I have noticed in articles and blogs advocating for early retirement, a general sentiment that work is bad and actively reduces quality of life and is therefore something that should be avoided at all costs. While I do think working 60-70+ hours a week at a job you hate in order to spend money on convenience items isn't a great formula for a meaningful life, I am also not convinced that the only solution is to grind it out until one no longer has to work. Perhaps working toward a more meaningful career could be part of the equation as well, and wouldn't therefore require a scorched earth approach to finances
A scorched earth approach to working rather than finances, I'd say. Saving & investing only gives you more opportunities and a bigger safety net. You can always decide to keep working.
I'd say the issue with working towards a meaningful career is that sometimes what you want to do isn't (for good reason or definitely not) properly valued by the economy or supported by society.
If I want to be a indie game developer in an essentially dead genre, creating exactly what I want, that's extremely difficult to do. For example, I might have to do Kickstarter or Steam Early Access to raise money and be at the whim of the terrible internet. I'd have to engage in social media as is basically required these days (gross). And so on.
If I want to do this while working, it'll most likely take non-linearly longer and quality will go down because I just don't have that much brain juice or focus after work. And I'd have to sacrifice my health & relationships.
I'm sure there are other examples. Many that are more noble (volunteering, etc).
> Perhaps working toward a more meaningful career could be part of the equation as well
A lot of jobs aren't meaningful. Imagine writing ad software. Or filming commercials for loan sharks. Not everyone has the luxury of good, meaningful work.
You've noticed bad reporting. What you are seeing is somebody taking advantage of a trend to get their average reader to behave a certain way. They just take the news and stuff it into the simplest narrative that they think would resonate with their readers. "Work bad." It's a straw man, even if by over-simplification, that warps the conversation.
Someone in our profession can retire in their 30s or 40s with no children and absolutely still have budget for lots of travel.
Putting a few million into index funds or a dividend-bearing portfolio can yield a decent annual "salary" of six figures. That affords insurance, travel, mortgage, time to work on side projects or a start-up...
At first I was wondering how people do this when surprise medical bills can easily bankrupt someone with 25x their yearly spending saved up, as mentioned in the article. Then I realized that this was The Guardian reporting non-US news.
You still pay for it. The costs don't disappear into the ether (although it is definitely true that your exposure to extreme financial risk is substantially reduced).
However, there are downsides. If you have something very wrong with you, and it is somewhat rare (i.e. the medicine is expensive) or not well understood...you are done. The NHS provides universal care but not universal treatment. You go to the doctor, they go shrug can't help you. That is it and there is no "second opinion" (unless you go privately but that doesn't work either in many cases...you are usually seeing the exact same doctor, just paying for it upfront).
It is important to recognise that there are trade-offs in every situation. The UK system is, despite the cult-like following, not particularly effective. In terms of outcomes, it is below average by most measurements. It is very cost-effective...but that isn't the only thing that matters.
My father died when he was 36. I was 11 years old at the time. I am the complete opposite to these people. I believe life is for living, now, not later, because who knows even if you'll get there.
I always had the 36 figure in my head: "I will enjoy life as much as possible to 36 and then calm down". Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I have trained my brain to enjoy life to its fullest as much as possible, I can't snap out of it.
I suspect that these people who forego living to put cash to one side with the premise that in the future they'll be able to live the good life will find they are mentally unable to make that switch too.
I am now 44 and can say that my 20s were amazing, my 30s even better (because I understood myself much more), my 40s have been pretty good, but it's clear I am slowing down a touch - the motivations to live every moment are fighting with the slight loss in energy as I age.
Why anybody would think it makes sense to put the best years of their lives (in terms of physical fitness) to one side in the promise of some later payoff is beyond me.
This kind of comment confuses me. I know I cannot speak for everyone, but I want to make sure I get as much out of life now and in the future. I just understand the law of diminishing returns. I enjoy a new gadget and a vacation and a delicious coffee. I enjoy them as treats and get great joy out of them. I do not need to buy a new gadget every week or month or year. I do not need ten trips this year. I also can ride my bike to work, save money and have great physical fitness right now (and in my future!)
