Comment by vkou 2 days ago
> If AI can make things 1000x more efficient,
Is that the promise of the faustian bargain we're signing?
Once the ink is dry, should I expect to be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment, or be spending $20/year on healthcare? Or be working only an hour a week?
40h is probably up from pre-industrial times.
Edit: There is some research covering work time estimates for different ages.
Let's kill this myth that people were lounging around before the Industrial Revolution. Serfs for example were working both their own land as well as their lord's land, as well as doing domestic duties in the middle. They really didn't have as much free time as we do today, plus their work was way more backbreaking, literally, than most's cushy sedentary office jobs.
I don't think a general sentiment matters much here when the important necessitate are out of reach. The hierarchy of needs is outdated, but the inversion of it is very concerning.
We can live without a flat screen TV (which has gotten dirt cheap). We can't live without a decent house. Or worse, while we can live in some 500 sq ft shack we can't truly "live" if there's no other public amenities to gather and socialize without nickel-and-diming us.
pre-industrial? Lots of tending to the farm, caring for family, and managing slaves I suppose. Had some free time between that to work with your community for bonding or business dealings or whatnot.
>you'll probably consume a lot more, while still working a full week
There's more to cosume than 50 years ago, but I don't see that trend continuing. We shifted phone bills to cell phone bills and added internet bills and a myriad of subscriptions. But that's really it. everything was "turn one time into subscrition".
I don't see what will fundamentally shift that current consumption for the next 20-30 years. Just more conversion of ownership to renting. In entertainment we're already seeing revolts against this as piracy surges. I don't know how we're going to "consume a lot more" in this case.
I don't want to "consume a lot more". I want to work less, and for the work I do to be valuable, and to be able to spend my remaining time on other valuable things.
You can consume a lot less on a surprisingly small salary, at least in the U.S.
But it requires giving up things a lot of people don't want to, because consuming less once you are used to consuming more sucks. Here is a list of things people can cut from their life that are part of the "consumption has gone up" and "new categories of consumption were opened" that ovi256 was talking about:
- One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago.
- One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.
- One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.
- One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.
- One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.
I could keep going, but by this point I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
> - One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago.
It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone and a cell phone plan. Many things that were possible to do before without one now require it.
> - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.
Maybe you can replace these with the cell phone + plan.
> - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.
It's not clear that imported food is cheaper than locally grown food. Also I'm not sure you have the right time frame. I'm pretty sure my parents were buying imported produce in the winter when I was a kid 50 years ago.
> - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.
Agreed.
> - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.
Yes but in urban areas whatever you're saving on cars you are probably spending on higher rent and mortgage costs compared to rural areas where cars are a necessity. And if we're talking USA, many urban areas have terrible public transportation and you probably still need Uber or the equivalent some of the time, depending on just how walkable/bike-able your neighborhood is.
> on a surprisingly small salary
But if we take "surprisingly small salary" to literally mean salary, most (... all?) salaried jobs require you to work full time, 40 hours a week. Unless we consider cushy remote tech jobs, but those are an odd case and likely to go away if we assume AI is taking over there.
Part time / hourly work is largely less skilled and much lower paid, and you'll want to take all the hours you can get to be able to afford outright necessities like rent. (Unless you're considering rent as consumption/luxury, which is fair)
It does seem like there's a gap in terms of skilled/highly paid but hourly/part time work.
(Not disagreeing with the rest of your post though)
I've given up pretty much all of that out of necessity, yes. Insurance and rent still goes up so I'm spending almost as much as I was at my peak, though.
>I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
Of course it's changed. The point is that
1. the necessities haven't changed and have gotten more expensive. People need healthcare, housing, food, and tranport. All up.
2. the modern day expectations means necessities change. We can't walk into a business and shake someone's hand to get a job, so you "need" access to the internet to get a job. Recruiters also expect a consistent phone number to call so good luck skipping a phone line (maybe VOIP can get around this).
