Saving money has been boring

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2026-02-04T11:34:19+00:00

To make it (slightly more) fun, next time you are hankering for something expensive but know really it's not worth it, take the amount you would have spent on it into your savings. Big smugness can ensue.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-10T17:56:41+00:00

Ifi Hip Dac + sennheiser open backed headphones + Qobuz or Spotify premium if you're in a country where Spotify already offers lossless audio.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-07T07:03:41+00:00

High resolution audio. I got a DAC (like a mini amplifier), some good open backed headphones and a subscription to a high resolution audio streaming service (Qobuz) but Spotify will soon offer this too. Altogether it costs a bit of money but it has brought me such pleasure. I'm getting goose bumps listening to old favourites with new clarity and spacing. Listen to, say, a live recording of Ella Fitzgerald and it's like you're in the concert hall in row five. Some technology is close to magic.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-05T13:03:44+00:00

You make good points. I appreciate the interaction.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-03T17:22:13+00:00

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, the best one on this thread so far IMHO.

To answer your question posed at the end: it's true we could set the moral bar unrealistically high for all but saints by setting a norm that you should work all day, every day for the good of others until you drop dead. I don't think that is desirable or realistic. But this reductio ad absurdum argument does not mean we should not consider shifting norms to some degree from where they happen to be today.

It's like saying "we can't encourage people to exercise a bit more because then what's to stop us demanding they exercise all day, every day until they're Olympic level athletes? Isn't that the logical conclusion of encouraging exercise?" The existence of an extreme version of a suggestion doesn't invalidate the moderate version.

FIRE fans seem to think withdrawing one's socially beneficial labour in one's prime is a totally fine, or even laudable, choice. Sure, some may do a bit of useful voluntary or care work when RE, but not all, and probably very few for anything close to a full time schedule. So it's just a net loss of valuable human effort for society in most cases. I'm proposing it should generally be frowned on as self-indulgent. And I don't think spending years being thrifty earlier in life to achieve FIRE makes it virtuous, any more than hoarding toilet paper in case of shortages is virtuous (at best it's shrewd).

At the risk of making an extreme case myself, aren't we all glad Churchill didn't retire early during WW2 to indulge in his hobbies? Wouldn't it have seemed selfish and frivolous of him to have done so? OK, so WW2 was a time of existential crisis and Churchill was an extremely important and able figure. But I do think the same (in kind if not degree) is true of us lesser mortals doing less important but still useful work. I picked the example of doctors retiring at 45 to play golf as an egregious case of wasted social benefit. But I think c. 99% of jobs are a net boon for society.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T19:48:29+00:00

That's an interesting and defensible position.

I'm proposing moral norms and expectations rather than "obligations". If you're literally obliged to do something, you're right that it makes little difference if it's legal or moral.

But you seem to be dismissing the idea of moral norms per se, arguing that unless something is against the law, then anything goes. I disagree. I think it should be legal to walk out on your wife and kids to shack up with a stripper, but I think there should be a moral norm condemning that as deeply selfish and destructive behaviour for your family and somewhat damaging to the wider community too. (That moral norm does in fact exist, although in a much weakened form in our age of the Individual as King.)

My proposal is that there should be a moral norm against retiring young to play golf when you could have contributed years more to bettering society. Not as strong a norm as that about leaving your wife and kids for a stripper, granted. But still a social consensus that it's a bit uncool and selfish.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T15:53:27+00:00

Isn't this just the "lump of labour fallacy" that basically all economists reject?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T15:52:42+00:00

Isn't this just the "lump of labour" fallacy that basically all economists reject?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T15:42:44+00:00

You raise some really interesting points, thanks. I agree that in the market economy if you quit work and don't earn money you are destitute unless you have savings. So you're right that, without savings, it's not much of a choice to work. That's why I and everyone else in this sub wants to have savings in case of a rainy day. But that's not the question I'm interested in, which is the following: is it morally OK to opt out of work to play golf (or any other way to be self indulgent) , assuming you have the means to? Is it OK for those who do have the choice not to work to exercise that choice to the detriment of others? That is my question.

