Would you retire at 30 and live frugally?
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
178
Comments143
65 percent of jack shit is not enough to live on my guy.
Good point, but also my question is pointless if you are already living frugally, because that would basically be "would you like more time and money?"
Yes I would like more time and money thank you
Can I get like 3 time and 1 money and… uhhh… a chocolate shake.
If I could retire right now at 38, and kept my expenses at 100% of what they are right now, I'd still be choosing which bill can wait a week and a half past the due date to make sure we can all eat.
65% and we start drawing straws for who gets eaten this week.
I think this question varies greatly depending on your current salary, if you have dependents, and what your cost of living looks like.
Instead of hypotheticals, am Auatralian. I (m) retired at 35 and divorced/moved at 45 and lived frugally in a mud brick cabin, off grid (solar and septic) on a dirt road in the bush, for a decade with my new (f) partner, she worked part time 2 days a week, grew lots of our own food, rode our MTBs on fire roads and trails, hiked, kayaked, swam in the river (we could cycle to) on hot days etc etc. Never thought we were missing anything, quite the opposite.
My small untouched share investments compounded hugely. As well as that, I only took 1/2 the dividends to live on, the outer half were reinvested as well,
A series of unfortunate events (aka mega bushfire) saw us buy an apartment in the city near the beach to get our heads stright just before covid lockdown, lived car free there etc , sold that 2 years ago and made a ridiculous profit, bought a place in a small rural village in the back of bumfuck for way less. No flood risk, no bushfire risk and it gets decent rainfall.
Now I have more money then I know what to do with...by that I don't mean I am a billionaire, I mean living frugally becomes a habit so my shares and income have grown and grown. I now donate 25% of my investmwnt income to charities, 25% is reinvested.and I.use the other 1/2 to live on.
My parter works 4 days a week for 6 months of the year, then has 6 months off completely. She wants her.own independent income etc
My only regret was not being brave enough about retiring earlier. I missed those years of freedom and wing get them.back. Am now 60.
No major health issues?
Healthcare is free, so doesn't matter.
Free-ish, but also you can't live off grid in the bush with major health issues.
As a fellow Australian - where the heck did you find this unicorn of a location?! I've been house-hunting (well, land-hunting, really) for over a year, and everything seems to come saddled with a bushfire overlay, flood overlay, or both. I've pretty much resigned myself to being stuck in a bushfire zone.
(Note: not asking for you to dox yourself with the actual location, though I am deeply curious.)
Damn, sounds like a dream
A dream with spiders.
Fellow Australian, I retired at 33, which was 10 years ago now.
It's crazy how quickly you adjust to living frugally, and spending any money just seems wasteful and unnecessary.
Become younger and get money? Sure.
Not possible, since I am well above 30 :)
100% I would do that but that's a bit unfair because:
I just don't expect to stop working in retirement, I just plan to work doing stuff I love instead of stuff that pays well.
So if anyone in the comments is a wealthy person or dying with no heirs feel free to send me enough money to retire. I would love to create things for people for the rest of my life and not worry about anything but if I could afford a thing I don't need and if my hobbies are worthy of other people's time/attention.
It is almost as if all of humanity could survive and provide for each other without psycho billionaires owning the means of production and housing!
Ah, to own a house... Wouldn't that be neat? And imagine if it wasn't a piece of shit produced at the lowest cost possible by overworked and underpaid builders. Hell, imagine a custom house for my particular tastes!
What a world we could live in if we just taxed the rich out of existence and owned a portion of our work place.
I don't think most people could live on 65% of their current income. Many people are poor and can't handle a surprise $500 expense.
I could live happily on the median income of my area (NYC) - $113,400. Even if I got a more expensive apartment, I could make that work.
I do wonder about people's budgets sometimes. One of my friends has crushing medical, student, and credit card debt so they're always struggling. But another friend was like "I can't leave my job at [evil megacorp]! I need the money!" But when pressed slightly, their "needs" included broadway plays, fine dining, and every hot new game on steam (that they don't even play). Most people are probably between those two extremes.
