People tend not to spend too much time analyzing impossible dreams. Most "if I won the lottery" plans are also profoundly selfish.

Selfish how? Like not contributing to society? Do we really want to have an introspective philosophical debate about the societal impact of working for a tech company?

Not sure it's any more selfish than working for giant corporations for a fat paycheck. Both are selfish in their own ways, and both can also help people in their own ways. I wouldn't say there's something inherently wrong with being selfish on its own.

> I get the impulse, but why isn't this viewed as profoundly selfish?

I get that impulse, but that is like saying that most of our current jobs are reasonable and for the greater good cause?

Most of the real value providing and necessary jobs are currently underpaid, while on the other spectrums end few people can reap automations fruits that actually should be shared by society, or somehow like that.. ( I know, opinionated can derail into endless discussion topic and other's may express better).

Also, why isn't seen making music and art as a contribution to society while some of the current jobs are hurting society?

Is your reasoning here that it is selfish, because not everyone can do that, and if everyone could/did, then society would collapse due to no food production, garbage collection, emergency services, law enforcement etc, as all those people would also be out painting/kayaking etc?

I ask because as I first read your comment I was unable to see the selfishness, since GP outlined that they lacked the financial means to support that lifestyle (also implying that taxes would still be paid and money would flow through the system all the same). It took me writing out a reply to you, asking how you thought it selfish, before my brain came up with the potential answer I outlined in the first paragraph.

Right, my thinking here is that the dream of running away from the very society that granted you the freedom to run away seems like you're not "paying it forward" enough, to enable others to have the freedom you'd be taking advantage of.

Rather, I would imagine the "not-selfish" version of this would be to spend your life doing those things, and finding ways to help others get to where you're lucky to be.

I just find the "I'll get mine and fuck off" attitude to be less than ideal.

> Right, my thinking here is that the dream of running away from the very society that granted you the freedom to run away seems like you're not "paying it forward" enough, to enable others to have the freedom you'd be taking advantage of.

I see it completely the opposite. If someone has already made all the millions they'll ever need, it's better for society to free up that job for someone else who needs the income instead of keeping amassing more and more millions to one single person. Paying it forward here is opening up the opportunity for the next person.

Job? I'm not sure why we're talking about a job here, I'm not suggesting you stay at your employer beyond the time it takes to become independent.

So... noone should exercise this freedom, because doing it is selfish? Then what are you paying forward for? Freedom noone should ever exercise? It feels like a prison with transparent bars.

Not that you asked, but that's not the attitude I have, and not the impact of retirement. Retirement is the freedom to do what you care about without the fear of going hungry or homeless. It's a luxury and a privilege, to be sure. But it in no way is telling anyone to fuck off. If that were the case, every retiree at 65 is telling the world to fuck off. Or is there some arbitrary number at which you're not telling the world to fuck off? Is it ok to retire at 65 but not 55? Or 45? Should we work until we're dead?

A life of "leisure" still contributes to society. I would of course still pay bills and buy things, supporting business. I'd still pay my taxes, supporting the government. I'd still volunteer, like I do now outside my job. I'd like to teach, write, and create more (I like to sing, make music, art, furniture, etc). And I'd really like to start an informal class for underprivileged youth to learn computer skills and get a job without going to college, like I did.

If I didn't have to work, I'd have a hell of a lot more time to make the world a better place. In addition to the selfish kayaking, cooking, traveling, etc, that I already do with a job.

That society took from you before you were born, and "getting yours" is merely getting back to zero. You have assets and liabilities. Liabilities include a requirement for basic poverty-level food, shelter, and (if necessary) medical care. Your assets balance those liabilities around $1M. So in my view that's actually zero. In fact you're not even really a full legal person until you own property; otherwise you're on the hook to rent an apartment just to maintain a driver's license or a voter's registration.

It's freeing up a high paying job for someone else to take.

Jobs are high paying because someone thinks they provide (a lot) more value than they are paid. “Freeing up a high paying job” means someone who is worse at the job, on the margin, does it and less value is provided to everyone, aka society.

a) What's wrong with being selfish?

b) What about it is selfish?

Seriously, why don't more people work so the investors can get a chunk of their value for doing nothing? How dare they do something so utterly anti-social as spend more time doing things with people that aren't making investors money? Why must the rich investor class make-do with their own money pile when a chunk of your effort could make their pile bigger?

$20,000 a year income puts one in the top decile of income worldwide. At $50,000 you are richer than 98.5% of the global population. That’s less than the median American worker ($54K) or the mean ($74K).

A lit more than any investor class are rich by any historical or global standard.

Until you actually start equating cost of living and buying power. You may be making much more raw money than a 17th century monarch was, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if everything costs more and you aren't afforded the same liberties that they had. If you're willing to move to a rural Indian slum, you're sure to live the most regal life one can afford there, but you will lose out on a lot of the value that you get from living where and how you are today. Which is better? Shrugs, everyone has their place and I'm sure you'll find yours too.

> Until you actually start equating cost of living and buying power.

The picture does not change substantially if you look at measures of income adjusted for purchasing power parity. The West is far richer than the Rest and the latter much more populous.

> You may be making much more raw money than a 17th century monarch was, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if everything costs more and you aren't afforded the same liberties that they had.

I eat better, fresher, cleaner food than they did most of the year, have far more variety in it, have access to vastly more cultural artefacts, and I have access to modern healthcare. I’d be dead but for antibiotics. The same is probably true of one of my children. My housekeeper lost a sister to illness at 21. More than likely she’d have survived if she’d had access to even the level of care standard in Shanghai twenty years ago. Being rich is in fact better than being poor and living in a rich country better than living in a poor one for the large majority of people.

You are arguing that your standard of living would increase by living in a slum because you would have more purchasing power? What?

I think you much overlook how great it is to have (somewhat) functional law enforcement, infrastructure, and access to goods and services and healthcare. This is what makes us rich, not the ability to buy cheap things.

So, if someone has made enough to retire early, they shouldn't. Instead the should grow thier pile even bigger, because that wouldn't be selfish on account of all the other people in the world not being able to grow thier piles bigger?

Because people are free to live their own lives. Being useful and helping others are superogatory not a matter of obligation.