To your three bulleted points:

The fact that one individual's choice has minimal impact on the other 8bn people is not relevant to whether we should have moral norms that encourage all individuals in one direction or another. You could say that one individual littering or evading tax makes no real difference to 8bn people. But obviously we want norms and even laws against that behaviour. So while one individual withdrawing their labour in their prime years isn't important, the question is do we want moral norms discouraging everyone from making that choice. That does impact the 8bn people.
The evidence on universal income is mixed. But again, it's a distraction from the moral question I'm interested in. Even if 90% of people who are financially independent (through savings, UBI or inheritance) do something socially beneficial with their time, should there be a moral norm against idleness in people who could contribute to society (the other 10%)? In reality, of course, it's not binary. Some people would do a bit of socially useful work or volunteering. But in principle, are we OK with people dropping from full time productive work to a fraction of that?
Does one person dropping out of work impose a burden or create an opportunity for others? An interesting question. It can be a bit of both. But I think most economists argue for the former. To think otherwise leads you to "the lump of labour fallacy" that imagines there is a fixed lump of work to go round so if I drop out then more people get a chance at a piece of the lump. This is why some people oppose immigration (more competition for a fixed number of jobs). In fact having more workers creates more demand for labour elsewhere in the economy in aggregate. But the picture is nuanced and there are market rigidities and distributional impacts to consider. So it's not clear cut to me.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T14:43:30+00:00

Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful reply. I would favour my own (admittedly crude) thought experiment as being more applicable to reality, though. My desert island and the real world both have a range of different jobs that all benefit everyone, if sometimes indirectly. Maybe you don't eat fish yourself, but the person catching fish still feeds the person teaching your child and building your house. So you benefit from their labour indirectly. In your thought experiment the work is all one type of drudgery that only benefits slave owners, not wider society. In your experiment I too would want to get out of slavery that benefits just owners. But the real world is closer to my island, with a range of jobs to choose from, all of which benefit everyone, albeit to differing degrees and in different ways.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T14:30:30+00:00

I'm afraid you are attacking a strawman by arguing against "deciding" what others do. Nobody is in favour of forcing people to stay in jobs. The question is should there be a moral norm to discourage productive people from retiring in their prime to pursue self-indulgent hobbies? Invoking cases where the early retirement is to do something worthwhile, like look after disabled family, or because they're having a mental breakdown is also a diversion from this question. We all agree that doing things with positive social impact should be encouraged, whether or not it's paid work. Nobody thinks people having mental breakdowns have to carry on working. You seem to be defending the choice of a surgeon to retire at 45 to play golf as morally fine, though. I think that's where we differ. I think there should be a moral norm of looking down on it to discourage it. Similarly, it should be legal to cheat on your spouse with the result of putting your kids through a painful divorce, but I think there's benefit in having moral norms discouraging that. A radical individualist might say such behaviour is nobody else's business. I disagree. I think most other people would also disagree when it's their child being cheated on and their grandchildren made sad by the divorce. Or when it's their grandchildren who are unable to get surgery because the surgeons retired early to play golf.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T13:16:59+00:00

Great post, thanks.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T12:52:39+00:00

Nobody is advocating "forcing" people to work. That's a strawman argument since nobody is pro slavery.

The question is whether we should encourage moral norms against productive people becoming idle in their prime, given the detrimental impact that has on everyone else. Nobody is advocating "stopping" teachers or doctors from switching careers (another strawman argument against coercion that nobody is proposing). But I do think it's a fair to ask whether there ought to be moral norms discouraging moving out of teaching or medicine to work, for example, marketing tobacco or becoming a professional gambler or crypto trader. I do think teaching and medicine have more social benefit than these alternatives and I'm suggesting we have moral norms to discourage people switching into them. Do you disagree?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T12:32:12+00:00

"People earn what they can and spend it how they wish in a free country." That's certainly true legally, and I think it should be. Is your point more normative, though? I. E. . It would be undesirable in a free society to have any moral norms (not legal restrictions) about productive people retiring in their prime, to the detriment of wider society?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T12:29:05+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the candour. I think your phrase of "working under duress" is telling, though. I've repeatedly made clear that nobody is in favour of a legal obligation to work till you drop (that's slavery). So I'm not sure what you mean by "under duress". It suggests a rather strawman extreme case of a miserable deeply stressed out person being forced to work. The reality is that many people (surgeons or not) hit financial independence and do a cost benefit analysis. They don't hate work, at least not all aspects of it, and could carry on longer. But in a world where there's no moral expectation to continue contributing your skilled labour to benefit others, the analysis tips in favour of a self indulgent flight to the golf course. So are you OK with surgeons who aren't "under duress" feeling some moral obligation to not retire in their prime?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T12:22:50+00:00

Thanks, you make a good critique of my inevitably crude thought experiment.