And after all that, because I spent less money with only a very minor decrease of lost "living" in the form of extras that don't give me lasting joy, I also gain decades of autonomy where I decide how to use my time.
One of the earliest advocates in this game was Mr. Money Moustache[1] who spelled out the arithmetic of "save half what you earn until you can live on your savings" back in 2011 or so. Very entertaining writer in the contrarian vein.
I find reading his blog helpful in that it gives me a new perspective on things. E.g. putting a dollar amount risk on buying a "safer" car and things like that.
I highly recommend reading his blog to many people, in that I think it will help you think a bit differently.
One of my favorite blog posts[0] is about how happiness is the only logical pursuit.
I used to work in investment, and I sometimes did cash-flow modelling for individuals...even within industry, the work is often woefully inadequate. I can't see the FIRE crowd getting this right (every FIRE person I have talked to seems mildly delusional).
Usually the "model" is some bogus Excel projection of historical volatility and returns into the future. That is nowhere near enough.
The quantitative mistake is not looking at returns as a random process (i.e. not ending up with a monte carlo sim with your assumptions, not modelling returns/volatility/etc. as random processes, if doing that then not using non-parametric models, if doing that then not using enough data, etc.).
The biggest practical mistake is understating the effect of volatility. Once you start or plan to take income, volatility becomes very important. Thinking that you can ride out volatility, the de jure thinking today, exposes you to intolerable risk (usually at the point where you are not able to bear that risk i.e. when you can't generate income anymore).
The aim of any retirement planning should be robustness. There is some kind of insane irony (the financial world seems to specialise in this) that people are attempting to invest in a way that requires maximum robustness but are often using strategies that produce totally non-robust returns (i.e. 100% equity ETFs).
If you are going to try this: stop and consider whether you really understand what you are doing.
Between the Trinity study, FIRECalc, and a healthy discussion about bond tents - plenty of folks are taking volatility seriously.
For every blogger trying to “retire” on $300k there’s another person targeting a 3.5% SWR with a well balanced portfolio, quietly waiting out the boring middle. The former gets more press but I suspect the latter will survive the next downturn just fine.
The good news about investing is that nominal dividend returns tend to remain the same even when stocks fall a lot ,so your yield goes up and your payments don't fall much despite the market falling a lot. This means your income is still mostly preserved. In 2009 when the market crashed the dividend yield of the S%P500 got as high as 4% versus just 2% earlier.
That is what I tell ppl who are invested if they should sell. Ignore the swings. Focus on the long-term compounded returns and payments.
Fun fact: In Turkey People used to retire by 38 if they start working at 18 years old. There were 20 years of work requirement, no minimum age requirement.
Now ageism is rampant, finding a job after 30 gets hard, after 40 very hard, after 50 almost impossible and millions of people who "came to age" after that ridiculous system was fixed demand retirement at their 40's. No one questions if putting age limit to vacancies are O.K., they demand their tight to retire at 40(now most approach their 50s though, as this is going on for many years).
I had a friend at high school whose father retired at 40 but he was well off by that time(had his own business), so he simply handed his ATM card to his son to use. It felt quite unfair since my parents were set to retire after their 60s, working their asses because they are immigrants and did not catch the window for sweet retirement. It's different than having a friend with rich parents.
In my mind, retirement should happen about the same age for every healthy person. Otherwise, it creates morale issues because the whole retirement concept is based on the idea that people age. When you do not retire due to age, you are simply a leech on society. It is different from being rich, rich people continue to contribute to society until they retire.
I think the principle of living frugally and investing what you earn is admirable. To my eye it isn’t particularly innovative, but rather articulates a strategy, a set of values that many people have either lost touch with or not been exposed to.
You can live on investments alone, and they probably don’t need to be as much as you think.
However, I associate those ideas in the US with northeast upper-middle class culture ... which also tends to have a “Puritan work ethic” ... that work is good in itself.
This notion that work isn’t intrinsically valuable or worthwhile is interesting.
I wonder if any of the people doing this end up being surprised to find that they miss working, years later.
I was just sitting in a plane thing about this ...
I mean, you’re going to die no matter what. You are going to have suffering and pain, almost certainly in your life.
Is not-working going to save you from that?
