The 28 year old retiree

[valcont]

I have a new word for an early retiree. How about we call them Welfare King/Queens?

 

Similarities are striking. The term, as it is used, implies that these people choose not to work and are dependent on the society for essentials like healthcare or food stamps. Other than that, they have very few basic needs. They are very frugal and do not consume the resources like rest of us.

 

Now depending on how you are conditioned by society , you will be either offended or empathetic to these people . But it clarifies their lifestyle to majority of the population.

[Liberty]

I have a new word for an early retiree. How about we call them Welfare King/Queens?

 

Similarities are striking. The term, as it is used, implies that these people choose not to work and are dependent on the society for essentials like healthcare or food stamps. Other than that, they have very few basic needs. They are very frugal and do not consume the resources like rest of us.

 

Now depending on how you are conditioned by society , you will be either offended or empathetic to these people . But it clarifies their lifestyle to majority of the population.

 

Interesting to find people on investment forums who don't believe in capitalism...

 

Earning capital and deferring consumption so that you can accumulate enough to later have the freedom to work less or not at all, or work on things that aren't paid work, is pretty much the opposite of what you're talking about. Some people spend everything they make as they make it and so are stuck on the treadmill of having to work, others make sacrifices (or just realize that more stuff doesn't make them happier) so that they can have more control over their lives later, in effect buying their own time (since working is exchanging your non-renewable time for money).

 

Are you posting on this forum from work, btw? Are you robbing time away from your employer?

[rukawa]

Similarities are striking. The term, as it is used, implies that these people choose not to work and are dependent on the society for essentials like healthcare or food stamps.

 

Actually that isn't much of a clarification. We are all dependent on society for food and other essentials. The only people who aren't are the people who actually produce the essentials e.g. farmers.

 

So by this definition you are also a welfare queen/king. But why stop there? Even farmers don't produce their own food...plants are the ones doing the work. So by this definition every single animal on the planet is really just a parasite.

 

Thus we are all just parasites.

 

:)

[Liberty]

Personally, I don't believe that I'm born a slave, owned by a society that will force me to work most waking hours, spending most of my physical and mental energy on tasks ultimately decided by other people until my body starts to wear out, then allowing me some free time before the grave.

 

I didn't pick this alias randomly. I believe I'm owned by myself, and I can decide what I want to do with my life. If my goal is to maximize my wealth and consumption, then of course I can work-work-work ever more at the highest-paying job I can find, and then buy all kinds of crap, etc. But I can also pick other goals, like control over my time, freedom, happiness, maximizing my ability to follow my curiosity (through books, meeting people, learning new skills, etc), spend time on things that I enjoy (like investing and other hobbies), having more time for my wife and kids and friends, spending time outside in nature, etc.

 

It's all about making choices and accepting the tradeoffs that come from these choices. Sadly, most people don't seem to really make choices, they kind of just go with the flow and do what everybody around them is doing. Most people also never learn what "enough" is and think that more stuff can make them happier, while it's usually things like less stress, better relationships, and more control over your life that does it (something that Buffett has been preaching forever, btw).

 

While I was in the accumulation phase, I paid all my taxes (more in absolute number than a lot of people I know will pay over a lifetime), and I'll pay all my taxes on any capital gains and dividends I make, and every time I buy something I pay all the consumption/VAT taxes, and all the companies I'm a part-owner of pay their taxes (afaik). That's certainly not freeloading, it's just moving things around to optimize for what I prefer (ie. from 20 to 34 I had a lot less free time and I consumed a lot less stuff than most people I knew, but that didn't feel like a sacrifice because it was to achieve a goal that I really wanted, and now that I've got it, I feel it was totally worth it).

[Morgan]

Semantics aside, saving up $2m cash by the time you're 28 is quite nice for basically everyone other than wall streeters.

[Gamecock-YT]

"My husband still works even though our nest egg covers all our expenses."

 

So she's a stay-at-home wife then. I mean, sure, you could call that retired, but a regular full-time salary for the household is pretty significant.

 

Also: "Blogging is my number one recommendation as a hobby and the best kept secret for generating side income."

 

So she is really not at all retired. She is a housewife with a part-time job.

 

Good on her for saving that much money anyway.

