View Full Version : FIRE "Financial Independence, Retire Early"
dado potato
9-5-18, 10:21pm
The "Sunday Styles" section of The New York Times edition of 9/2/18 includes a story, Retiring at 43? You're on FIRE by Steven Kurutz.
It is about the "growing movement of young professionals who are intently focused on quitting their jobs forever". … Millennials see FIRE "as a way out of soul-sucking, time-stealing work and an economy fueled by consumerism."
The article gives a hat-tip Vicki Robin and Joe Dominguez, authors of Your Money or Your Life. Robin contrasts the voluntary simplicity movement originating in the 1990s with the current FIRE moment.
Our aim was not just to have a whole bunch of people quit their jobs. Our aim was to lower consumption to save the planet. We attracted longtime simple-living people, religious people, environmentalists.
By contrast, FIRE adherents are "very numbers oriented, fascinated by the minutiae of taxes and accounting." They are also benefiting from the lengthy bull market in stocks, and in some cases, the privilege of class, race, gender, and background. While FIRE adherents "don't have the aspirational part" of earlier generations, they feel determined to leave the paid workforce out of their needs for "...agency. The worker in this economy has very little sense of control over their existence. People are expendable. You are a young person, and you look ahead, and you say: 'What's there for me?'"
The article observes that FIRE retirees often blog about their experiences. Examples:
Early Retirement Dude
Our Next Life
The Frugalwoods
I'm surprised Mr. Money Mustache wasn't mentioned.
I came away from the article with the impression that we seem to be transitioning to a blog-based economy.
I also wondered whether a portfolio in the low seven figures would be sufficient to weather the vicissitudes of the markets and the hard knocks of life and still reliably support a family over the required sixty years or so. I would be interested in hearing if any of these guys have a Plan B.
The first time I heard the term "FIRE" was through Jacob Lund Fisker's Early Retirement Extreme (http://earlyretirementextreme.com). Actually, lhamo had recommended that book years ago and I read it then, I've sporadically followed his blog and I reread it when I need a boost of the dense writing of the engineer/philosopher/financial minimalist.
I also wondered whether a portfolio in the low seven figures would be sufficient to weather the vicissitudes of the markets and the hard knocks of life and still reliably support a family over the required sixty years or so. I would be interested in hearing if any of these guys have a Plan B.
I think the idea is if you strip your living expenses to the bare minimum and save a certain amount of money you can live on it officially "retired." But that doesn't always mean you never generate an income of some kind. This way of living in effect unlocks the golden handcuffs of conventional labor. If you can live very inexpensively you have the freedom to pick up freelance jobs or occasional gigs, or whatever it is your heart desires. Very much along the YMOYL model.
I do think having a family complicates dreams of FIRE big time, but I think it's achievable. Having "only" a low seven figures portfolio doesn't seem very risky to me, but then again, I have a very high tolerance for living on the edge. In fact, I had read your comment as "low SIX figures" and I didn't bat an eye.
Mr. Money Mustache is very inspirational in this regard. He still lives on under $30k with a wife and a child, I think. He always publishes his budget/expenses for the year.
Williamsmith
9-6-18, 8:54am
I have to laugh. Some reports I read say America has 110 million recipients of welfare or government assistance programs. And it is possible to receive more in assistance including food stamps, health care and energy subsidies than one can make in common entry level positions with very successful corporations thus, providing strong incentive for people not to work. So I’m laughing at these FIRE adherents who work their ass off to generate a marginal nest egg at an early age so they can “retire” while millions of other people have beaten them to that lifestyle.
You can find lots of these early “retirees” in flyover country rural America where the cost of living is fractional compared to urban centers. Most are boyfriend /girlfriend living together to share the costs of housing, yet report individual income and both qualify for subsidies and assistance. Most have a health concern that is covered by government programs as long as their income doesn’t rise above a certain level so they never marry and if they work at all, turn down raises so their subsidy doesn’t get cut off. Those healthcare coverages can be worth tens of thousands of dollars a year.
