> I’d rather be doing if I didn’t have to work everyday.
For a while, then it would lose meaning.
I tried not working, it made me feel very empty inside. Human need goals. We aren't made to be idle for a long time.
I'll try to explain that better: "Fuck you" is when you refuse or sever a social connection. Don't do it too often. Because when you don't need any social connection, you have successfully create your gilded cage.
I've learned from my mistakes: Now I'm still retired but I work here and there, doing consulting or helping people, and learning biology.
There are many objectives that are interesting to pursue that don't have anything to do with working to sustain a lifestyle. I can sympathize for people who have traveled the beaten path for so long they're unsure how to create their own path once it's not laid out in front of them, but I think anyone in that position who laments their situation must lack any creativity or drive to learn how to create their own unique goals.
Not sure why people downvote you. I’m not in your situation, but I often wonder if I’d have a lot of FU money if I would experience a lot of ennui. I think people really don’t understand how lonely it can be at the top. Even Musk keeps saying, “you don’t want to be me.”
No one wants to hear the rich complain about the burden of wealth, the loneliness of power and the ennui of endless opportunity. Even if it's true. Let them eat cake.
I think this is outright foolish. So many spend all this time trying to make it, especially on this site. I’m no better, but I would like to know what it’s like on the other side before I make all the sacrifices to get there.
Say all these people say climbing Mount Everest is truly the most life changing thing they’ve ever done. Suddenly I start thinking maybe I should climb it too. I would love to hear stories to the contrary before I make the commitment.
The ersatz straitjacket of wealth, power and privilege never seems so restrictive that the wealthy who complain about it ever give it all up for the freedom to go slum with the proletariat. That should tell you all you need to know.
You can say whatever you like, I'm not wrong. Reading your comment history, you seem to wear your selfishness and contempt for the poor as a badge of honor. So clearly whatever negative effects your apparent wealth might have on you psychologically or socially, you would rather deal with that than life among the working class.
And I don't blame you, the entire political and financial apparatus of capitalist society is designed to protect the status, wealth and privilege of people like yourself at the expense of everyone else grinding their lives away under the millstone. Obviously the best thing to be in a capitalist society is a capitalist, to whom capital and the benefits of capital are intended to flow, rather than one of the shmucks being fed to Moloch.
But as far as feeling sympathy for the plight of the wealthy - I'm not a communist or even a socialist but I'm playing The Internationale on the world's smallest violin right now.
> I would love to hear stories to the contrary before I make the commitment.
And this is exactly why I wrote this comment. People here are looking to get rich without asking enough questions like "why" or "what then?"
Make a few millions if that's what you want- why not? But it won't make you happy.
Stay away from drugs. Keep doing things that you find interesting and bring you joy. Associate with cool people. And don't say "f you" too much because social connections and a few obligations here and there are what make life fun.
Weirdly enough, I often get the most done on side projects when I'm busiest.
It's easier to do more stuff when you're already doing a lot. When you don't have to do anything, then it's hard to do any one thing (for me, at least).
Unfortunately, it is like in Harry Potter: you can only get some if you don't want some :) And yes, I have thought about giving it all. I would change nothing: I would make money again and find myself just as empty, with the same problem, except with less of my prime years to live and find a solution.
BTW, you made your account in 2012. You have know about crypto for 9 years. If you had invested even a hundred dollars in 2012, or the next year you would not need to ask. HN has a lot of blame for the number of bright young hackers that were discouraged to invest in crypto.
I think, if you ever find you have "too much money" there are plenty of good ways to get rid of some - for instance, if you have active revenue streams from businesses why not consider redirecting the profits you're taking in to employee welfare or starting a charitable society.
Also, getting grifted is always an option.
Oh lastly - might I suggest lobbying for a simplified tax code that results in you having less money?
This is so wrong - like the suggestion of giving it all away (even if I quickly considered that).
Money is not the problem, even if it contributes to it. Money is just an enabler. Money reveal your deepest tendancies. Remove it and you are back to square one.
In the past, when I was as naive, I gave some money to people: most people focus about tiny problems (the dishwasher broke!) that are easily solved with a few hundred or thousands.
Then I saw first hand how money is just an amplifier of human beings, and how it can help some people with bad tendencies destroy themselves - starting by teaching them effort is not necessary.
I don't give anything to anyone anymore. I learned before I did too much damage. I moved and broke contact.
Hrm - I do definitely understand that sentiment, but it assumes that you, the current holder of the money, are more responsible than those other folks. Remember that while you might not choose to spend in the money in the way they are - you don't really have a position to judge since that is what they want most in life. It can be hard to see with issues like addiction and that's less a money question and more a mental health question - but other "frivolous" purchases can be part of what makes life worth living.
I really dislike arbitrary cash handouts of the sort you pointed out above - it's why I'd encourage increasing employee take home if you have any employees. If that's not an option then there are a number of good and responsible charities.
Lastly - this comment (and the one above) aren't directed at judging you and I don't know the specifics of your situation. But judging how other people use their money is something that's best entirely avoided. If you donate two thousand dollars to a friend who uses the money to drown her problems in alcohol then it's unlikely she would've worked through those issues in a healthy way if you just never gave her money - it's hard though and I can certainly sympathize with a desire to avoid sending anyone money. I also think you're getting a lot of downvotes because you are speaking from a very unsympathetic position, but it is an interesting discussion so I'd urge you not to get discouraged.
> it assumes that you, the current holder of the money, are more responsible than those other folks.
I don't know, but I have a track record of success, while they have a track record of failure, so I am a bit doubtful it will change.
For example, I have a very deserving friend. I want to make sure he succeed. But I will never give in any crypto, as it would sell it the next day because he is afraid of variations. Likewise with money.
Instead, when I hear he is struggling, I hire him to perform some work that will benefit him in his carrier, to gently nudge him while providing money but not as a gift since in my experience it breaks people spirit.
> I also think you're getting a lot of downvotes because you are speaking from a very unsympathetic position, but it is an interesting discussion so I'd urge you not to get discouraged.
I am a bit- I have tried keeping a simple message for years to people who want to make money - before the last bull market, it was something like invest 1 or 2 grands in crypto, just money you can afford to lose, it will get you a brand new car (feel free to check my posting history, I don't remember the specific wording)
I even said that to arcticbull, who frequently diss crypto here.
And a few month later, those who listened got their car. Most people thought I was talking funny. It was lost on them. I find that very sad.
> If that's not an option then there are a number of good and responsible charities
I am now convinced money will do nothing, whether you have it or not, or at best very little. What matters is foresight and leverage, to convert your ideas into implementations. Leverage can be obtained - VC do that if you have charisma.
Fortunately for me I will not need them, as I am low on charisma! Still, biotech will be the next boom - whether it is augmenting humans, curing cancer, achieving immortality, it will bring lot of happiness.
This is interesting and I can help make it happen. It will help many orders of magnitude more people than my money could. So I am learning biology. Hopefully it I will help me infuse money at some very precise chokepoints where it will be able to act as a positive enabler. In crypto, I saw that happen by people who have built the likes of coinbase.
I can't imagine any amount of money being so great I couldn't spend it. I could buy islands, companies, maybe even build a city in the desert of Nevada and call it New Vegas.
And even if that wasn't enough, I could just gamble it on everything. Why not throw $100 billion into nuclear fusion research?
I'm confident I could spend the entire world GDP if I had it. I'm not saying I could do it well, but I sure as shit would have fun doing it.
Islands is a common trope. Have you tried living on a tropical island? The weather is pleasant, the food is nice, but it gets boring after a while. There is little to do, and it's really hard to relate with the people who live there: none of them are into hacking or computers.
As for gambling, I've never enjoyed that.
> Why not throw $100 billion into nuclear fusion research?
Because I don't care?
See, you have things you want, things you care about. Then you get them. And eventually there is nothing you desire anymore. Feel free to not believe me if you prefer but that's the cold hard truth.
Biology is the only thing a bit interesting to me. If I didn't have that, I think I would just slide into drugs and eventually OD. The sad story of Tony Hsieh acted as a stern reminder I had to keep my new path.
> I'm confident I could spend the entire world GDP if I had it. I'm not saying I could do it well, but I sure as shit would have fun doing it.
I don't know your goals, and I don't judge them, but if you are trying to get rich (as a lot of people on HN seem to desire) this mindset may be counter productive.
I didn't have the mindset that spending was fun when growing up (asian parenting...) This may be why I didn't spend anything when bitcoin crossed the any of the various price points.
There may be a selection effect: those who end up making over 6 digits of net worth are less likely to enjoy spending - and the more extra digits, the less likely.
Someone on this thread was saying they enjoyed seeing 7 digits in their account this year - I guess they sold at minimum 200 coins. Given the current price path, it's likely to break 150kUSD this summer. So if they had waited a bit, they would have been in the low 8 digits.
Those who sold when the $1 psychological price was passed got themselves a few meals, considering the same amount.
Do you see where it goes? I'm not advocating hodling, because there is a point where you have enough money for anything you want - but I think it's not true for the kind of people who find spending fun, and by consequence were driven to sell early.
>> When you have more than you can spend, many things lose meaning.
Saw that in significant numbers in the rich heirs/esses going while going to a top school
I see it not as a failure caused buy the money, but by the lack of imagination.
As the Bard wrote: "The fault is not in our stars, But in ourselves..."
You now have the freedom to find a new challenge, whether starting your own space program, saving elephants or other species, solving education or poverty... Find something to be useful, dig in, and your passion will find you again.
> I’m living on about US$10,000 to $15,000 a year.
I'm not sure the article decries frugality. Unless I'm really missing something, I don't think you're right. It just says that being financially independent and having "f-you money" are not the same thing. Which I agree with - having enough money to say no to a bad job is plenty enough "f-you money" but I'd want about 20x more to consider myself financially independent.
I don’t get it. That sounds miserable, not like freedom at all. Sure you don’t have to work, but can you really do much else?
Same reason I never understood FIRE. Yeah I can live off a minimal amount of money, but then I can’t afford to do the things I wanted to do if I wasn’t working.
First, I didn't say I was financially independent (at all) let alone based on my current spending.
Second, I didn't mention my current spending, nor did I call it "minimal."
Third, I didn't say I couldn't afford to do things based on the money I do have.
FIRE means literally "financial independence, retire early." None of that prescribes spending the absolute bare minimum just to survive. You may be thinking more along the lines of earlyretirementextreme.com, which embraces a whole different level of independence and capability and minimizing expenses and resource consumption.
But you can reach FIRE simply by accumulating and investing about 25x your annual spending, whatever that spending may be.
Personally, we live in a big house, have a somewhat expensive pet, drive two late model (albeit economical) cars we enjoy, travel, eat well, have nice laptops, etc. We just did and do all spending mindfully and somewhat optimally. Often you can put the Pareto principle into play, and get almost all the enjoyment of something for a fraction of the cost. Sometimes you can simply avoid waste.
I wouldn't say it decries FIRE, it explains the difference between FU money and FIRE.
FIRE is fairly boolean: either you have enough to retire or you don't.
(According to the blogger), FU money is a range. If you don't have FIRE money you might still have enough to say "no" to some things but not to others.
A broke 25 year old kid who can still live in Mom's basement is well into FU money.
Upon ruminating on that concept, I think at the core, fuck you money and UBI are - I can express myself and nothing can financially ruin me or make me homeless.
I consider the private healthcare market in the US to be the same sort of impediment as a lack of UBI - except that when it comes to healthcare it's an even bigger burden to remain with your current employer if you're going through stressful times (i.e. have cancer).
I can relate - I am about to get married, kids will follow soon, and I am already anxious. I have a couple of ideas for indie hacker-type side hustles but not enough time bc I am prepping for tech interviews at FAANGs.
get a 15-yr mortgage. the 30-yr one is a scam. Buy a small condo, hopefully work remote from lower COL (Sacramento even). Live small for a few years, then upgrade incrementally over time. Most importantly, don't max out your budget, especially in rent/30-yr mortgage situation.
When I worked retail in college, “fuck you money” for my colleagues could be as little as $2,500.
One guy I worked with worked from 5am to 2pm in the mall bakery, took a nap in the backroom, the was a line cook from 4p-midnight. Mostly because of some debts and a situation that prevented his wife from working.
FU money means you have more than what you need. Relying on UBI means you become slave to a system that does not depend on you (external) for your survival, which is the opposite of actually having FU money. It's a big old trap.
What you need is a function of what you have come to expect.
Electricity. Wifi. Fast internet. Air conditioning. Running water. Access to nutritious food and good medicine. Some of those are needs, others are not. The ones which are directly maintaining you in good health are needs.
Don't sacrifice your needs (8 hours of sleep a day, for example) for your wants (a shiny new iPhone or bigger apartment) over the years.
It's not black and white. As we give more and more UBI, we rebalance the power dynamic between employers and employees. It starts to obviate the need for minimum wage laws and unions, because people can start to ask for 30 hour work weeks, time off to raise their own kids, study a new career, contribute to science and open source software and so on. They'll be able to take more entrepreneurial risks, too. A society with UBI would have a lot more people contributing to gift economies.
The most serious proposal for UBI in the United States (serious in that people talked about it for a few minutes) was from Andrew Yang, who proposed $1000 a month for all adults. It would be difficult for most people to live on that without getting a lot of other free stuff to go with it.
Only on paper. Taxes on the average income would increase by a compensating $1000/month making it essentially invisible to them and balanced in the government books. It's only on the rich and the poor where the effects would be noticeable.
In practice, it would have a similar impact on the books as a program that gave $1000/month to just the poor people. Giving the money to everybody and then taxing it back from most makes it seem much larger but makes it a wash in practice.
The fed currently takes in about 3.8 in taxes total spends about 4.2 (minus giant things being thrown about currently). About 2.3 is towards 'entitlement programs'. This 'UBI' I would assume would take over the 2.3? Leaving a gap of about 1.5 trillion to make it to the 1000 a month, minus what is given back to those who 'wash'. Plus whatever other deficit is going on?
There is a huge amount of taxes that the ultra-wealthy are currently NOT paying. In fact, the vast majority of income taxes are actually paid by the lower and middle classes, because once you hit a certain level of income you have enough money to pay professionals to help you shelter your money and avoid taxes.
For example, Warren Buffet only paid $1.8 million in taxes in 2015, even though his wealth was worth 72 billion at the time. His wealth literally grew 12 billion that year, and he only paid $1.8 million in taxes.
That means he paid only 0.015% in taxes, in terms of wealth growth vs income taxes paid.
Meanwhile, someone earning $100K would have paid around 20% of their income...
Looking at IRS data, top 1% tax payers in US in 2018 paid 38.5% of the federal income taxes. Bottom 90% paid 28.6%. So I don't think they're as good as hiding their money in the Cayman Islands as you think they are: https://taxfoundation.org/federal-income-tax-data-2021/
In comparison top 10% of the Danish tax payers paid just 31.3% of the total income tax, despite Denmark having rather high taxation (the OECD method that puts it as #1 is controversial, but I pay e.g. a 42% marginal tax rate on any capital gains).
It may only take the rich 5% of their income to pay the 38.5% of total taxes because they're capturing so much of the value generated in America and hiding it whereever.
If I buy a bar of gold it may go up or down in value. Until I cash out, that value is 'locked up'. Do not confuse income with wealth. They are locked at the hip and are very closely related but are not the same thing. That is where most of 'the rich' keep their 'money'. They do not keep most of it in large bank accounts. Take the top 2 guys right now. Most of their 'wealth' is in stocks for 2 companies that have had their valuation go extremely high. Oh they are rich. But if they cashed out they lose control of their companies. You can clearly see what is more important to them. Even the warren buffet example from above is someone who keeps his money in a company that buys other companies and makes them profitable. Lives extremely modestly and plays with coupons. His wealth is locked up in companies that makes jobs. You probably could tax them another 10-20% more and not really move the needle on what they pay. Because they manage their wealth not their income.
