Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I confess... I worked to line my pockets. If I could push a button, or maybe even have a pinky finger cut off that would make the world a better place in a quantifiable way I'd do it in a heartbeat, but that isn't why I worked. I worked for the vara, then I could buy cool stuff like beer and cars and houses.
I've been very surprised how many non-technical, non-degree people I've been meeting in these companies though. Astounded actually. A few ex-military too. And they are surpassing my husband with his engineering background and PhD (in learning, though...). I will say that they tend to be in several camps: 1) company-loyal.. they will do anything and everything not to get booted out because they know they'd have a hard time competing with candidates with experience AND degrees. 2) Not quite FTE or low rank FTE.. they've got awesome tech skills, but quit school before the degree so they can work at these awesome companies, but only go so far 3) Are older and came before degrees were needed to take out the trash.
Oh, and their jobs aren't as secure as the technical people. After a new directive from up above my husband's group now has four non-technical program managers without anything to do. His boss will have to make some hard decisions soon...
Oh and I agree about Ohio Peasant.. love your posts Ohio Peasant! If you're an author please let me know so I can read your work.
Some of the highest paid people at these FAANG type companies have advanced finance/math backgrounds. In the 80s these people were called quants and found mostly on Wall St.
Now, they are called financial engineers and found in treasury departments. If you have the kind of cash Apple does, these people are more important than the product engineers.
I disagree. It's about living under your means, nothing about falling short of any standard American lifestyle. Folks often conflate living below your means with going without, they aren't the same thing. Obviously with modest earnings a path to FI would necessarily involve a consumption pattern lesser than the norm, but that hardly makes it the whole point of FI movement.
The point of FI movement is to live below your means and accumulate wealth over time so you achieve FI.
I think we are agreeing. By use of the word "standard", I was trying to say "the way everyone else does it in my peer group". I wasn't imply that the standard way is better. In some ways, to some people, it might be. But I think any objective analysis would show the standard way things are done in America mostly s*cks in terms of human well being.
That makes sense. But at the same time, the higher COL metro areas are precisely where the higher paying jobs tend to be.
Your HHI is not likely to be $135k in the middle of Nebraska, unless you are lucky or an outlier.
At least where I live in the SF Bay Area, I really just don't see that the higher pay makes up the difference for the vast majority people who want kids.
At the end of the day, the reason why we work is not really to line our pockets. It's to make this world a more productive and happier place. Think about why people are in the workforce to begin with.
I think people have lots of motivations for working. I think a lot of people don't give it much thought. It's just something you have to do. It's a program. My parents worked until they couldn't any more, and so will I...that kind of thing. So maybe your motivation for working is to make the world a better place, but I'm pretty sure most people aren't thinking at that level.
And I would say most people in the FI movement ARE the kind of people who express motivations to do work that makes the world a better place. Their deep motivation to do so is what motivates them to save enough money to leave those corporate jobs. They just don't see the jobs they work as making the world a better place, and I concur. I really don't think most paid jobs make the better place. It's like a machine that's taken on a life of its own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba
So, the thought that working for a company, school, or the government is indentured servitude but working for yourself is unbridled joy is a little exaggerated.
I would agree with that. Nothing is unbridled joy all the time. And I think many people in the FI movement would agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba
Basically, if the husband in the article wanted to be a creative writer, there's jobs to do that.
But that's just it. It's a job on someone else's terms and conditions. It goes back to working because you have to vs. working because you want to. Not everyone wants to work for someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba
If I had a child I wouldn't tell them to work at something they didn't give a sh@t about for 20 years and sacrifice their 20s and 30s in order to retire by age 45, I'd tell them to find something that meant something to them, and work doing that.
Now I think you're the one whose being a little too easy breezy here. Like everyone can just go out there and fund such meaningful work in a paid job. That just doesn't sound very realistic to me. At. All.
You really need to have a car in most places. I don't see how that's cherry-picking. If I was only making $65,000 (assuming the couple make the same amount), there's no way I'd live in Seattle.
You cherry picked because you complained that you need a car but ignored the fact that where you live has reasonable cost housing (whereas Seattle doesn't).
A lot of things needed to go right for these people to retire in their 30s.
1. Getting a great job in your early 20s and continuing to grow in your career.
2. Investing large sums of money from 2008-2018 when the market shot up.
3. Having a minimalist lifestyle or having those great salaries in low cost of living areas.
4. Having some sort of side gig (even the typical early retirees do some sort of blog, consulting, etc.
5. Having no kids or having kids after you "retire".
These are all the things I've seen in common with the retire in your 30s crowd. Maybe not all, but at least 3 or 4 of them.
Yes, I would agree with that. It's definitely harder to do by your early 30s, especially if you want kids. But the principles are the same even if you don't hit FI in your 30s. So you hit it in your 40s. Still a good place to be.
However, I would also say I don't like the way people talk about kids as if they are inevitable. Kids ARE a choice.
You're really just stating what I'm stating from a different perspective.
No.
Having skills that are valuable to the commercial job market may be valuable to the commercial economy, but are not necessarily valuable to society.
Is porn, drugs, porn, alcohol, tobacco, junk food/fast food really valuable to society? I could go on, but I'll stop there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