I, personally, also prioritize living life.
What's the point of life if im going to eat rice and beans and never enjoy it. I'd simply resign.
My 'needs' include what makes me want to continue living, regardless of what it looks like from your perspective
My parents would fight about this sometimes. They would blur "need" and "want" together, and that caused difficulties. It's imprecise and, in my opinion, immature, to conflate the two categories. If you're looking at a budget and you smush everything into "needs", how are you going to know what to cut? The electric bill by any reasonable metric is more important than another lego death star, assuming you plan to continue living in society.
Furthermore, "I can't quit my job at [evil megacorp], because then I might not be able to do luxury dining experiences as often" is laughable. Like, sure, there's no way to live pure in our capitalist hellscape. We all have bills to pay. But highlighting "I like broadway" as the justification for "I help build AI used by ICE to deport people"? Come on. I'd respect it more if they just said out right that they don't give a shit about other people. At least that'd be honest.
Permanently? or like, adjusted for inflation? do I get rent control?
Because 65% of what I make now will be worth a lot less in 10 years.
You never know what the future holds. Much better to work now while you are in a good position to do so, than to be forced to work later on, when you have been out of the workforce for years.
This is a highly pessimistic take. 2 million dollars would conservatively yield $80,000 per year. This would place you at the 70th percentile in the USA for individual income.
Which 70 year old does either for that matter
Given the rate of inflation, and shrinkflation, I don’t think it’s economically feasible for many people to survive on 65% of their income. At least, I couldn’t. Especially not with two young boys who need clothing, a metric ton of food (and growing!), plus sports, etc. nope. I’m stuck n indentured servitude for the rest of my life.
Yeah this is why I don't have kids lol
It’s a trade off. It’s not easy either. Even when I was married and had a partner that could tag in and help me out. It’s much harder now that I’m single and I no longer have backup. It’s not like there’s an instruction manual either; each kid/situation is distinct and different.
But you know what, there are moments (more often than not) when they do or say something amazing, and it feels like the world is not such a bad place after all; because of them.
It’s not perfect. We sometimes get mad at each other. But that’s any relationship; it’s love. And I wouldn’t trade it for any amount of money in the world.
But you should have kids for this reason. At least 5 or 6. Then hope that they care for you (or at least some of them) when you are old.
We "retired" when my wife was 30 and I was 33. That was nine years ago.
As Australians, healthcare is free, so that wasn't a concern. (That being said, we also take out yearly travel insurance policies, which are surprisingly cheap compared to regular private insurance.)
That, not having kids (but we've met people who did a similar thing BECAUSE they wanted to spent time with kids), and living very frugally was what made it possible, and continues to make it possible. When we were working, after having paid off our small apartment, we could live on less than 20% of our combined income by being very tight.
The more you save, the more you can invest, and the less you'll need invested to sustain yourself. It's a positive feedback loop, and after three years of trying to be as frugal as possible, tracing every dollar, it became second nature.
After building our investments, our cost of living has gone up, but not by much. When you're building your portfolio, being extra stingy pays off greatly. We have been slow traveling non-stop for the last nine years, because the cost of living is cheaper in (almost) every other country, even when you consider paying for short-term rentals. Next year we'll hit 100 countries visited.
We've also done extra university courses, languages courses, and have a ton of hobbies. Even without work, there's not enough time in the day if you have an active mind.
That's the dream! Travel a ton, learn languages, work on just the stuff you care about...I hope to be able to do that someday!
Yes.
Source: I did this.
How?
I read the Mr Money Mustasche blog while I was in college. Worked a pretty average job after I graduated - never broke 6 figures - and lived frugally. Put all my spare money into investments.
If I was able to retire early at any age, I'd probably do some odd jobs or perhaps I'd volunteer for stuff. I need something to do.
No, I live relatively lean already. 65% would mean cutting down to rice-and-beans type diet, no Internet, no investment into hobbies, no travel.
Also, there's inflation. At 30 years old I could expect to live another 40+ years. And 65% of today's dollars is going to get less and less valuable as the years go on.