They take vacations, enjoy adult beverages, read, feed the birds, hunt, fish and recreate in the local parks and if they want....sit and watch the fan turn around.
I dont see much difference.
dado potato
9-6-18, 9:45am
Mr. Money Moustache was mentioned in the article.
I think that a million or two invested is a pretty good bet for a thirty or forty year period. At least I hope it will be for me. But when you look at the better part of a century, I would be a lot less confident and want a fallback plan. Fisker wound up going back to work. That might not always be possible 20-30 years into retirement. And I suppose you could always go with the government dependency career option. Reusing dryer sheets will only get you so far on the expense management side.
Don’t get me wrong. A million bucks provides a lot of options. But I think it would be very wise for a thirty year old anxious to flee the horrors of work to plan for contingencies and maybe preserve a few extra income streams if possible.
Reusing dryer sheets will only get you so far on the expense management side.
I don't use dryer sheets: unnecessary expense and bad for the environment :)
I agree with you in general. It probably looks like a dream for a 30-something to think about "retiring" but, yes, there has to be a Plan B. What appeals to me is the idea of greater freedom to choose the paying job you want without being constrained by a high minimum income required.
But overall, I think the majority of people overestimate what you need to live on. ("I NEED dryer sheets! I NEED 3 bedrooms with a bathroom in each one!"). These perceived needs inflate those retirement figures.
Here's what MMM says on the subject: (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/)
I find that when people earn their freedom from money constraints, they usually don’t stop working. Instead they start doing their best work. Looking at many of society’s highest achievers right now, the world leaders and founders of the most productive companies, I see mostly people who have already made it. And yet are still working because it means something to them.
Early retirement, according to this new definition, does not mean quitting work, even while it may well mean quitting your job. It means opting out of the bullshit portion of your work. The commuting, the politics, the production of inferior products just because your boss has found a profitable niche to exploit. When used correctly, a sizeable ‘stash can help you become a more ethical person.
Early-retired Doctors might set up smaller practices which operate without any pressure for profit optimization, and without patience for insurance company shenanigans. They might treat their medical staff better than the larger operations do.
Early-retired Attorneys might refuse all cases that are based on questionable ethics, and do only work that actually helps somebody.
Google engineers who retire early might still work or contract part-time, or feel compelled to create completely new inventions with their newly freed minds. If some of these inventions grow big and end up being acquired right back into Google, it’s just another dividend of early retirement and the cycle will begin anew.
How would you run your own life, with a continuing desire to create but no immediate need to make the next mortgage payment?
I have to laugh. Some reports I read say America has 110 million recipients of welfare or government assistance programs. And it is possible to receive more in assistance including food stamps, health care and energy subsidies than one can make in common entry level positions with very successful corporations thus, providing strong incentive for people not to work. So I’m laughing at these FIRE adherents who work their ass off to generate a marginal nest egg at an early age so they can “retire” while millions of other people have beaten them to that lifestyle.
You can find lots of these early “retirees” in flyover country rural America where the cost of living is fractional compared to urban centers. Most are boyfriend /girlfriend living together to share the costs of housing, yet report individual income and both qualify for subsidies and assistance. Most have a health concern that is covered by government programs as long as their income doesn’t rise above a certain level so they never marry and if they work at all, turn down raises so their subsidy doesn’t get cut off. Those healthcare coverages can be worth tens of thousands of dollars a year.
They take vacations, enjoy adult beverages, read, feed the birds, hunt, fish and recreate in the local parks and if they want....sit and watch the fan turn around.
I dont see much difference.
You hit the nail on the head. Exactly what I see in my area all the time. They live together and take advantage of gov payouts. They have kids and still do not marry to take advantage of the payouts.
I don't use dryer sheets: unnecessary expense and bad for the environment :)
I agree with you in general. It probably looks like a dream for a 30-something to think about "retiring" but, yes, there has to be a Plan B. What appeals to me is the idea of greater freedom to choose the paying job you want without being constrained by a high minimum income required.
But overall, I think the majority of people overestimate what you need to live on. ("I NEED dryer sheets! I NEED 3 bedrooms with a bathroom in each one!"). These perceived needs inflate those retirement figures.
