this article isn't really about package dependency hell
it is rather about the economic hopelessness of younger people in america and the west more generally
america worked when everyone thought there was a chance they could become reasonably rich by working reasonably hard (or unreasonably rich by working unreasonably hard). we are now going to see if it can continue to work when people no longer believe that
i don't believe that it can, and i view the increasingly unhinged behavior of our elites as an indication that they believe the same
It has never really been true. The difference is that the marketing campaign isn't working anymore. It's become too hard to hide the scope of the failures from anyone with a hint of curiosity. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in the long term, depending on what we decide to do about it. But it's sure a painful thing for now and the near/medium-term future.
It's 100% about beliefs. If you believe you can become rich by working hard, regardless of truth, you will work hard. If you do not believe you can get rich by working hard, even if it is true, then why would you work hard?
i see what you mean and i'm sympathetic, but i'm also skeptical of the just-so story that previous generations in america believed in as well (although them believing in it may be a just-so story that I happen to believe in... it gets confusing...)
This is the exact problem Thoreau was trying to solve when he wrote Walden, and arguably did solve. Figure out what is actually important to you, and ruthlessly eliminate things from your life that don't contribute towards that.
I get disappointed by seeing how many intelligent, motivated, and energetic people mindlessly put all of their energy into these culturally prescribed goals. Once they achieve them, they will eventually feel disappointed, because it isn't really aligned with them.
Whenever I'm doing something I really enjoy- like exploring nature in a tiny sailboat together with my kid, there is always this nagging narrative in the back of my head that I shouldn't be doing this: I need to be starting another business or working harder, making more money, etc. Then I could be exploring nature in a giant yacht a decade from now! But wait, I don't want that. I can afford a tiny sailboat, and what I want to do is explore with it right now, which I already can do.
I think a deeper aspect is that people also want to feel connected, accepted, and admired by others... and perceive that this requires social status they can only get by winning at some pre-defined life plan. But it doesn't really work that way- the people you would impress by doing your own thing are only the ones you would actually be able to relate to, whose opinion really matters.
Companies are raking in record breaking levels of profit, but less than 1% of the US population has nearly 50% of the wealth, and it's still not enough for them, they want more.[1]
The world is all about incentives. If the incentives of company loyalty, a better future, and better economic status are removed for workers, what is the point? I just see rampant greed that is eating everything of any worth. It makes me not want to participate at all.
The good thing is those incentives can be restored rather easily, the money is there. Events like the auto union profit share recently, and the EU trying to fight against Apple's dominance are good signs. Sustainable growth is possible, but we need to accept the limitations of reality and fight against concepts like infinite growth.
That's not a choice? Rent must be paid, bread must be put on the table, the future must be planned for, and that means having an idea of where the money will be when I can no longer work.
(If you're where you can make such a choice, great. Most of us are nowhere near it.)
Record breaking layoffs results in record breaking profits in short term.
My division of international reinsurance company had gradually laid off about a half of IT people we had. Almost all contractors let go. And now the company report said they overachieved their 2023 goal to have 3B net income. God bless capitalism!
The weird thing about an economic model that allows that disparity to occur, is because it's some local maximum of effort to change.
There's enough people willing to sell their stake in the fight to the next few up in the economic ladder, in exchange for some small portion of the wealth owned by the rung above. The main driver being that small portion they get is still greater than any amount of wealth and power the person could access before. A change in the status quo means then losing the source of that wealth.
We land at a plateau because some critical mass of people (not even that many, globally speaking), accept that as OK, and their summed wealth and power outweighs everyone not in that tree. (With the amount that they care decreasing the further down you find yourself if you are in the tree.) Given the current system, we could widen that tree, so more people share in the wealth of the rich few by protecting them, and/or we can shorten the tree by reducing how much wealth one person can accrue. Either way, it's searching for a new local maximum where enough of the people living comfortably can choose to ignore the plight of the people suffering by protecting someone else. We do get some choice over the ratio though. It's just hard to get the ball moving, clearly.
"Financial Independence, Retire Early" is the VanillaJS of life strategies: you can do everything you want as long as you ignore the chorus of Twitter thought-leaders insisting that it'll never be enough.
It's still complete luck at this point with no social safety net. FIRE assumes you will never have a single traumatic event set you back during the course of a 20 year career. Great for anyone who's banking on never being injured, sick, disabled, pregnant, having to care for someone, or being significantly unemployed ever.
The whole point of FIRE is that you are planning on being significantly unemployed, a lot sooner than most people. Even fairly early into that 20-year career, you'll have an emergency fund that can get you through a lot of otherwise-pretty-dire situations.