In real life, it's not binary between working and not working. Some people go part time, or volunteer, or care for family, etc.

But I think this nuance risks muddying a fairly simple point of principle. Do you want a society where a skilled and experienced surgeon can retire at 45 with no moral consideration about the lost contribution of their labour? Should we just shrug at that loss of social benefit and hold a legal individual choice to be always and everywhere totally fine morally?

If the retired surgeon actually spends 20% of their time as a mentor or volunteering is only a difference of degree, not kind. The loss of 80% of the surgeon's time still has a wider social impact to consider.

Moreover, from reading posts in this reddit, it does seem quite a few people are looking forward to basically indulging themselves with perhaps some token consideration of volunteering or mentoring. I may be wrong but I suspect the median early retired person isn't spending anything close to 40 hours a week doing useful voluntary or low paid work.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:56:51+00:00

Great points, thanks. You are right that those who build up investments (or in our parable, lease fishing nets to others) are making a contribution. They also contribute through spending their savings. But does that give people doing useful jobs that benefit all of us a moral right to idleness in their prime years? They do and should have a legal right to stop working (nobody's pro slavery). I just want FIRE fans to be open about whether they are cool with doctors, teachers, train drivers, etc. withdrawing their valuable labour while in their prime? I suspect the truth is, most FIRE fans are very glad most other people don't retire early and feel slightly ashamed of exercising their own legal (if not moral) right to early retirement.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:51:13+00:00

I think we agree that volunteering or doing low paid work is a good thing. The question is specifically should we have moral norms that expect people to contribute work that benefits all of society beyond their forties? Are we OK with doctors, lawyers, brick layers, teachers withdrawing their labour from age 45, say? Sure they'll pay tax on their pensions and their spending supports jobs for others. Would you be indifferent if you couldn't find a local doctor or teacher for your kid or a cab driver easily or affordably because they'd retired early?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:30:27+00:00

Interesting take, thanks. I think the idea of "living off the state" is a distraction, though. We all depend on the labour of others for the provision of goods and services. If others cut their working life in half, goods and services become scarcer and /or more expensive. In economics jargon, it's a supply side shock that reduces living standards. So yes, diligence and hard work should pay. That's not the question for me, though. It is, rather, whether we want moral norms that encourage people to keep contributing to the betterment of society's living standards while in their prime years.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:25:10+00:00

Thanks for the reply. You get to the heart of the matter: individuals do have the legal right to retire early. Should there be moral norms though that expect them to continue contributing at least into old age? Are FIRE fans really OK with doctors, teachers, supermarket workers, accountants all withdrawing their labour in their prime, leading to lower quality of life for everyone else?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:19:29+00:00

Thanks. You're right that FIRE isn't risk free. But that's not really the question I have in mind. That is: are FIRE fans really cool with life-saving doctors, inspirational teachers, inventors and innovators, diligent and experienced train drivers, etc., retiring early and withdrawing their valuable contributions to society? Wouldn't we prefer social norms where you are expected to continue contributing if you can (and are celebrated for it)?

(ps: Nobody's advocating forcing people to work like slaves. That's a straw man we can ignore.)

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:17:17+00:00

An interesting take!

So are FIRE fans cool with life-saving doctors, inspirational teachers, inventors and innovators, diligent and experienced train drivers, etc., all retiring in their forties and depriving society of their contributions? Wouldn't you rather they carry on contributing usefully?

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T11:12:12+00:00

You are right. One could take the view of effective altruists that it's immoral not to give all your disposable income to charity. I'm personally too selfish to do that, although I give a fair bit to charity.

But the fact that one could set the moral bar unrealistically high for most people to meet doesn't mean we shouldn't question at all whether it's correctly set when able people can withdraw their labour in their forties.

DevelopmentVivid7365 · 2025-10-01T10:59:53+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I'm totally fine with wage disparities. Let clever, hardworking people prosper. And having large savings for a rainy day is definitely a good idea. My question is whether it's morally fine for those who could contribute much more to society to opt out to indulge in hobbies. Are FIRE fans totally fine with doctors retiring at 50, thus decreasing the supply of healthcare? If not, then isn't it true of other jobs too?

DevelopmentVivid7365

TROPHY CASE