Here's what MMM says on the subject: (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/)
I find that when people earn their freedom from money constraints, they usually don’t stop working. Instead they start doing their best work. Looking at many of society’s highest achievers right now, the world leaders and founders of the most productive companies, I see mostly people who have already made it. And yet are still working because it means something to them.
Early retirement, according to this new definition, does not mean quitting work, even while it may well mean quitting your job. It means opting out of the bullshit portion of your work. The commuting, the politics, the production of inferior products just because your boss has found a profitable niche to exploit. When used correctly, a sizeable ‘stash can help you become a more ethical person.
Early-retired Doctors might set up smaller practices which operate without any pressure for profit optimization, and without patience for insurance company shenanigans. They might treat their medical staff better than the larger operations do.
Early-retired Attorneys might refuse all cases that are based on questionable ethics, and do only work that actually helps somebody.
Google engineers who retire early might still work or contract part-time, or feel compelled to create completely new inventions with their newly freed minds. If some of these inventions grow big and end up being acquired right back into Google, it’s just another dividend of early retirement and the cycle will begin anew.
How would you run your own life, with a continuing desire to create but no immediate need to make the next mortgage payment?
I think there is much to be said for being in a position where you can do almost anything you want even if you don’t have the option of doing nothing at all. “Retirement” doesn’t seem to be a good word for that.
I’m in the process right now of transitioning to something like that, and trying to phase in a number of what I hope will be fairly resilient income streams and overhead reductions. Moving to a smaller house in a lower cost of living area. Eliminating debt and setting up a pool of funds to serve as a sort of homemade line of credit. A pension. A couple of social security checks. A downscoped job for awhile. A small, cheaply managed investment portfolio. My wife wants to invest in an income property or two, but I have my doubts about that one. An insurance strategy on a number of fronts. Even if some of them don’t perform we should basically be ok.
I do think a lot of people neglect the risk management aspect of personal finance even when they get a lot of other things right.
Williamsmith
9-6-18, 12:36pm
I’m a bit confused but will admit that I have not read blogs, books or watched any YouTube pep talks by any of these peopl. I can see where this is all quite feasible given the proper mindset. I just question two things.
How many partners see eye to eye on the details and.....
What happens when the elephant in the room (healthcare) sits up and demands the kind of payments even we prepared career investment types can’t afford?
It looks real appealing until somebody gets sick. Perhaps euthanasia is a consistent philosophy for FIRE proponents.
I wanted to add....if I were vegging out in an expensive nursing home I’d either be wishing someone would put me out of my misery before they drained my nest egg or worrying that my wife took my frugal living lectures a little too seriously.
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 1:55pm
Me, MM doesn’t live on 30k/year. He spends much more and lists them as business expenses. He counts all his travel this way as well as the expensive shed he made on his property and other things. He also bought a Leaf to drive. He is wealthy from the blog and while he was donates some to charity he also spends some of it. He also bought a commercial building and I am not sure if he rents the space or allows people to use it to work.
Me, MM doesn’t live on 30k/year. He spends much more and lists them as business expenses. He counts all his travel this way as well as the expensive shed he made on his property and other things. He also bought a Leaf to drive. He is wealthy from the blog and while he was donates some to charity he also spends some of it. He also bought a commercial building and I am not sure if he rents the space or allows people to use it to work.
I had no idea being a simple living celebrity was so expensive.
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 2:15pm
The house he lives in is gorgeous. He earned his wealth and I have no problem with him spending it. I don’t think it’s right for him to say he didn’t inflate his lifestyle. Claiming he wouldn’t travel if not for the blog is bogus. He goes to Ecuador yearly for a MM meet up and takes his family.
dado potato
9-6-18, 2:47pm
“Retirement” doesn’t seem to be a good word for that.
In Your Money or Your Life Dominquez and Robin talked about projecting the trend of monthly expenses and the trend of monthly income from investments into the future. A rising trend in investment income combined with a falling or stable trend in expenses results in the two lines crossing. I like their terminology of "the crossover point" on your chart. They also described this state as "Financial Independence" in the traditional sense of that term.