 

On the FIRE track myself, but 99% of those retirement blogs are garbage. I can't believe the vast majority are making any kind of money off them. Once you get the gist of philosophy down, not sure what's the point of reading about it further. They even have 'getaways' where you can meet 'like-minded' people in such exotic locals as the West Midlands of England or Ecuador where the organizers and 'high profile' bloggers will give speeches. All for the low, low price of $3000-$2000 not including airfare.

 

Healthcare always seems to be the biggest dicey thing of all this to me. A serious health problem early in the journey would really screw the pooch.

[bizaro86]

I'm pretty much FIRE at 31. I couldn't imagine it under the US health system, and still think it's dicey in Canada. The personal plans available are so terrible I find them offensive, but I don't sell naked calls and I don't want open ended liabilities on health expenses either. I'm actually planning to start a small, part-time business so I can get group health insurance from the local chamber of commerce, maybe that doesn't count anymore then, but whatever.

[Txvestor]

Similarities are striking. The term, as it is used, implies that these people choose not to work and are dependent on the society for essentials like healthcare or food stamps.

 

Actually that isn't much of a clarification. We are all dependent on society for food and other essentials. The only people who aren't are the people who actually produce the essentials e.g. farmers.

 

So by this definition you are also a welfare queen/king. But why stop there? Even farmers don't produce their own food...plants are the ones doing the work. So by this definition every single animal on the planet is really just a parasite.

 

Thus we are all just parasites.

 

:)

 

This is a quite ridiculous atatement. You obviously ignore the vaue of trade in goods and services. If someone produces something(some good or service) of value and then trades that with a farmer, you call that person a "welfare king/queen??". Heck, take a comedian, if the farmer wants to enjoy some humor and pays for that, what is your issue!

Speak for youself, but most of the rest of the world will go and build an actual diverse economy of interdependence and do better than just eat a potato and sleep.

Whether someone sprints to the retirement line by working longer, harder and better in their younger years and deferring geatification and then sails into the sunset, or takes a more measured and longer term working path while enjoying the spoils of their work in the present is also to some extent a personal choice.

Take two college educated people age 28 that start out in jobs paying 70k/yr. I assure you that their net worth at say age 50 can be very unrecognizably different by virtue of their lifestyle and financial choices that themselves compound over time.

What I find reprehensible and often present in the group with the predomnant mindset of live for today is the subsequent envy. To each their own my friends, learn to live and let live. Choices have consequences.

[mrholty]

But I can also pick other goals, like control over my time, freedom, happiness, maximizing my ability to follow my curiosity (through books, meeting people, learning new skills, etc), spend time on things that I enjoy (like investing and other hobbies), having more time for my wife and kids and friends, spending time outside in nature, etc.

 

It's all about making choices and accepting the tradeoffs that come from these choices. Sadly, most people don't seem to really make choices, they kind of just go with the flow and do what everybody around them is doing. Most people also never learn what "enough" is and think that more stuff can make them happier, while it's usually things like less stress, better relationships, and more control over your life that does it (something that Buffett has been preaching forever, btw).

 

 

This is it for me.  I've never worked on Wall Street.  I invest my money and I try to live frugally but I've made some investment mistakes that put a big dent in my ability to retire early.  The biggest issue for me and others who I have talked to is finding a balance with a spouse.  Both my wife and I grew up middle to lower-middle class.  That ability to scrimp and save has always stuck with me but for my wife our new combined income was a way to spend and live it up.  It created serious issues in our relationship.  And frankly her spending was never horrible it was just a bunch of small decisions that add up when you look back on the year - like you said just go with the flow. 

 

I found the MMM blog about 18 months ago.  I have no idea to be like him but I've found a few things that I've taken from his blog.  Using his blog allowed me to have a conversation with my wife of what our goals are/were.  Previously we had this conversation many times before and we would cut expenses etc but it would never last beyond a few months.  My wife is 43 and I am 39 and have 3 young children at 7, 5, and 4.  We have made a conscious decision that she will work part-time but we took our house which had 27 years left of payments and figured out how to get it down to 15 years mortgage last year.  This has given us a goal.  I will be 55 and our kids will be out of the house and our house should be paid for.  The goal is to have a few million in savings/investments.

 

I sell stuff on Amazon to supplement my income and have made a decent amount of money for the work.  I make $5-$10k in profit annually and I work a few hours a week when the kids go to bed.  There has been some ups and downs and its gotten harder in the last 18 months for new sellers.  I use that and some credit card habits to pay for vacations/life events that I could not otherwise.  If my wife really bought into this 100% I could grind at this and maybe get to a point to replace my day job.  I'm currently figuring out how to have that conversation with her.