Never hurts to get injury and disability insurance, too.
I was trying to do FIRE as a student making only about ~10k a year, and managed to save most of my income despite having a low income by just living really really cheaply for over a decade. By the end of my PhD program I had saved up ~100k when most people would have been that much in debt.
Then I had a kid, and couldn't find/afford childcare. So I ended up using my 'FIRE' savings to pay for childcare for several years, essentially using it all up. I was paying about 100% of my take home salary on childcare for two years straight, and able to make it through.
Basically the safety net I acquired worked awesome! I didn't get to keep my retirement savings like planned, but I was able to keep doing a low paying postdoc despite needing expensive childcare, which let me keep a low paying postdoc I would have otherwise had to quit... which ultimately led to a high paying and stable career where I've rebuilt my savings after all.
Basically, having lots of savings a la FIRE is (1) possible even on an extremely low poverty income- you just need to make hard choices like shared living situations, no car (or a very old car you maintain yourself), home cook all meals from cheap ingredients, etc. and (2) it gives you a safety next with flexibility and options for the type of unforeseen events you are talking about. Having a massive financial safety net is great, even if you end up not being able to use it to retire early, as I was not.
It's all about priorities... on almost any income level, you can ruthlessly cut un-needed expenses, and build a safety net/retirement. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to need this for some non-retirement financial emergency, which is all the more reason to do it, because those type of things are even more important than early retirement.
"FIRE" is a "life strategy" like telling someone "have a money tree in your backyard" is a life strategy.
Employers are loathe to give raises. Employers are loathe to even inflation adjust one's current pay. Putting in more work == no reward.
Even the strat of "job hop as fast as recruiters permit" chalks up only the most modest of gains, and certainly nowhere near FIRE territory unless you're lucky.
The other half of the equation is the amount you're spending. At least in tech, FIRE means finding a way to earn a San Francisco salary without paying for a San Francisco lifestyle, such that you're saving more than one year's expenses per year you work.
It is surprisingly doable, particularly if you can land a remote job and then move somewhere cheap. (Doable for us software developers, anyway.)
> At least in tech, FIRE means finding a way to earn a San Francisco salary without paying for a San Francisco lifestyle
> if you can land a remote job and then move somewhere cheap. (Doable for us software developers, anyway.)
Employers call this a "geographic adjustment", and will happily "geographically adjust" you as soon as you move. From their point of view: why should they pay you SF salary when you don't have SF costs?
Quite a few people on here are making this same basic comment, and it seems to come from a misunderstanding of the 'FIRE' concept. It is not based on making a lot of money, but by living below your means, such that you can invest a large fraction of your income. A key part of the concept is that it can be done even with a very modest income. Look at the Mr. Money Mustache blog (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/) for example.
Sorry to put it this way, but FIRE is some serious bullshit.
Most of us barely make ends meet. We bust ass and do everything right. Financial independence is a pipe dream. Retiring EVER is likely off the table entirely at all.
I'm not as familiar with the names of these things as I ought to be, but isn't FIRE basically the philosophy your post described? "Doing everything right" involves taking on a lot of expensive responsibilities: outrageous student loans, a big mortgage, dependents. But you can just... say no, to many of those things, and stick your money in an index fund instead.
No, FIRE as I see it propositioned requires wealth to begin with. See the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement — note, for example, the high savings rates. Start with the highest bracket: 75%. If you're spending anywhere near the "affordable limit" of 30% on rent (and AIUI, many people find this tough), it should be trivially obvious that a savings rate of 75% is impossible. (Note that the 30% bar is usually in terms of gross, whereas I presume the amounts listed in the Wikipedia article are in terms of take-home … since otherwise 75% is getting pretty close to tautologically impossible, as it's approaching 100% of one's net income, then.)
And we're only counting rent! Add in utilities, a car (+all the stuff with that such as insurance, gas, maintenance, tax), health insurance, expenses not covered by health insurance b/c this is America, food … and yeah. You're not getting a 75% savings rate. We've not even left the bottom two tiers of Maslow's hierarchy here.
This is all on the Wikipedia page, too. ("Some critics allege that the FIRE movement 'is only for the rich', pointing to the difficulties of achieving the high savings rates needed for FIRE on a low income."; though I quibble with "low" in that statement.)
If you're living somewhere where you struggle to find a studio apartment for less than $2k a month, you probably don't need a car. You can easily feed a single person for $20 a day, =about $600 a month, even if you don't cook.