These are society's fault as they shifted to pleasing shareholders and outsourcing entire industries (and of course submitted to lobbying). so I don't like this blame being shifted to the individual for daring to consume to survive.
You aren't wrong and I agree up to a point. But I've watched a couple of people try to get by on just "cutting" rather than growing their incomes and it doesn't work out for them. A former neighbor was a real Dave Ramsey acolyte and even did things like not have trash service (used dumpsters and threw trash out at his mother's house). His driveway was crumbling but instead of getting new asphalt he just dug it all up himself and dumped it...somewhere, and then filled it in with gravel. He drives junker cars that are always breaking down. I helped him replace a timing chain on a Chrysler convertible that wasn't in awful shape, but the repairs were getting intense. This guy had an average job at a replacement window company but had zero upward mobility. He was and I assume is, happy enough, with a roof over his head and so forth, but our property taxes keep rising, insurance costs keep rising, there's only so much you can cut. My take is that you have to find more income and being looked upon as "tight with a buck" or even "cheap" is unfavorable.
Ouch! Man this is a terrible take on the world. I know you mean well and that the majority of the world agrees with this, but to be honest, I have been having real thoughts about letting the make it till you break it mentality go myself. things are getting more expensive and I dont think im willing to live a life running from paycheck to paycheck... Not sure why I am going to do about it, but I know that feeling is there.
> or stayed flat
But that's not what they said, they said they want to work less. As the GP post said, they'd still be working a full week.
I do think this is an interesting point. The trend for most of history seems to have been vastly increasing consumption/luxury while work hours somewhat decrease. But have we reached the point where that's not what people want? I'd wager most people in rich developed countries don't particularly want more clothes, gadgets, cars, or fast food. If they can get the current typical middle class share of those things (which to be fair is a big share, and not environmentally sustainable), along with a modest place to live, they (we) mainly want to work less.
Save up and then FIRE; retire early by moving to a lower cost of living area.
I think FIRE was basically just a fad for awhile. I say this as a 52 year old "retiree" who isn't working right now and living off investment income. It takes a shitload of wealth to not have to work and I'm borderline not real comfortable with the whole situation. I live in a fairly HCoL area and can't up and move right now (wife has medical needs, son in high school, daughter in college). I'd be freaking out if I didn't have a nest egg, we would be trying to sell our house in a crap market. As it stands, I don't really want to go on like I am, my life is a total waste right now.
It's not a "fad," it's a mathematical observation that investing more generates more returns. Maybe the media was covering it more at some point but the concept itself is sound. You are in fact FIREd by the same definition, it's just that in your case it seems you would need more money than you have currently due to the factors you stated, but that's not the fault of the concept of FIRE in general. And anyway, there are lots of stories of people doing regular or leanFIRE too, it doesn't require so much wealth as to be unreachable if you have a middle class job. For example, https://www.reddit.com/r/leanfire/s/67adPxZeDU
If you think your life is a waste right now, do something with it. That's actually the number one thing people don't expect from being retired, how bored they get. They say in FIRE communities that all the money and time in the world won't help if you don't actually utilize it.
you can consume as much as an average person from 1950's by working just a few days a week.
Boomers in a nutshell. Do a bunch of stuff to keep from building more housing to prop up housing prices (which is much of their net worth), and then spend until you're forced to spend the last bit to keep yourselves alive.
Then the hospital takes the house to pay off the rest of the debts. Everybody wins!
They signed it for you as there will be 1000x less workers needed so they didn't need to ask anymore.
You will probably be dead.
But _somebody_ will be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment and working an hour a week, and the concept of money will be defunct.
While humans have historically mildly reduced their working time to today's 40h workweek, their consumption has gone up enormously, and whole new categories of consumption were opened. So my prediction is while you'll never live in a 900,000sqft apartment (unless we get O'Neill cylinders from our budding space industry) you'll probably consume a lot more, while still working a full week