For me, the crossover point was achieved in my late 40s, and I retired at 50... two separate and distinct events.
I always thought the crossover point was a bit of a dangerous oversimplification. Comparing your current spending to the current yield on your bond portfolio ignores a lot of important factors over the long term. I also took issue with the assertion that inflation is just a state of mind.
On the plus side YMOYL got a lot of people to start thinking about personal finance who otherwise thought of money as being vaguely dirty, and who would have been insulted if you referred to them as capitalists.
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 3:37pm
I know a couple that retired in their 40’s on a small budget. 20 years later they cannot afford to travel, etc like other retirees. I don’t know them well so don’t know specifics. Health insurance is such a big cost. I have retiree insurance from the state but it costs 10k/year.
My wife and I "retired" in our mid-30s, about 20 years ago.
We found productive things to do afterwards.
I found our expenses lower than anticipated, yay.
I am glad I overplanned though, a divorce in your mid-50s of a "retired" couple who have been "retired" for 20 years can be quite problematic to the financial plan. I didn't really see that one coming.
My wife and I retired just before we turned 50. Well I was just before and she was a few months later. That was 11 years ago. We are currently spending quite a bit more than I expected. But due to the market gains we could have spent much more.
Health insurance is expensive, around $1,500 a month in after tax dollars. But I knew and planned for that. If I had known that Obamacare was going to happen I would have tried to structure my income to receive a subsidy. But it is pretty difficult for me to get my income down that low.
we could have gone a little earlier, but we were waiting for the kids to get out of college, and my wife had to work long enough for us to stay on her healthcare plan. As long as we paid the full amount.
My wife and I retired just before we turned 50. Well I was just before and she was a few months later. That was 11 years ago. We are currently spending quite a bit more than I expected. But due to the market gains we could have spent much more.
Health insurance is expensive, around $1,500 a month in after tax dollars. But I knew and planned for that. If I had known that Obamacare was going to happen I would have tried to structure my income to receive a subsidy. But it is pretty difficult for me to get my income down that low.
we could have gone a little earlier, but we were waiting for the kids to get out of college, and my wife had to work long enough for us to stay on her healthcare plan. As long as we paid the full amount.
What was your biggest surprise?
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 5:11pm
Bae, so glad you don’t have financial problems on top of everything else. I retired at 58 and the plan was for my husband to work 5 more years until he was 58. He got laid off and couldn’t find a job. Then after a year he took his pension early. Took a big cut too. We toyed with the idea of moving to Dallas as they needed engineers but didn’t want to move and leave our friends, kids, etc. I was sick of starting over plus the weather is perfect where we are.
Me, MM doesn’t live on 30k/year. He spends much more and lists them as business expenses. He counts all his travel this way as well as the expensive shed he made on his property and other things. He also bought a Leaf to drive. He is wealthy from the blog and while he was donates some to charity he also spends some of it. He also bought a commercial building and I am not sure if he rents the space or allows people to use it to work.
I find it sooooo irritating when people report their expenses this way. My brother whom I love dearly, is wealthy. He told me he lives on $60k/year. Bullshit! Well, his business wrote a check for his $75k truck. I suspect the business also paid for SILs Escalade.....and the BS goes on and on. They host birthday parties for the grands every year and likely spend over $1k for each one. We live on more than that and we don't have the lifestyle they do on a routine basis.
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 5:44pm
Yes it is not honest if you ask me. We live on 60k/year and usually spend a additional 10k on travel. 10k of our expenses is health insurance. If we could afford to spend more we would.
Mr. Money Moustache was mentioned in the article.
I guess I should actually read the article!
What was your biggest surprise?
I learned to fly and bought a plane. And we decided to move to Florida so I could golf year round. I really don’t like the cold weather up north.
I also recently have taken up target shooting. So my hobbies take up quite a bit of my time.
We are also spending more now than we did while working.
i guess the biggest surprise is how busy we are. We definatly don’t sit around with nothing to do.