$1000/mo is $6.25/hr at 40 hours per week. Minimum wage is only $1/hr more[0] and people are expected to live on that. $6.25/hr with no 40hr time commitment is a pretty sweet deal.
The article's specifically using the term to indicate "I don't have to take/keep a crappy job just to survive", rather than "I'm financially independent of all jobs for every monetary goal", and I'd say that UBI fits that basic idea pretty well.
It's relative - it's FU money for anti-exploitation from bad bosses or abusive spouses you might otherwise be forced to work/live with; UBI could give you a decent living in a small town but not in New York City where the Landlord-Rental complex and gentrification is in full effect.
Universal Basic Income is NOT Fuck You Money as it is totally reliant on government for a source of income. True "Fuck You Money" is having enough in diversified assets to a point you never have to work for anyone the rest of your entire life. It's also not maybe having enough money for a few years as some would seem to suggest here.
I think what the parent meant is no more wage slavery is required to survive, so fu to minimum-wage drudgery. Jobs will have to offer something besides survival
For some people, I imagine, enough to live on IS fu money. Not everyone needs the profligacy of a car, house, travel, etc., a large amount of personal space.
Enough for mental health without the great of losing everything and being homeless.
I think the generous reading, and the one I agree with, is that it is on the scale of "FU money". Any reliable source of income that can satisfy needs means that you have more freedom to refuse to do X, Y, or Z.
This is the key to FU Money, an increase in freedom since your base needs are met and secure; agreed that in common parlance it usually is applied to people that have so much money they can live like a king and say no to whatever they want.
I've always thought UBI and Universal Health Care could be huge boons to the start-up economy. Loosing health insurance and all of their income has to be a major hurdle for many people taking the step to start their own business.
> Loosing health insurance and all of their income has to be a major hurdle for many people taking the step to start their own business.
If that was even remotely true then France would the most active center in the world in terms of business creation. I hate to break the news for you, but it isn't.
I don't think the person you were responding to argued that removing those hurdles would create the most active business creation in the world. Enabling successful business creation is a worthy goal, one I think you'd agree France does accomplish. Not being the superlative isn't the same as failure.
There is UBI in France? How one is protected from loosing the income there? Let's say I give nice warm and fuzzy F-U to my boss and quit. Where do I get money then?
Right, because for it to be true that fear of losing health insurance is a barrier to starting one's own business, it must be true that it's the only factor at play here.
I think there are many other factors that effect this, including the culture itself. I just don't think France has the same culture of entrepreneurship that the US does. Places like Germany or Taiwan are probably better examples.
Not only that, but maybe people closer to retirement would take it earlier and not wait for Medicare to turn on. Opening up positions for the next wave of folks.
I have written about this before, but I believe this perspective is worth repeating.
UBI is a fantastic idea in theory. It is more efficient in terms of capital and human resources than the current system, probably by an order of magnitude or more. However, it does suffer one deep flaw that I haven't seen anyone promoting UBI address.
How do we ensure that UBI doesn't become weaponized against the people it's supposed to be helping?
If UBI is passed it becomes the single most important issue to the majority of voters. Someone running on a platform of 'more money' will (even if it's economically a bad idea) likely win elections based on it. If there is an economic need to decrease the UBI payments it will be the death knell of political careers.
But the biggest concern I have is this:
We've already seen big legislation like the Affordable Care Act come under attack and eventually get essentially removed (in that case overwritten by the American Health Care Act on Mar 4, 2017). What would the damage be to the people who come to rely on UBI as part of the general economic system, only to have it rapidly reduced or removed entirely?
UBI fuels local economies, in long term this is actually more beneficial to economy and recovery from some market crash.
Even if the increase of UBI would be used to get votes, its better then what we currently have - lover taxes for mega rich. At least this way I get something.
I believe some of the original proponents of UBI tended to be for balanced budget amendments. This perhaps yields some sort of equilibrium. Although I can think of some states with balanced budget constitutions that act only nominally to constrain spending, as they are based on abusable projections, so the impediment is not firm.
> Although I can think of some states with balanced budget constitutions that act only nominally to constrain spending, as they are based on abusable projections, so the impediment is not firm.
Most of the sources of misery in the US are economic, unfortunately. The political parties in the US have a long history of being poor trustees of the nation's wealth.
I make the comparison to Norway often because Norway has the world's largest social safety net in the form of their Sovereign Wealth Funds. Norway has $1.1T, roughly $200,000 USD per citizen, that can be used to maintain economic stability and secure social programs even in hard times.
The US absolutely could have accomplished the same thing, but instead we've racked up a national debt per citizen of over $70,000.
>"What would the damage be to the people who come to rely on UBI as part of the general economic system, only to have it rapidly reduced or removed entirely?"
I think removing UBI if you already have one in place would simply cause mass revolt. It would be a suicide for any politician. So unless there is something like mass starvation caused by some catastrophe removing UBI will be off the table.
It is hard for me to think of a situation where UBI would have be decreased that could not be handled better by simply taxing people more. One hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.
My biggest concern is inflation. Adding more cash without also increasing productivity can cause inflation. UBI might improve productivity in a number of ways, but it might not do so enough. I know that proponents of the job guarantee argue that this is the fatal flaw in UBI; that instead people should be guaranteed useful work to do, which in theory would increase productivity to offset the government expenditures to send them paychecks. I do agree that there is a lot of useful work that could get done under such a program (cleaning rivers and streams, etc.), but I'm not convinced that we'd see productivity gains reliably either.
But opponents also complain about wage growth getting too high, almost as if capitalism depends on a class of exploited poor ...
Sounds like those politicians should find something else to cut.
May I suggest: their own salaries or perhaps military spending? I mean, if the country doesn't have the budget, that sounds an awful like it is _their_ fault, not their constiuents'. The constituents aren't elected to figure those things out, they are.
This conservative idea that we have to be all "Aw shucks, we don't have money" is absurd, yet they have enough to give themselves generous salary increases and universal healthcare.
> May I suggest: their own salaries or perhaps military spending?
Personal opinion:
I want to pay every politician even more than they get now - for life. In exchange, they are never allowed to work or own equity in a corporation. Shuts the lobbyists revolving door nonsense down almost immediately. Such an implementation only works if we hold corrupt officials accountable though, we don't want one-term do-nothings to get into office just for the paycheck. So, if you fail to represent the will of the people you lose 95% of the money, or similar.
Cutting military spending I'm generally in favor of. I believe this could be done to a huge degree before we actually have a negative impact on military capability at all. I also believe the military should only be used for actual defense, meaning that militia structures become a meaningful way to bolster national security without incurring an enormous organizational cost.
> This conservative idea that we have to be all "Aw shucks, we don't have money" is absurd, yet they have enough to give themselves generous salary increases and universal healthcare.
It's not conservative, it's corrupt. The conservative view is that we need to secure economic stability, not raid the coffers at every opportunity. But then again, the terms conservative/liberal have lost most of their meaning. I wonder what John Locke would think if he were alive to see how the world turned out.
What if the UBI came not from the treasury but from a big sovereign wealth fund, which could be built up over a period by giving companies the option of transferring a (perhaps non-voting) share of their stock into the fund, in exchange for exemption from corporate income tax?
I just commented a moment ago mentioning Norway. I believe such a fund is a promising idea so long as it is managed in such a way that no politician or political organization could raid it.
If the US had a wealth fund instead of a national debt I believe many of the biggest issues we face could be legitimately solved rather than turned into political footballs.
This doesn't work at the scale of the US. Where would you find sufficient investable assets? A sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway in the US would contain a large fraction of all wealth globally.
Scarcity of investable assets is already a problem. Increasing demand by $50-100T will make it worse. Part of the reason the US issues trillions in debt is to absorb some of the existing demand.
> Where would you find sufficient investable assets?
The land itself, all of the resources in and on it, the industries that operate within the borders, etc.
We don't necessarily need to set aside 200k per capita, but it would be wise to not be at -70k per capita and growing fast, in my opinion.
> A sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway in the US would contain a large fraction of all wealth globally.
If the rest of the world operated on similar principles we would inevitably reach a balance. Regardless, the US would have to clear an enormous sum of debt before we could realistically start filling up the piggy bank.
The solution is separation of powers. Let the amount of the UBI be determined by an independent institution (like a judicial body) based on predefined criteria, put that mechanism into the constitution, and obviously have any kind of corruption or bribery be a criminal offense. It’s certainly not a 100% foolproof, but would go a long way.
I’ll leave Naval Ravikant’s reasoning why UBI is a terrible idea since he should have much more clout here on HN than me. I am honestly dumbfounded that HN always seems to be so absolutely pro-UBI, like it’s a magic bullet that will end poverty and all of human suffering. People want to earn their money. It feels better, it promotes self-confidence and also is part of the ethos of America.
“The moment you start having a direct transfer mechanism like that in democracy, you're basically doing away with capitalism which is the engine of economic growth. You're also forcing the entrepreneur out, or telling them not to come here."
"People who are down on their luck, they're not looking for handouts. It's not just about money, it's also about status and meaning. The moment I start giving money to you, I've lowered your status and made you a second class citizen.”
I think the idea is that a UBI would provide only enough money for subsistence, and the human drive for greater wealth and status would continue unabated. Status and meaning are certainly important, and people would continue to seek those out.
It's possible that many more people would want to become entrepreneurs, given that there would be a social safety net if they failed. Right now, most entrepreneurs come from an upper middle-class background, often with financial assistance and cushioning from their parents.
$1000 a month is not going to reduce anybody's drive to work. It'll pay for food and rent if you have a roomie, but nothing else. If you want a new phone, you need to work. If you can't stand having a roomie, more work. Et cetera.
And the thing about UBI is that everybody gets money, even Bill Gates. So nobody's a second class citizen.
All that happens with UBI is that prices meet demand and rise. Dollars are worth less. There is never going to be a situation where we just hit the printing press and everybody gets to live a leisurely good life. Living a good life really comes down to national production and logistics more than money distribution (the rich have piles of money but they dont typically consume in line with their wealth, like Jeff Bezos is not taking up 50 nurses or buying 100 single family homes or eating 100x his share of food).
For example if I gave everyone 250k and told them to all go out and buy a ferrari, its actually impossible. There are not enough cars and prices would rise substantially to box out people again. The same principal goes for homes, healthcare, education, etc. The best way to increase standard of living is to increase production and efficiency to meet everyone's needs in all service and product categories.
Assume rent was your only expense, and your landlord currently charges you $1000/mo rent. He cannot charge you $1200/mo because you can't bear it. If he learns that you started getting $200/mo for free, he can easily raise your rent to $1200/mo. Now in the real world, we have multiple expenses, so prices rises will happen proportionally among them. The consumers with UBI can bear price increases, so the producers will soak it up.
Alternately, UBI allows you to quit your job, move to WV and pay $200 for rent.
What constrains your landlord from jacking up rent is competition. If he jacks up rent by $200 but the landlord across the street has an empty apartment he'd be glad to rent out for $1000 he'll think twice about jacking your rent.
The housing crisis in America is a supply issue. UBI has nothing to do with it.
Inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon. If they pay for UBI with deficit spending it might crank up inflation, but if it's fully funded it won't.
So being a current homeowner, do I have a financial interest in preventing new houses from being built?
I remember, back around 2008, houses were popping up everywhere. You don't really see much of that anymore, at least in my experience. ALSO, lumber prices are HIGH and its not as profitable to build new houses, at the moment. But what if this is a larger lumber shortage/sustainability issue? What then?
Could it be a mix of material supply issues and interest groups that are maintaining a housing shortage?
> So being a current homeowner, do I have a financial interest in preventing new houses from being built?
Only if you're using your home as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. But that has the same problems as eg, farmers and/or grocers having a financial interest in engineering a famine in order to drive up food prices.
> Could it be a mix of material supply issues and interest groups that are maintaining a housing shortage?
Probably, yes, plus various other factors in varying amounts.
Well to start it would eliminate MASSIVE amounts of gov't beuracracy.
The entire disjointed and bloated gov't safety net apparatus of food stamps, WIC, Rental Subsidies, EITC, disability, unemployment, and more. would go away along with the bloated salaries of the people who run all of those programs.
So massive amounts of tax money would be saved at the start.
UBI is actually a small government conservatives dream.
Then there's also the possibility that the jobs it creates from increased demand due to an economy with a much higher flow of money, could have a deflationary aspect which would allow the money printer to go brr a little bit.
Then also, who know what kinds of new innovation would happen from smart people free to pursue their own goals without worrying about financial insecurity.
Taxes would go up on the rich probably moderately.
But it's doable and affordable and the country would be so much better off in my opinion.
UBI is a sham that only drives inflation. At first it looks and acts like a stimulus. Over time it just drives inflation. Rent will go up proportional to your UBI and your landlord will make more money but you won't, for example.
The point is the relative effect is has between people to counteract inequality. If Alice has a job, and Bob is unemployed and broke, Alice has infinity times the purchasing power of Bob. Bob may only need a tiny bit of purchasing power to start his economic engine and get ahead, but his battery is at 0% and he's screwed. The point is to get enough juice in the battery to start the engine. And yes, the cost might be some inflation, but predictions of inflation have lately failed: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/23/970595276/bond-voyage
Where does the UBI money come from? How do we pay for UBI?
In year 1, Bob has extra money. By year 3 Bob's rent goes up. Did Bob's UBI go up proportionally to his rent? After a few years, Bob ends up in the same place - unless we keep injecting more money over time, which creates inflation.
In theory, the cool thing about UBI is that you can dismantle all that other stuff and just have the one safety net that covers everybody, replacing the piecemeal safety nets that are supposed to catch people in certain situations.
The money, as always, is made by a combination of the machines which actually do all of the required production, and the treasury, which prints little game tickets you can use to make other people dance for you.
Actually, inflation is not as simple as you have described it. There is a great NPR's Planet Money episode touching the waters of why the inflation does not behave as we think it is [1].
The people you're talking to literally believe you can print value.
> The money, [...] the treasury, which prints little game tickets you can use to make other people dance for you.
They think there's a printer somewhere, and some jerk sitting next to it who just won't print enough money. If only he'd print more, we'd all be billionaires!
Great, so give Bob a scholarship, or a grant, or welfare, or just a gift. Something that gives him that hand-up but without turning into a permanent right.
If UBI becomes a right, and you raise a generation who doesn't need to work, what do you do when there's a recession? Cut UBI and watch the riots start? Or drive off the cliff at speed because the non-working class can't be denied?
True, wages haven't kept up with inflation that resulted from foolhardy monetary policy. Mandating increased wages is a bandaid on a gushing wound. We cannot continue debasing our currency and hope it makes a robust economy. A thriving economy requires a stable currency. Fiat by its nature is unstable.
That is false. Over the long term the value of a full reserve gold backed currency is stable. When politicians print more money than they have in gold is when things start to go wonky.
Thankfully there are more than two people on earth and this edge case won't happen. Because many people are nearly at zero there are a number of also-poor merchants selling low-end goods, and Bob is able to trade a small amount of labour for the goods he needs, and can work his way up.
> yes, the cost might be some inflation, but predictions of inflation have lately failed
For a time, anything may remain out of sync. But you can't get more money from less workers. You can't redistribute to provide UBI, you have to print it, and that devalues the currency.
