FIRE? Unless you hate or are bad at your job, isn't work the best part of life?

MallyGirl

The Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

zagfles

MallyGirl said:

The Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

You've convinced me, I'm getting a £1400 pair of Louis Vuitton boots to replace my worn out £30 pair which only lasted 5 years. They'll last me 250 years, right

LV_426

zagfles said:

MallyGirl said:

The Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

You've convinced me, I'm getting a £1400 pair of Louis Vuitton boots to replace my worn out £30 pair which only lasted 5 years. They'll last me 250 years, right

Similarly, I know someone who bought a Ferrari, which will also last a lifetime. Mainly because it comes out of the garage around twice a year

Chickereeeee

AlphaKappa said:

I quote Chickereee..
"Most people need, and seek, agency (the ability to act independently and make their own choices) and relevance (their actions have a noticeable  impact on their immediate surroundings and/or the outside world). Most jobs provide you with little of either, which is why many people are unhappy at work"

FI(RE) allows you to subtract unhappiness and add on happiness

It's interesting to read through the responses and compare that to people who are describing why they are happy/unhappy in work/retirement.

"I love my work, and like dealing with my customers, but management..." . Low agency, high relevance.

"I get board in retirement, doing gardening and DIY " - High agency, low relevance.

etc.

german_keeper

I spent a large part of my student grant on a Patagonia one, justified at the time by the Alpine adventures I was up to. I'm wearing it all week this week.  Bought in 1988.

Many of us can only dream of being able to fit in clothes we bought in 1988. Congrats on such a very impressive achievement!! 

Nebulous2

zagfles said:

ex-pat_scot said:

MallyGirl said:

Probably best that I don't elaborate on the greenhouse I went to look at last week !

We are all different and the have to do what works for us as individuals

The key (in my opinion) is to know yourself and to spend intentionally.
That's not the same as "cheap", but differs from person to person.
I do spend on high end stuff, for certain matters.
I can't ever have enough money to satisfy all my "wants", but more than enough for my "needs".

You can by cheap functional greenhouses, and beautifully-made ones that are robust, add value and give more years of service. If you have sufficient, and will make use of it, then there is no reason to deny yourself.
You can't have the best of everything you want, but you can certainly have the best of the things that are most important to you.

F'rinstance - mountaineering fleeces. 
You can buy cheap <£10 ones.
I spent a large part of my student grant on a Patagonia one, justified at the time by the Alpine adventures I was up to. I'm wearing it all week this week.  Bought in 1988.

The point isn't "cheap" or "expensive", it's getting value!! If a fleece costs £300 and lasts 30 years whereas a cheap one costs £10 and lasts less than a year, clearly the more expensive one is better value. Or if you buy a £2000 bike which you use every day for 10 years then spending an extra £1800 on something you get slightly better enjoyment from on a daily basis is probably good value.

But with a lot of stuff, there is minimal value from paying sometimes considerably more, as per some of the examples earlier. As discussed a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking they need costly additional fluff which doesn't really add value, and as a result they don't achieve FI. We're probably all guilty of this to some extent with some products and services, but some people do it with practically everything they buy! And as a result, can't achieve FI when they want, or even ever.

Lifestyle choices - people may well be frugal in some areas and not in others. I've probably had more cars below £1000 than over it in the course of my life. I've few financial ambitions and we have brought up a family on one relatively modest salary. By comparison with others on here - though it was relatively decent by comparison with most people working in care, which is where I've spent my life. 

I started cycling around 10 years ago however, and it changed my life. Spending on that has gradually increased, from budget equipment to higher end stuff as our finances improved. I'd now regard a £2000 bike as a moderate one. My new titanium one, which should arrive tomorrow, was more than twice that. 

In some ways I may be too late to benefit from it.

I remember somebody in my local selling his business, retiring and buying himself a fancy new car. The regulars were split between envy and scorn.  The barman's comment was: - "God gives us nuts when we're too old to crack them." 

hugheskevi

Lifestyle choices - people may well be frugal in some areas and not in others. I've probably had more cars below £1000 than over it in the course of my life.

One of my best ever purchases was spending about £4,000 buying a brand new 125cc Honda sports bike (NSR 125 R) aged 16 (nearly 30 years ago...). Horrendous insurance cost too, best part of £1,000 p/a even back then.

It may not have had a big engine, but it was still good acceleration (0-60 in about 6 seconds) and reached over 90mph so great for a 16 year-old to have fun with.

Why was it such a good purchase? After that I never cared about big or fast or new cars - the driving wasn't anything like as exciting or challenging as a motorbike, so for me cars are entirely functional, which has saved lots Fortunately I also avoided the temptation to buy nice big sports bikes, and doubt I ever will now I am all grown up and sensible (and speed cameras are everywhere).