I think a lot of us simple livers and FIRErs underestimate the surprises that can happen in life, ie worst case scenarios. Even with health insurance, it is amazing how much a chronic or terminal illness can cost. Car accident. Lawsuit. Messy divorce. That stuff happens. Our biggest surprise so far is how inexpensive retirement has been. However, I realize that any of these tragedies might possibly bankrupt us. I am thinking of a good friend who out of the blue suffered a massive brain aneurysm that required months of hospitalization, therapy and now continuing home care. This just a year or two after after she and her husband moved into their retirement house with plans for lots of fun and travel. Much of their savings are now going towards her medical care.
In my state you get free healthcare under Medicaid expansion if your income is up to 133% of the Federal poverty level. I would not be able to earn more than $1345.51 a month. As my state has a higher than Federal minimum wage if I worked 40 hours a week at minimum wage I would make too much to get the insurance. 133% of FPL for a single is $16,146.20; the minimum wage figure is $22,880.00.
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 9:12pm
PT, that is really too bad about your friends. We take 2 big trips/year because 3 of our friends died between 59-67. We also spend a lot on entertainment. Have to have fun while we can.
I think there is much to be said for being in a position where you can do almost anything you want even if you don’t have the option of doing nothing at all. “Retirement” doesn’t seem to be a good word for that.
The word for that is “universal basic income”.
I’m a bit confused but will admit that I have not read blogs, books or watched any YouTube pep talks by any of these peopl. I can see where this is all quite feasible given the proper mindset. I just question two things.
How many partners see eye to eye on the details and.....
What happens when the elephant in the room (healthcare) sits up and demands the kind of payments even we prepared career investment types can’t afford?
It looks real appealing until somebody gets sick. Perhaps euthanasia is a consistent philosophy for FIRE proponents.
I wanted to add....if I were vegging out in an expensive nursing home I’d either be wishing someone would put me out of my misery before they drained my nest egg or worrying that my wife took my frugal living lectures a little too seriously.
And the second component is Medicare for all.
UBI + medicare for all = freedom and choice like we Americans have never dreamed of
Teacher Terry
9-6-18, 11:32pm
The proposed ages for UBI is 18-64. Everyone keeps their Medicare and all social programs are eliminated. Most people don’t want to be on benefits and not work. How do I know? Because I worked in a voluntarily program that helped people get back to work and we never had a shortage of clients including people on benefits.
The word for that is “universal basic income”.
Somehow I don’t see that as satisfying as accomplishing it on your own.
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 1:07am
With the money they save by eliminating all the programs it might equal out and then people would be in charge of their own lives. However, lots of jobs would be lost in the process to all the people employed to run the programs.
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-18, 1:56am
I'd be cautious about cutting the programs as people rely on them now. And no I'm not under any ridiculous illusion that they pay enough to live off of or more than full time work now (though food stamps and the like supplement wage sometimes, we know that). It's not a great safety net, I just wouldn't want to end up with less than we have. So supporter of UBI, in theory oh yes, so much pointless work anyway, in practice though, I don't know, and the U.S. may be the wrong place to test it. But automation as a quickly approaching issue, almost certainly. Nixon's suggested program would probably be the best way to start, it wasn't entirely universal, mostly family centered, and it wasn't really instead of all other social programs. But it was a basic income proposal.
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 2:10am
You might see revitalization of more rural low cost areas in which you could work a low paying job and still be able to make it. It would help one parent in a family to be able to stay home for a few years. Honestly studies would need to be done to see if it was better for people. However, so many have a agenda so no clue if a honest study and opinion is even possible.
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 2:13am
Ldahl, people have different levels of intelligence and other factors that come into play. Not everyone is capable of doing it on their own.
Gardenarian
9-7-18, 2:19am
DH and I both greatly reduced our work hours when DD was born (he was in his late thirties, I in my early forties.)
We officially "retired" several years ago and moved to Oregon.