Even sillier, most UBI proposals are tied to a consumer index, such that when the currency was devalued you would print and distribute more, but with zero concern for the actual workers whose salaries are not also being inflated to match. Eventually the premium for working will be small enough that you'd be a fool for having a job.
And of course "predictions of inflation have lately failed". Because nobody is giving out UBI on a large enough scale. It's suicide. Even tax-and-spend bread-and-circus providing pols still want to be in power next year, so there's a limit to what they can print, and how widely they can distribute it.
Take from the few to give to the vast hordes. No chance that'll go wrong.
Quick question, why do I want to keep producing when I just get taxed to pay for those who refuse to work? So next year you've got one more mouth to feed and a lot less resources to do so.
But it's okay, print more money to give to the last guy working, quadrillions of dollars, and tax him at 99.999999% and redistribute (totally not print, not at all) those inflated dollars to everyone. We'll all be rich!
Sure, even at 90% you're still only doing the work of nine others, but at seven nines there'll only be a handful of productives in an entire country, each doing the work of millions and collecting only a single share. When collecting UBI pays as well as working to pay into UBI, why would anyone work it?
That's the theory, but once UBI is a right it'll be easier to demand more than to supplement with a job. The experiments show nothing about the lasting effects of mass UBI. The two main problems that make the experiments meaningless are that they don't impact the whole city, which would clearly drive prices up either making the UBI less useful, or require tying it to a housing-price index which means it'd just go up endlessly, and that the experiments also don't last long enough for these systemic changes.
Further, the UBI experiments don't produce any benefit beyond one-time grants, as seen in other experiments, perhaps even less because the trickle payment doesn't give you the capital to move to find better work or anything.
Lifetime welfare has proven harmful, how will super-welfare be better? If anything has destroyed American cities its welfare ghettos and the malaise and crime that comes with it.
> UBI is how you make sure everyone has Fuck-You money.
Which is partly why there's so much opposition from the powers that be. Similar for universal healthcare - these things reduce the amount of power employers have over employees.
Why would we want to give money to people who won't work? And how would it be a benefit to those whose money would be used?
Welfare attempts to uplift people, but UBI is never ending and would come to be seen as a right, not a gift. Welfare makes people and communities stronger, UBI would not.
Whatever the massez do, it'll be while force-fed soma. If we do have a huge privileged class who doesn't need to work we can't risk them getting uppity and continually demanding more so we'll keep them on a short leash.
And even if something like UBI ever happened, don't imagine that the productive will share power. It'll be a box, VR helmet, drugged soylent, and you'd happy with it.
It can't be anything else, and everyone should realize it. There's no UBI-topia out there for people, should they simply come to consensus and demand it from their pols. It's wishful thinking and the simple concept hurts more than it helps.
Be afraid of the person who offers you this nonsense.
The obvious solution is to pay 50% of the unemployed population to dig holes and pay the other 50% of them to fill the holes in. Because, clearly it's a huuuuge problem if someone gets money without working for it.
No, it's a huuuuuge problem when people become addicted to easy money and never work again. Why would they, it's their right to get paid not to.
Welfare is better than UBI because welfare ends. Welfare encourages competence and self-reliance. And welfare can be extended in cases where there really aren't any jobs. It can do what UBI does, but without the fatal flaws.
Anyone who currently receives sufficient passive income gets "easy" money, reducing their need to work if they don't want to. Should we end dividends, royalties, and pensions?
Why do they need to strive? They don't. They totally could be happy as you describe. But you know they won't be. They aren't wired to be happy with a little because they won't value it because they didn't work for it.
For a depression-era farmer even a little success was still survival and so it mattered. But for someone who doesn't do anything to produce their own goods and so never feels accomplished because of skill or effort, anything less than what the other guy has will be intolerable. They won't work for anything, so they won't accept hard work as a reason why the other guy deserves to get to keep what he produced, and they'll steal it, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Robots taking manufacturing jobs allows a reallocation of people, it doesn't make them obsolete.
But UBI would definitely support that line of thinking. "Dad is given a stipend by the government because there are no jobs for him, so why would I strive?"
If people are the common resource then customer service will be the career of the future. You may not drive the car, but you could be the voice of the fleet. There will always be a chance to make the lives of those around you better in some way and you can use this to provide for yourself.
But, that aside, why should the productive care whether you do or not? Let's say self-driving cars do put you out of business, but we acknowledge that you didn't really do anything to make yourself employable. Why do you deserve any resources, let alone a comfortable amount, for not doing anything? And deserve, shmerve, why should I be so stupid as to let you take it from me? If I work I'll simply horde a bit of food and then stop working until the UBI stops and you starve, then I'll start producing again. So why not admit this up front and treat you like an excess coyote population? Spay/neuter you, or maybe leave poisoned food(-stamps) around?
Welfare at least is intended to help people become self-actualized and productive, but UBI is designed specifically to remove all incentive to ever help anyone else. UBI is what someone would come up with after reading the CIA manual on sabotage and thinking - how do I apply this to my entire civilization?
UBI will just be hugely inflationary and people will vote in the politicians who promise them the most money every election cycle until the currency debasement causes economic instability. Nothing will change in peoples well being because that rests on logistics, not how much money anyone has. Theres only so many homes, nurses, spots at schools - giving people a paycheck that is more worthless every time its issued changes none of that. I can give every single person in the country 1 million dollars and there are still only so many nice homes. Nothing changes.
Everytime UBI comes up I see a slew of common arguments about inflation and rents. I think those are debateable. But globalism isn't. If everyone gets some money for free, the cost of labor will need to go up, because the marginal utility of those salaries will be lower. This is especially true for people at the bottom, but also for those in the middle. To some extent this will raise prices, specifically to the point at which the lower class needs to work to survive, because That Is How It Works. But they will still probably be better off, debateably. What isn't clear is what happens to all of the jobs that can be exported to countries without UBI that are now that much cheaper. If you raise the price of labor and jobs leave the country, you've made the country net poorer, and in all likelihood increased wealth inequality by squeezing people out of the middle.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, UBI is implemented by the pure redistribution of wealth. No debt. No draining some capital reserve. Steady state redistribution.
The act of distributing wealth to new people will shift demand in accordance with their demands. The newly UBI-ed masses won't be chasing the same rich-men goods as the rich men they soaked. The aggregate demand for not-rich-man goods will go up. So then those prices will go up.
When the price for goods goes up without any increase in their quality, all else constant, that's inflation. At least by my layman's understanding.
Why do you keep insisting that redistribution won't cause inflation?
But the supply for most 'not-rich-man goods' is made of commodities and is highly scalable and economic productivity will increase to match demand.
And the increased productivity/value from the economy will have a deflationary aspect that you're not considering.
This as a side effect also creates jobs and just generally increases the well being of the middle class and poor as a whole not just from the UBI.
This will also distribute the population throughout the country more evenly so rent prices will go down as well... as people don't have to live in certain areas that happen to have jobs and can afford to innovate in B.F.E without the risk of becoming homeless if they fail which in aggregate will have some businesses succeed and stimulate those areas of the country.
> economic productivity will increase to match demand
True, but not instantaneously. The lag there is inflation at work.
> But the supply for most 'not-rich-man goods' is made of commodities...
Desireable housing near good jobs, high quality education, effective health care, child care in a regulatory environment, convenient transportation. These are not highly elastic. That's a lot of most people's expenses if they can be afforded.
> And the increased productivity/value from the economy...
How does paying people not to work increase available labor to apply to productive endeavors?
> ...have a deflationary aspect that you're not considering.
How does handing someone $5 increase the intrinsic value of any good?
UBI is meant to replace government safety nets. It's meant for survival, not for education healthcare and all those other things you mentioned.
>How does handing someone $5 increase the intrinsic value of any good?
You should go back and re-read what I wrote. Might be beneficial to check out an econ 101 book so you kind of understand deflation as well as inflation, and just generally how the value of money works.
UBI is a path to government dependence for everybody. Making the government bigger and making everybody rely on it to survive is very likely to turn out worse than reducing the size of government and letting people keep their earned money.
UBI removes massive amounts of gov't bureaucracy in the bloated and disjointed safety net programs in the US and the bloated gov't salaries of the people running them.
I would need proof of that claim. As it has been proposed UBI is in addition to existing welfare programs. We cant even pay for the current budget. How are we supposed to add more?
Replacing other social safety net programs is not how UBI has been proposed. It has been sold as a guaranteed income for all. Not once has discontinuing other social safety net programs been included in UBI proposals. It is always "we could replace all programs with UBI". If the end of other programs is not included in a UBI bill then we will end up with both... forever.
So, I will ask again. We can't afford what we have. How can we add more?
I didn't imply that at all. If the government already can't pay their bills then adding anything to the budget should be untenable until the deficit is covered.
What happens if everyone says Fuck-You, though? I mean, at the end of the day, we need farmers, truckers, grocery store workers, and a whole host of people in between to make sure we don't starve. How do we make sure people keep working these necessary-but-sometimes-grueling jobs in a world where they could just quit and be on the UBI?
I've followed a few, Get Rich Slowly, Mr. Money Mustache, and Jim Collins, which has a great series of posts on long-term investing.
I'm wrapping up six months of unemployment this week, and I didn't have a care in the world during that time. We didn't lose money, our investments grew more than ever, and we spent lots of time together however we pleased. I'm not able to retire permanently, and I return to paid work on Tuesday, but there is great peace of mind in having "f-you money," especially if you do live a bit frugally and keep your mandatory, recurring expenses low.
As a common trope in tech, it's at least as old as 1999. From Cryptonomicon:
The subject heading of Avi's first message is: "Guideline 1."
We look for places where the math is right. Meaning what? Meaning that
pop. is about to explode we can predict that just by looking at age
histogram and per capita income is about to take off the way it did in
Nippon, Taiwan, Singapore. Multiply those two things together and you get
the kind of exponential growth that should get us all into fuck you money
before we turn forty.
This is an allusion to a Randy/Avi conversation of two years ago
wherein Avi actually calculated a specific numerical value for "fuck you
money." It was not a fixed constant, however, but rather a cell in a
spreadsheet linked to any number of continually fluctuating economic
indicators. Sometimes when Avi is working at his computer he will leave the
spreadsheet running in a tiny window in the corner so that he can see the
current value of "fuck you money" at a glance.
this isn't quite the same term but in 1989, legend is that some Microsoft employees wore buttons or shirts with the acronym FYIFV; the IFV is "I'm fully-vested." A more outwardly passive-aggressive version of the term.
Outside of financial bloggers, you can trace it back to at least the 1920s:
> Humphrey Bogart used to keep a $100 bill in his dresser drawer at all times—a decent chunk of change in the 1920s. He referred to it as his ‘fuck-you money’, because it meant he’d never be forced to take a crappy part. According to Bogie, the only good reason for making money was “so you can tell any son-of-a-bitch in the world to go to hell”.
Ten points for whoever spots the source of my quoted section.
Perhaps, but it was in common usage in 2000 as demonstrated from this quote in the Economist in 2001. Yes, they use the exact phrase, “Fuck-you money” to mean ~$10M or enough to throw off several hundred $K a year in cash.
To be clear, the fine article does bring up the phrase as quite old, and I like his idea of FU-Frugality since you don't actually need to have that much money (or madskilz) to be able to Say No to dumb stuff.
JL Collins was I think my introduction to the financial independence concept though I'd "accidentally" been investing in index funds and for retirment before. That series of posts (the "Stock Series") is great and it's available in edited book form called "The Simple Path to Wealth."
Or for a video intro, he gave this 1hr Talk@Google:
I'm not sure I agree with the author about FU money not equaling FIRE money. I've always thought FU levels of money let you say FU at a level that could hurt your career, not at a level that could only hurt your job.
I've got a healthy savings account, but I couldn't say FU to my boss because I'm not sure how that would affect me getting another job.
Yeah I think the authors reference to ‘no thanks’ money is closer to the mark. Just enough to remove the fear of saying no but not burning bridges on your way out.
Burning bridges is always a bad idea. You never know when your fortunes might shift. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment. If actual risk doesn't get you, inflation will.
You don't have to literally say "fuck you" to the boss. I just told them I was quitting. The project was delayed another 6 months (which meant 18 total) and I was miserable, clearly I wasn't productive anymore. I was even honest about it when they asked my plan, "I have enough money and assets to last 2-4 years right now depending on how frugal I am. I'm going to sell or give away everything in my apartment, my lease is up next month, and I'll buy a ticket to Spain and start there." (I ended up getting another job instead, no regrets as it turned out well.)
I was nowhere near FIRE, but I had enough money I didn't have to stay in a bad or undesirable situation.
> I've got a healthy savings account, but I couldn't say FU to my boss because I'm not sure how that would affect me getting another job.
You don't have to literally say "FUCK YOU!" to your boss and storm out - sure, that _might_ effect your future job prospects (but then again, maybe not). Instead you can say "I would prefer not to" and give 2 weeks notice. Doubtful that would effect your future job prospects. If you're worried about your current boss giving you a good reference there are other people (co-workers, previous managers) who can do that if s/he is unlikely to do so.
I've had fuck you money for a few years in illiquid form. But this year is the first year I started selling stock and crypto and pushed my checking account into seven figures. The psychological impact of that is quite huge.
Its not just about being able to say fuck you ... I have always done that. There's a peace of mind that comes from knowing that no matter what happens to me, my kids have enough cash just sitting there to eat, get health care, and pay for their education ... until they are old enough to handle things on their own.
Why would you have 7 figures in a checking account? In the US, FDIC would only cover $250K of that in case of bank failure. It's a small risk (unless you're using a very small bank), but why take it?
If you literally mean in a checking account, I'm curious what your reasoning is for keeping seven figures in liquid assets. Aren't you just losing money to inflation?
This is pure attitude. I used to say I had "fuck you bus fare," which admittedly depends on a robust regional public transit system, but the principle is the same.
Sure, it's good to do things like getting your finances in order, clean your room, etc., but there is a choice you can make about how you relate to the world where your happiness is not conditional or contingent on other things. Choose it, and keep choosing it, and when you notice you don't, choose it again.
The OPs part II of the article is about that kind of stoic view, and where I disagree with him is he frames it as there being something standing between you and "serenity." However, it could be just a device, as who would listen to someone that told them there was nothing external standing in their way. Surely, what kind of asshole would say that to someones face?
A boy with a skateboard and a bus pass doesn't have to take shit from anybody.
I'm impressed he can live on 10k/year. Thats not even enough for rent in a small city in the US unless you're knee-deep in roommates or a heroin squat.
Love it. It's a lifestyle I actively subscribe to.
I'm climbing the FIRE treadmill like this guy talks about. I live frugally, and I save like a madman. I'm on track to have stable, passive income for myself, and my family, for the rest of my life, by the time I hit 45. And I'm certainly not living like a monk along the way.
And you know what? I've got a huge war chest that I can pull from if I ever need to tell someone "Fuck you". I may not be financially independent yet, but I have more than enough money to tell a boss who wants me to do boring, shitty work to fuck off if I ever need to.
Thankfully, I don't have to right now. But things can change in the blink of an eye. Fuck you money is a condensed store of options for when things get rough.
When we're talking about passive income in a general sense, are we talking about buying stocks and funds that generate dividends and/or growth that sustain a 4% (or whatever) sell-off rate to pay for basic life needs, but the asset is valuable enough to keep chugging along despite that? Thanks.
I was reasonably close to hitting my FIRE goal, assuming I wanted to continue living as frugally as I had been, when I was laid off.
