarios

I just... yeah, don't find it satisfying when I've had small tastes of that life. I like to be able to look back at the journey and see how it led to growth in my skills and achievements I'm proud of showing off.

You can then pick up new hobbies, or just return to old hobbies with renewed enthusiasm. You can do things that matter even if they're of no economic interest. You can hone skills that aren't career-related.

I think that it also requires a shift in values.

That freedom is truly priceless.

I only wish I too were 2nd at a unicorn startup ;)

I've been retired 4 years now. I wrote one novel ("Inventing the Future", on sale at Amazon!) and finished the first draft of another. But I didn't have any plan for this when I retired. I just started doing it and it felt right.

For most people that really isn't a viable option currently.

I end up doing a bit of everything. I garden, cook, play in the garage, ride my motorcycle, go camping etc. Every once in a while, something grabs me and I'm free to pursue it.

A few years ago, I joked that the American dream sucks, and that the Victorian dream is where it's at. I want to have enough free time to be a gentleman scientist, join societies and make art. Now I realise it's not that silly.

Money to a certain point essentially buys the ability to be free and happy, and that’s why most people are “in the grind” so-to-speak. Being able to even think about making the mindset shift you describe is impossible for most people in the country let alone the world.

The lifestyle you describe is out of reach for the median American making $40-60k a year with a modest amount of credit card debt and kids to feed.

I have to wonder how you pay for your shelter, food, and health insurance? Is that from your unicorn startup money, or is that from your income from building dams?

For most Americans, quitting their corporate job means spending something like 2-4x more for healthcare. It means exhausting a very short financial runway.

Most Americans are one or two serious medical emergencies away from full blown bankruptcy.

That’s the irony here: folks advocating for exotic life experiences like this don’t seem to realize that the bulk of the world isn’t living life in a materialistic and career-focused way by choice. We’ve all just got bills to pay and want to be able to afford to go to the doctor or get our kids education or buy gas to get to Grandma’s house.

If you throw me a modest $5 million lump sum I’ll join you on your shift in mindset. But until then, sorry, I’ve got to get back to work.

Personally, I reduced my target to a mere fraction of the $5 million you mentioned.

Finally, I completely agree that this is privilege, but without any negative judgement therein. Privilege is a thing we should be trying to give to more and more people.

Ah, of course. Poor unfortunate Americans. How could you possibly feed your children on just $40k a year. No doubt that explains the emaciated appearance of the average American child.

> A comment like this is privilege in a nutshell.

Copy that out on the blackboard 100 times until the lesson sinks in.

Things are expensive. Happiness of your wife and kids are even more expensive.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this really has me wondering. How big of a dam are we talking here? Is it actually legal to build a private dam?

Touching anything on it required permits from multiple agencies at each of the above.

Be careful doing ANYTHING with water, as that is regulated by feds, states, and ofen localities. Wetland regulations are extremely restrictive. And wetlands are often not wet! (Depending on where you live, state and local often try to "out green" each other by layering on even more restrictive regulations.)

Not likely. Unless it is a very small stream.

They're rich.

The Amish are extremely business savvy, shrewd negotiators, and have no issues being active members in the economy. They also own vast tracts of very valuable land (especially in Lancaster, PA). Combine that with being frugal and austere, and it's a recipe for wealth.

For childcare, their community focus let's them share the burden amongst the larger group. Additionally, children are not nearly as coddled and are expected to contribute to the family's work, and help co-parent their siblings.

Compare this to the average nuclear family: underpaid, barely any savings, most likely rents, and lucky if they have even one family member nearby that can share the childcare burden.

Since childcare is mentioned, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Amish have a disproportionate rate of child sex abuse. Offenders often get off because the Amish community pressures victims not to testify. Victims are sent to re-education centers. It is pretty gross what goes on in plain (pardon the pun) sight. But they bring in tourist dollars. Most Amish are lovely of course, but their lifestyle has a very dark side.

There's no guarantee that buying a house will leave you richer than if you'd rented during the same time. Check out this calculator to explore your personal situation more closely, and examine the assumptions you make about growing wealth.

I know from personal experience, owning my first home, that I almost certainly would've been better off renting over that time period and investing the down payment and higher monthly payments than I ended up with having that house and equity. Sometimes you get lucky - and house prices go up and you sell at the right time (assuming you switch back to rent OR manage to then buy in a market where prices are lower than average.)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-cal...

> Of course, some lucky people already know exactly what they’re retiring to, answers firmly in hand.

> Examples:

> It’s been a lifelong dream of mine to quit my current career and take something lower paying and more meaningful: teaching or contributing to a non-profit.

> I’m going to do a lot of parenting. My kids can easily eat 14 hours a day, every day.

The _second_ example here already calls out that it's going to be common to do parenting 14 hours a day if people retire early. For someone who has kids, it's pretty unlikely to be able to roll with life and see what comes up. It just isn't possible, with or without a job, being financially independent or not. And whether we like it or not, a large percentage of the population above 40 do have kids.