I totally get it is someone is an aspiring screenwriter or what have you, but what if your idea of the good life is “hanging out?” Will you get bored and depressed with all this time on your hands?
A big part of it is not needing to work. There is a lot of security in knowing that you can just walk away from a bad situation, and take your time getting another job. Also, people who retire early don't just sit around watching TV all day, many of them actually start up something on the side. For example, Mr. Money Mustache is a blogger, which happens to generate income.
The difference is that you don't work for income, you work to give yourself something to do. Some people hang out their hat as a DJ, or do some teaching, but they also take enough time to travel or do other hobby type tasks that they wouldn't have time for otherwise with a 9-5.
> Will you get bored and depressed with all this time on your hands?
Don't you think it's much more natural to ask the opposite question? About the impact of exchanging all of your good years in order to generate revenue for your boss? About the prevalent 40 hour / week, 48 weeks / year job contracts people rarely question? About being forced to cram your life only into evenings and weekends? About the blinders this puts onto your personal development? Oh but you get money so you can sit in traffic in a nicer vehicle, that's nice. You can fly further away during your measly, rushed two week vacations, that's nice.
This is doable, even with kids. Especially in the software industry. I like that this article mentions setting a wealth target based on expenses, not current income. It's all about having a life that isn't financially expensive. If you can reduce expenses by $10K a year (less than $1K a month), that's an additional $285,714 that doesn't need to be saved up (10000/0.035, assuming 3.5% withdrawal rate).
We have two kids. They go to public school. We live in a modest 4 br house that is less than 2,000 sqft, in the DC metro. Housing is $1,700 a month (including county/city taxes and insurance). Food for 4 is $1,000 to $1,500, but this can vary a lot depending on preferences. School costs $0 since it is public school. Phone bill is $35/month for two lines since we prepay for a year and use an MVNO. This is for 8gb on one line and 2gb on the other. The phones themselves are modest and paid off (pixel 2). Electricity is about $150/month, natural gas about $100 a month, water $77. Transportation (one car for the whole family, no commute) averages about $200/month long-term, including car, maintenance, gas, insurance. Going with one car and having no commute makes a big difference. We live in an area that is walkable/bikeable. Internet is $90/month for 250/12.
Based on the Maryland health connection gov website, if we can keep our expenses, and therefore income, at or below $60,000 a year, then there is a $380/month/adult credit for health insurance purchased from the government exchange. At this income level, children can qualify for MCHP:
"MCHP Premium is low-cost health insurance coverage for higher-income children up to age 19 between 200% FPL and 300% FPL. MCHP Premium provides access to health insurance coverage for eligible uninsured children through the Maryland Managed Care Program, HealthChoice, for a modest monthly premium."
The MCHP premium premium for families between 250-300% FPL: $70 per month (per family, not per-child).
For the adults, the
KP MD Bronze 6200/20%/HSA/Dental plan is $179/month/adult in this scenario, after the $380 credit. The plan is HSA-compatible, so we can build tax-free medical money in an HSA and keep that long-term, invested in stocks. The out-of-pocket max is $13,100, so we don't go broke.
Capital gains taxes are very low to non-existant. Married, filing joint, can realize $78,750 a year at 0% federal rate. The sum of all the expenses above (housing, food, utilities, health insurance, transportation, education) is $48,336. Bump that up to, say $55K or $60K to allow for additional discretionary spending, and that is:
$1,571,428 to $1,714,285 at a 3.5% withdraw rate. That's with no additional income generation at all. This is in the DC metro area, in Maryland, which is definitely a higher cost of living area. It's definitely not absurd like SF or some other places. There are lots of great tech jobs in area. Even Amazon HQ2 is not far.
There's one notable omission: college. Personally, I got my GED when I was 16 and did not pursue a degree. No college debt. Due to working my way up through companies, first small, then larger, I was able to not only build wealth, but pay off my wife's college debt (and she doesn't work; she takes care of the kids).
So, this can definitely be done. It takes some sacrifice to build up the wealth, but no a total sacrifice. Spending money and enjoying life are two distinct things. Spending money is not a prerequisite for enjoying life. Plus, the difference between spending just a little over one's means, and a little under one's means is monumental --one leads to wealth, the other to poverty. I personally do not at all feel like I missed out in my 20's or envy any of my peers.