I had to decide: do I pull the trigger now, and work on some kind of part-time project to try to fill in the little bit I'm missing, or do I find another six-figure job? I realized pretty quickly the decision was stressing me out, which for me, made the choice easy. I booked a flight to Hong Kong and planned to look for another job in about six months.
Of course, life being what it is, I met my now-wife in Hong Kong, so I've extended my career for a few more years to make things even more comfortable. Still, I definitely feel like I am well-situated enough that I could walk away from anything, take some time off, and find another job "whenever."
I envy you. Everybody (who has a boss) endures at least a little boring, shitty work. If it gets to be too much, the antidote is to start seriously looking for another job. Or write some automation scripts and chill out.
Fuck you money is reserved (or should be) for much more egregious offenses: Pettiness. Hypocrisy. Withholding compensation from you for made-up reasons. Not upholding promises. Instituting new rules arbitrarily to suppress you. Negating excellent performance with irrelevant attributes on a "performance evaluation."
These are the types of things that seriously throw off your economic planning, both in wasted time and missing dollars. This is what you save the f-u fund for, so you can avoid the above at all costs.
> Fuck you money is reserved (or should be) for much more egregious offenses
Why?
I'm not saying that once you have FU money you are entitled to be a primadonna and expect everybody else to bend over for you. Of course not.
But if there's anything you don't like about your current job, it enables you to discuss it without fear of not being able to meet your financial obligations.
So, as long as you are not a jerk about it, what is the problem with taking advantage of the leverage you now have?
To me, the definition of "Fuck-You Money" is being so affluent that you can make a frivolous change/purchase/investment that will not put a dent in you financially.
If I had Fuck-You Money, I'd buy a manual transmission sports car without knowing how to drive stick. In the event that I messed up the clutch, I'd buy a new car.
Money by itself is useless, it's like a tool in a toolbox that needs to be used in order to be effective. Un-allocated capital translates into options: things you could do, if you wanted to. And that in turn translates into less stress and a safety net.
But once spent it is no longer available in that role so the big trick is to ensure that your 'stash' doesn't diminish in an unsustainable way if you should ever have to tap into it. The rate at which you can tell people to get lost has a pretty hard limit unless you reach a really high level of independence and even then: what goes up can come down. So be careful how frequently you tell people to get lost, it's a small world.
I'm amazed by the author's $10-15k/year spending [1]. I subscribe to the FI portion of FIRE and am very frugal 99% of the time but wow, some of these bloggers are spending an impossibly small amount of money per year by geographical arbitrage.
I wonder how many people that subscribe to FIRE are in the US, especially VHCOL or HCOL places where incomes are likely to be high.
My conservative 2bd rent exceeds the author's YEARLY budget in 3 months here in SoCal. I would love to cut back even more but I touched the limit on where I started giving up on happiness and satisfaction if I optimized my expenses too much.
I guess I'm realizing that these folks are truly outliers, how many people that subscribe to FIRE are actually practicing geographical arbitrage, especially if you're considering having a family with kids, pets and a home?
Living frugally implies living in a low cost of living area. Practically none of these people are preaching that you can maintain your same lifestyle and just magically cut 80% of your expenses (the trick is finding the cuts that save lots of money but don’t sacrifice as much quality of life). You’re not going to do it in Southern California. I would go so far as to claim that anyone preaching FIRE concepts in California is probably not eating their own dog food or has some other consideration that doesn’t apply to most people (has a big inheritance/trust fund, sold a company, had their parents give them their house, etc.) If you want to do FIRE and aren’t just rich already, you definitely have to live elsewhere. You’re going to do it in a remote area with crappy internet and cold winters. You can do it with a family, but your kids will complain and you had better hope your spouse is on board. It’s clearly not for everyone. If it were easy lots of people would do it.
It doesn't need to be a remote area with crappy internet and cold winters. Within the US there are non-remote parts of NC, TN, GA, TX that are near big cities (airport access, access to certain categories of entertainment that mostly happens in big cities) but still in big enough towns to offer a great lifestyle unless you really need the club scene. Good houses are in the $100-250k range with decent, but not always stellar, amounts of land. These are towns/counties in the 50-150k population range.
My genetic grandfather (long story) in West Virginia is living with 800$ a year. 200 goes to property taxes, 24 for the gas well, the rest is for oil, repairs/tools and his weekly meat (and grain for his beer) (living beside a small creek, between two small rivers help a lot with growing your own food).
His horses died twenty years ago but from what i understand, since two young ladies are now living with his community, they want to remake the barn and get some sheeps and maybe a new horse. I'm pretty sure that i can get to FU money in 5 years if i go live there, i'm just not really interested (and i will have to get a US citizenship so :/).
I think it highlights why doing that kind of stuff now is more difficult. I know people here in California paying a few thousand $ in property tax on their million dollars houses because they bought decades ago (Thanks Prop-13) but how will someone like me, a fairly recent newcomer afford their tens of thousands $ of property taxes for a new home I buy here?
Will inflation eat away at our money such that in 30-40 years from now my tens of thousands $ of property taxes will be similar to the $800/yr your grandfather is paying now? I doubt it.
I think that others are saying is true, you just have to pick up and move from expensive places if you want to reduce your costs significantly, no two ways about it.
You mentioned "growing your own food". How much work is invested in that activity? If you put a price on it, would it be just as cheap to work at a job and use that income to buy the food? For example frozen vegetables are about $1 to $2 per package. Eggs are about $1 / dozen. Bread is $2 a loaf. So purchasing what you could reasonably grow yourself would be at most $10 per day. So working 6 weeks at $15 per hour would buy you whatever you grow on the farm.
(Yes, I realize that most people spend a bit more than $10 a day on groceries, my budget is $800 a month for 2 adults and a kid, I'm just referring to the items that you would normally grow yourself such as vegges and eggs).
I'm in the suburbs of SD, paying $3k for an older but updated 2bd townhouse. It's definitely not luxury, I saw what saving $200-400/mo would get me and it definitely wasn't comfortable.
the article and the comments here rather neatly miss the point of the movie.
whether or not you have FU money (or what FU money is) is the wrong question. john goodman, whom the article quotes, is not a protagonist. the safety goodman is describing is exactly what mark wahlberg cant stand.
"You're born... as a man... with the nerves of a soldier, the apprehension of an angel, to lift a phrase, but there is no use for it. Here? Where's the use for it? You're set up to be a philosopher or a king or Shakespeare, and this is all they give you? This?"
perhaps your first instinct is to think this is a first-world problem, an ignorance of privilege, but remember - wahlberg is in debt to two bookies that will likely kill him, and he triples down on a loan from a third who promises to kill not just him but also his whole bloodline. to whit:
“The only thing worth doing is the impossible. Everything else is gray.”
I have a family of 5 and I live in California. I don't think its possible to get my expenses down like the author proposes here. Heck, property tax is over 10k a year by itself.
I've come to the conclusion the author just isn't considering people with families in this equation. I lived with intermittent work or no work at all when I was single & childless, but I can't say "fuck you" to my wife and kids and bring them along a journey of poverty because I want to thumb my nose at the system. For better or worse.
> Companies prefer hiring employees who have families, and mortgages to service, and who faithfully trot along on the consumerism treadmill. As Nassim Taleb points out, it’s the only way you can legally ‘own’ a person today.
I really hope Taleb doesn't say this because it's really really stupid. You can call a situation bad without comparing it to chattel slavery.
As someone with family, I am curious about how others with families approach this "fuck-you" topic. I suppose it just doesn't include us, as we've made the choice to assume responsibilities that are (or should be) impossible to walk away from. If saying fuck you to a salary includes saying fuck you to my wife and kids, well I'm not going to do that. And believe it or not it doesn't make me feel like a literal slave to my employer.
For single people (especially younger) it's great advice I think. You're unattached, that has its own benefits, why not make the most of it?
>> Companies prefer hiring employees who have families, and mortgages to service, and who faithfully trot along on the consumerism treadmill. As Nassim Taleb points out, it’s the only way you can legally ‘own’ a person today.
> I really hope Taleb doesn't say this because it's really really stupid. You can call a situation bad without comparing it to chattel slavery.
Whether talking about FIRE or just "f-you money", it means having enough money to amply take care of your responsibilities regardless of your situation, with enough of a runway to find another source of income.
There may be situations (and professions) where burning one bridge burns all bridges and your only option after all that will be change your line of work, or take a huge pay cut. Ideally, you always make your choices about ongoing costs in a way that you aren't tying yourself to some high level of income and thus eliminating all sense of "f-you" options.
During my six months of unemployment, my unemployment payments covered my required expenses, for most months - all responsibilities, same food as when I was employed. Due to the pandemic, we didn't spend as much on travel, and certain forms of entertainment, but we spent more on others. That's just because my life and my spending is designed that way.
This is all a roundabout way of saying "avoid lifestyle inflation" which very commonly occurs where every raise is accompanied by spending more and more money. Getting a car to signal your raise. Moving into a more expensive house/neighborhood. We certainly spend money on things we enjoy, but in general there's a law of diminishing returns, and lots of spending fails to bring the joy we think it will.
So yes, "f-you money" should be defined by you as having more than enough to say "no" to a bad situation, while still being able to comfortably care for your family, and to avoid imposing painful restrictions on their lives while you seek new income.
I lived somewhere less expensive (small town, out of the way) and in addition to being a big drag on income (9 of 10 jobs were a "no" from the start because they didn't hire remote) I ultimately didn't like the lifestyle.
Now I live somewhere with a high cost of living (Toronto) because I'm near work, my kids can ride transit rather than driving (much safer for teens) and it means I'm not spending my time as a soccer-practice chauffeur, universities are nearby as well as good hospitals etc., lots of cultural stuff I like. But it's expensive.
From the article "one or two years’ worth of living expenses" if your goal is financial independence, opting work for two years is insane, unless you can bring your expenses down to next-to-nothing as the author suggests. Having two years of expenses for a family of 6 is whole different ballgame than what this fellow is talking about, it's apples and oranges.
As a single person I could get up and move somewhere cheaper, sleep in tent and eat out of the dumpster for that matter (I've done it before, I can do it again) but this is not something I can do with/to my family.
I have been struggling with same topic and here is where I landed up at(specific to US). I have a pretty frugal lifestyle and after my kids go to college, I can live on much less that my current expenses. I have set a limit on how much I am willing to save for my kids. I want to have enough money for in-state college tuition for their undergrad. My kids go to a public school, and I spending more for living in a good school district, but that is cheaper than private schools and the time here is limited . My biggest fear is around the medical expenses as we grow older and my current thought process is that we will move out of US once the kids go to college.
TLDR - I need to work for a limited period of time, but see the light at the end of the tunnel.
> My biggest fear is around the medical expenses as we grow older and my current thought process is that we will move out of US once the kids go to college.
Believe me, I've done this math. :)
On a completely unrelated note, check out the Canadian Express Entry system. I have lived in Toronto for a bit over three years now and I never worry about medical bankruptcy any more.
These people discuss having $5M or $10M before you can relax and feel you have "f u money"
I encourage everyone to read through the blog of this fellow, Mr Money Mustache, which I discovered many years ago. Early Retirement through Badassity. It's not just about having enough money for all your wants. It's about reducing your wants to just your needs.
Another great book about it is the Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Stoicism is like the Western Buddhism, and probably developed around the same time.
Basically, learn to separate your wants from your needs, and make sure your needs are covered several times over. It's not black and white -- we as a society come to expect more and more, but previous generations did not all have their own house, they didn't even have clean water running to their house.
I would say needs is whatever can maintain you in optimal health, and everything that supports that. Everything else is more and more optional, and you can practice (like going to the gym) denying yourself gratification in those things.
It is also why orthodox Jews, and the Amish, and others, have lifestyles where their health and emotional well-being is often independent of how much stuff they have. In the US, unfortunately, we have an opiate epidemic, a quarter of middle-aged women are on antidepressants, the kids are overmedicated with ADHD, and the elderly in the old folks home are on all sorts of things. All so our society could have a "good economy", specialization, all young adults can live in their large air conditioned apartments alone, etc. This is extremely different than most traditional societies around the world, where families live together, children are watched by grandparents and respect their elders etc. and there is quite a lot of collectivism and people aren't "spoiled" by individualism and wealth.
And also perhaps consider that this stoicism is not just for money, but also for sexual gratification and attraction to one's partner, as well. Easier said than done, but just like waiting to have $5M to be truly able to relax and be happy, maybe waiting for the most attractive and compatible person to come along to start a family, is something society has been telling us to do. As for me, I couldn't become a stoic in this department LOL, so I appreciate any insights.
I met Pete Adeney (Mr. Money Moustache, or MMM) in his hometown of Longmont, CO, in 2017. Back then I was trying to build "the city of the future", and he was into that stuff too.
I already liked him through his blog; but after that meeting, I liked him even more.
He's authentic. Even more so in person.
Most of his advice is really sound. I hardly find anything I disagree with.
I don't agree much with his stance on Bitcoin [0], but I really like that he's trying to defend people from the quasi-religious crypto-zealots that populate Twitter these days.
More than 85% of the people in the world live on less than $30 per day [0]. Many of us in the US are accustomed to such a high quality of life we can't even fathom what it's like for the vast majority of the world's population. Being frugal and giving 10% to cost-effective charities is what I choose to do (see Giving What We Can [1] )
I'm not a charitable person (I'm only concerned with caring for myself and my loved ones), but even then I never understand this kind of mentality. At $100k income (assuming no tax), 10% is $10,000. How much does that come out to over 10, 20, 30, even 50 years? Even if I were charitable I'd still rather save and invest everything, so that that money can grow and I can donate more later. Instead of a lump sum of 10k today, why not have an amount of wealth that can provide a continuous supply of funds from interest?
Because the benefits individuals receive today compound.
Consider how much of a health cost there is to being sick with malaria? Preventing a case of malaria is likely to have a much more positive effects (compounded into the far future) than doubling the donation in the future. Especially that malaria is a transmittable disease: lower the population of those carrying malaria, you have fewer malaria cases in the future.
Prevention often costs far less than curing. Look at the positive effects of smallpox eradication!
Yes, and this is even more relevant now in the pandemic. Many countries have agreed to ensure access to COVID vaccines for third world, yet they are still getting pretty much none, while Europe is already full of scandals with celebrities and rich people skipping priority lines and getting vaccinated
> Because the benefits individuals receive today compound.
The benefits I could give tomorrow after saving and investing my charity money would be greater than what I have today, plus the appreciation, and then the impact would be enormously more significant after that compounds, too.
To use your example of malaria: "The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced three grants totaling $258.3 million for advanced development of a malaria vaccine" [1]. The BAMGF is able to benefit more people and benefit them more because of their wealth. If they had immediately given every dollar they'd made in their lives to the local homeless person/community, the impact would've been far less positive to humanity.
You claim that the benefits you could give tomorrow "would be greater" but what's the argument? The argument is that tomorrow you would have "$258.3 million"?
Let's assume you can double your money over the course of 7 years. AMF (Against Malaria Foundation) protects whole villages with anti-malaria bed nets, often resulting in a drop of around 50% of incidences of malaria over the course of a year or two. This also results in preventing some deaths.
While you wait your 7 years to provide double the money to this charity, many people will needlessly die. And with higher prevalence of malaria, more people will be infected than you can prevent later.
In your example you compare Bill Gates's donation to malaria eradication with giving money to the homeless. How is this the right comparison? And also, bringing Bill Gates into the discussion is irrelevant, unless you're in possession of MILLIONS of dollars you are planning to donate. Are you?