 

The real key is to simply get out of the flow and make conscious decisions.

[rukawa]

I'm pretty much FIRE at 31. I couldn't imagine it under the US health system, and still think it's dicey in Canada. The personal plans available are so terrible I find them offensive, but I don't sell naked calls and I don't want open ended liabilities on health expenses either. I'm actually planning to start a small, part-time business so I can get group health insurance from the local chamber of commerce, maybe that doesn't count anymore then, but whatever.

 

So I assume you watch your weight, exercise 1 hour every day, don't eat junk and don't smoke.

[Gregmal]

I'm pretty much FIRE at 31. I couldn't imagine it under the US health system, and still think it's dicey in Canada. The personal plans available are so terrible I find them offensive, but I don't sell naked calls and I don't want open ended liabilities on health expenses either. I'm actually planning to start a small, part-time business so I can get group health insurance from the local chamber of commerce, maybe that doesn't count anymore then, but whatever.

 

So I assume you watch your weight, exercise 1 hour every day, don't eat junk and don't smoke.

 

sometimes, once in a while, sometimes, and sometimes, You only live once, everyone should have balance.

[rukawa]

I'm pretty much FIRE at 31. I couldn't imagine it under the US health system, and still think it's dicey in Canada. The personal plans available are so terrible I find them offensive, but I don't sell naked calls and I don't want open ended liabilities on health expenses either. I'm actually planning to start a small, part-time business so I can get group health insurance from the local chamber of commerce, maybe that doesn't count anymore then, but whatever.

 

So I assume you watch your weight, exercise 1 hour every day, don't eat junk and don't smoke.

 

sometimes, once in a while, sometimes, and sometimes, You only live once, everyone should have balance.

 

So those things...exercise, not eating junk etc are on their own each an order of magnitude more powerful in terms of health effects than improved healthcare. You would be better off forgetting about the small business and just spending that time riding your bike.

[rb]

I'm pretty much FIRE at 31. I couldn't imagine it under the US health system, and still think it's dicey in Canada. The personal plans available are so terrible I find them offensive, but I don't sell naked calls and I don't want open ended liabilities on health expenses either. I'm actually planning to start a small, part-time business so I can get group health insurance from the local chamber of commerce, maybe that doesn't count anymore then, but whatever.

You should check with your school. My grad school has a pretty good group plan for alumni.

[JayGatsby]

I don't think health insurance in the US is terrible, and certainly not bad enough to warrant not pursuing something. I'm 30 and I pay ~$230 a month for health insurance through the Obamacare exchange. High deductible (~$7k), but they cover everything over that. I don't have vision and nobody offers dental on the Colorado exchange.

[rb]

I don't think health insurance in the US is terrible, and certainly not bad enough to warrant not pursuing something. I'm 30 and I pay ~$230 a month for health insurance through the Obamacare exchange. High deductible (~$7k), but they cover everything over that. I don't have vision and nobody offers dental on the Colorado exchange.

Oh God! I forgot how good we have it up here. For comparison what Bizarro is talking about when he's speaking of insurance is just drugs, optical and dental. Sweet Government teat. We should really figure out a way to make some money off of this thing.

[JayGatsby]

I don't think health insurance in the US is terrible, and certainly not bad enough to warrant not pursuing something. I'm 30 and I pay ~$230 a month for health insurance through the Obamacare exchange. High deductible (~$7k), but they cover everything over that. I don't have vision and nobody offers dental on the Colorado exchange.

Oh God! I forgot how good we have it up here. For comparison what Bizarro is talking about when he's speaking of insurance is just drugs, optical and dental. Sweet Government teat. We should really figure out a way to make some money off of this thing.

Optical doesn't cost me a whole lot more than it does through an employer. VSP, the biggest optical insurer, covered the first $150 of contacts.

 

Taxes are still the biggest expense.

[rb]

Taxes are still the biggest expense.

Taxes for what?

[JayGatsby]

Taxes are still the biggest expense.

Taxes for what?