Maybe this is just indoctrination from living in a capitalist society, but I'm not sure I'd like retirement. Or at least I'm not sure it'd make me happy. Sure I'd love to take short breaks, i.e. sabbaticals, but I'd ideally like to be working in some capacity on something meaningful.
And it does feel like this movement is all about delaying purpose until you have enough money. And having seen up close people who got a late start, it's not fantastic. For instance, take the dude who's trying to become a screenwriter in his 40's. He's gonna be around a bunch of 20 somethings, quite a few of whom have degrees in film, who are willing to stay up late, grind out screenplays and hustle like hell for a career in film. Will he do that?
It's a false dichotomy. There's no where in this "movement" that says "choose worse jobs now" or "avoid finding meaningful work now." Choosing to save money by shopping around on your insurance or buying last year's hot new gadget instead of this year's, or holding onto your car for a few extra years all can have a huge impact on your finances (particular if you minimize recurring costs and debt payments combined with investing - it becomes an avalanche.)
More so - the more money you have prepared for your future, the more flexibility you now have to choose the work you want to do. You can still get paid, but you also have a massive cushion and the power to say "no."
My research suggests Cash Flow is a better investment strategy - Based on personal experience, US$600K can control a residential real estate portfolio that pays $96K annual profit (after property manager, insurance, mortgage, etc.). To get the same at 5%, math suggests a $1.9M principal (minimum) is needed, invested in paper assets.
[+] [-] johnchase|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boardwaalk|6 years ago|reply
I'd say the issue with working towards a meaningful career is that sometimes what you want to do isn't (for good reason or definitely not) properly valued by the economy or supported by society.
If I want to be a indie game developer in an essentially dead genre, creating exactly what I want, that's extremely difficult to do. For example, I might have to do Kickstarter or Steam Early Access to raise money and be at the whim of the terrible internet. I'd have to engage in social media as is basically required these days (gross). And so on.
If I want to do this while working, it'll most likely take non-linearly longer and quality will go down because I just don't have that much brain juice or focus after work. And I'd have to sacrifice my health & relationships.
I'm sure there are other examples. Many that are more noble (volunteering, etc).
[+] [-] echelon|6 years ago|reply
A lot of jobs aren't meaningful. Imagine writing ad software. Or filming commercials for loan sharks. Not everyone has the luxury of good, meaningful work.
[+] [-] twiceaday|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aantix|6 years ago|reply
Living frugally and then the risk of an early death?
Is this really that great?
[+] [-] echelon|6 years ago|reply
Putting a few million into index funds or a dividend-bearing portfolio can yield a decent annual "salary" of six figures. That affords insurance, travel, mortgage, time to work on side projects or a start-up...
[+] [-] journalctl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ganitarashid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faitswulff|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jandrewrogers|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ap3|6 years ago|reply
Surprise medical bills can hit anyone regardless of their financial situation
[+] [-] paulpauper|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hogFeast|6 years ago|reply
However, there are downsides. If you have something very wrong with you, and it is somewhat rare (i.e. the medicine is expensive) or not well understood...you are done. The NHS provides universal care but not universal treatment. You go to the doctor, they go shrug can't help you. That is it and there is no "second opinion" (unless you go privately but that doesn't work either in many cases...you are usually seeing the exact same doctor, just paying for it upfront).
It is important to recognise that there are trade-offs in every situation. The UK system is, despite the cult-like following, not particularly effective. In terms of outcomes, it is below average by most measurements. It is very cost-effective...but that isn't the only thing that matters.
[+] [-] louthy|6 years ago|reply
I always had the 36 figure in my head: "I will enjoy life as much as possible to 36 and then calm down". Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I have trained my brain to enjoy life to its fullest as much as possible, I can't snap out of it.
I suspect that these people who forego living to put cash to one side with the premise that in the future they'll be able to live the good life will find they are mentally unable to make that switch too.
I am now 44 and can say that my 20s were amazing, my 30s even better (because I understood myself much more), my 40s have been pretty good, but it's clear I am slowing down a touch - the motivations to live every moment are fighting with the slight loss in energy as I age.
