Simple answer, redefine ethics:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2286#comic

The fly in the ointment of ERE is women. Men attempting to both woo and maintain women is innately expensive, for most men. If anything, I see the consumer society as a sort of arms race in this respect.

Most men won’t be nearly as successful riding their bicycle to the nearest bar, and attempting to pickup a pretty and prime twenty year old woman, when the parking lot is brimming with BMWs and Mercedes. “Hey baby, want to come back to my RV, and check out my photo collection of my neighbors garden? We can sip on cups of tap water, while I will cook you some rice and beans.

Men are hard wired to achieve, produce, and gain status in the eternal race for sex and procreation. Women are attracted to the men who are leading in that race, and most women dream of comfortable bourgeoisie lifestyles in the suburbs with 3000 square foot of energy hogging house, two late model cars, babies or at least dual power careers.

The hardest proof I have my these assertions is marriage culture and child support laws. The whole point of such laws is to guarantee financial resources for women. The flow of resources generally goes from men to women, not vice verca. That’s why women don’t give men $10k diamond engagement rings, but men do.

And for those that divorce, the family courts won’t be sold on the idea of mother and child living in a van down by the river in order to support husbands dream of ERE and maintaining an “earth friendly” lifestyle.

Jesus and Henry David Thoreau were both bachelors who didn’t chase women, as far as I know, and both are famous for their ERE and “earth friendly” lifestyles. I doubt that is a coincidence. One might argue that Jesus wasn’t ERE, but if he was stuck toiling 12 hours of day supporting wife and children, he would have had very little time or energy to spread the good word.

What about the ethics of supporting a system which doesn’t meld with one’s core beliefs?

Why should the most intelligent and motivated among us be compelled to work for the benefit of the lesser members of society?

Civilization does indeed have cancer. Checking out of the system is not only understandable, but commendable.

@Jacob … According to QuantCast 60% of ERE readers are women

interesting. women don’t need to read ERE. They can just marry well, and that’s its own retirement 🙂 Many women marry and continue to work or part-time work for various reasons, but many ERE, even those with fancy law degrees, MBAs, nurses, etc.

Society supports women who ERE, but frowns upon men who ERE. Work is on the lines of military selective service and military draft, women have the option to join the military (in non combat roles), but men have the obligation. Read “Myth of Male Power”.

@anonymous – If I may offer some strategic advice 😎 If you want to find an ERE-sympathetic partner, you probably shouldn’t go to bars and try to hit up 20-year old (under legal drinking age too, eh?) co-eds wearing make-up. Nor should you hit up guys wearing a pressed shirt and a Brooks Brothers suit and who drive up in a leased BMW sporting a $150 hair cut.

Instead try a maker fair, a farmer’s market, the local sailing club, or a cooking class. And please leave the bling-bling at home. A leased $40,000 car is not so impressive to someone who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank.

PS: There’s a big difference between being a “kept woman” (or man) and being financially independent.

@jacob – great post as always.

I have a philisophical question of your current situation. You are living off your investments, many of which I suspect fund the consumer culture. I don’t expect you to burn your money or stuff it under your mattress, but do you further you commitment to your movement by investing in companies that do not take advantage of consumer culturalise, excessive energy use, and urban sprawl?

I haven’t made that move yet, so this isn’t a judgement, just wondering where you are.

@tjt – It’s pretty tough because there aren’t a whole lot of “non-consumer” companies. I do invest according to what I believe are the major trends of the future, wind, nuclear, smaller homes, shipping, drugs, and I do stay away from what I believe will not be part of it.

I also have some idiosyncratic reasons. For instance, I invest in tobacco companies and junk food companies. Even as I know they make people sick and die early, it’s also a free choice and it makes people happy in the short term which supposedly is the preferred trade-off. Plus dying early reduces demand for food supplies. This may sound horrible to some but it also makes sense dpenending on your perspective.

Conversely, I won’t invest with companies who are known to bribe foreign dictators to suppress their citizens in exchange for access to resources. There’s no freedom of choice in this situation.

It’s a fairly tricky situation though. By not investing, you’re essentially saying “I won’t vote against their policies as a shareholder” whereas if you do buy an ability to vote against irresponsible practices, you’re also supporting the company in a weak sense.

In terms of direct impact of evilness, I would say
1) Working for an evil company is the worst kind of evil. You are directly practicing evil.
2) Buying the products of an evil company is the second worst. You’re causing the demand which causes the practices.
3) Owning shares in the evil is the third worst. You’re supporting the infrastructure which makes this possible.

The equivalent is
1) Pulling the trigger.
2) Asking someone to pull the trigger.
3) Giving the first person the bullet.

This is how I rank the moral responsibility.

So while you could say that “I’m against killing”, I am okay with “making bullets”.

But it’s a gray zone.

My ultimate hope is that eventually there will be better companies to invest in.