On my individual P&L. Taxes are #1 expense, then housing. Healthcare is relatively minor compared to those two. Using round numbers, assuming I made $100k of self-employment income as a 30 year old, my expenses would be:

Taxes: $30k

Housing: $12k-24k ($1k - $2k/mo, depending on location)

Car: $6k ($500/mo between payment/depreciation, maint, ins, gas)

Groceries: $5k (~$100/wk)

Health insurance: $4k ($230/mo + ~$1000 of contacts, hospital visits, etc)

 

Anyways, point being that I don't think health insurance should be considered the make or break for someone considering something entrepreneurial as a younger, single person. There's enough room in the other numbers, and the remaining discretionary, to make the health insurance work. The real question is whether the wages can be matched/exceed (I'm still working on that part...).

 

[oddballstocks]

Interesting conversation on a few fronts.

 

I've chimed in on these in the past.  Like LC when I hated my job I wanted to "retire".  I wasn't sure what I'd do, but it was going to be better than a dumpy job.  With something I enjoy and can control I don't mind working, I enjoy the challenge, it's stimulating, and it provides cash.  All nice things.

 

I guess my wife is "retired".  She was a teacher and then when we had our first son she "retired".  But if you ask her she's a stay at home mom.  I'm not sure if it's condescending or something, she doesn't think so.  I wouldn't want to swap with her.  Handling four kids is no joke, she somehow does it.  She looks at things not as some victim that she can't fulfill her destiny in a cube, but rather that I slug it out to support her in getting to enjoy time with her kids.  Maybe perspective? Who knows, but we like this.  There's a guy down the street who's a stay-at-home dad, is he a victim because his wife supports him? Unsure, I know he doesn't claim he's retired though.  Is she supporting me?  Sure, by doing things around the house she supports my ability to work.  Do I support her?  Yes, I do stuff to help her as well as provide an income to live off of.  I don't know why this arrangement is considered bad either.  What is bad is when one person wants to be home and they can't because they're forced to work.

 

On the health insurance, it's expensive.  Everyone quotes the 23-yr old single healthy prices.  For a family you're looking at $1200-1500/mo plus a $5-10k deductible per year.  So all in maybe $25k in total out of pocket cost?  At a 2% withdrawal rate you're going to need $1m in cash just to pay healthcare.

 

In terms of exercise and eating being the end all be all, it's a myth.  Luck and genetics play a role.  I'm very skinny, healthy, exercise daily (run, bike), had a stroke at 35.  I'm fine, still running.  My doctor said my heart is in perfect condition, model of health, said it doesn't matter, these things are sometimes random.  Knew another guy, athlete, perfectly healthy had leukemia in his 20s.  All the biking in the world wouldn't stop that.  And likewise have a friend who is grossly overweight, outside of one sports related injury has zero health problems.  So yes, when looking at stats and people as a group exercise is good, I agree.  But there is a giant dice roll involved too.  Maybe you get through life healthy, maybe not, you can't just say "since I ride a bike I'll never have a problem."  What if you get hit by a car?  Have a crash etc?

 

Sometimes I think about what I'd do if someone just paid me a salary for existing.  There are about 2-3 weeks worth of chores around the house I'd be able to do.  But after that I'm not sure.  I'd probably start to do things that interest me, the same things I'm doing now for money.  Maybe I'd work less, although I have the choice to do that now.  I don't know.  I really have no idea what I'd do.

 

I think in all of this the better, or greater lesson is: Don't settle for a bad situation, move to a good one.

 

If you don't like your job don't justify it and stay.  Leave and find something better.  If you want to stay home with kids that's fine, then do it.  No need to feel bad for it.  Some people enjoy it (my wife, husband down the street) and that's fine.

 

Life isn't binary.  It isn't an either-or.  I'm not sure I'll ever retire, how could I?  I'd be bored to death.  I'll probably just work less, or work on things that pay less, and that sound great.

 

On all the bloggers.  Yes, I feel like it's a bit of a scam thing.  They're all selling this dream.  Tim Ferriss is the worst with this.  He sells this don't work, travel and play all the time.  I have a good friend who knows him personally.  He said Tim works hours that would make an investment banker blush.  But he claims that since he enjoys it it's not work and it doesn't count.  Work is work, more power to him that he found things he enjoys.  I have too, but it's still work.

[oddballstocks]

Regarding MMM

 

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."  I think the problem are his followers.  They're taking what he says at face value.  Things like "If you have kids you're an idiot because you can't retire."  Or "cars are stupid, ride bikes."