Health insurance has been a real problem - less so with ACA as I have some pre-existing conditions. Here in Oregon we have found an affordable plan (less than $10k per year.) In CA we were paying nearly $25k per year (including DD.) We have both been thinking a lot more about our health and fitness - it's a lot easier to eat clean and take healthy exercise when you have all the time in the world.
Our expenses have decreased dramatically, primarily because we moved from San Francisco. We were spending a mint on transportation alone. I don't think about money much, but I can't imagine any circumstances that would leave us destitute.
I love being able to work or not, as I choose. DH has kept up his work as a musician, but only doing the stuff he loves (no grueling tours or crummy students.)
Weve had no problem finding ways to fill our days. I love our little city and the incredible wilderness it sits in. A bigger problem is over-scheduling ourselves. So many cool things to do!
We're so amazingly fortunate, and very grateful for it.
Gardenarian
9-7-18, 2:23am
Note: I was in my mid-50s at full retirement, and fully vested in my pension. So, not such an early retirement - but then, I really enjoyed my work.
Ldahl, people have different levels of intelligence and other factors that come into play. Not everyone is capable of doing it on their own.
Sure but don’t programs already exist for them? Depending on how generous the UBI program was, wouldn’t we need to consider the potential dangers of creating a large parasitic class? Even the magical kingdoms of Europe haven’t attempted such a thing.
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Ldahl, people have different levels of intelligence and other factors that come into play. Not everyone is capable of doing it on their own.Sure but don’t programs already exist for them?
Some of the people to whom I believe Terry refers have physical or mental complications which are not covered by any of the UBI proposals I've seen. In addition, most of those programs are administered by the states (with additional "input" by counties), vary widely in their implementation and coverage, and are subject to being political footballs -- anything but "universal".
Some of the people to whom I believe Terry refers have physical or mental complications which are not covered by any of the UBI proposals I've seen. In addition, most of those programs are administered by the states (with additional "input" by counties), vary widely in their implementation and coverage, and are subject to being political footballs -- anything but "universal".
I think it’s the universal part that could be problematic. What would happen if the single biggest issue in every future election becomes the size of the dole?
As to different approaches being taken toward poverty in different locations, as a federalist I find that healthy. I see no evidence that some All-Father in Washington has a superior vision.
…
As to different approaches being taken toward poverty in different locations, as a federalist I find that healthy. I see no evidence that some All-Father in Washington has a superior vision.
That was the theory behind Block Grants - that states would be able to use federal money as they see fit. In reality, however, it became an excuse to cut the funding for programs severely and take that money and use it for other things.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-block-grants-20160325-snap-htmlstory.html#
Here's another take on the topic.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-07/millennials-on-fire-risk-getting-burned-fingers?srnd=opinion
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 2:04pm
Here's another take on the topic.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-07/millennials-on-fire-risk-getting-burned-fingers?srnd=opinion
”.....glaring injustices in the way capitalism functions.” “The rich retire richer.” “If you’re going to downsize, it helps to have size to begin with.”
LDAHL....you keep reading that crap you are going to start feeling sorry for the poor.
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-18, 2:18pm
Maybe the have a career, put in some 40 years, save money, maybe buy property, get a pension, retire mid-60s actually was the ideal. Just increasingly unachievable. So the crazy multiplies and multiplies, who doesn't move states every few years chasing jobs, who doesn't own rental property, or at this point who doesn't own rental property in states they don't even live in thousands of miles away! Who doesn't have some (often dubious I suspect) "side gig" because you know just holding down one full time job is too staid, you need to have a full time job and several other projects going. This is what the ambitious people who really are likely to succeed in retirement do.
”.....glaring injustices in the way capitalism functions.” “The rich retire richer.” “If you’re going to downsize, it helps to have size to begin with.”
LDAHL....you keep reading that crap you are going to start feeling sorry for the poor.
