I don't think that's true. Sure, at some point you stop producing economic value, but we don't mind people retiring at 65. What's so magical about that age?

If you contribute enough productive value (as determined by the free market, paid in some asset), why does it matter when you retire? I'm sure there is some endgame where we stop funding our consumption economy to the same degree we are now, but is that a reason to work until you can't anymore?

You can only kick up your feet if you've done enough "economic output" in the previous years, it's not a free lunch. This is coupled with the fact that most retired persons do invest and contribute capital. It's not at the same level as Mark Cuban, but does it really matter if you only invest a million vs 700 million+?

Nothing magical, because when people age they become less healthy and able to work/contribute - it is only ethical to offer them the last ~10-20 years of their lives as reward for their hard work. The average age of death in the US is 78

And who pays for the benefits the elderly (or as a matter of fact, the whole society) enjoys? Amenities, welfare, health insurance, etc. - taxpayers, exactly the demographic (before 65 - healthy & able-bodied) FIRE is encouraging to stop working, thus avoid paying income taxes.

>FIRE is encouraging to stop working, thus avoid paying income taxe

Are you also against people being frugal because that causes them to pay less sales taxes?

Nope, frugality is a virtue. FIRE is only half-truth

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

>because economic value goes to zero when all the workers kick up their feet

That will never happen, as I explained in a sibling post:

>there would be an imbalance of labor demand compared to supply. This will cause prices to go up, which will make it less attractive to stay "retired" and more attractive to start working again.

Society is like a cargo net. Every knot that bails out makes it collectively less capable of bearing a total burden. I'm fine if these FIRE dreamers want to use their free time to invest into social and charitable causes, but the ones that just want to perma-vacation on society's economic margin are what annoy me. But I don't personally believe in retirement either.

>Society is like a cargo net. Every knot that bails out makes it collectively less capable of bearing a total burden.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to with this, but if it's "well if everybody goes FIRE society will collapse", then you're wrong because it will never occur (due to the economic mechanisms discussed earlier).

>but the ones that just want to perma-vacation on society's economic margin are what annoy me

Sounds like you're annoyed if people aren't being productive when they can be. After all, what's the difference between being 100% productive for only 50% of your working years (ie. FIRE), and being 50% productive for 100% of your working years? What's your opinion on people engaging in non-productive activities (eg. watching TV, playing sports, reading books), taking time off, or taking a "easy" profession? Are you against them as well? Or are they fine because they put in a token amount of work?

That is just in theory, the cost to society might be more profound and harder to rebound from longer term.

Bonus: I suggest reading this guy's blog for unexpected outcomes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26543527