Your comments come off to me as bad faith interpretations of my comment due to an apparently hostile tone and emotional arguments (eg implying that waiting 7 years will let people needlessly die, totally ignoring my point that it is necessary to allow for helping more people later). Sorry, but I'm not interested in continuing this exchange.
Not hostile at all. Just pointing out that delaying helping now means many people will suffer now. And just like money wisely and luckily invested will compound to result in more money later, harms now compound to result in more harms later.
A child sick with parasitic worms will have lower educational attainment and lower income later in life. Whatever effects you hope to bring about in the future through a larger donation better be magnificently larger - to offset all the negative effects of not helping now.
I still disagree with your premise that the compounding effects of $1 today are more impactful over time than the compounding effects of $1000 or $10000 in 50 years, and that there will necessarily be compounding effects of helping today, let alone at the level of compounding interest. I'm not worried about a kid with worms today, because I'd rather help 100 or 1000 kids with worms in 50 years
If the world is getting better, then opportunities to do good will diminish over time. If in 50 years the world is much better than it is now, the impact of $1 given will be much less.
I think neither of us should have 100% certainty that our point of view is right, unless our point of view is "this is likely better". I was just trying to point out to you that your point of view isn't "case closed" type of argument - and that there are other dimensions to think about.
Please consider reading these two great starter resources:
The short answer here is because people need money/help now. People in crisis can't wait 10/20/30/50 years for you to donate.
This is not a judgment, I respect your choices, but many of us donate out of a sense of urgency, and we understand the tradeoffs and the sacrifices involved.
I'd rather give now and help now, even if that means I don't come out as far ahead in the end, than wait to see if I can give (and/or keep) more later.
That said, what you propose certainly works too, and every effort to help is a good effort, but it has it's own drawbacks.
The biggest drawback is that you may have the intention of giving money in the future, but you end up never doing it. Unless you put it into some guaranteed-for-charity vehicle like a Donor Advised Fund.
Giving now, even if you are also putting some off to give later, is the better course of action.
I completely agree with you.. Your point in the other thread about the compound benefits of giving now articulated much better what I was also trying to say :-)
> giving now creates a habit of giving, and removes the temptation to spend savings which were originally intended to be donations.
I've donated money, it didn't become a habit
> The biggest drawback is that you may have the intention of giving money in the future, but you end up never doing it. Unless you put it into some guaranteed-for-charity vehicle like a Donor Advised Fund.
This is a personal point whereas I was coming at it from just a numerical point.
> Unless you put it into some guaranteed-for-charity vehicle like a Donor Advised Fund.
Not familiar with this, but if it's a way to invest money while forcing the money to only be used for charity, then yes I'd consider that the optimal choice for anyone who for some reason is charitable but wouldn't want to give charity down the road
I respect your choice as well, thanks for the civility. Maybe it's just a personal difference. My view is, there will always be people in crisis. Why are the ones suffering today more important than the ones suffering in 50 or 100 years? To me that's basically telling a suffering person "sorry, I could've saved and invested to give you $1,000 today, but the other guy beat you by 50 years so I gave him the $10 I had at the time."
All I can say to that is I can't predict the future, so I choose to act today. The "ones suffering in 50 years" are theoretical, the ones suffering today are real people.
Also, perhaps the people I help today will go on to ensure that we don't need to help as many people in 50 years.
As others have said, and perhaps in terms that will resonate with you, investing today provides compounding returns in the future.
And that applies to aid just as much as it does to money.
Let's take your example to a bit of an extreme, for argument's sake:
I make regular charitable donations, and plan to continue to do so for X years (X being decades), therefore helping any number of people for those X years, potentially saving many lives.
I am now standing in front of a burning building, and I see a person through the window unconscious on the floor.
I can:
(A) Put my life potentially at risk and go into the burning building to drag that one person out and save their life. If I die while trying to save that person, then that means my charitable giving stops.
Or I can (B) definitely not risk my life to save that person, therefore guaranteeing - at least for now - that I can continue to make charitable donations into the future, possibly saving a much larger number of lives.
If you take a detached/theoretical view of this situation, then (B) seems like the better choice in the long run. I will benefit more people.
But it also means I make the choice to stand there and watch that real person die when I could have done something about it.
> The "ones suffering in 50 years" are theoretical, the ones suffering today are real people.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you actually suggesting that you think nobody will be in need or crisis in 50 years? What exactly is theoretical about that? I would say compounding from helping someone today is theoretical: it takes no effort at all to find examples of someone being helped just to throw it away, self-sabotage, refuse to participate. If you like charity just for the idea of helping, then I can understand that. But the claim that aid will always be effective, let alone compound, is imo much more of a stretch than claiming that there will still be people needing help in 50 or 100 years (I'd wager for as long as humans exist)
Of course I'm not suggesting people won't be suffering in 50 years, but again that is in the future, it's not today, and that suffering does not yet exist, even if we know it will.
Meanwhile, real humans - not statistics or "examples" as you put it - need help now.
As for the compounding aspect of charitable work, I guess all I can say there is you should do your own research if you want to realize how wrong you are.
Listen I'm not trying to convince you here, you've made clear in your first message that you don't care about anyone other than yourself and your loved ones, and that's your choice to make, but perhaps acknowledge that as a result of this choice, you don't really know much about charitable giving and the work that happens as a result of it.
Yet here you are confidently speculating about it all. It's starting to feel a bit Dunning-Kruger if I'm totally honest about it.. perhaps an opportunity for self-reflection?
You're not making any relevant arguments, just stating your personal position and with a condescending tone at that.
> (A) Put my life potentially at risk and go into the burning building to drag that one person out and save their life. If I die while trying to save that person, then that means my charitable giving stops.
> Or I can (B) definitely not risk my life to save that person, therefore guaranteeing - at least for now - that I can continue to make charitable donations into the future, possibly saving a much larger number of lives.
> If you take a detached/theoretical view of this situation, then (B) seems like the better choice in the long run. I will benefit more people.
> But it also means I make the choice to stand there and watch that real person die when I could have done something about it.
> And I wouldn't be able to do that.
I would do A every day of the week and sleep like a baby every following night, knowing that I'll be safe and sound tomorrow to support my loved ones. You're welcome to do B if you want to, but you yourself acknowledged that it's not the choice that benefits more people in the long run, i.e. the more emotional rather than logically optimal choice. Hence why I said you're not making relevant arguments, just stating that you would do things differently and that you do so out of emotion rather than a logical reason. If you have a logical reason why giving money today is better than letting it compound and then giving more tomorrow, then I'd be interested in hearing it. But if I'm the kind of person to go with A 10/10 times, I think you can imagine I'm not very interested in emotional appeals.
If that's the best use of your donation, then the charity you donate to can invest the money themselves and make use of the continuous supply of funds from interest. University endowments for example (even if they are only technically 'charities').
This assumes you trust charities or any 3rd party to invest it wisely, let alone use the money exactly how you want it. I don't, which is why I would manage it myself until I felt like using or donating it
There are two things to consider: your discount factor and how quickly the utils you generate compound compared to your money.
Let's say your discount factor is 3%/year. That means you have no preference between generating 100 utils today or 103 utils next year. If your money compounds more slowly than 3%, it doesn't make sense to save.
Second, the utils you generate probably compound too. Contrary to what many would have you believe, the world is actually getting better at an exponential rate. Since 1981, the conditions of the world's poorest have been getting better and better. It's not totally clear, but it seems plausible that there's an exponential feedback loop involved here. Maybe an extremely poor person in a developing country has $100 of assets, and is able to increase his net worth this year by $5. With that $5, he can get a pen with some chickens or something, which will increase his net worth by $10. With that $10, he can get a radio that will allow him to hear the weather report and better tend his crops, letting him increase his net worth by $15 the next year. If you donated $30 to him, he could jump-start this process and immediately get all these gains and more, instead of having to toil for years for them.
That's a somewhat farscial example, but I think it may resemble reality. Economic growth tends to be exponential, and if you artificially grow the economy by infusing it with cash, that extra boost may compound forever just like the money in your savings account would.
Yes it does. It is called PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and that's what this graph uses.
There are of course concerns about housing costs etc, but you simply can't be arguing that there is no meaningful conclusion we can reach when we learn that a person lives on less than $3/day. You for sure know they don't have the luxuries available to those who live on $100/day.
> Companies prefer hiring employees who have families, and mortgages to service, and who faithfully trot along on the consumerism treadmill. As Nassim Taleb points out, it’s the only way you can legally ‘own’ a person today.
I discussed this the other day with a friend of mine who already has years' worth of fuck you money(I have months at best).
We were complaining that the worst people to work with are those who can't afford to lose employment(usually due to their financial situation), because over time they gradually evolve into these yes-men who will do anything to save their ass - even if it means making everyone else's job harder in the process.
All intelligent, talented people. It's just that they've been conned into living a lifestyle which shepherds them into such a position.
I've been putting off getting a mortgage because I don't want to join this crowd, but real estate prices are not getting any lower, so I might end up with one soon anyway.
And to think I'm actually in the privileged, 30% group of those who can afford any housing.
If everyone tried to have Fuck-You Money, nobody would. Why? Paradox of Thrift. The only reason this person can have Fuck-You Money is because other people aren't frugal. One person's savings is another person's lost income.
Yes, accountability is a 0-sum game. One man's debt is another's saving, all that jazz (well, except when a default happen, and in this case money is created, but in EU more than 90% of savings + circulating money is from debt and would'nt be surprised if this is more than that in the US).
That's why states and companies should be as indebted as possible as long as it doesn't endanger them.
I didn't want to join this crowd and valued my freedom much more. I saved up some money in high COL location while paying rent and moved to a low COL (another continent) Not for everyone but is feasible for some.
I did this on a smaller scale - moved cities, but retained my income level - apartments are 20% cheaper here, but that only bought me some time, because real estate appreciates at a rate of 8-10%.
It's really underappreciated how the health care and retirement systems in the United States cause people to stay in shitty jobs. Sure, these are expensive programs to run but there is a huge benefit to larger companies. Employees are desperately afraid of losing their benefits - mostly health care - so they will put up with low wage growth, bad bosses, bad conditions, just to keep what they have. People generally value stability, especially once they have a family, and this is not so subtly taken advantage of at every turn.
Besides making individuals captive to their jobs I also think it really hurts our economy. Big corporations have the money to pay for these programs but small companies do not which really hurts them when looking for employees. My personal bugaboo is that the lack of wage growth and economic dynamism the past few decades is heavily influenced by this.
TLDR: making big corporations the only reliable place to get good health care and retirement benefits in the United States is a massive policy failure.
We were complaining that the worst people to work with are those who can't afford to lose employment(usually due to their financial situation), because over time they gradually evolve into these yes-men who will do anything to save their ass - even if it means making everyone else's job harder in the process.
That was me, at a previous job. I eventually was able to bring myself to quit. I made a lot less for a few years but was much happier and realigned my career track for jobs that are more amenable to life.
A very good life choice that was. I know a few people who eventually had to seek help due to the soul-crushing nature of their line of work.
And it's funny really when you think about it - we make good money, which in turn lets us lead a certain lifestyle - an enviable position for most.
And yet we can't be happy, because we're deprived of meaning, and apparently this is such a basic need that you simply can't stay healthy without it.
Today I spent three hours digging a virtual canal with my friends, so that we could shorten the route our virtual viking ship would have to take to bring some virtual minerals back to our virtual base.
It all felt so much more real and meaningful than what I do for a living.
I am the furthest thing from practicing FIRE, after all my primary hobby is racing cars (cheap cars... but racing anything is expensive). But just by finding ways to be frugal in other areas of my life and prioritizing savings and investments over material things, I've been able to have a healthy cushion for most of my adult life. It has also come in handy a few times when ethical considerations forced me to make a career move.
At this point in my life, I have a target to retire at 50, and will at that point have enough residual income from investments that I can work only when I want to for the remainder of my life. That's an achievable goal for anyone working in tech, and it does empower you to be more real in your work life, but it's also a sliding scale of how aggressively you want to cut things out of your life to save money.
I think the author has the right concept, but their actual breakdown in terms of expenses isn't realistic for most people in the US. I live in a very low cost of living area and still couldn't bring my expenses as low as the author of this article.
305 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadWhen you have more than you can spend, many things lose meaning.
For a while, then it would lose meaning.
I tried not working, it made me feel very empty inside. Human need goals. We aren't made to be idle for a long time.
I'll try to explain that better: "Fuck you" is when you refuse or sever a social connection. Don't do it too often. Because when you don't need any social connection, you have successfully create your gilded cage.
I've learned from my mistakes: Now I'm still retired but I work here and there, doing consulting or helping people, and learning biology.
It feels much better.
Say all these people say climbing Mount Everest is truly the most life changing thing they’ve ever done. Suddenly I start thinking maybe I should climb it too. I would love to hear stories to the contrary before I make the commitment.
And I don't blame you, the entire political and financial apparatus of capitalist society is designed to protect the status, wealth and privilege of people like yourself at the expense of everyone else grinding their lives away under the millstone. Obviously the best thing to be in a capitalist society is a capitalist, to whom capital and the benefits of capital are intended to flow, rather than one of the shmucks being fed to Moloch.
But as far as feeling sympathy for the plight of the wealthy - I'm not a communist or even a socialist but I'm playing The Internationale on the world's smallest violin right now.
Indeed. If there is something wealth didn't change, it's my selfishness - just as much before as after!
And this is exactly why I wrote this comment. People here are looking to get rich without asking enough questions like "why" or "what then?"
Make a few millions if that's what you want- why not? But it won't make you happy.
Stay away from drugs. Keep doing things that you find interesting and bring you joy. Associate with cool people. And don't say "f you" too much because social connections and a few obligations here and there are what make life fun.
Have, say, a billion or more to spend? Start your own damn space program.
Actually, there are: coming from your imagination.
So I'm learning biology. When I'm done I won't bother with a postdoc but just start a research lab (or buy one).
It has helped me feel less empty, but the pandemic did hit me badly.
I thought I would pick up all those side projects which I abandoned due to lack of time but nope - it just didn't happen.
It's easier to do more stuff when you're already doing a lot. When you don't have to do anything, then it's hard to do any one thing (for me, at least).
BTW, you made your account in 2012. You have know about crypto for 9 years. If you had invested even a hundred dollars in 2012, or the next year you would not need to ask. HN has a lot of blame for the number of bright young hackers that were discouraged to invest in crypto.
Also, getting grifted is always an option.
Oh lastly - might I suggest lobbying for a simplified tax code that results in you having less money?
Money is not the problem, even if it contributes to it. Money is just an enabler. Money reveal your deepest tendancies. Remove it and you are back to square one.
In the past, when I was as naive, I gave some money to people: most people focus about tiny problems (the dishwasher broke!) that are easily solved with a few hundred or thousands.
Then I saw first hand how money is just an amplifier of human beings, and how it can help some people with bad tendencies destroy themselves - starting by teaching them effort is not necessary.
I don't give anything to anyone anymore. I learned before I did too much damage. I moved and broke contact.
I really dislike arbitrary cash handouts of the sort you pointed out above - it's why I'd encourage increasing employee take home if you have any employees. If that's not an option then there are a number of good and responsible charities.
Lastly - this comment (and the one above) aren't directed at judging you and I don't know the specifics of your situation. But judging how other people use their money is something that's best entirely avoided. If you donate two thousand dollars to a friend who uses the money to drown her problems in alcohol then it's unlikely she would've worked through those issues in a healthy way if you just never gave her money - it's hard though and I can certainly sympathize with a desire to avoid sending anyone money. I also think you're getting a lot of downvotes because you are speaking from a very unsympathetic position, but it is an interesting discussion so I'd urge you not to get discouraged.