I do feel sorry for the poor. I have somewhat less sympathy for some kid who went to college on his parent’s dime, worked 8-10 years in a high paying job and then decided work just wasn’t for him. I’d rather not be paying for his avocodo toast when he’s broke in twenty years and starts whining on his blog
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 2:33pm
If UBI was different in every state I would not support it. Welfare did that and years ago in Wisconsin people moved over the border from Illinois to collect higher welfare. I thought some European countries as well as Canada tried it as a experiment but I could be wrong. If everyone collects it then the rich can’t bitch. Something needs to be done as the income inequality that exists is not sustainable. Years ago a CEO made 25xs what a worker made. Than it went up to 40 and now it’s 400x’s. Something is seriously wrong with that.
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 3:25pm
If UBI was different in every state I would not support it. Welfare did that and years ago in Wisconsin people moved over the border from Illinois to collect higher welfare. I thought some European countries as well as Canada tried it as a experiment but I could be wrong. If everyone collects it then the rich can’t bitch. Something needs to be done as the income inequality that exists is not sustainable. Years ago a CEO made 25xs what a worker made. Than it went up to 40 and now it’s 400x’s. Something is seriously wrong with that.
My understanding of a UBI is that everyone of a certain age or above gets the exact same amount. Doesn’t matter if you are a billionaire or homeless.
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 3:38pm
WS, yes exactly what I support. But it was mentioned on this thread that it might vary by state. The proposed ages are 18-64.
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 3:43pm
I think some sort of guaranteed national income would be simpler and more transparent than the current mess we have with welfare. It would actually remove government intervention in the lives of poor people. And cash directly addresses poverty in a way no other can.
I don’t know what it has to do with early retirement but oh well.
Sure but don’t programs already exist for them? Depending on how generous the UBI program was, wouldn’t we need to consider the potential dangers of creating a large parasitic class? Even the magical kingdoms of Europe haven’t attempted such a thing.
I thought at least in the UK you can be "on the dole" forever unlike in the US where unemployment benefits are short term. Am I wrong?
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-18, 6:36pm
They mean disability, not unemployment, which if we are talking different levels of intelligence and that actually means mental retardation might be a possibility. Some disability you need to have worked to collect and some not I believe.
If less intelligent wasn't code for mentally retarded I propose most people are less intelligent. Are you at the level of Einstein? Nope. Well then (and neither am I).
Unemployment insurance in 6 months now, however the counselor at the local unemployment agency told me "what we see is people are taking 6 months to a year to get a job now, that's pretty normal".
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 7:41pm
SSI is for poor people that are disabled but don’t have 40 quarters of work. SSDI is for people that are disabled and have 40 quarters. SSI tends to be small monthly amounts usually between 300-500/month. Not enough to live on. Intellectually disabled is when you have a IQ below 70. Some of these people can work with supports and some can’t. Some people may not read well, have physical disabilities and may not be retrainable if the person is older. Disability is incredibly difficult to get and often takes 2 years.
As progressive/liberal/Democratic socialist as I am, I'm on the fence about the Universal Basic Income. During this conversation we've been having about capitalism, I'm wondering if UBI is a band-aid to cover up the symptoms of come of the serious cracks in American capitalism as we know it today. Would we be better off addressing some of the more systemic issues? In my mind leveling the playing field might include:
Single payer universal healthcare (to get rid of anxieties about getting sick)
Redirect corporate subsidies to industries that support local economies
Overturn Citizen's United (as was mentioned earlier)
Go back to a more progressive tax or even a flat tax--anything to close tax loopholes.
Get lobbyists out of Washington.
Encourage housing acquisition models like the Champlain Housing Trust (http://www.getahome.org) to help people gain access to their own homes.
I feel that while UBI is a great idea, I think it's like covering a crumbled cake with icing to hold it together.
I thought at least in the UK you can be "on the dole" forever unlike in the US where unemployment benefits are short term. Am I wrong?
My opinion was formed from the character of Onslow on the British sitcom "Keeping Up Appearances".
This fairly recent article has a lot of info in it regarding the UK. Note: the whole system in in somewhat of a crisis due to Brexit, the Universal Credit, and the costs of the NHS.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths
We do currently have cash directly to the working poor with kids and it is called the Earned Income Credit. It is the 3rd largest welfare program after Medicaid and food stamps. If a person files correctly, they get a once a year check that could amount to around $500 a month. Loads and loads of problems with the program.