That's why it's crucial to invest as early as possible. Investing outpaces the rate of inflation. I wish I had learned more about it when I was younger.
Edit: added info
A 4% withdrawal rate is intended for a 30yr retirement when accounting for inflation, so you'd need to keep your expenses well below that, probably closer to 2%. But more importantly in my opinion this relies on the assumption of a mostly stable market, which over the course of a ~70yr retirement is riskier a bet to take compared to a ~30yr retirement.
Also what would you do on such a tight budget for ~70yr that you wouldn't get bored of?
I would definitely pursue my dream of sitting in pointless TEAMS meetings all day.
Absolutely but after a while you'd likely run out of cheap hobbies and need more money than your 2% to fund it. The better way to do it is taking a year or two off in the middle of your career imo.
65% of what I spend rn would be unlivable
I’d find a comfy job that’s easy to do even if it doesn’t pay the best.
If I could retire now I would. But living in the US is expensive and gets more expensive every year. From real estate taxes or rent, from insurance, from cost of food, from basic utilities like electric, heat, gas... Neverind if you want a hobby, or a vacation, or Any leisure activities.....
Every time I leave my house it costs me $100 no matter what I am doing.
There's no way I would have enough money to retire comfortably.
You don't need to buy new shoes every time you go for a walk, you know?
Funny enough, the money never seems to be spent on stuff for me.
65% of what I spend right now? do we assume my mortgage is paid off and I get 65% of that money, too?
I'm currently spending less than I would like to so that I can save for retirement. do I just get 65% of all that money that I would otherwise be spending, in this scenario?
if yes to the above questions, easily. if not, no
Easy. Currently I am probably saving close to 35% of my income as I don't really know what to spend it on and already live pretty frugally, but I have to work still. So just stop the spending on savings and live like I do now.
Earning £26k so nothing special but a bit over minimum wage. Can save at least £500 a month without trying after paying my half of the bills and mortgage. Would probably save more if I didn't buy so many cat toys.
They did specify 65% of what you currently spend, not what you currently earn. I save a high percentage of my income too, mostly because I'm largely anti-consumption. Cutting my current spending down by 35% would be a bit leaner than I'd like to live.
I'd work a bit more. Seeing my parents struggle with money made me never want to do that. So I'll do what I can early on to reduce the chances of that ever happening.
Living frugally isn't the problem, at least not directly.
The boredom is what would get most people.
Most people need to engage themselves in something satisfying and challenging.
The founder of Myspace retired in early thirty's after selling his company for $80 million. He travels the world and does photography. People who say they will be bored if they retire aren't being creative enough to think of doing something else.
Living on $80 million is not living frugally. Living frugally severely limits your hobbies and travel.
You can do a lot on a frugal budget
That's extremely relative. Especially when compared to what you can do with $80m.
What does that mean? You said 65% of current earnings in the OP. Most people couldn't pursue any significant hobbies or interests on that level of income.
65% of your spendings, addmittedly this question is mostly relevant to people that spend at least a somewhat above the median, where they can reduce their lifestyle by 35% and still live, just frugally.
I'm not sure what you mean by significant hobbies, but personally with the exception of one, all of my hobbies are cheap/free.
Sure, fine, whatever. You do you.
I think there are very few people who could spend 40 years painting warhammer figurines and call that a rewarding satisfying life.
Why are you so skeptical? I could spend 40 years doing:
There is so much more to life than work and paid services.
And yes, this is a privileged position, but that doesn't make it wrong.
I guess I have a different understanding of frugal. For me, you can be rich and yet frugal, only spending money on the needs and occasional wants. Some people don't even show that they're net worth increased. I forgot the name of the person, but he worked as a janitor throughout his life. When he passed away, to his family's utter surprise, he left $8 million from his investment account to his family. The guy could have cashed in the investment profits and lived lavishly but he didn't.
In this hypothetical circumstance described by OP, you don't have $80m on which to live frugally travelling the world pursuing your interest in photography.