75% is a stretch, but it's entirely possible to save more than half your salary. You might not want to, but then a lot of people don't want to abandon their giant NPM dependency trees either.
So this reminded me of a pretty funny conversation on Seinfeld between Jerry and Kramer, where Kramer explains to Jerry that these are the prisons that people (really men in context) make for themselves[0]. It's done to good comedic effect, but you do also see his point. Not that everyone would want to live like Kramer obviously.
> "The way society is designed is that, if you're lucky, you earn a bit more than you spend every month."
1- Society, in the United States, is not "designed". There doesn't exist a worse word to use to describe what life in the US, and the west in general, is like, because that word, this whole piece really, smells like victim mentality. You need to escape that mentality. Its not just wrong; its harmful to your mental health.
2- What I hate seeing is 24 year olds moving to an awesome downtown apartment in whatever city. Buying a new Toyota (I'm being financially responsible, its not like I'm buying a Tesla or something right). Planning a girls trip to Mexico. New iPhone every other year. Doordashing anything, ever.
Teachers and nurses make like $40-$55,000 in my state. Putting aside the fact that its way too little; if you have the skill to write this blog post; to (awkwardly) connect the concept of npm packages with the Bundle Size Of Your Life, you're making more than this. So your excuse is...?
The reason you feel that you earn a bit more than you spend each month is because of the financial decisions you've made. Its not the system. Its not society. Its human nature. Its you. Do you think its just a coincidence that most people earn a bit more than they spend? Across every income level? Its a coincidence that this is true for nurses, true for software engineers, and true for married power couple business owners in a million dollar mansion? Congratulations, you've just independently discovered lifestyle inflation. Your expenses are bounded by how much money you make, so if you let them they will balloon to absorb everything you make (and, then, the system will step in and let you spend even more! thanks, system!)
You're also circumnavigating your way to describing what is probably burnout. Much has been written about that; maybe the first step is recognizing that this is what you're describing. Here's the second step to recognize: Burnout doesn't usually happen because you're working too hard; it happens when you're working too hard for no reason. You aren't going to be significantly happier by finding a job that's less stressful; that requires less of you; that pays twice as much; your real focus should be on identifying a better reason to work. The two most common ones: That you believe, deeply, in the company's mission; or, to support your loved ones.
Another thing I'd add, drawing back to the original metaphor: Nothing is stopping you from throwing things away. Look, yeah, that synthesizer was like $400 and you were so sure you'd learn to make music but it just never happened. I get it. Facebook Marketplace it. Or throw it away. Leave it out by the dumpster where someone can find it and give it new life. Identifying and nuking unused dependencies, The Things You Own, can be very cathartic and good.
My plates have these gross calcium water stains on them, but I always put up with it. Could never get it fully off. A few weeks ago a thought occurred to me: I can just throw them away? So, I did. I just threw them away. They were like a $50 Ikea plate set; who cares? Just throw them out. Doing that unlocked a second thought: What if I just bought paper plates? I use like one plate a week. So, I did that. Its fantastic, and works so much better for me.
> Nothing is stopping you from throwing things away
The post mentioned a partner and kids (literally dependents) as something acquired. Not so socially acceptable to throw away, though that doesn't mean it isn't done with some regularity.
Sure, that's fair; I hope I didn't imply that would be acceptable.
I don't want to sound callous, nor make assumptions about the author's life situation. I don't know where they're at, and if they're reading this just recognize what I'm about to say may or may not apply to you. However: I've found the mental state communicated in this piece to be more rare among people in committed relationships, and even rarer among those with kids. Definitely not zero; just more rare.
Please, do not interpret that previous statement to mean "oh, this dude on the internet is saying all my problems will be solved if I just find love and make a family" because:
- Obviously this is not easy, and only a sociopath would actually recommend this as an attainable way to improve your frame of mind; and
- Assuming that walking this path will improve a poor frame of mind is tenuous; I'm stating observations on the outcomes, not on the path toward achieving those outcomes; and
- It is deeply countervalent to a genuinely great point the author made in the blog post, that you shouldn't assume the American Atomic Family path our forebearers paved for us is what is right for you.
I think the point is more that you are put on this path without really thinking about it, and it then you are locked into it. I can sympathize with at least the education and job part of it. I did all that and eventually got laid off anyway and figured I had fallen off some path or other, and then looked back and realized the path was never really all that proscribed.