This is purely my opinion, but I'm actually not sure that, for a child past 2 years old or so, if it's a good idea for a parent to be with their child 24/7. I think there's a lot of value in learning social interactions with other children in a daycare or preschool. I did this exact thing for 3 years and am transitioning the child to preschool at 3 years old, and it has been difficult.

On top of it all, let's say your kids are school age, somewhere between 3 to 16. Let's say they go to school during the day, and you have free time during the day. There is another discussion to be had about your kids' mentality if they grow up with parents who don't need to work. Sure, maybe in the near future, in this next generation, we'll enter a society where work is unnecessary and everyone lives off of UBI, and maybe the discussion is moot. But assuming that won't be the case, would you want your children to grow up with the impression that when they grow up into adults there's no need to do any productive work, or have parents as role models who contribute meaningfully to society?

Maybe I haven't thought it through, maybe I'm just not smart enough. I'm at a point in life where I could feasibly "lean FIRE" if I really want to, but for the sake of my child I'd rather continue to work. Which then leads to answering this post, my FI and retirement almost isn't about me, it's about my child/children. Or maybe that just means I'm that guy who said "I'm going to do a lot of parenting" then.

By meaningful, I mean to someone other your yourself or your extended self (family). Our purpose is to serve others, not ourselves.

I think people who misunderstand the FIRE movement think that early retirees don't want to do meaningful work, like volunteering, painting, making music, etc. I think that is the point of FIRE - to be able to do the most meaningful things you can think of.

I took a 3-year early retirement and didn't do anything for anyone but myself and loved every minute of it. I watched TV, went to the movies, read books, went to the gym, rode my bicycle, and that was it. Had no need for anything else.

If I could do that without having a job, I'd happily do it for the rest of my life with no problems.

The article showed how unsatisfied his wife was when she felt as "not going anywhere", I think she was trying to say that she does not feel any sort of progress or growth on any level.

As it is torture to keep someone in a room with no stimulation, it is the same with repetition and no change or progress.

“Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.” - Calvin Coolidge

We need this aspect for personal development.

Metaphor: https://m-g-h.medium.com/disneys-strategy-against-netflix-4d...

I think the flip side of this is that many people are so focused on progress and looking forward to the next goal line that they become unable to appreciate the moment and, ironically, happiness is always one more goal away. Recently, I’ve been reading books on Buddhism (specifically how it differs from many Western value systems) and it sheds some light on this. The same goes for the inability to be happy sans constant stimulation.

"Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" by Stephon Batchelor. Useful to me for understanding the cultural context of Buddhism.

Insight Meditation by Joseph Goldstein. I just find Goldstein's style the easiest to comprehend in a field that often comes across as frustratingly esoteric

Wherever You Go There You Are by Jon Kabat-Zinn. I thought this book is interesting because it draws parallels to Western authors, particularly Thoreau.

Sam Harris's "Waking Up" app may also be worth a listen. Besides the actual mindfulness practice, there are a lot of discussions on theory and he has conversations with a variety of people that come to the topic from different perspectives.

In some cases "working for the man" isn't bad and it does give people purpose, but in (imo)the majority of cases, it is bad because it prevents you from using your time to do something you actually find meaningful.

I think the few people who are able to find meaning in their jobs are either extremely lucky to have found what they want to do, had the opportunity to pursue it and succeed, and make a decent enough living doing it without the money aspect killing their joy - or they're the type of people who have just 'over-assimilated' to modern life and found a way to extract meaning from their work, but these people would probably be able to find at least as much meaning and happiness in something else if they grew up in a world where working wasn't expected to be almost your entire life.

I don't think it is necessarily bad, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other paths to fulfillment. They may not be for you, but they exist.

> it is the same with repetition and no change or progress.

If someone chooses to retire and immediately enter a vegetative state, that's really their fault.

For example, I really want to open my own cidery. But doing so would be such a massive paycut that it wouldn't be worth pursuing right now, even though it's ultimately what I want to do.

So, I'm software engineering until I make enough to FIRE, after which I can pursue that dream.

See, your life philosophy isn't universal.

Only if you take the narrowest view of what FIRE is. There's a reason the largest subreddit for it is called r/financialindependence. It's not about retiring as early as possible. It's not having to work to survive. It's choosing to work on things which are intrinsically meaningful, as much or as little as you like. I don't think anyone in the FIRE movement would tell you it's wise to retire to a beach and sip mojitos all day.

The "freedom" and "F the man" movements (crypto, 4HWW, FIRE, MLM, Kiyosaki, etc.) all seem to share a similar narrative: Spend your most productive years in retirement while feeding off from other's labor - a somehow irresponsible worldview.

The beauty is that one human can spend 70 years meditating and find purpose in that and another human can build a rocket ship and go to space and find purpose in that...and then you have everything in between and outside!

Meaningful WORK? Not necessarily.