For most people, living on 65% of their current earnings would mean a serious curtailment of their current activities. A subsistence if you will.
Besides which, most hobbies aren't really satisfying in a way that can nourish the soul, certainly not the ones you can do at home for little or no cost anyway.
The sky is the limit on hobby spending, but we've also never had more access to inexpensive hobbies and entertainment options.
Hobbies won't nourish your soul for the next 40 years.
Sure. People need socialization and relationships with other people. Similar to hobbies, that can be as expensive or as inexpensive as one wants. Socialization often even combines with hobbies and recreational activities.
What else do people need? I'd say that purpose. That's why many people choose to volunteer.
Surprised I have to point this out but...
People need to be challenged. People want to test their mettle and push boundaries and produce value and be useful and show everyone what they can achieve.
When you're in your 80s and all messed up and just sitting around waiting to die, a great collection of knitted gloves and scarves might not be very satisfying.
I'm not sure why you think hobbies can't be challenging. Aside from various types of competitive activities, many hobbies very much involve pushing boundaries.
LOL. Not really.
Have a nice life chief.
Make an origami crane for me or something.
We couldn't. More than 65% of what we make goes just to cover the bills, so it wouldn't be a possibility. Even if we didn't eat or have a car.
Would be underwater and back at work within a couple of months.
If you mean some version of 65% of our current lifestyle like magically the house shrinks and costs 65% of what it currently does, then maybe? We don't eat out much, don't vacation much, don't go out much already though.
If you mean health costs all covered, and no more retirement contributions and 65% of GROSS earnings, that would actually give me almost the exact same net pay, and wouldn't be a different lifestyle. Those things cost 32% of my earnings and taxes 15%.
So I'm not sure exactly how to think about this but in short - I am more willing to work to have a reasonably good life, than to not work and not have a good life, but have a lot of free time. I do know how to have fun for cheap, have been poor before, but I like life now better than then.
No, because I'm close to 30, literally had a more favorable version of this option (enough money, relocate to a low cost-of-living country and doesn't even have to be frugal) presented to me, and I chose not to. And I already live frugal enough that 65% would be really rough... I'm okay with a lite version though: only take fun and engaging part-time/flexi jobs, and dedicate my full time to a rewarding but not necessarily well-paid (or paid at all) career, while cutting down a bit on spending
I just felt that with all the education & things I have going for me I'd rather do something productive that contributes to society. If I literally couldn't find a job that's not a metaphorical meat grinder then it's another story, but I'm not at that stage yet
No. I'm already living frugally. Cutting my spending by further 45% would make my life unsustainable.
idk; I get work via commissions (is that the word?) and rarely, earning little money. But with this at least I would have a constant source of money, and would get some peace of mind, so maybe?
Commissions doing what? Maybe we can find you some business here!
In Chile, I do reinforcement programming classes. They hire me for few hours per time. Thanks for caring about me :D
No problemo, amigo Chileno! Tenemos que ayudar el uno al otro.
I quit at 50, living on savings and stock market...
I dont know, its just something awful about working every day. I got sick of it.
Now im not doing anything special but im free to just live.
I was pretty close to this option, but in the end we moved to a much nicer house. So now our expenses are a lot more. I don't regret it, it's a much better place to raise kids.
I did took a sabbatical for about a year, and will probably do that again in 5 years or so. It doesn't have to be a binary option, you can do sabbaticals (mini retirements) and still work.
65% of what I spend right now. So basically 35% below paycheck to paycheck? Seems like a bad idea to me.
Yes.
My initial response was Hell yeah! But, then I remembered my job will pay for the kids college, so I'd be crazy to make that trade.
I live frugally now.
I also just like to work. I don't plan to ever retire.
I'd continue to work. I want to do more in my retirement than just stay at home.
For sure no. I don't want to live frugally for the long term. I played that game in college and I'm not excited to go back.
If living on 65% of my current income was possible.
If I had that little I would be homeless, not retired.
But by 30 most people have already contributed way more than they will ever consume by existing peacefully.