 

Here's a rough analogy.  I have a pool, I love the pool.  We swim 100+ days a year.  The amount of enjoyment I've derived from relaxing, swimming, and playing with my kids in there isn't measurable.  Yet we have friends who come over and say things like "Did you know this will detract from the value of your house?"  Or "pools make zero financial sense."  Ironically they're over enjoying it.  But they're just parroting some common wisdom type line without ever thinking.  They clearly don't apply this line of thought to their own life, they drive luxury cars, or spend on big vacations.  But somehow a pool is a bad financial mistake because someone somewhere said so.

 

I look at it like this, your house isn't a tradable asset.  It's to be enjoyed, so do things that create enjoyment.  We have and it's working.  But I thought about this on my own.  I'm not just parroting some line I heard somewhere.  Factually yes, I would be better off just paying $5/head to go to a community pool.  But we wouldn't swim as much and it wouldn't be as fun.  Financially we'd be best off living in a tent because then we'd have zero operating costs, but somehow people doing that are shunning.  Isn't that the logical conclusion of this line of thought?

 

This is like MMM.  He thinks through these things on his own it seems.  But his followers are just parroting these little snippets.  Are pools for everyone?  No.  But for some they make sense.  Will I recoup the money I've spent on it?  No.  But will I recoup the time I spent mowing the lawn, or trimming the bushes, or painting?  No.  That's all just part of having a place to live, they're all sunk costs.

 

Life as measured by dollars and cents is cold, unforgiving, and unfulfilling.

[rkbabang]

Regarding MMM

 

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."  I think the problem are his followers.  They're taking what he says at face value.  Things like "If you have kids you're an idiot because you can't retire."  Or "cars are stupid, ride bikes."

 

Here's a rough analogy.  I have a pool, I love the pool.  We swim 100+ days a year.  The amount of enjoyment I've derived from relaxing, swimming, and playing with my kids in there isn't measurable.  Yet we have friends who come over and say things like "Did you know this will detract from the value of your house?"  Or "pools make zero financial sense."  Ironically they're over enjoying it.  But they're just parroting some common wisdom type line without ever thinking.  They clearly don't apply this line of thought to their own life, they drive luxury cars, or spend on big vacations.  But somehow a pool is a bad financial mistake because someone somewhere said so.

 

I look at it like this, your house isn't a tradable asset.  It's to be enjoyed, so do things that create enjoyment.  We have and it's working.  But I thought about this on my own.  I'm not just parroting some line I heard somewhere.  Factually yes, I would be better off just paying $5/head to go to a community pool.  But we wouldn't swim as much and it wouldn't be as fun.  Financially we'd be best off living in a tent because then we'd have zero operating costs, but somehow people doing that are shunning.  Isn't that the logical conclusion of this line of thought?

 

This is like MMM.  He thinks through these things on his own it seems.  But his followers are just parroting these little snippets.  Are pools for everyone?  No.  But for some they make sense.  Will I recoup the money I've spent on it?  No.  But will I recoup the time I spent mowing the lawn, or trimming the bushes, or painting?  No.  That's all just part of having a place to live, they're all sunk costs.

 

Life as measured by dollars and cents is cold, unforgiving, and unfulfilling.

 

+1.

 

I don't have a pool now, but when we built our 2nd house in 2003 we spent about $90K putting in a pool/pool area/pool house.  We used and enjoyed that pool for the next 9 years and the people who bought our house for 40K over what it was appraised for said that the pool area and the kitchen were the reasons that they had to have it.  Yes, we didn't get our $90K back, but so what, we sold the house the first week it was on the market and we enjoyed living there for 9 years, my kids were young and grew up with an awesome pool.

 

You can't take money with you, if you can't use some of it to enjoy yourself in the short time you are here, then what's the point?

 

[Liberty]

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."

 

What podcast is that? I've never heard him say that about number of kids, or biking, and looking at the MMM forums, it seems like people with all kinds of numbers of kids have done what he did (this guy retired at 33 with 3 kids: http://rootofgood.com/category/parenting/ ).

 

Seems like it would just require some adjustments (working a bit longer to have more money, or being a bit more frugal, or a mix of both, all taken into account by this math: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ ). Same with biking -- people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen bring multiple kids around daily without problem, there are all kinds of solutions, up to huge cargo bikes that you can move a fridge with (MMM wrote an article about a bike trailer that he bought, and he moved construction materials around with it) when kids aren't old enough to bike by themselves to just buying multiple bikes when they can. Not that biking is necessary to retire (I don't), it just helps save tons of money and improve quality of life.