39 comments
[ 73.5 ms ] story [ 1441 ms ] threadit is rather about the economic hopelessness of younger people in america and the west more generally
america worked when everyone thought there was a chance they could become reasonably rich by working reasonably hard (or unreasonably rich by working unreasonably hard). we are now going to see if it can continue to work when people no longer believe that
i don't believe that it can, and i view the increasingly unhinged behavior of our elites as an indication that they believe the same
And what did that correlate with? That's right, with actually having that chance.
It's not about beliefs. People can't decide to undo it all and just believe their way back to happiness.
I get disappointed by seeing how many intelligent, motivated, and energetic people mindlessly put all of their energy into these culturally prescribed goals. Once they achieve them, they will eventually feel disappointed, because it isn't really aligned with them.
Whenever I'm doing something I really enjoy- like exploring nature in a tiny sailboat together with my kid, there is always this nagging narrative in the back of my head that I shouldn't be doing this: I need to be starting another business or working harder, making more money, etc. Then I could be exploring nature in a giant yacht a decade from now! But wait, I don't want that. I can afford a tiny sailboat, and what I want to do is explore with it right now, which I already can do.
I think a deeper aspect is that people also want to feel connected, accepted, and admired by others... and perceive that this requires social status they can only get by winning at some pre-defined life plan. But it doesn't really work that way- the people you would impress by doing your own thing are only the ones you would actually be able to relate to, whose opinion really matters.
They need to learn to share.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/19/1170669245/millerknoll-ceo-an...
I also think "Many hands make light work," maybe that is a better strategy.
That's not a choice? Rent must be paid, bread must be put on the table, the future must be planned for, and that means having an idea of where the money will be when I can no longer work.
(If you're where you can make such a choice, great. Most of us are nowhere near it.)
I agree, it does make one want to not participate. 'Twere it only so simple…
My division of international reinsurance company had gradually laid off about a half of IT people we had. Almost all contractors let go. And now the company report said they overachieved their 2023 goal to have 3B net income. God bless capitalism!
There's enough people willing to sell their stake in the fight to the next few up in the economic ladder, in exchange for some small portion of the wealth owned by the rung above. The main driver being that small portion they get is still greater than any amount of wealth and power the person could access before. A change in the status quo means then losing the source of that wealth.
We land at a plateau because some critical mass of people (not even that many, globally speaking), accept that as OK, and their summed wealth and power outweighs everyone not in that tree. (With the amount that they care decreasing the further down you find yourself if you are in the tree.) Given the current system, we could widen that tree, so more people share in the wealth of the rich few by protecting them, and/or we can shorten the tree by reducing how much wealth one person can accrue. Either way, it's searching for a new local maximum where enough of the people living comfortably can choose to ignore the plight of the people suffering by protecting someone else. We do get some choice over the ratio though. It's just hard to get the ball moving, clearly.
Never hurts to get injury and disability insurance, too.
Then I had a kid, and couldn't find/afford childcare. So I ended up using my 'FIRE' savings to pay for childcare for several years, essentially using it all up. I was paying about 100% of my take home salary on childcare for two years straight, and able to make it through.
Basically the safety net I acquired worked awesome! I didn't get to keep my retirement savings like planned, but I was able to keep doing a low paying postdoc despite needing expensive childcare, which let me keep a low paying postdoc I would have otherwise had to quit... which ultimately led to a high paying and stable career where I've rebuilt my savings after all.
Basically, having lots of savings a la FIRE is (1) possible even on an extremely low poverty income- you just need to make hard choices like shared living situations, no car (or a very old car you maintain yourself), home cook all meals from cheap ingredients, etc. and (2) it gives you a safety next with flexibility and options for the type of unforeseen events you are talking about. Having a massive financial safety net is great, even if you end up not being able to use it to retire early, as I was not.
It's all about priorities... on almost any income level, you can ruthlessly cut un-needed expenses, and build a safety net/retirement. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to need this for some non-retirement financial emergency, which is all the more reason to do it, because those type of things are even more important than early retirement.
Employers are loathe to give raises. Employers are loathe to even inflation adjust one's current pay. Putting in more work == no reward.
Even the strat of "job hop as fast as recruiters permit" chalks up only the most modest of gains, and certainly nowhere near FIRE territory unless you're lucky.
It is surprisingly doable, particularly if you can land a remote job and then move somewhere cheap. (Doable for us software developers, anyway.)
> if you can land a remote job and then move somewhere cheap. (Doable for us software developers, anyway.)
Employers call this a "geographic adjustment", and will happily "geographically adjust" you as soon as you move. From their point of view: why should they pay you SF salary when you don't have SF costs?