@ Jacob … If I may offer some strategic advice 😎 If you want to find an ERE-sympathetic partner

I used the example, because the college co-ed is at the prime of her beauty and desirability, and many men would scorch half the planet to secure access to her. The 35 year old matron sifting turnip greens at the saturday farmer’s market, not so much. I exaggerate somewhat because most people respect their lot in life and settle, but macro-economics is powerful empirical evidence.

In addition, I believe women do most of the spending in the consumer economy, and that done by men, is often on behalf of women. Women have powerful nesting instincts and need for security, even into old age. I suspect the average woman would feel more secure with an employed husband with 1/2 million in the bank than an ERE with the same, that could easily evaporate in a Wall Street scandal.

In the previous bust, many pensions, annuities, and ordinary bank accounts would have vaporized if not for Fed Gov stepping in with bailouts for TBTF Wall Street banks, despite the bad ethics and moral hazards of bailing out finance gamblers leveraging assets 30-1 and pocketing hundreds of millions each. Many ordinary people would have had a rude awakening in a van down by the river rather than their usual 3000 square foot digs wired into the nearest 1000 mega-watt nuclear reactor.

China is busily trading their bicycles and mopeds for fossil fuel powered cars, minivans, and trucks. With marriagable Chinese women in short supply, they have leverage to make demands such as “Show me the House” – No House? No Car? … No Marriage. Given this, the pressure on global fossil fuels is very predictable. I doubt very many 20-30 year old Chinese men will be reading ERE, and deciding their bicycle is good enough.

Is working passionately to leave a legacy that benefits others selfless? I think so.

However, I’d argue your use of the freedom afforded by ERE is the ethical act, not living frugally. Frugality remains a tool.

IMO, this distinction is important as substantial wealth (or earning power) accumulates. Maximizing utility of the resource will require non-frugal actions.

I think the ethical debate belies a confusion between society and economy. These are the same arguments you hear from radical feminists decrying stay-at-home moms for wasting their talents.

I spend all day, every day writing software to make web servers run faster. Does that make me more ethical than Jacob? To me that’s a total non sequitur. My ethics (or morals, actually) are determined by how I treat other people and contribute to my community and my society. How I contribute to the economy is my productivity, not my morality — they’re two different things.

Likewise, Jacob’s decision not to purchase things is independent of his morality. That’s purely an economic question. You’ll have to judge his morality based on other things, like how much effort he puts into helping others.

There’s also an element of confusion between capitalism as a system (where we keep score by exchanging tokens) versus capitalism as a philosophy (where right and wrong are prescribed by market forces). Needless to say, I think very highly of the former, but not much of the latter.

Self-sufficiency is not immoral.

Great web site! I love reading here. The comments reveal an especially thoughtful and sharp group of readers.

The ERE choice is, to me, a personal decision based on the things that make me happy vs. unhappy. If someone is going to make a contribution to society, she’s going to make it whether she’s into ERE or not.

Very, very few people are going to even come close to making a meaningful contribution that rocks the world but virtually everyone in America is, on a daily basis, rapidly sucking the planet dry of resources just by trying to keep up with ‘the system.’

As a matter of ethics and morality, I would prefer a system where people are FREE to follow whatever peaceful path they prefer. To me, the greatest good results from everyone following their dream rather than pushing hard to make contributions that others think are important.

In the end, though, there’s no need to worry about too many people taking up ERE and harming the productivity of our precious society. ERE will never happen en masse unless/until it is FORCED on people.

If that day comes, there won’t be any choice in the matter and those who are naturally frugal and self-reliant will fare better and they can apply their skills to solving problems that the less adept can’t handle.

Even those who don’t take on any debt are potentially living off of your system…

You buy a stock or index fund and get a piece of paper (stock cert.).
The company uses your funds to borrow money.
The borrowed money is used to pay workers.
The money has been passed from you to the company, to the workers who spend it.

How are you not the system?

Consumerism is not a system. It’s a result of a system. There are alternatives to this system (living off the land, trading and bartering, etc.), but clearly you are a provider of the system.

No?

I’m finding this thread,(and ERE as a whole), fascinating. While reading the comments, I was reminded of a Simpsons episode, in which George Bush, and Al Gore are replaced by aliens. Whichever way the election went, their evil designs for humanity would move forward. At one point they laughingly declare, YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF US! Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be that far off the mark. The evil designs that is, ( not so much the aliens ).
It seems that life in the main-stream is comprised of an endless series of choices between the lesser of two evils. Bullshit! I say. ERE,(and a lot of other similairly minded blogs), provide an alternative.
As for morality; if something doesn’t seem right, it probably isn’t. No one can give you a moral compass, you have to find it for yourself.

I think you are touching on a larger issue here. Once you were financially free, you chose to devote your life to sustainability. When others reach that point they may devote their lives to other pursuits like doing nothing, chasing their own vanity, or making their lives and those around them better. Most importantly, this latter group has the independence and resources to do this. I think the “goodness” of our society as a whole is strongly correlated with how large this group is and how its members behave. For these people “retired” is not as correct a descriptor as “independent.” I think your efforts to grow this group through example and education should be commended.