I don't know, but I have a track record of success, while they have a track record of failure, so I am a bit doubtful it will change.
For example, I have a very deserving friend. I want to make sure he succeed. But I will never give in any crypto, as it would sell it the next day because he is afraid of variations. Likewise with money.
Instead, when I hear he is struggling, I hire him to perform some work that will benefit him in his carrier, to gently nudge him while providing money but not as a gift since in my experience it breaks people spirit.
> I also think you're getting a lot of downvotes because you are speaking from a very unsympathetic position, but it is an interesting discussion so I'd urge you not to get discouraged.
I am a bit- I have tried keeping a simple message for years to people who want to make money - before the last bull market, it was something like invest 1 or 2 grands in crypto, just money you can afford to lose, it will get you a brand new car (feel free to check my posting history, I don't remember the specific wording)
I even said that to arcticbull, who frequently diss crypto here.
And a few month later, those who listened got their car. Most people thought I was talking funny. It was lost on them. I find that very sad.
> If that's not an option then there are a number of good and responsible charities
I am now convinced money will do nothing, whether you have it or not, or at best very little. What matters is foresight and leverage, to convert your ideas into implementations. Leverage can be obtained - VC do that if you have charisma.
Fortunately for me I will not need them, as I am low on charisma! Still, biotech will be the next boom - whether it is augmenting humans, curing cancer, achieving immortality, it will bring lot of happiness.
This is interesting and I can help make it happen. It will help many orders of magnitude more people than my money could. So I am learning biology. Hopefully it I will help me infuse money at some very precise chokepoints where it will be able to act as a positive enabler. In crypto, I saw that happen by people who have built the likes of coinbase.
And even if that wasn't enough, I could just gamble it on everything. Why not throw $100 billion into nuclear fusion research?
I'm confident I could spend the entire world GDP if I had it. I'm not saying I could do it well, but I sure as shit would have fun doing it.
As for gambling, I've never enjoyed that.
> Why not throw $100 billion into nuclear fusion research?
Because I don't care?
See, you have things you want, things you care about. Then you get them. And eventually there is nothing you desire anymore. Feel free to not believe me if you prefer but that's the cold hard truth.
Biology is the only thing a bit interesting to me. If I didn't have that, I think I would just slide into drugs and eventually OD. The sad story of Tony Hsieh acted as a stern reminder I had to keep my new path.
> I'm confident I could spend the entire world GDP if I had it. I'm not saying I could do it well, but I sure as shit would have fun doing it.
I don't know your goals, and I don't judge them, but if you are trying to get rich (as a lot of people on HN seem to desire) this mindset may be counter productive.
I didn't have the mindset that spending was fun when growing up (asian parenting...) This may be why I didn't spend anything when bitcoin crossed the any of the various price points.
There may be a selection effect: those who end up making over 6 digits of net worth are less likely to enjoy spending - and the more extra digits, the less likely.
Someone on this thread was saying they enjoyed seeing 7 digits in their account this year - I guess they sold at minimum 200 coins. Given the current price path, it's likely to break 150kUSD this summer. So if they had waited a bit, they would have been in the low 8 digits.
Those who sold when the $1 psychological price was passed got themselves a few meals, considering the same amount.
Do you see where it goes? I'm not advocating hodling, because there is a point where you have enough money for anything you want - but I think it's not true for the kind of people who find spending fun, and by consequence were driven to sell early.
'When He got to the tree, he looked up and said, "Zacchaeus, hurry down. Today is my day to be a guest in your home."'
Saw that in significant numbers in the rich heirs/esses going while going to a top school
I see it not as a failure caused buy the money, but by the lack of imagination.
As the Bard wrote: "The fault is not in our stars, But in ourselves..."
You now have the freedom to find a new challenge, whether starting your own space program, saving elephants or other species, solving education or poverty... Find something to be useful, dig in, and your passion will find you again.
I'm not sure the article decries frugality. Unless I'm really missing something, I don't think you're right. It just says that being financially independent and having "f-you money" are not the same thing. Which I agree with - having enough money to say no to a bad job is plenty enough "f-you money" but I'd want about 20x more to consider myself financially independent.
Same reason I never understood FIRE. Yeah I can live off a minimal amount of money, but then I can’t afford to do the things I wanted to do if I wasn’t working.
First, I didn't say I was financially independent (at all) let alone based on my current spending.
Second, I didn't mention my current spending, nor did I call it "minimal."
Third, I didn't say I couldn't afford to do things based on the money I do have.
FIRE means literally "financial independence, retire early." None of that prescribes spending the absolute bare minimum just to survive. You may be thinking more along the lines of earlyretirementextreme.com, which embraces a whole different level of independence and capability and minimizing expenses and resource consumption.
But you can reach FIRE simply by accumulating and investing about 25x your annual spending, whatever that spending may be.
Personally, we live in a big house, have a somewhat expensive pet, drive two late model (albeit economical) cars we enjoy, travel, eat well, have nice laptops, etc. We just did and do all spending mindfully and somewhat optimally. Often you can put the Pareto principle into play, and get almost all the enjoyment of something for a fraction of the cost. Sometimes you can simply avoid waste.
That covered rent, food gas and my Alta-Bird pass which I used around 120 days of that year.
Had some left over for some really good summer trips, too.
FIRE is fairly boolean: either you have enough to retire or you don't.
(According to the blogger), FU money is a range. If you don't have FIRE money you might still have enough to say "no" to some things but not to others.
A broke 25 year old kid who can still live in Mom's basement is well into FU money.
Upon ruminating on that concept, I think at the core, fuck you money and UBI are - I can express myself and nothing can financially ruin me or make me homeless.
Don't have your MS? Get it.
Erm no, it's probably only barely what you need to survive, nothing close to what people refer to as FU Money.
One guy I worked with worked from 5am to 2pm in the mall bakery, took a nap in the backroom, the was a line cook from 4p-midnight. Mostly because of some debts and a situation that prevented his wife from working.
...which is exactly what UBI intends.
Electricity. Wifi. Fast internet. Air conditioning. Running water. Access to nutritious food and good medicine. Some of those are needs, others are not. The ones which are directly maintaining you in good health are needs.
Don't sacrifice your needs (8 hours of sleep a day, for example) for your wants (a shiny new iPhone or bigger apartment) over the years.
It's not black and white. As we give more and more UBI, we rebalance the power dynamic between employers and employees. It starts to obviate the need for minimum wage laws and unions, because people can start to ask for 30 hour work weeks, time off to raise their own kids, study a new career, contribute to science and open source software and so on. They'll be able to take more entrepreneurial risks, too. A society with UBI would have a lot more people contributing to gift economies.
In practice, it would have a similar impact on the books as a program that gave $1000/month to just the poor people. Giving the money to everybody and then taxing it back from most makes it seem much larger but makes it a wash in practice.
There is a huge amount of taxes that the ultra-wealthy are currently NOT paying. In fact, the vast majority of income taxes are actually paid by the lower and middle classes, because once you hit a certain level of income you have enough money to pay professionals to help you shelter your money and avoid taxes.
For example, Warren Buffet only paid $1.8 million in taxes in 2015, even though his wealth was worth 72 billion at the time. His wealth literally grew 12 billion that year, and he only paid $1.8 million in taxes.
That means he paid only 0.015% in taxes, in terms of wealth growth vs income taxes paid.
Meanwhile, someone earning $100K would have paid around 20% of their income...
In comparison top 10% of the Danish tax payers paid just 31.3% of the total income tax, despite Denmark having rather high taxation (the OECD method that puts it as #1 is controversial, but I pay e.g. a 42% marginal tax rate on any capital gains).
'share of the total taxes the rich pay'
And
'the percentage of their wealth the rich pay'
It may only take the rich 5% of their income to pay the 38.5% of total taxes because they're capturing so much of the value generated in America and hiding it whereever.
[0] US federal minimum wage
He's living "frugally" as described in his article. I don't think that what's people expect from UBI when they talk about it.
Enough for mental health without the great of losing everything and being homeless.
This is the key to FU Money, an increase in freedom since your base needs are met and secure; agreed that in common parlance it usually is applied to people that have so much money they can live like a king and say no to whatever they want.
If that was even remotely true then France would the most active center in the world in terms of business creation. I hate to break the news for you, but it isn't.
UBI is a fantastic idea in theory. It is more efficient in terms of capital and human resources than the current system, probably by an order of magnitude or more. However, it does suffer one deep flaw that I haven't seen anyone promoting UBI address.
How do we ensure that UBI doesn't become weaponized against the people it's supposed to be helping?
If UBI is passed it becomes the single most important issue to the majority of voters. Someone running on a platform of 'more money' will (even if it's economically a bad idea) likely win elections based on it. If there is an economic need to decrease the UBI payments it will be the death knell of political careers.
But the biggest concern I have is this:
We've already seen big legislation like the Affordable Care Act come under attack and eventually get essentially removed (in that case overwritten by the American Health Care Act on Mar 4, 2017). What would the damage be to the people who come to rely on UBI as part of the general economic system, only to have it rapidly reduced or removed entirely?
Even if the increase of UBI would be used to get votes, its better then what we currently have - lover taxes for mega rich. At least this way I get something.
Most of the sources of misery in the US are economic, unfortunately. The political parties in the US have a long history of being poor trustees of the nation's wealth.
I make the comparison to Norway often because Norway has the world's largest social safety net in the form of their Sovereign Wealth Funds. Norway has $1.1T, roughly $200,000 USD per citizen, that can be used to maintain economic stability and secure social programs even in hard times.
The US absolutely could have accomplished the same thing, but instead we've racked up a national debt per citizen of over $70,000.
I think removing UBI if you already have one in place would simply cause mass revolt. It would be a suicide for any politician. So unless there is something like mass starvation caused by some catastrophe removing UBI will be off the table.
My biggest concern is inflation. Adding more cash without also increasing productivity can cause inflation. UBI might improve productivity in a number of ways, but it might not do so enough. I know that proponents of the job guarantee argue that this is the fatal flaw in UBI; that instead people should be guaranteed useful work to do, which in theory would increase productivity to offset the government expenditures to send them paychecks. I do agree that there is a lot of useful work that could get done under such a program (cleaning rivers and streams, etc.), but I'm not convinced that we'd see productivity gains reliably either.
But opponents also complain about wage growth getting too high, almost as if capitalism depends on a class of exploited poor ...
May I suggest: their own salaries or perhaps military spending? I mean, if the country doesn't have the budget, that sounds an awful like it is _their_ fault, not their constiuents'. The constituents aren't elected to figure those things out, they are.
This conservative idea that we have to be all "Aw shucks, we don't have money" is absurd, yet they have enough to give themselves generous salary increases and universal healthcare.
Personal opinion:
I want to pay every politician even more than they get now - for life. In exchange, they are never allowed to work or own equity in a corporation. Shuts the lobbyists revolving door nonsense down almost immediately. Such an implementation only works if we hold corrupt officials accountable though, we don't want one-term do-nothings to get into office just for the paycheck. So, if you fail to represent the will of the people you lose 95% of the money, or similar.
Cutting military spending I'm generally in favor of. I believe this could be done to a huge degree before we actually have a negative impact on military capability at all. I also believe the military should only be used for actual defense, meaning that militia structures become a meaningful way to bolster national security without incurring an enormous organizational cost.
> This conservative idea that we have to be all "Aw shucks, we don't have money" is absurd, yet they have enough to give themselves generous salary increases and universal healthcare.
It's not conservative, it's corrupt. The conservative view is that we need to secure economic stability, not raid the coffers at every opportunity. But then again, the terms conservative/liberal have lost most of their meaning. I wonder what John Locke would think if he were alive to see how the world turned out.
If the US had a wealth fund instead of a national debt I believe many of the biggest issues we face could be legitimately solved rather than turned into political footballs.
Scarcity of investable assets is already a problem. Increasing demand by $50-100T will make it worse. Part of the reason the US issues trillions in debt is to absorb some of the existing demand.
The land itself, all of the resources in and on it, the industries that operate within the borders, etc.
We don't necessarily need to set aside 200k per capita, but it would be wise to not be at -70k per capita and growing fast, in my opinion.
> A sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway in the US would contain a large fraction of all wealth globally.
If the rest of the world operated on similar principles we would inevitably reach a balance. Regardless, the US would have to clear an enormous sum of debt before we could realistically start filling up the piggy bank.
To be fair, having the world reserve currency is sortof like a wealth fund.
“The moment you start having a direct transfer mechanism like that in democracy, you're basically doing away with capitalism which is the engine of economic growth. You're also forcing the entrepreneur out, or telling them not to come here."
"People who are down on their luck, they're not looking for handouts. It's not just about money, it's also about status and meaning. The moment I start giving money to you, I've lowered your status and made you a second class citizen.”
It's possible that many more people would want to become entrepreneurs, given that there would be a social safety net if they failed. Right now, most entrepreneurs come from an upper middle-class background, often with financial assistance and cushioning from their parents.
And the thing about UBI is that everybody gets money, even Bill Gates. So nobody's a second class citizen.
For example if I gave everyone 250k and told them to all go out and buy a ferrari, its actually impossible. There are not enough cars and prices would rise substantially to box out people again. The same principal goes for homes, healthcare, education, etc. The best way to increase standard of living is to increase production and efficiency to meet everyone's needs in all service and product categories.
What constrains your landlord from jacking up rent is competition. If he jacks up rent by $200 but the landlord across the street has an empty apartment he'd be glad to rent out for $1000 he'll think twice about jacking your rent.
The housing crisis in America is a supply issue. UBI has nothing to do with it.
Inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon. If they pay for UBI with deficit spending it might crank up inflation, but if it's fully funded it won't.
I remember, back around 2008, houses were popping up everywhere. You don't really see much of that anymore, at least in my experience. ALSO, lumber prices are HIGH and its not as profitable to build new houses, at the moment. But what if this is a larger lumber shortage/sustainability issue? What then?
Could it be a mix of material supply issues and interest groups that are maintaining a housing shortage?
Only if you're using your home as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. But that has the same problems as eg, farmers and/or grocers having a financial interest in engineering a famine in order to drive up food prices.
> Could it be a mix of material supply issues and interest groups that are maintaining a housing shortage?
Probably, yes, plus various other factors in varying amounts.
Money has worth because of the value a region generates.
If you have 10 units of currency and then 10 more are printed with no more value generated you have inflation.
If you keep 10 units of currency but more value is generated you have deflation.
If you just change who has the 10 units of currency that's not inflationary or deflationary, that's redistribution of the value.
UBI is just giving workers back some of the value they have generated that has been capture by the owner class.
It's funded not through 'printing press go brrr' (deficit spending) but through actual redistribution of that value more equitably.
The entire disjointed and bloated gov't safety net apparatus of food stamps, WIC, Rental Subsidies, EITC, disability, unemployment, and more. would go away along with the bloated salaries of the people who run all of those programs.
So massive amounts of tax money would be saved at the start.
UBI is actually a small government conservatives dream.
Then there's also the possibility that the jobs it creates from increased demand due to an economy with a much higher flow of money, could have a deflationary aspect which would allow the money printer to go brr a little bit.
Then also, who know what kinds of new innovation would happen from smart people free to pursue their own goals without worrying about financial insecurity.
Taxes would go up on the rich probably moderately.
But it's doable and affordable and the country would be so much better off in my opinion.
In year 1, Bob has extra money. By year 3 Bob's rent goes up. Did Bob's UBI go up proportionally to his rent? After a few years, Bob ends up in the same place - unless we keep injecting more money over time, which creates inflation.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/01/20/958854717/modern-monetary-the...