Most of us barely make ends meet. We bust ass and do everything right. Financial independence is a pipe dream. Retiring EVER is likely off the table entirely at all.
And we're only counting rent! Add in utilities, a car (+all the stuff with that such as insurance, gas, maintenance, tax), health insurance, expenses not covered by health insurance b/c this is America, food … and yeah. You're not getting a 75% savings rate. We've not even left the bottom two tiers of Maslow's hierarchy here.
This is all on the Wikipedia page, too. ("Some critics allege that the FIRE movement 'is only for the rich', pointing to the difficulties of achieving the high savings rates needed for FIRE on a low income."; though I quibble with "low" in that statement.)
If you're living somewhere where you struggle to find a studio apartment for less than $2k a month, you probably don't need a car. You can easily feed a single person for $20 a day, =about $600 a month, even if you don't cook.
75% is a stretch, but it's entirely possible to save more than half your salary. You might not want to, but then a lot of people don't want to abandon their giant NPM dependency trees either.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysw3QZIBzMo
1- Society, in the United States, is not "designed". There doesn't exist a worse word to use to describe what life in the US, and the west in general, is like, because that word, this whole piece really, smells like victim mentality. You need to escape that mentality. Its not just wrong; its harmful to your mental health.
2- What I hate seeing is 24 year olds moving to an awesome downtown apartment in whatever city. Buying a new Toyota (I'm being financially responsible, its not like I'm buying a Tesla or something right). Planning a girls trip to Mexico. New iPhone every other year. Doordashing anything, ever.
Teachers and nurses make like $40-$55,000 in my state. Putting aside the fact that its way too little; if you have the skill to write this blog post; to (awkwardly) connect the concept of npm packages with the Bundle Size Of Your Life, you're making more than this. So your excuse is...?
The reason you feel that you earn a bit more than you spend each month is because of the financial decisions you've made. Its not the system. Its not society. Its human nature. Its you. Do you think its just a coincidence that most people earn a bit more than they spend? Across every income level? Its a coincidence that this is true for nurses, true for software engineers, and true for married power couple business owners in a million dollar mansion? Congratulations, you've just independently discovered lifestyle inflation. Your expenses are bounded by how much money you make, so if you let them they will balloon to absorb everything you make (and, then, the system will step in and let you spend even more! thanks, system!)
You're also circumnavigating your way to describing what is probably burnout. Much has been written about that; maybe the first step is recognizing that this is what you're describing. Here's the second step to recognize: Burnout doesn't usually happen because you're working too hard; it happens when you're working too hard for no reason. You aren't going to be significantly happier by finding a job that's less stressful; that requires less of you; that pays twice as much; your real focus should be on identifying a better reason to work. The two most common ones: That you believe, deeply, in the company's mission; or, to support your loved ones.
Another thing I'd add, drawing back to the original metaphor: Nothing is stopping you from throwing things away. Look, yeah, that synthesizer was like $400 and you were so sure you'd learn to make music but it just never happened. I get it. Facebook Marketplace it. Or throw it away. Leave it out by the dumpster where someone can find it and give it new life. Identifying and nuking unused dependencies, The Things You Own, can be very cathartic and good.
My plates have these gross calcium water stains on them, but I always put up with it. Could never get it fully off. A few weeks ago a thought occurred to me: I can just throw them away? So, I did. I just threw them away. They were like a $50 Ikea plate set; who cares? Just throw them out. Doing that unlocked a second thought: What if I just bought paper plates? I use like one plate a week. So, I did that. Its fantastic, and works so much better for me.
The post mentioned a partner and kids (literally dependents) as something acquired. Not so socially acceptable to throw away, though that doesn't mean it isn't done with some regularity.
I don't want to sound callous, nor make assumptions about the author's life situation. I don't know where they're at, and if they're reading this just recognize what I'm about to say may or may not apply to you. However: I've found the mental state communicated in this piece to be more rare among people in committed relationships, and even rarer among those with kids. Definitely not zero; just more rare.
Please, do not interpret that previous statement to mean "oh, this dude on the internet is saying all my problems will be solved if I just find love and make a family" because:
- Obviously this is not easy, and only a sociopath would actually recommend this as an attainable way to improve your frame of mind; and
- Assuming that walking this path will improve a poor frame of mind is tenuous; I'm stating observations on the outcomes, not on the path toward achieving those outcomes; and
- It is deeply countervalent to a genuinely great point the author made in the blog post, that you shouldn't assume the American Atomic Family path our forebearers paved for us is what is right for you.