If the answer is, "Live a meaningful and satisfying life." then... some people seek out work that gives them some of that while they are earning money.
Obviously, the idea that work can provide all of the meaning in your life is a toxic meme that leads to people being exploited. But the idea that work should provide no meaning is equally toxic. You're going to spend most of your waking hours during the healthiest stretch of your life at work. That is way too much to sacrifice for a job that is soulless surrounded by people you care nothing for.
Meaning is king, everything else is window dressing; only meaning gives you a reason to get out of bed in the morning. The sooner you start finding avenues for that in your life, the sooner you'll realize you don't need to focus completely on some distant exit strategy like financial independence.
Read more, improve my cooking skills, learn how to play chess, try out a month-long vacation, play video games, learn some art skills, exercise... I'm sure I'm missing some things. I can do a little bit of these a small amount of the time but it's not enough to enjoy, as long as I'm working.
Maybe there are jobs I'd enjoy but I kind of doubt it. I haven't found a job that I'd say I want to do until I'm in my 60s, that's for sure.
The problem is that meaning is undefined and this leads you down a rabbit hole of trying to figure out what is the meaning of life, which will make you very disappointed and lead to constructing a psychological bubble of "beliefs" that you appoint as facts to find a way out of this burdensome brooding.
Not everyone wants to live a lie like that, and have that sort of pseudo religious lifestyle. It's much easier to just go for the highest paying job, then making sure to also do some good (if you feel like it's too "evil"), by for example donating some of your salary, or doing some volunteer work. Why is this better? Because it's clear practical actionable goals that you can rely on, and that you know will have the desired outcome.
But it's more work to do this, assigning some superficial "meaning" to your job that you demand of all people around to validate and support, it's a way to be more lazy, to turn your social circle into a mini-cult where you all tell each other that you really can have the cake and eat it too.
To be honest, this reads to me like "I haven't found meaning in life, therefore people who say they have are lying to themselves." You're free to believe what you want, and if that's what makes you happy more power to you, but don't assume your experience is universal. I assure you it isn't.
Only a few people can win that lottery. Then again, I suppose finding work that is personally satisfying and pays well enough is also like winning a lottery.
But do they find it in tech? I could understand if we were talking about doctors, firemen, artists, etc. But tech work is mostly just companies trying to push products. This isn't really evil or good, it's just economics. A lot of tech companies seem to attempt to adopt language which suggests they're doing good, but I couldn't name very many which do something other than push products. I can't remember what language they used years ago when I worked at the apple store, but it was something like "enriching lives." And a lot of the employees seemed to really believe it. Yes, if you just buy a mac rather than some other computer, your life will be "enriched."
I'm not trying to be cynical; I definitely think there are some tech companies which do objective good, but these companies are in the vast minority of the tech field. If most people in tech sought "meaning" then the field would suddenly become extremely crowded around the few companies which actually produce good for the world.
I've learned how to fix my own appliances from online videos, stayed connected with friends through email, found stuff to do and avoided getting lost in unfamiliar cities through navigation, unwound with games, discovered new music and shared my music with others. All of that was because of or mediated by software. Could I have done it without, maybe. But I did use software for it, and tech deserves credit for that.
Maybe we need antitrust action just so we can better separate the “good” software companies from the “bad” ones.
But I think that the problem is mostly orthogonal to technology. Monopolistic megacorporations in any area are rife with problems. Look at Walmart, Nestlé, Shell, Comcast, etc.
Tech companies are particularly prone to this because information naturally lends itself to economies of scale, and economies of scale are fundamentally anti-competitive.
But it's the consolidation that's the problem, not the tech itself.
This question is a pet pieve of mine. The number of good answers is endless, and its sad that you would even ask it. Working is slavery, however you want to slice it.
So why wait until retirement to start seeking them?
> Working is slavery, however you want to slice it.
This is a thought-terminating cliche. Slavery is slavery. Working is an arrangement you enter into voluntarily with a series of pros and cons for all participants. Is the CEO if a company a slave? The researcher who finds a cure for a disease a family member died from? A musician in a touring band? An author with a book deal?
It's your life and I respect your choice to live it how you want, but if you have an idea that work is a thing to be suffered for as little as possible until you reach payday and then you retire and your real life starts... you are almost certainly on track for a completely miserable life both before and after your retirement.
Take a look at the kind of people who have the greatest life satisfaction. How many of them went down the FIRE path versus building their entire life in a meaningful way?
And as with such industries or industry scenes where big amounts of money involved, as in Wall Street or Hollywood, people who get into Silicon Valley tend to view things through a purely transactional lens after a while. After all, that’s how these workplaces view them- not as repositories of higher meaning, but as interchange economic producers. Such is the nature of dumb money.
Time is king, and the closest thing we have right now (until a time machine is invented if ever) to banking time is money. More money equates to more time to do whatever it is you want.
Personally, I'd rather find a job I don't hate and interleave enjoyable use of my time throughout my life.
> … instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/316215-not-long-since-a-str...
