> 20 years later, you realize you burned two precious decades accumulating money that, honestly, does not help you at all make sense or use of the next two.

Ah, but it does. Speaking as someone approaching fifty, you feel every penny. Everything about your financial situation weighs into your decision-making, makes different options possible or impossible. It changes which jobs you can take, and which jobs you can turn down. It affects how much time you can take between jobs. It affects how much energy you pour into keeping your job or chasing a promotion versus investing your energy in education or other things you find satisfying.

People worry that they will accidentally pursue money with such single-minded focus that they turn off every other part of their soul, and miss out on what they "really" want to do. But I don't think that's possible. Replace money with anything else: fame, family, intellectual achievement, hedonism. If you try to dedicate yourself 100% to one thing when something else is important to you, you'll hear the voice in the back of your head. You'll feel what it is, and if you ignore it then, that's on you.

If you don't hear that voice yet, lay down the foundation that will give you the freedom to follow it when you finally do.

Yea, there is a huge distance between "saving enough money to retire comfortably" and "letting wealth accumulation dominate every decision you make." And, honestly, most people don't even get to the first one.

You're absolutely right. I realize my comment could be understood in many various ways.

My point was that, at some point, money has a negative effect on your career. Shooting for the top percentile of revenue can take you off track for life.

But you are saying that having a few hundred thousands bucks when you hit 40-50 is a life-changer and you are absolutely right as well.

Our point of views are not incompatible and were not captured by my first comment.

Its easy to think you have too much money in your twenties. I used to save every other paycheck. But wait until you have a family and a mortgage. The money goes very quickly.

It might backfire for sure, but being financially independent gives you freedom to figure that out for the rest of the life.

IMO it's a lot better than the situation I myself am in right now, when I can clearly see myself working my ass off for the next 20-25 years in domains I totally hate, and then hopefully I can start working on interesting things when I'm ... 65?

I'd further argue that the only downside of my strategy is that you already have a clear non-monetary objective but decided to go with the money for 20 years. That's definitely a bad thing, and that's why in my original reply I rooted this out -- if you already have an objective, go for it.

Only if you get a rest of your life. While most do I've known more that one person who didn't make it to 40. Worse those that do all srart reporting their body is starting to fail. If you have not done some things by 40 it may be too late to ever do them.

You can't forego savings because "I might die at 40". That's really not a sensible plan. It's a balancing act, but I'd rather have saved too much and die a little early, than not save enough and somehow live to 100.

But accumulating and saving always comes at a cost. Is it worth to earn more money, but spend less time with your family for example? It's a delicate balancing act and you never know where the right balance is

I agree 100%. There is a balance you want enough savings for 'a rainy day' and also enjoy the rest of your life. retirement is only part of enjoping your life.

the important point is don't get so lost in saving money that you don't enjoy now.

Won't expound on my life story, but this is massively overlooked. You can't just prioritize money without taking into account the massive sacrifices it will require in your life. I spent a long, long time becoming successful in careers that I hated, only to burn out and do the career I knew I wanted to do since I was old enough to think and remember. Except now I have wasted decades of my life that I will never get back.

The majority of your life is spent working so you absolutely MUST find it fulfilling or you will burn out (at best) or destroy your body and mind as a sacrifice to the insatiable Mammon.

There is nothing wrong with doing a job you don't like. However you need to ensure that it doesn't burn you out. Work enough to get the money you need to live. Then do things you like. Many people do this: there are a lot of jobs people don't enjoy but they have to be done so someone does them.

Even people who find a job they love often find after 10-15 years they are sick of doing it all the time. This is likely to happen to you unless you are careful not to let your job alone be what defines you. This is normal.

Don't get yourself into a job you hate. (part of this is not being so picky you hate everything!) however liking - much less loving - your job is optional. Then go home and do something else for fun.

It depends a lot of where you came from. If you are coming from a poor background, without any perspective of the occasional help from parents or a possible inheritance, I'd say prioritize financial security. Of course, you can accept the occasional lower salary but with better career prospects here and there, but sometimes this is a mirage, and a lot of time, better pay comes with better career prospects.

If you didn't come from a somewhat privileged background chances are you started your career with more professional debt, without a rich contact network, you're probably a bit too humble to negotiate wages and even narratives like "when I started my business I had come from a working class family, and had to scrap by raising 80k from my relatives to start my business" are out of your reality. So, prioritize being financially secure first.

This angst about a sense of purpose is basically a privileged class malady, if you are poor our friend Maslow will ensure you have more pressing issues to care about first.

I mean school debt where I said professional debt.

I made a lot of sacrifices and experienced some serious personal pain to achieve modest financial independence by age 35 (not "FAT" by any means, but well beyond the average American), and it was worth it. I'm still working, but only because my former career momentum has carried me into a position where I'm paid a small fortune. I would never do any kind of normal engineering job for a normal income these days.

My attitude and the way my brain processes things is completely different. Getting laid off or fired goes from something you might fear or see as a bad thing to a neutral or even positive event that just encourages you to go spend your time in a different way for as long as you want.

20 years of bad habits facilitated by a given lifestyle can also be very hard to break. Not many can manage duly accumulating the savings while completely isolating themselves from what they work on, who they work with, and how all of that impacts their worldview.

And that's not even considering health. 20 years of being in a bad mental place (stress is bad, but a perceived lack of purpose and agency might well be worse) will leave its marks.

There's also a non-zero chance you'll die before year 20. I agree with the premise that seeking financial independence should be a significant factor in career/life decisions, but if you would be filled with regret by finding out it will be cut short at year 18, you're too singularly focused.

Having the money is far, far better than _not_ having money to help you "make sense or use of the next two decades". If you don't, both the sense and use are narrowed to being chained to a job indefinitely into the future.

> you realize you burned two precious decades accumulating money that, honestly, does not help you at all make sense or use of the next two

You are describing some extreme case of money chasing and/or complete ignorance to everything else. Having the "luxury" to be covered financially for the rest of your life allows you to pursue whatever goals you have in mind at mid-life. If you are susceptible to not knowing what you want, having less money won't help you find out but having more money might.

Is it any better to know what you want to do for the next 2 decades and not ever be able to afford do it? From a practical perspective you are still missing the opportunities you want or dream of, except you're also doing it with little or no financial buffer for the things you need.

I see this argument a lot, i think no one is right. you just need to pick a away to approach life and deal with it.

> honestly, does not help you at all make sense or use of the next two.

Why?

Money can't buy you a sense of purpose, especially if that purpose would largely involve non-monetary aspects.

The thing, being poor doesn't buy one a sense of purpose too. Money for sure doesn't solve the issue, but it gives you all the freedom to solve it for the rest of your life.

Damn I wish I had a million so that I could just drop my job and twitch my coding and gaming streams 12/7. I can't do that.

Absolutely. Money (at least some amount, at least for most people) is necessary, but not sufficient for a fulfilled life.

I believe most people having that million wouldn't spend it to find the fulfillment in life, but would end up increasing their life style by slacking off, drugs, expensive cars and items, etc. And the million would be gone in months and you would be left with just bad habits, dopamine hangover and no idea of the further direction in life.