I don't think I could keep my expenses at 65% of what I spend now because I already spend as little as I can since I'm trying to save up for an early retirement. I'd love to retire as early as possible.
I would have retired at 16 if I could.
Lol, that's called being homeless
No, work is nice tbh. I might do 35 hours instead of 40 a week at some stage but full on retirement at 30 doesn't sound appealing at all to me.
I'm not retiring until my house is paid off and I can include at least 1 large vacation a year into my budget. Those two things will probably happen simultaneously, but I've never heard of anyone paying off their mortgage by 30 in my life.
My wife and I spend about 25% of our pre-tax income on childcare. Cutting that, plus another 10% other places would be fine.
I am older than 30, but am literally facing this decision right now. I have chosen the latter: work for more years for better lifestyle and financial security. My job isn't too bad, so I don't have a huge push to walk away.
I'm planning to scale back my career in a few years, but most likely part-time or seasonal work rather than full-on retirement.
No.
My mortgage and childcare are like 80% of my outgoings. Once the mortgage is gone and kids in school maybe
When I was approaching 30 I was looking forward to kids, and that wouldn’t be sufficient to raise them.
In a couple years though ….. once they are through college so I’m done with those payments and child support, living on 65% of my income would be easy.
Depends on if I could afford to own a scrapyard/pick and pull first. As a welder and machinist, thats basically a playground for me. If I ain't working, ill still be making. Otherwise, yes. I don't spend much now as it is, but growing my own weed would probably drop me below 65% by itself.
30s are prime earning years – stick with it for a bit longer.
I would, but it's not possible since I don't have millions of dollars in my savings account.
Fuck yeah. Nothing's more tiresome and stultifying than the whole work routine. That's time you're never getting back.
The whole idea of retiring at 65 after you've been squeezed like an orange that's been sent twice into the press, just to "enjoy" your failing body, failing senses, failing brain in your twilight years is absurd.
If you can retire at 30, hell yes do it.
I don't think you would keep up with inflation
It depends on what you mean by current spending. I'm putting almost a third of my pre-tax income into savings already. If you mean I can live off of 65% of my default post-tax salary, sure. That probably wouldn't change too much from my current expenses, and I would love the free time. If you mean 65% of what's left over after my normal contributions, then that would be pretty tough. I consider my current lifestyle to be relatively frugal, so that would be very hard.
I'm actually trying to achieve the FIRE lifestyle, so the goal is getting to the point where average post-tax returns on investments is at least annual expenses. But I can't do it by thirty.
No questions asked, as long as I got to keep my current house to live in and not move back to the house I lived in at 30.
Invested in what ? What's the magic trick that won't leave you with nothing in the next 10 years.
Investing in an index fund can net you an income of between 3-10% per year on average. I think most people estimate between 4 and 6 % when talking about retirement. This post ignores providing any monetary values but your question makes it seem like investing is magical and arcane and will inevitably go to zero but that's simply not the case.
If you had 100 dollars in investments every year, on average, you could spend 4 dollars and that 100 bucks would never disappear. You'd have a 4 dollar income for as long as you live; let's call that your permanent income. If you had 1 million in investments you'd have a permanent income of 40k. At some point, you have enough money in investments that you could quit your job and live within your means for forever.
At some point you have so much money you could never spend your entire permanent income even if you live an extravagant lifestyle and you have to reinvest the returns by buying more assets (which then further increases your permanent income).
We should tax that second group of people more. I'd argue out of existence as there should be a cap in the amount of wealth a person should be allowed to have.
I tell you something about investing. If enough people invest there is thing called TV that they can make announcement and push indexes down by 50% in an hour and let them go back in 10 years so from your 100 bucks you will have 50 bucks and from your 4 dollars you will have 2 dollars per year. That saying you saved your 500 thousands in let's say 10 years now work 5 more years to go back to 500 thousand because you just lost 250k in an hour. You stand no chance when they want slaves. Million is for pussies they fuck everyday.