Just look at how many older, senior employees you find at established, larger companies where the stock has risen so much in the past that you just know they are in all likelihood millionaires (and not "just" single digit ones). And even in the (rather rare, I guess) cases that they mismanaged their finances so badly that they are not, those people are prominent and established enough that another company would take them for more comp in a heartbeat. And yet they stay.
Your opinion is not universal. Don't pretend that it is in order to justify yourself.
In fact, it's doubly effective. If you can learn to reduce your expenses by $10k and live happily, not only do you have an additional $10k to save/invest, but you need less each year to live independently.
I "retired" at 33 (still doing other things, but without steady cash paycheck). Lived cheaply, worked hard, saved up a ton of money. I went back to work in 2020, right after interest rates were dropped to zero and the pandemic stimulus went out, because I figured that every single retiree, no matter how old, was about to get reamed by inflation. Have been right so far, and IMHO it's only going to get worse. Living cheaply works when the basic necessities of life are cheap. The basic necessities of life are about to get very expensive, if they haven't already.
I am older than you, but one issue that I need to contend with is being in a demographic that will contain a lot of other retirees, so I believe I need to financially be better off than other retirees of my age to have a reasonable lifestyle (and I am unsure how to avoid thundering crowd effects for my generation). Reasonable = comfortable (e.g. could choose to have a small fizzboat, but not a megayacht).
Problem is that inflation is rarely steady. Typically you get stops and starts. Inflation will rise, and the Fed will try to contain it by raising rates. Then the raised rates create a recession, all asset prices fall, the Fed flinches and drops rates. Inflation takes off again. Repeat for a decade or more.
In an environment like this, you can't lever up too heavily, and you need to actively manage. Otherwise you'll get reamed by the busts. Optimal strategy is to buy surviving high-growth stocks right as the recession gets to its peak, as everyone feels like everything's going bankrupt, and then hold them as rates drop and the economy recovers. Then sell right as the Fed signals it's going to get tough on inflation again.
Optimal strategy is pretty hard to execute. Failing that, it's often best just to buy & hold profitable, low-competition businesses.
The demographic time-bomb of everybody retiring at once and trying to cash out of the market at the same time is another issue. There's no real fix for this: living standards are going to have to drop, for retirees or workers or both (and more likely retirees). The way to profit from it is to look for companies that are successfully automating parts of elder care, and then invest hard in them.
Run hard, every hour you work is an hour you’ll never get back, so max the comp for each of those hours. Your future self will thank you.
(Huge mmm fan btw)
Another way to view it: say you get a pay boost 90k -> 190k. The custodial parent will request the imputed income to be recalculated. You now owe an extra 20k PER YEAR. That's your new imputed income, even if you don't get a job like this again and it only lasts a year. Eventually you lose that job and can't find one like it again -- fast forward 10 years. You've paid an extra $200k, just to make an extra 50 or 60k net in one year. You lost $200k by working a higher paid job for a year.
One year of raise followed by 17 years of a slightly more relaxed job at your original income means you LOSE money. In this example, falling from 190k back to your 90k income means child support went from 1/3 of your net check to 2/3 of your net check. A brutal risk to take if you don't think you'll be making the high wage for life.
Strictly no, but this is basically what imputed income does. It's saying you have the capability to earn it. If you actually HAVE earned that amount, it can be extremely difficult to convince a judge that the certainty that you HAVE earned that amount is countered by some vague uncertainty you may not be able to again. Fighting against a known factual salary history with some hand waving about not being able to do it anymore is a hell of a hill to climb. Plenty of anecdotes show people having extreme difficulties lowering child support.
1. This is crazy to me. I could maybe cut $3K by taking a huge hit to quality of life (that would probably not be sustainable with a full time job anyways). Getting the other $7K would involve either homelessness or cutting back on eating and visiting family. How do salary earners manage to rack up $10K per year of purely unnecessary expenses?
2. That number is still way too small to be a better strategy than income maximization in tech. Of course "and" is always better, but given the choice between an extra >$100K/yr in savings or $10K less in life expenses the choice is pretty obvious.
12 years ago, my food budget was $3/day, and the only reason it wasn't less than even that was because I worked at a Subway and could get 1, sometimes 2 meals a day free if I was working a long shift. Going to Taco Bell was considered splurging.
I caught Mono and had to miss 3 days of work. I had to get an advance on my paycheck to pay the rent. At least my boss was cool about it.
> Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils, and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Cleaning services, vacations, picking the fancy and nice daycare using some trendy educational system (Montessori, unschooling, whatever) instead of the one run out of someone's house in a scary part of town, ordering food delivery, monthly subscription services for all kinds of crap, new car every 2 years instead of a used one every 5 years... the list goes on and on.
No one’s saying it’s completely free from trade-offs , but a lot of people have leaks in their bucket that they mindlessly assume are “required” when, in fact, they’re small luxuries and should be considered that way. It doesn’t mean you can’t do them, but rather just means you should consciously determine if they’re actually worth the tradeoff to you.
The first option often isn't available to folks.
Agree with your second point though.
You learn to spend what’s in your pocket.