There was also a time in South Africa when the bus myself and my partner at the time were on left us at a highway exit, despite us checking beforehand that wouldn't happen. Fortunately a South African couple immediately stopped and offered us a lift into town so it was fine, but moments like that make you appreciate having a car at your beck and call. After spending several years traveling on the road in remote places, it is great to have own car available and who cares what it looks like, just having one is the main thing for me.

ex-pat_scot

Nebulous2 said:

I started cycling around 10 years ago however, and it changed my life. Spending on that has gradually increased, from budget equipment to higher end stuff as our finances improved. I'd now regard a £2000 bike as a moderate one. My new titanium one, which should arrive tomorrow, was more than twice that. 

In some ways I may be too late to benefit from it.

 

My new frameset is £4,000
Extraordinary amount. 
Rest of the bike will be existing bits and pieces.
When finished, it will be the absolute best.
I'm not too late to benefit from it - well not entirely.
However I am wearing old clothes (expensive, but last forever). I haven't changed size (much) since 18.
My colleagues mostly drive Mercs and Range Rovers. I have different priorities and spending.

Frankly @Nebulo@Nebulous2 you will be the perfect age to benefit from yours. You'll hopefully have the time and flexibility to make use of it, and it will make more of a health difference now than it would be when you were younger.

ex-pat_scot

german_keeper said:

I spent a large part of my student grant on a Patagonia one, justified at the time by the Alpine adventures I was up to. I'm wearing it all week this week.  Bought in 1988.

Many of us can only dream of being able to fit in clothes we bought in 1988. Congrats on such a very impressive achievement!! 

An adulthood spent fidgeting and with tons of exercise. 
I'm sure my clothes looked better on me when I was younger though.

zagfles

Nebulous2 said:

zagfles said:

ex-pat_scot said:

MallyGirl said:

Probably best that I don't elaborate on the greenhouse I went to look at last week !

We are all different and the have to do what works for us as individuals

The key (in my opinion) is to know yourself and to spend intentionally.
That's not the same as "cheap", but differs from person to person.
I do spend on high end stuff, for certain matters.
I can't ever have enough money to satisfy all my "wants", but more than enough for my "needs".

You can by cheap functional greenhouses, and beautifully-made ones that are robust, add value and give more years of service. If you have sufficient, and will make use of it, then there is no reason to deny yourself.
You can't have the best of everything you want, but you can certainly have the best of the things that are most important to you.

F'rinstance - mountaineering fleeces. 
You can buy cheap <£10 ones.
I spent a large part of my student grant on a Patagonia one, justified at the time by the Alpine adventures I was up to. I'm wearing it all week this week.  Bought in 1988.

The point isn't "cheap" or "expensive", it's getting value!! If a fleece costs £300 and lasts 30 years whereas a cheap one costs £10 and lasts less than a year, clearly the more expensive one is better value. Or if you buy a £2000 bike which you use every day for 10 years then spending an extra £1800 on something you get slightly better enjoyment from on a daily basis is probably good value.

But with a lot of stuff, there is minimal value from paying sometimes considerably more, as per some of the examples earlier. As discussed a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking they need costly additional fluff which doesn't really add value, and as a result they don't achieve FI. We're probably all guilty of this to some extent with some products and services, but some people do it with practically everything they buy! And as a result, can't achieve FI when they want, or even ever.

Lifestyle choices - people may well be frugal in some areas and not in others. I've probably had more cars below £1000 than over it in the course of my life. I've few financial ambitions and we have brought up a family on one relatively modest salary. By comparison with others on here - though it was relatively decent by comparison with most people working in care, which is where I've spent my life. 

I started cycling around 10 years ago however, and it changed my life. Spending on that has gradually increased, from budget equipment to higher end stuff as our finances improved. I'd now regard a £2000 bike as a moderate one. My new titanium one, which should arrive tomorrow, was more than twice that. 

In some ways I may be too late to benefit from it.

I remember somebody in my local selling his business, retiring and buying himself a fancy new car. The regulars were split between envy and scorn.  The barman's comment was: - "God gives us nuts when we're too old to crack them." 

Indeed - in the year before lockdown we spent £10k on foreign holidays (6 of them) - some would say ridiculously excessive, but we got value from them. But I wouldn't get value from an expensive bike, or car, or phone, or designer clothes etc.

Point is some people will always look to buy "the best" in everything, regardless of whether they actually need or can make use of "the best". It's those people who'll likely never achieve FI. Rather than those who spend a few k on their main hobby.