Whatever you call it, I am referring to the act of reducing expenses to near poverty level, so one can live off income generated by assets instead of working.

A bit of a tangent:

This financial decoupling also impairs one’s ability to leave a legacy. It demonstrates a person is capable of and willing to not work. The extreme nature suggests an inability to play with others, specifically in the structured environment required to produce change.

Collaborating with such a person is risky. When times get hard, they are a likely failure point. Why not choose another equally talented individual, without that risk?

More than anything, this keeps me from pursuing true ERE.

@anonymous: If you’re basing your comments on the role of women in an ERE society on your personal experience, there’s a very clear reason those 20-year-old women in bars aren’t going for you, and it’s not because you ride a bicycle.

I have been thinking about this(ERE) for a long time. After reading Jason Hsu’s article this weekend it’s finally coming together for me. It makes sense. It doesn’t make ERE any easier but I know I am headed in the right direction. I know where and how to focus my energies in preparing for the future.

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2011/06/27/the-3-d-hurricane-and-the-new-normal.aspx

Reading the first chapter of toolbox:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0896087808/?tag=oildepletio03-20

Also convinced me.

All I can say is, Jacob is a BADASS 🙂

Can’t really write everything down coherently right now, need to write on paper and revise a few times.

I have been struggling to figure out how to live the ERE lifestyle since I was 22. I never understood why I knew better, but then ran out and decided to ‘invest’ in real estate. Now that I am in my mid 30’s, I am learning to care less and less about fitting in and that is making it easier. I am amazed by our desire to fit in and be just like everyone else.

I was confused too as I thought about what Jacob and his wife would do in different cases, but I am learning that I have to adjust and focus on what matters to me and my family and be diligent about reducing or doing away with all other costs. I am also thrilled that I can teach my children too. I’d love for them to never wear the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to remain free and live their dreams from day one!

Jacob, I’ve been reading your book and it is in one word ‘meaty’. I’ll write a review when I am done reading it.

@Scott – With a very limited number of exceptions, most people’s legacy doesn’t last beyond the time of death of their grand children (most people are too young to get to know their GGPs before they die). If I had children now and they had children at the same age and they lived to age 100, I would be completely forgotten by everybody in the year 2180.

On the same note, the oldest scientific paper I recall citing was written around 1940, how’s that for long lasting? While I do have books and articles in libraries all over the world, I doubt anyone will read them 100 years from now.

I used to believe in legacy and that my purpose in life was indeed to contribute to the scientific legacy of humanity or something like that. However, consider how many millions of scientists have existed. How many can you recall off hand? I can’t recall that many. Even within my own field, it’s only about a hundred. I then realized that the future doesn’t care what anyone presently living does and we’ll have little impact on how the world will look like in 500 years, so our impact is here and now.

Also, try going to a place where you used to work and see if they still talk about you or remember who you were, where you sat, or what you did. I’d estimate one’s “company legacy” to be <5 years.

Sure, a company is one kind of structure, formal and informal, but they’re not the only structures. There are other structures outside of work. I don’t think no longer working for a living means that people will not find other structures (formal or informal) to fit into. In the ERE book I talk about social skills and forming networks with people who live near you or who share the same interests (instead of the same company). I bet most suburbanites know more about their colleagues than their neighbors. If they’re laid off during hard times, they will know no one.

I pulled the plug at 47 after years of trying to do something worthwhile as an engineer. The marketing department runs the corporation and their only rationale is can they get the suckers to buy (think SUVs). I suppose rather than managing my investments and sailing I should use my talents to benefit society- NOT.
Things we could do without: Marketing, Hollywood (sex and/or violence as entertainment), the funeral industry, the gambling industry, professional sports , 97% of Wall Street (see Warren Buffet), tobacco farming….. My doing nothing is more moral than participating in any of the above, for starters. Fred

“The system” is so damn flawed, founded as it is on greed, exploitation of our fellow human beings, other living creatures, and this earth, and out-of-control and unsustainable consumption, that perhaps the most selfless thing one can do is check out of it. What concerns me about early retirement though is paying expenses via dividends earned through the system we are attempting to check out of. If one doesn’t agree with the system, then is it not unethical to participate in the stock market?

Dropping out of the system is easier said than done. We are so interdependent on a system that is about to collapse, I have been trying to get out by embracing the principles of reduced consumption, renewable’s and self preservation which is helping. Great post. Will follow the debate eagerly.

To be honest, 99% of jobs are directed towards consumerism – aka. selling things to people which they don’t need.

Most ‘technical’ work (ie. engineering, IT) is basically designing products to sell to people. These companies are supported by other ‘technical’ jobs (ie. accounting, IT,), while ‘marketing’ people (ie. sales, PR, marketing) convince people to buy the product.

I can only think of a few jobs (medicine, law enforcement, some engineering) which are used to provide necessities to society.

The rest is just…selling stuff.