It seems you've been scorned from treating investing as gambling and I'm sorry to hear that but that's not how this works. Yes, markets can go down and you can lose money but:
This is all calculatable. The problem is we're all paying for some jackass's yacht when we should be paying for community rail and affordable housing.
You're dreaming or selling ? Retirement investment is Ponzi scheme. If you think there will be more and more people every year in your country look up birth rates. You know what is Kondratiev wave ? There is no real market right now, go make something and see how much it's worth and for how much billionaire owned companies are selling it and why they don't pay taxes.
It's...a hypothetical? A fabricated reason why you aren't given a massive lump sum of money, and instead have to live off dividends? The "what" doesn't matter.
Dividends from what ? Tell me company that can't collapse in the next 10 years, you have insides from billionaires who can shit fuck your investments in couple of seconds ?
Buddy, you seem to have a problem around investments because again that's not how this works. You shouldn't be investing in individual stocks unless you like gambling or have insider information (which is supposed illegal but the US is really showing that it's not as of late). You should be invested in broad index funds, like ETFs, which track the entire market (to simplify they own a fraction of every company on the market). The market, over the long run, always goes up so you always win (although again, with the US in very interested in understanding what happens when a country collapsed, from what I read about Germany it was actually surprisingly fine if I'm not mistaken).
You seem to be looking at investing as a way to get rich quickly, a gamble that may pay off. But good investing is slow, consistent growth that guarantees a safe retirement (but also unfortunately does not give us an escape from this capitalist hell hole of permanent work).
Every investment is a gamble is you read terms of service, it's hidden behind this fancy word called speculation. Bank guarantee nothing to return. You recommended some financial products that you have no idea how they work. ETFs are just money machines for bankers to get double commission from selling stocks of companies you can't afford to hedge with real stocks and get your dividend and votes. Sometimes even to fuck you up if that's their business strategy. You buy index so you buy nothing of value, moreover you give a knife to banker so he can stab you whenever he wants. That's even more stupid than buying company stocks. Read more kid, I know exactly how this shit works.
heck. health insurance is a third of my expenses as is. would take that in a heartbeat. not to mention whatever youthened me. thats just a bonus.
If I had the money to retire at 30, I'd be so much richer than I am now that even 65% of that would still be more than I'm getting now. But if I was the kind of person who earns that much, would I be content with that? We'll never know.
I'd do it, but retiring early = doing my hobbies instead. Long days writing books, making art, volunteering, and pet sitting. Retiring would just mean working the jobs I want instead of the ones I have to.
Nope, 65% of what I make now is barely subsistence. It would be nice for a few months, but quickly become boring
I actually have enough money to retire right now and live frugally for the rest of my life at the age of 51... But to be honest it sounds super boring and depressing.
I know this will go against the grain here, but I enjoy what I do. I'm an engineering manager and I work on cool and interesting projects. I enjoy what the extra money gets me, whether it's vacations or a better place to live or whatever. I enjoy working with other intelligent engineers trying to solve challenging problems. If I was retired I wouldn't have that same engagement. I don't know what I'd do with my time and I'm afraid I would not spend it in a healthy way.
So the reality is I've thought about it, but I'm not really that interested in retiring even though I could.
I'd try, but my shopping addiction would get me in trouble.
same. keep my ass away from any store
I wasn't even out of school yet.
I've heard of people being kept back a year but damn my dude
Did a PhD. Those take time.
Yeah i figured as much but I like my jokes
Healthcare costs grow rapidly as you age, and have been outpacing inflation in the US. If your remaining money is only keeping up with inflation over time, you are very likely to fall behind later in life, when job opportunities are more scarce, and less lucrative.
If you can make changes to live more frugally now, and work a year or two more while your money is growing in the background, you will be much better off long term.
I have numerous family members that have lived a long time, and eventually faced severe health issues, so I expect that in my future. I will work until my retirement savings are more than I need for my current lifestyle, and then cut back on certain things to do my best to prepare for that eventuality.