> The money, [...] the treasury, which prints little game tickets you can use to make other people dance for you.
They think there's a printer somewhere, and some jerk sitting next to it who just won't print enough money. If only he'd print more, we'd all be billionaires!
If UBI becomes a right, and you raise a generation who doesn't need to work, what do you do when there's a recession? Cut UBI and watch the riots start? Or drive off the cliff at speed because the non-working class can't be denied?
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
We need to fix wages, not provide handouts. I'm for helping people that need but UBI isn't the way to do that.
Because if what you're saying is true..with any unnatural gov't interference ...there will be inflation.
(which is inaccurate by the way)
> yes, the cost might be some inflation, but predictions of inflation have lately failed
For a time, anything may remain out of sync. But you can't get more money from less workers. You can't redistribute to provide UBI, you have to print it, and that devalues the currency.
Even sillier, most UBI proposals are tied to a consumer index, such that when the currency was devalued you would print and distribute more, but with zero concern for the actual workers whose salaries are not also being inflated to match. Eventually the premium for working will be small enough that you'd be a fool for having a job.
And of course "predictions of inflation have lately failed". Because nobody is giving out UBI on a large enough scale. It's suicide. Even tax-and-spend bread-and-circus providing pols still want to be in power next year, so there's a limit to what they can print, and how widely they can distribute it.
IT's not inflationary. Its redistribution.
Also, the option for some sort of scaled UBI would be great too imo.
Quick question, why do I want to keep producing when I just get taxed to pay for those who refuse to work? So next year you've got one more mouth to feed and a lot less resources to do so.
But it's okay, print more money to give to the last guy working, quadrillions of dollars, and tax him at 99.999999% and redistribute (totally not print, not at all) those inflated dollars to everyone. We'll all be rich!
Why did the they keep producing in the 50s and 60s with a 90% tax rate?
Because they know that if they don't.. someone else will.. no matter what the tax rate.
I'm not going to explain to you why people would work instead of settle for 12k a year.
And your first statement isnt clear how it's correlated to taxes.
Further, the UBI experiments don't produce any benefit beyond one-time grants, as seen in other experiments, perhaps even less because the trickle payment doesn't give you the capital to move to find better work or anything.
Lifetime welfare has proven harmful, how will super-welfare be better? If anything has destroyed American cities its welfare ghettos and the malaise and crime that comes with it.
Call you Dr. Postulator.
I think you label yourself.
Which is partly why there's so much opposition from the powers that be. Similar for universal healthcare - these things reduce the amount of power employers have over employees.
Welfare attempts to uplift people, but UBI is never ending and would come to be seen as a right, not a gift. Welfare makes people and communities stronger, UBI would not.
And even if something like UBI ever happened, don't imagine that the productive will share power. It'll be a box, VR helmet, drugged soylent, and you'd happy with it.
It can't be anything else, and everyone should realize it. There's no UBI-topia out there for people, should they simply come to consensus and demand it from their pols. It's wishful thinking and the simple concept hurts more than it helps.
Be afraid of the person who offers you this nonsense.
Welfare is better than UBI because welfare ends. Welfare encourages competence and self-reliance. And welfare can be extended in cases where there really aren't any jobs. It can do what UBI does, but without the fatal flaws.
People need an incentive - something they don't have, which they will attain. UBI takes away one of those, your proposal would eliminate the other.
For a depression-era farmer even a little success was still survival and so it mattered. But for someone who doesn't do anything to produce their own goods and so never feels accomplished because of skill or effort, anything less than what the other guy has will be intolerable. They won't work for anything, so they won't accept hard work as a reason why the other guy deserves to get to keep what he produced, and they'll steal it, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
But UBI would definitely support that line of thinking. "Dad is given a stipend by the government because there are no jobs for him, so why would I strive?"
But, that aside, why should the productive care whether you do or not? Let's say self-driving cars do put you out of business, but we acknowledge that you didn't really do anything to make yourself employable. Why do you deserve any resources, let alone a comfortable amount, for not doing anything? And deserve, shmerve, why should I be so stupid as to let you take it from me? If I work I'll simply horde a bit of food and then stop working until the UBI stops and you starve, then I'll start producing again. So why not admit this up front and treat you like an excess coyote population? Spay/neuter you, or maybe leave poisoned food(-stamps) around?
Welfare at least is intended to help people become self-actualized and productive, but UBI is designed specifically to remove all incentive to ever help anyone else. UBI is what someone would come up with after reading the CIA manual on sabotage and thinking - how do I apply this to my entire civilization?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, UBI is implemented by the pure redistribution of wealth. No debt. No draining some capital reserve. Steady state redistribution.
The act of distributing wealth to new people will shift demand in accordance with their demands. The newly UBI-ed masses won't be chasing the same rich-men goods as the rich men they soaked. The aggregate demand for not-rich-man goods will go up. So then those prices will go up.
When the price for goods goes up without any increase in their quality, all else constant, that's inflation. At least by my layman's understanding.
Why do you keep insisting that redistribution won't cause inflation?
There's another factor you're missing.
SUPPLY and demand.
If supply is static then yes, you are correct.
But the supply for most 'not-rich-man goods' is made of commodities and is highly scalable and economic productivity will increase to match demand.
And the increased productivity/value from the economy will have a deflationary aspect that you're not considering.
This as a side effect also creates jobs and just generally increases the well being of the middle class and poor as a whole not just from the UBI.
This will also distribute the population throughout the country more evenly so rent prices will go down as well... as people don't have to live in certain areas that happen to have jobs and can afford to innovate in B.F.E without the risk of becoming homeless if they fail which in aggregate will have some businesses succeed and stimulate those areas of the country.
True, but not instantaneously. The lag there is inflation at work.
> But the supply for most 'not-rich-man goods' is made of commodities...
Desireable housing near good jobs, high quality education, effective health care, child care in a regulatory environment, convenient transportation. These are not highly elastic. That's a lot of most people's expenses if they can be afforded.
> And the increased productivity/value from the economy...
How does paying people not to work increase available labor to apply to productive endeavors?
> ...have a deflationary aspect that you're not considering.
How does handing someone $5 increase the intrinsic value of any good?
>How does handing someone $5 increase the intrinsic value of any good?
You should go back and re-read what I wrote. Might be beneficial to check out an econ 101 book so you kind of understand deflation as well as inflation, and just generally how the value of money works.
We do not need a larger government!
It's actually a small gov't conservatives dream.
So, I will ask again. We can't afford what we have. How can we add more?
We spend around 2.3T to entitlement programs and takes in around 3.8T.
What's putting us in debt is massive tax cuts for the rich and insane health care costs.
I don't think there's been a comprehensive bill for UBI floated yet.
Really? Taxes havent covered the budget in years.
Correction: 2 decades
That's news to me thanks for making me aware!
People on this website are so smart!
https://jlcollinsnh.com/2011/06/06/why-you-need-f-you-money/
I've followed a few, Get Rich Slowly, Mr. Money Mustache, and Jim Collins, which has a great series of posts on long-term investing.
I'm wrapping up six months of unemployment this week, and I didn't have a care in the world during that time. We didn't lose money, our investments grew more than ever, and we spent lots of time together however we pleased. I'm not able to retire permanently, and I return to paid work on Tuesday, but there is great peace of mind in having "f-you money," especially if you do live a bit frugally and keep your mandatory, recurring expenses low.
The subject heading of Avi's first message is: "Guideline 1." We look for places where the math is right. Meaning what? Meaning that pop. is about to explode we can predict that just by looking at age histogram and per capita income is about to take off the way it did in Nippon, Taiwan, Singapore. Multiply those two things together and you get the kind of exponential growth that should get us all into fuck you money before we turn forty.
This is an allusion to a Randy/Avi conversation of two years ago wherein Avi actually calculated a specific numerical value for "fuck you money." It was not a fixed constant, however, but rather a cell in a spreadsheet linked to any number of continually fluctuating economic indicators. Sometimes when Avi is working at his computer he will leave the spreadsheet running in a tiny window in the corner so that he can see the current value of "fuck you money" at a glance.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/archive-inside-microso...
> Humphrey Bogart used to keep a $100 bill in his dresser drawer at all times—a decent chunk of change in the 1920s. He referred to it as his ‘fuck-you money’, because it meant he’d never be forced to take a crappy part. According to Bogie, the only good reason for making money was “so you can tell any son-of-a-bitch in the world to go to hell”.
Ten points for whoever spots the source of my quoted section.
some other proto-FI literature:
"Your Money or Your Life", 1992, Vicki Robin and Joe Dominguez, book version of their 1986 workshop.
stretching the definition/purpose financial independence quite a bit, The And and the Grasshopper fable, Aesop, 500's BCE.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:05CbAC...
To be clear, the fine article does bring up the phrase as quite old, and I like his idea of FU-Frugality since you don't actually need to have that much money (or madskilz) to be able to Say No to dumb stuff.
Or for a video intro, he gave this 1hr Talk@Google:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T71ibcZAX3I
I've got a healthy savings account, but I couldn't say FU to my boss because I'm not sure how that would affect me getting another job.
Personally, I am satisfied with two weeks notice money.
I was nowhere near FIRE, but I had enough money I didn't have to stay in a bad or undesirable situation.
You don't have to literally say "FUCK YOU!" to your boss and storm out - sure, that _might_ effect your future job prospects (but then again, maybe not). Instead you can say "I would prefer not to" and give 2 weeks notice. Doubtful that would effect your future job prospects. If you're worried about your current boss giving you a good reference there are other people (co-workers, previous managers) who can do that if s/he is unlikely to do so.
r/leanFIRE, r/FIRE and r/fatFIRE would disagree.
The regionals: r/fican, r/europeFIRE, etc
The subsets of population: r/FIREyFemmes, etc
The niche ideas that aren't big enough for their own subs: BaristaFI.
etc etc
https://walletburst.com/tools/coast-fire-calc/
Its not just about being able to say fuck you ... I have always done that. There's a peace of mind that comes from knowing that no matter what happens to me, my kids have enough cash just sitting there to eat, get health care, and pay for their education ... until they are old enough to handle things on their own.
Fidelity for example covers you up to $1.25m
(More difficult to earn 7 figures though...)
Sure, it's good to do things like getting your finances in order, clean your room, etc., but there is a choice you can make about how you relate to the world where your happiness is not conditional or contingent on other things. Choose it, and keep choosing it, and when you notice you don't, choose it again.
The OPs part II of the article is about that kind of stoic view, and where I disagree with him is he frames it as there being something standing between you and "serenity." However, it could be just a device, as who would listen to someone that told them there was nothing external standing in their way. Surely, what kind of asshole would say that to someones face?
A boy with a skateboard and a bus pass doesn't have to take shit from anybody.
If I don't do whatever shitty thing my manager asks me to, I won't eat next week. My family won't eat next week. The water will be shut off. (etc.)
I mean you could still have the attitude of "f-it!" but you wouldn't have the resources you need to be sure you don't starve.
https://www.apartments.com/omaha-ne/?so=2
https://www.apartments.com/greensboro-nc/?so=2
https://www.apartments.com/jackson-ms/1-bedrooms/?so=2
https://www.apartments.com/tulsa-ok/1-bedrooms/?so=2
It is likely easier to live on 10k/year in India than in the US.
I'm climbing the FIRE treadmill like this guy talks about. I live frugally, and I save like a madman. I'm on track to have stable, passive income for myself, and my family, for the rest of my life, by the time I hit 45. And I'm certainly not living like a monk along the way.
And you know what? I've got a huge war chest that I can pull from if I ever need to tell someone "Fuck you". I may not be financially independent yet, but I have more than enough money to tell a boss who wants me to do boring, shitty work to fuck off if I ever need to.
Thankfully, I don't have to right now. But things can change in the blink of an eye. Fuck you money is a condensed store of options for when things get rough.
I read a bunch of Mr Money Mustache to get me started on this path. Recommend that you take a look at his blog to read more about it in detail.
I had to decide: do I pull the trigger now, and work on some kind of part-time project to try to fill in the little bit I'm missing, or do I find another six-figure job? I realized pretty quickly the decision was stressing me out, which for me, made the choice easy. I booked a flight to Hong Kong and planned to look for another job in about six months.
Of course, life being what it is, I met my now-wife in Hong Kong, so I've extended my career for a few more years to make things even more comfortable. Still, I definitely feel like I am well-situated enough that I could walk away from anything, take some time off, and find another job "whenever."
It's always on a spectrum!
I envy you. Everybody (who has a boss) endures at least a little boring, shitty work. If it gets to be too much, the antidote is to start seriously looking for another job. Or write some automation scripts and chill out.
Fuck you money is reserved (or should be) for much more egregious offenses: Pettiness. Hypocrisy. Withholding compensation from you for made-up reasons. Not upholding promises. Instituting new rules arbitrarily to suppress you. Negating excellent performance with irrelevant attributes on a "performance evaluation."
These are the types of things that seriously throw off your economic planning, both in wasted time and missing dollars. This is what you save the f-u fund for, so you can avoid the above at all costs.
If you don't have a boss, you'll have customers, which also results in boring, shitty work.
Unless you can pass that off to underlings. Which means you have management duties. AKA boring, shitty work.
Why?
I'm not saying that once you have FU money you are entitled to be a primadonna and expect everybody else to bend over for you. Of course not.
But if there's anything you don't like about your current job, it enables you to discuss it without fear of not being able to meet your financial obligations.
So, as long as you are not a jerk about it, what is the problem with taking advantage of the leverage you now have?
But if you find yourself working for true assholes? That's a great reason to peace-out.
If I had Fuck-You Money, I'd buy a manual transmission sports car without knowing how to drive stick. In the event that I messed up the clutch, I'd buy a new car.
Rich = Passive Income > expenses
https://youtu.be/uNrjrDV9-YQ
But once spent it is no longer available in that role so the big trick is to ensure that your 'stash' doesn't diminish in an unsustainable way if you should ever have to tap into it. The rate at which you can tell people to get lost has a pretty hard limit unless you reach a really high level of independence and even then: what goes up can come down. So be careful how frequently you tell people to get lost, it's a small world.
I wonder how many people that subscribe to FIRE are in the US, especially VHCOL or HCOL places where incomes are likely to be high.
My conservative 2bd rent exceeds the author's YEARLY budget in 3 months here in SoCal. I would love to cut back even more but I touched the limit on where I started giving up on happiness and satisfaction if I optimized my expenses too much.
I guess I'm realizing that these folks are truly outliers, how many people that subscribe to FIRE are actually practicing geographical arbitrage, especially if you're considering having a family with kids, pets and a home?
[1] https://thedeepdish.org/2017-spending/
That does seem really low. I wonder if the "guesthouses" part is friends letting him stay for cheap, below market rents?
Also only $726 for healthcare - apparently now monthly health insurance cost?
His horses died twenty years ago but from what i understand, since two young ladies are now living with his community, they want to remake the barn and get some sheeps and maybe a new horse. I'm pretty sure that i can get to FU money in 5 years if i go live there, i'm just not really interested (and i will have to get a US citizenship so :/).
I think it highlights why doing that kind of stuff now is more difficult. I know people here in California paying a few thousand $ in property tax on their million dollars houses because they bought decades ago (Thanks Prop-13) but how will someone like me, a fairly recent newcomer afford their tens of thousands $ of property taxes for a new home I buy here?
Will inflation eat away at our money such that in 30-40 years from now my tens of thousands $ of property taxes will be similar to the $800/yr your grandfather is paying now? I doubt it.
I think that others are saying is true, you just have to pick up and move from expensive places if you want to reduce your costs significantly, no two ways about it.