Wikipedia has an extensive article about EITC and here is one paragraph:
For tax year 2013, the maximum EITC benefit for a single person or couple filing without qualifying children is $487. The maximum EITC with one qualifying child is $3,250, with two children, it is $5,372, and with three or more qualifying children, it is $6,044.[3][4] These amounts are indexed annually for inflation.
Williamsmith
9-8-18, 6:17am
With regard to welfare programs such as the EIC, good intentions don’t justify failed programs. The EIC incentivized having children for the sake of squirming out of poverty. And many of these children whose existence provides an income, live in squalor because they reason they came about had mostly to do with income, not love.
A guaranteed national income potentially treats people more like adults. It incentivized good positive activity like work, marriage and setting aside a little bit for a rainy day. Our current welfare system treats its recipients like children with in-kind benefits reaped by manipulating their lives so they qualify. A GNI is simpler and can be transitioned by gradually eliminating and consolidating existing anti poverty programs burdened with administrative costs with cash to support attempts at self sufficiency.
In my view, welfare recipients are looked at as people who lack character and and are parasites. Well, the system developed them. The system is responsible for the current mess. Not the people.
Here is just one of a million videos that explains why single-payer universal healthcare is not just a Communist plot or a pipe dream by people that believe in unicorns.
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/968139916704305/
iris lilies
9-8-18, 3:09pm
Here is just one of a million videos that explains why single-payer universal healthcare is not just a Communist plot or a pipe dream by people that believe in unicorns.
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/968139916704305/
Jim Carrey is an idiot and I can barely watch him, so nothing he says about a political point will convince me. I did just finish watching with in the past half hour his turn on the finale episode of the Larry Sanders show, probably the best Carrey piece ever done.
Jim Carrey is an idiot and I can barely watch him, so nothing he says about a political point will convince me. I did just finish watching with in the past half hour his turn on the finale episode of the Larry Sanders show, probably the best Carrey piece ever done.
I don't see him as an idiot, but I respect your right to believe he is. But I don't see half of Canada arguing for a healthcare system that costs more than any other country by a long shot and has poorer health outcomes than 37 of them.
I don't see him as an idiot, but I respect your right to believe he is. But I don't see half of Canada arguing for a healthcare system that costs more than any other country by a long shot and has poorer health outcomes than 37 of them.
But, but...the share holders!
But, but...the share holders!
Are US healthcare-industry public companies significantly more profitable than other sectors?
Are US healthcare-industry public companies significantly more profitable than other sectors?
You would know better than I.
You would know better than I.
I haven't found that to be the case. If they are making profits out-of-line with the profitability of other sectors of the economy, they hide it pretty well.
So I am dubious when people start hopping up and down about the profits.
iris lilies
9-8-18, 4:02pm
The ACA capped insurance profits, but no one seems to remember that or recognize it. We continue to blame the evil greedy insurers.
iris lilies
9-8-18, 4:03pm
But, but...the share holders!
Is There something wrong with shareholders wanting to make a profit?
Is There something wrong with shareholders wanting to make a profit?
I can tell you that the margin in not-for-profit HC is very low......expansion of services required by new technology takes every penny available. The demand for single rooms was very expensive. When patients refuse doubles, we have no choice. Competition for employees is tough if you're not the only show in town and that drives wages up. Patients demand MRIs....there are now 7 in our valley among the various facilities and these things are booked 24/7. Back in the 80s NFP hospitals had 17-19% margins for reinvestment......Now we're lucky to have 2-4%.
Is There something wrong with shareholders wanting to make a profit?
No, again the nature of the beast. That's why companies with a vested interest in selling their products may try to influence supposedly unbiased thought leaders. Is there anything wrong with that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/health/jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.
Are US healthcare-industry public companies significantly more profitable than other sectors?
Probably not, but they are significantly more profitable than the medicare administration
Probably not, but they are significantly more profitable than the medicare administration
+1
Profiting off some things is fine like the desire for bling. Profiting off people's sickness to the point where you sometimes drive them into bankruptcy is not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.