Yep
Personally, no. You're barely an adult at that point. If you have the privilege of a disposable income at thirty, splurge and enjoy yourself. Treat yourself to new experiences.
100% I'd retire. I'd sell all my shit, buy a sailboat and cruise around the world for the rest of my life.
Probably not.
If anything, I'd take more risks and sacrifices to get a more fulfilling work experience.
i tried and its boring as fuck so i want to work again instead
Nope. Even though I can pay my bills, I still need to be able to save for other emergencies and have some fun.
I don't know if that's morally right. I may pick a job though (or even volunteer!) that I enjoy more than one that pays, but I still think someone who is healthy and able to should still contribute to society.
Working thanklessly for slave wages to make Sociopathic Oligarchs or Corporations rich is not "morally right," or "contributing to society," it's playing your non-disruptive role in THEIR society.
Traveling the world, exchanging cultures, etc. contributes far more to the world than being a tiny cog getting worn down and used up over a lifetime in some oligarch's machine.
"Morally right?" JFC, get a fucking clue. How is it morally right to contribute to a MAGA Nazi society? Burn it the fuck down.
I didn't mention sociopathic oligarchs or sociopathic corporations. Not every business is a sociopathic corporation.
Ah yes, because the USA is the only country with internet access. No wonder you elected trump if you yanks are this reactionary.
No, you didn't mention Oligarchs or Corporations because that would undercut your "moral" argument, so I did.
The entire world has been sold the concept that the only "moral" lifestyle is to sacrifice your life to earn barely subsistence wages in the pursuit of obscene wealth for a few wealthy families. That is the 21st century human paradigm across the entire planet, regardless of political ideology. EVERY society is Capitalist in practice, and those that deny it it, are lying. There is not a single nation on this planet who is not dedicated to funnelling vast amounts of money to a few wealthy people in their country.
In addition, if we continue on this path, the number of wealthy families benefiting by this system will shrink, until there is only a single family, or perhaps person, who controls the entire planet's wealth. It may take a few generations, but it is inevitable.
And yes, ALL corporations are sociopathic, by definition. There are NO exceptions.
I wonder why...
This you?
We got a real bootlicker vibe going on here.
Corporations aren't inherently bad. It's the money that corrupts. The love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.
You can run a corporation that provides a good service to society, pay a fair wage and provide good employment locally. However, to make a large corporation, a lot of the time requires the said corruption, you need to fight and cheat your way to the top, cutting corners as well as employee benefits.
Let me tell you a story about how corporations used to be time limited, for the public good, and held their members directly financially responsible.
The reasons? At the time people recognized corporations as a concentration of capital and it needed severe limitations to prevent corruption.
After a century of lobbying and a whole new legal field around corporate law sprouted up we ended up with corporations that are no longer time limited, that do not have to be for the public good, and their members are no longer held accountable.
Objectively corporations are horrible and have caused irreparable harm to the environment and society. They have become the dominant form of our culture bending governments to their will and killing off hundreds of millions of people for profit.
As I said, you are trying real hard to be a bootlicker.
You'd still be paying sales tax, income tax, property tax and presumably participating in voting. Plus you'd be opening up a job for another person. All of that is contributing to society, imo.
I'd probably still volunteer for something. As a retired person, there are a lot of hours to fill!
Valid reasoning. The volunteering option if you're financially self sufficient is probably the best option, in light of this.
I'm not sure how I feel about this answer, but on a personal level I share your feeling—that I should be contributing something to my community.
Although when I think of most of my interactions with the people who actually live around me, almost none of them are done for money.
So maybe retiring isn't so much of an end to contributing to society as it is an end to contributing to private equity, et al.
I was morseo talking about retiring at 30. I still think we have a moral obligation to each other to work, if you're well and able.
I'm talking about the same thing, but separating paid work from voluntary work.
Just because you aren't working for a company, doesn't mean you aren't working for your community.
You're also probably contributing a lot less carbon to the atmosphere, though.
Yeah, as long as it's beneficial. I don't think I'd count work where someone may be, for example, building tools to help the rich get richer.