Why anybody would think it makes sense to put the best years of their lives (in terms of physical fitness) to one side in the promise of some later payoff is beyond me.
[+] [-] neogodless|6 years ago|reply
And after all that, because I spent less money with only a very minor decrease of lost "living" in the form of extras that don't give me lasting joy, I also gain decades of autonomy where I decide how to use my time.
[+] [-] paulpauper|6 years ago|reply
calming down does not mean not living life to its fullest potential.
[+] [-] fernly|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.mrmoneymustache.com
[+] [-] emit_time|6 years ago|reply
I highly recommend reading his blog to many people, in that I think it will help you think a bit differently.
One of my favorite blog posts[0] is about how happiness is the only logical pursuit.
[0]: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-...
[+] [-] hogFeast|6 years ago|reply
Usually the "model" is some bogus Excel projection of historical volatility and returns into the future. That is nowhere near enough.
The quantitative mistake is not looking at returns as a random process (i.e. not ending up with a monte carlo sim with your assumptions, not modelling returns/volatility/etc. as random processes, if doing that then not using non-parametric models, if doing that then not using enough data, etc.).
The biggest practical mistake is understating the effect of volatility. Once you start or plan to take income, volatility becomes very important. Thinking that you can ride out volatility, the de jure thinking today, exposes you to intolerable risk (usually at the point where you are not able to bear that risk i.e. when you can't generate income anymore).
The aim of any retirement planning should be robustness. There is some kind of insane irony (the financial world seems to specialise in this) that people are attempting to invest in a way that requires maximum robustness but are often using strategies that produce totally non-robust returns (i.e. 100% equity ETFs).
If you are going to try this: stop and consider whether you really understand what you are doing.
[+] [-] teej|6 years ago|reply
For every blogger trying to “retire” on $300k there’s another person targeting a 3.5% SWR with a well balanced portfolio, quietly waiting out the boring middle. The former gets more press but I suspect the latter will survive the next downturn just fine.
[+] [-] paulpauper|6 years ago|reply
The good news about investing is that nominal dividend returns tend to remain the same even when stocks fall a lot ,so your yield goes up and your payments don't fall much despite the market falling a lot. This means your income is still mostly preserved. In 2009 when the market crashed the dividend yield of the S%P500 got as high as 4% versus just 2% earlier.
That is what I tell ppl who are invested if they should sell. Ignore the swings. Focus on the long-term compounded returns and payments.
[+] [-] emit_time|6 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/17/its-all-about-the...
[+] [-] mrtksn|6 years ago|reply
Now ageism is rampant, finding a job after 30 gets hard, after 40 very hard, after 50 almost impossible and millions of people who "came to age" after that ridiculous system was fixed demand retirement at their 40's. No one questions if putting age limit to vacancies are O.K., they demand their tight to retire at 40(now most approach their 50s though, as this is going on for many years).
I had a friend at high school whose father retired at 40 but he was well off by that time(had his own business), so he simply handed his ATM card to his son to use. It felt quite unfair since my parents were set to retire after their 60s, working their asses because they are immigrants and did not catch the window for sweet retirement. It's different than having a friend with rich parents.
In my mind, retirement should happen about the same age for every healthy person. Otherwise, it creates morale issues because the whole retirement concept is based on the idea that people age. When you do not retire due to age, you are simply a leech on society. It is different from being rich, rich people continue to contribute to society until they retire.
[+] [-] whiddershins|6 years ago|reply
You can live on investments alone, and they probably don’t need to be as much as you think.
However, I associate those ideas in the US with northeast upper-middle class culture ... which also tends to have a “Puritan work ethic” ... that work is good in itself.
This notion that work isn’t intrinsically valuable or worthwhile is interesting.
I wonder if any of the people doing this end up being surprised to find that they miss working, years later.
I was just sitting in a plane thing about this ...
I mean, you’re going to die no matter what. You are going to have suffering and pain, almost certainly in your life.
Is not-working going to save you from that?
I totally get it is someone is an aspiring screenwriter or what have you, but what if your idea of the good life is “hanging out?” Will you get bored and depressed with all this time on your hands?