(Yes, I realize that most people spend a bit more than $10 a day on groceries, my budget is $800 a month for 2 adults and a kid, I'm just referring to the items that you would normally grow yourself such as vegges and eggs).
whether or not you have FU money (or what FU money is) is the wrong question. john goodman, whom the article quotes, is not a protagonist. the safety goodman is describing is exactly what mark wahlberg cant stand.
"You're born... as a man... with the nerves of a soldier, the apprehension of an angel, to lift a phrase, but there is no use for it. Here? Where's the use for it? You're set up to be a philosopher or a king or Shakespeare, and this is all they give you? This?"
perhaps your first instinct is to think this is a first-world problem, an ignorance of privilege, but remember - wahlberg is in debt to two bookies that will likely kill him, and he triples down on a loan from a third who promises to kill not just him but also his whole bloodline. to whit:
“The only thing worth doing is the impossible. Everything else is gray.”
Life isn't all about money.
Lucky guy.
I really hope Taleb doesn't say this because it's really really stupid. You can call a situation bad without comparing it to chattel slavery.
As someone with family, I am curious about how others with families approach this "fuck-you" topic. I suppose it just doesn't include us, as we've made the choice to assume responsibilities that are (or should be) impossible to walk away from. If saying fuck you to a salary includes saying fuck you to my wife and kids, well I'm not going to do that. And believe it or not it doesn't make me feel like a literal slave to my employer.
For single people (especially younger) it's great advice I think. You're unattached, that has its own benefits, why not make the most of it?
> I really hope Taleb doesn't say this because it's really really stupid. You can call a situation bad without comparing it to chattel slavery.
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...
There may be situations (and professions) where burning one bridge burns all bridges and your only option after all that will be change your line of work, or take a huge pay cut. Ideally, you always make your choices about ongoing costs in a way that you aren't tying yourself to some high level of income and thus eliminating all sense of "f-you" options.
During my six months of unemployment, my unemployment payments covered my required expenses, for most months - all responsibilities, same food as when I was employed. Due to the pandemic, we didn't spend as much on travel, and certain forms of entertainment, but we spent more on others. That's just because my life and my spending is designed that way.
This is all a roundabout way of saying "avoid lifestyle inflation" which very commonly occurs where every raise is accompanied by spending more and more money. Getting a car to signal your raise. Moving into a more expensive house/neighborhood. We certainly spend money on things we enjoy, but in general there's a law of diminishing returns, and lots of spending fails to bring the joy we think it will.
So yes, "f-you money" should be defined by you as having more than enough to say "no" to a bad situation, while still being able to comfortably care for your family, and to avoid imposing painful restrictions on their lives while you seek new income.
Now I live somewhere with a high cost of living (Toronto) because I'm near work, my kids can ride transit rather than driving (much safer for teens) and it means I'm not spending my time as a soccer-practice chauffeur, universities are nearby as well as good hospitals etc., lots of cultural stuff I like. But it's expensive.
From the article "one or two years’ worth of living expenses" if your goal is financial independence, opting work for two years is insane, unless you can bring your expenses down to next-to-nothing as the author suggests. Having two years of expenses for a family of 6 is whole different ballgame than what this fellow is talking about, it's apples and oranges.
As a single person I could get up and move somewhere cheaper, sleep in tent and eat out of the dumpster for that matter (I've done it before, I can do it again) but this is not something I can do with/to my family.
TLDR - I need to work for a limited period of time, but see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Believe me, I've done this math. :)
On a completely unrelated note, check out the Canadian Express Entry system. I have lived in Toronto for a bit over three years now and I never worry about medical bankruptcy any more.
I encourage everyone to read through the blog of this fellow, Mr Money Mustache, which I discovered many years ago. Early Retirement through Badassity. It's not just about having enough money for all your wants. It's about reducing your wants to just your needs.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/blog/
Another great book about it is the Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Stoicism is like the Western Buddhism, and probably developed around the same time.
Basically, learn to separate your wants from your needs, and make sure your needs are covered several times over. It's not black and white -- we as a society come to expect more and more, but previous generations did not all have their own house, they didn't even have clean water running to their house.
I would say needs is whatever can maintain you in optimal health, and everything that supports that. Everything else is more and more optional, and you can practice (like going to the gym) denying yourself gratification in those things.
It is also why orthodox Jews, and the Amish, and others, have lifestyles where their health and emotional well-being is often independent of how much stuff they have. In the US, unfortunately, we have an opiate epidemic, a quarter of middle-aged women are on antidepressants, the kids are overmedicated with ADHD, and the elderly in the old folks home are on all sorts of things. All so our society could have a "good economy", specialization, all young adults can live in their large air conditioned apartments alone, etc. This is extremely different than most traditional societies around the world, where families live together, children are watched by grandparents and respect their elders etc. and there is quite a lot of collectivism and people aren't "spoiled" by individualism and wealth.
And also perhaps consider that this stoicism is not just for money, but also for sexual gratification and attraction to one's partner, as well. Easier said than done, but just like waiting to have $5M to be truly able to relax and be happy, maybe waiting for the most attractive and compatible person to come along to start a family, is something society has been telling us to do. As for me, I couldn't become a stoic in this department LOL, so I appreciate any insights.
I already liked him through his blog; but after that meeting, I liked him even more.
He's authentic. Even more so in person.
Most of his advice is really sound. I hardly find anything I disagree with.
I don't agree much with his stance on Bitcoin [0], but I really like that he's trying to defend people from the quasi-religious crypto-zealots that populate Twitter these days.
[0]: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/01/02/why-bitcoin-is-st...
https://income-inequality.info/
More than 85% of the people in the world live on less than $30 per day [0]. Many of us in the US are accustomed to such a high quality of life we can't even fathom what it's like for the vast majority of the world's population. Being frugal and giving 10% to cost-effective charities is what I choose to do (see Giving What We Can [1] )
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
[1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/
Consider how much of a health cost there is to being sick with malaria? Preventing a case of malaria is likely to have a much more positive effects (compounded into the far future) than doubling the donation in the future. Especially that malaria is a transmittable disease: lower the population of those carrying malaria, you have fewer malaria cases in the future.
Prevention often costs far less than curing. Look at the positive effects of smallpox eradication!
The benefits I could give tomorrow after saving and investing my charity money would be greater than what I have today, plus the appreciation, and then the impact would be enormously more significant after that compounds, too.
To use your example of malaria: "The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced three grants totaling $258.3 million for advanced development of a malaria vaccine" [1]. The BAMGF is able to benefit more people and benefit them more because of their wealth. If they had immediately given every dollar they'd made in their lives to the local homeless person/community, the impact would've been far less positive to humanity.
1: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/...
Let's assume you can double your money over the course of 7 years. AMF (Against Malaria Foundation) protects whole villages with anti-malaria bed nets, often resulting in a drop of around 50% of incidences of malaria over the course of a year or two. This also results in preventing some deaths.
While you wait your 7 years to provide double the money to this charity, many people will needlessly die. And with higher prevalence of malaria, more people will be infected than you can prevent later.
In your example you compare Bill Gates's donation to malaria eradication with giving money to the homeless. How is this the right comparison? And also, bringing Bill Gates into the discussion is irrelevant, unless you're in possession of MILLIONS of dollars you are planning to donate. Are you?
A child sick with parasitic worms will have lower educational attainment and lower income later in life. Whatever effects you hope to bring about in the future through a larger donation better be magnificently larger - to offset all the negative effects of not helping now.
I think neither of us should have 100% certainty that our point of view is right, unless our point of view is "this is likely better". I was just trying to point out to you that your point of view isn't "case closed" type of argument - and that there are other dimensions to think about.
Please consider reading these two great starter resources:
80,000 Hours: https://80000hours.org/articles/should-you-wait/ - Should you wait to make a difference?
Effective Altruism: https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/timing-of-ph... - Timing of Philanthropy
The short answer here is because people need money/help now. People in crisis can't wait 10/20/30/50 years for you to donate.
This is not a judgment, I respect your choices, but many of us donate out of a sense of urgency, and we understand the tradeoffs and the sacrifices involved.
I'd rather give now and help now, even if that means I don't come out as far ahead in the end, than wait to see if I can give (and/or keep) more later.
That said, what you propose certainly works too, and every effort to help is a good effort, but it has it's own drawbacks.
Giving now, even if you are also putting some off to give later, is the better course of action.
A good read: https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/timing-of-ph...
> giving now creates a habit of giving, and removes the temptation to spend savings which were originally intended to be donations.
I've donated money, it didn't become a habit
> The biggest drawback is that you may have the intention of giving money in the future, but you end up never doing it. Unless you put it into some guaranteed-for-charity vehicle like a Donor Advised Fund.
This is a personal point whereas I was coming at it from just a numerical point.
> Unless you put it into some guaranteed-for-charity vehicle like a Donor Advised Fund.
Not familiar with this, but if it's a way to invest money while forcing the money to only be used for charity, then yes I'd consider that the optimal choice for anyone who for some reason is charitable but wouldn't want to give charity down the road
Also, perhaps the people I help today will go on to ensure that we don't need to help as many people in 50 years.
As others have said, and perhaps in terms that will resonate with you, investing today provides compounding returns in the future.
And that applies to aid just as much as it does to money.
Let's take your example to a bit of an extreme, for argument's sake:
I make regular charitable donations, and plan to continue to do so for X years (X being decades), therefore helping any number of people for those X years, potentially saving many lives.
I am now standing in front of a burning building, and I see a person through the window unconscious on the floor.
I can:
(A) Put my life potentially at risk and go into the burning building to drag that one person out and save their life. If I die while trying to save that person, then that means my charitable giving stops.
Or I can (B) definitely not risk my life to save that person, therefore guaranteeing - at least for now - that I can continue to make charitable donations into the future, possibly saving a much larger number of lives.
If you take a detached/theoretical view of this situation, then (B) seems like the better choice in the long run. I will benefit more people.
But it also means I make the choice to stand there and watch that real person die when I could have done something about it.
And I wouldn't be able to do that.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you actually suggesting that you think nobody will be in need or crisis in 50 years? What exactly is theoretical about that? I would say compounding from helping someone today is theoretical: it takes no effort at all to find examples of someone being helped just to throw it away, self-sabotage, refuse to participate. If you like charity just for the idea of helping, then I can understand that. But the claim that aid will always be effective, let alone compound, is imo much more of a stretch than claiming that there will still be people needing help in 50 or 100 years (I'd wager for as long as humans exist)
Meanwhile, real humans - not statistics or "examples" as you put it - need help now.
As for the compounding aspect of charitable work, I guess all I can say there is you should do your own research if you want to realize how wrong you are.
Listen I'm not trying to convince you here, you've made clear in your first message that you don't care about anyone other than yourself and your loved ones, and that's your choice to make, but perhaps acknowledge that as a result of this choice, you don't really know much about charitable giving and the work that happens as a result of it.
Yet here you are confidently speculating about it all. It's starting to feel a bit Dunning-Kruger if I'm totally honest about it.. perhaps an opportunity for self-reflection?
> (A) Put my life potentially at risk and go into the burning building to drag that one person out and save their life. If I die while trying to save that person, then that means my charitable giving stops.
> Or I can (B) definitely not risk my life to save that person, therefore guaranteeing - at least for now - that I can continue to make charitable donations into the future, possibly saving a much larger number of lives.
> If you take a detached/theoretical view of this situation, then (B) seems like the better choice in the long run. I will benefit more people.
> But it also means I make the choice to stand there and watch that real person die when I could have done something about it.
> And I wouldn't be able to do that.
I would do A every day of the week and sleep like a baby every following night, knowing that I'll be safe and sound tomorrow to support my loved ones. You're welcome to do B if you want to, but you yourself acknowledged that it's not the choice that benefits more people in the long run, i.e. the more emotional rather than logically optimal choice. Hence why I said you're not making relevant arguments, just stating that you would do things differently and that you do so out of emotion rather than a logical reason. If you have a logical reason why giving money today is better than letting it compound and then giving more tomorrow, then I'd be interested in hearing it. But if I'm the kind of person to go with A 10/10 times, I think you can imagine I'm not very interested in emotional appeals.
Let's say your discount factor is 3%/year. That means you have no preference between generating 100 utils today or 103 utils next year. If your money compounds more slowly than 3%, it doesn't make sense to save.
Second, the utils you generate probably compound too. Contrary to what many would have you believe, the world is actually getting better at an exponential rate. Since 1981, the conditions of the world's poorest have been getting better and better. It's not totally clear, but it seems plausible that there's an exponential feedback loop involved here. Maybe an extremely poor person in a developing country has $100 of assets, and is able to increase his net worth this year by $5. With that $5, he can get a pen with some chickens or something, which will increase his net worth by $10. With that $10, he can get a radio that will allow him to hear the weather report and better tend his crops, letting him increase his net worth by $15 the next year. If you donated $30 to him, he could jump-start this process and immediately get all these gains and more, instead of having to toil for years for them.
That's a somewhat farscial example, but I think it may resemble reality. Economic growth tends to be exponential, and if you artificially grow the economy by infusing it with cash, that extra boost may compound forever just like the money in your savings account would.
There are of course concerns about housing costs etc, but you simply can't be arguing that there is no meaningful conclusion we can reach when we learn that a person lives on less than $3/day. You for sure know they don't have the luxuries available to those who live on $100/day.
I discussed this the other day with a friend of mine who already has years' worth of fuck you money(I have months at best).
We were complaining that the worst people to work with are those who can't afford to lose employment(usually due to their financial situation), because over time they gradually evolve into these yes-men who will do anything to save their ass - even if it means making everyone else's job harder in the process.
All intelligent, talented people. It's just that they've been conned into living a lifestyle which shepherds them into such a position.
I've been putting off getting a mortgage because I don't want to join this crowd, but real estate prices are not getting any lower, so I might end up with one soon anyway.
And to think I'm actually in the privileged, 30% group of those who can afford any housing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
That's why states and companies should be as indebted as possible as long as it doesn't endanger them.
Two annual engineer salaries make for a nice cushion.
Few people can pull this off though.
I didn't want to join this crowd and valued my freedom much more. I saved up some money in high COL location while paying rent and moved to a low COL (another continent) Not for everyone but is feasible for some.
Besides making individuals captive to their jobs I also think it really hurts our economy. Big corporations have the money to pay for these programs but small companies do not which really hurts them when looking for employees. My personal bugaboo is that the lack of wage growth and economic dynamism the past few decades is heavily influenced by this.
TLDR: making big corporations the only reliable place to get good health care and retirement benefits in the United States is a massive policy failure.
That was me, at a previous job. I eventually was able to bring myself to quit. I made a lot less for a few years but was much happier and realigned my career track for jobs that are more amenable to life.
And it's funny really when you think about it - we make good money, which in turn lets us lead a certain lifestyle - an enviable position for most.
And yet we can't be happy, because we're deprived of meaning, and apparently this is such a basic need that you simply can't stay healthy without it.
Today I spent three hours digging a virtual canal with my friends, so that we could shorten the route our virtual viking ship would have to take to bring some virtual minerals back to our virtual base.
It all felt so much more real and meaningful than what I do for a living.
At this point in my life, I have a target to retire at 50, and will at that point have enough residual income from investments that I can work only when I want to for the remainder of my life. That's an achievable goal for anyone working in tech, and it does empower you to be more real in your work life, but it's also a sliding scale of how aggressively you want to cut things out of your life to save money.
I think the author has the right concept, but their actual breakdown in terms of expenses isn't realistic for most people in the US. I live in a very low cost of living area and still couldn't bring my expenses as low as the author of this article.