[Gray Fox]

She did not accumulate $2mm starting from 0 by just "having a wall street" job and investing her money well. 

 

This is the standard comp path for someone who 2 years banking, 2 years PE, and then goes to one of the very best hedge funds.  the 2+2 to HF is the new 2 years banking to HF path.  Again, this is for the top 1% of people that start investment banking jobs at 22.  all of the compliance, SS research, middle market shitty jobs etc etc that say they work on "wall street" won't come close to these numbers. Again, this would be something like Goldman M&A to KKR to one of the big Tiger funds.

 

IB analyst 1: 85+ 50

IB analyst 2: 85 + 80

PE analyst 1: 125 + 150

PE analyst 2 125:  + 225

HF analyst 1: 175 + 300

HF analyst 2: 175 + 400

 

This is $2mm in pretax comp over 6 years.  In New York, even with max 401k deferrals this nets around $1.1mm in post-tax income.  More importantly, half of it comes in the last 2 years so there is minimal time to compound.  Even if she is only spending 30k/year, she has maybe $250k saved the first three years.  It would take some pretty heroic IRR assumptions to get to $2.25mm post tax savings.

 

There are execptions - young guys who come up with home runs get absurd bonus checks each year.  My guess is that she started a lot higher than 0 or this is fabricated to drive page views for her blog.

 

The sanctimonious frugality of most of these people drive me absolutely freaking nuts - particularly if they claim to like investing.  The vast majority of people who are actually good at this could have stopped working a long, long time ago.  They do it because they love it, have philanthropic goals, feel a sense or responsbility to LPs, etc.

[Cigarbutt]

Interesting discussion but I have to go for my 127,7 km bike ride. ;)

[sleepydragon]

Regarding MMM

 

I listened to a podcast with him a few months back.  Seemed like an interesting guy.  He admits that his plan doesn't really work with a family of more than one kid.  He seems realistic and flexible. He rants about riding bikes, then says "but if you have more than a kid you can't."  I think the problem are his followers.  They're taking what he says at face value.  Things like "If you have kids you're an idiot because you can't retire."  Or "cars are stupid, ride bikes."

 

Here's a rough analogy.  I have a pool, I love the pool.  We swim 100+ days a year.  The amount of enjoyment I've derived from relaxing, swimming, and playing with my kids in there isn't measurable.  Yet we have friends who come over and say things like "Did you know this will detract from the value of your house?"  Or "pools make zero financial sense."  Ironically they're over enjoying it.  But they're just parroting some common wisdom type line without ever thinking.  They clearly don't apply this line of thought to their own life, they drive luxury cars, or spend on big vacations.  But somehow a pool is a bad financial mistake because someone somewhere said so.

 

I look at it like this, your house isn't a tradable asset.  It's to be enjoyed, so do things that create enjoyment.  We have and it's working.  But I thought about this on my own.  I'm not just parroting some line I heard somewhere.  Factually yes, I would be better off just paying $5/head to go to a community pool.  But we wouldn't swim as much and it wouldn't be as fun.  Financially we'd be best off living in a tent because then we'd have zero operating costs, but somehow people doing that are shunning.  Isn't that the logical conclusion of this line of thought?

 

This is like MMM.  He thinks through these things on his own it seems.  But his followers are just parroting these little snippets.  Are pools for everyone?  No.  But for some they make sense.  Will I recoup the money I've spent on it?  No.  But will I recoup the time I spent mowing the lawn, or trimming the bushes, or painting?  No.  That's all just part of having a place to live, they're all sunk costs.

 

Life as measured by dollars and cents is cold, unforgiving, and unfulfilling.

 

+1.

 

I don't have a pool now, but when we built our 2nd house in 2003 we spent about $90K putting in a pool/pool area/pool house.  We used and enjoyed that pool for the next 9 years and the people who bought our house for 40K over what it was appraised for said that the pool area and the kitchen were the reasons that they had to have it.  Yes, we didn't get our $90K back, but so what, we sold the house the first week it was on the market and we enjoyed living there for 9 years, my kids were young and grew up with an awesome pool.

 

You can't take money with you, if you can't use some of it to enjoy yourself in the short time you are here, then what's the point?

 

I had a pool too. One night at about 2am, i was waked up by water splashes. I got up and found a family of recoons, a mother and her two babys playing in my pool.