[+] [-] derekp7|6 years ago|reply
The difference is that you don't work for income, you work to give yourself something to do. Some people hang out their hat as a DJ, or do some teaching, but they also take enough time to travel or do other hobby type tasks that they wouldn't have time for otherwise with a 9-5.
[+] [-] twiceaday|6 years ago|reply
Don't you think it's much more natural to ask the opposite question? About the impact of exchanging all of your good years in order to generate revenue for your boss? About the prevalent 40 hour / week, 48 weeks / year job contracts people rarely question? About being forced to cram your life only into evenings and weekends? About the blinders this puts onto your personal development? Oh but you get money so you can sit in traffic in a nicer vehicle, that's nice. You can fly further away during your measly, rushed two week vacations, that's nice.
[+] [-] RickJWagner|6 years ago|reply
When I talked to her about retirement (she retired at 67) she suggested not retiring too early-- it's too easy to get bored.
[+] [-] yosho|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acapybara|6 years ago|reply
We have two kids. They go to public school. We live in a modest 4 br house that is less than 2,000 sqft, in the DC metro. Housing is $1,700 a month (including county/city taxes and insurance). Food for 4 is $1,000 to $1,500, but this can vary a lot depending on preferences. School costs $0 since it is public school. Phone bill is $35/month for two lines since we prepay for a year and use an MVNO. This is for 8gb on one line and 2gb on the other. The phones themselves are modest and paid off (pixel 2). Electricity is about $150/month, natural gas about $100 a month, water $77. Transportation (one car for the whole family, no commute) averages about $200/month long-term, including car, maintenance, gas, insurance. Going with one car and having no commute makes a big difference. We live in an area that is walkable/bikeable. Internet is $90/month for 250/12.
Based on the Maryland health connection gov website, if we can keep our expenses, and therefore income, at or below $60,000 a year, then there is a $380/month/adult credit for health insurance purchased from the government exchange. At this income level, children can qualify for MCHP:
"MCHP Premium is low-cost health insurance coverage for higher-income children up to age 19 between 200% FPL and 300% FPL. MCHP Premium provides access to health insurance coverage for eligible uninsured children through the Maryland Managed Care Program, HealthChoice, for a modest monthly premium."
The MCHP premium premium for families between 250-300% FPL: $70 per month (per family, not per-child).
For the adults, the KP MD Bronze 6200/20%/HSA/Dental plan is $179/month/adult in this scenario, after the $380 credit. The plan is HSA-compatible, so we can build tax-free medical money in an HSA and keep that long-term, invested in stocks. The out-of-pocket max is $13,100, so we don't go broke.
Capital gains taxes are very low to non-existant. Married, filing joint, can realize $78,750 a year at 0% federal rate. The sum of all the expenses above (housing, food, utilities, health insurance, transportation, education) is $48,336. Bump that up to, say $55K or $60K to allow for additional discretionary spending, and that is:
$1,571,428 to $1,714,285 at a 3.5% withdraw rate. That's with no additional income generation at all. This is in the DC metro area, in Maryland, which is definitely a higher cost of living area. It's definitely not absurd like SF or some other places. There are lots of great tech jobs in area. Even Amazon HQ2 is not far.
There's one notable omission: college. Personally, I got my GED when I was 16 and did not pursue a degree. No college debt. Due to working my way up through companies, first small, then larger, I was able to not only build wealth, but pay off my wife's college debt (and she doesn't work; she takes care of the kids).
So, this can definitely be done. It takes some sacrifice to build up the wealth, but no a total sacrifice. Spending money and enjoying life are two distinct things. Spending money is not a prerequisite for enjoying life. Plus, the difference between spending just a little over one's means, and a little under one's means is monumental --one leads to wealth, the other to poverty. I personally do not at all feel like I missed out in my 20's or envy any of my peers.
[+] [-] sgt101|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wutbrodo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hardwaregeek|6 years ago|reply
And it does feel like this movement is all about delaying purpose until you have enough money. And having seen up close people who got a late start, it's not fantastic. For instance, take the dude who's trying to become a screenwriter in his 40's. He's gonna be around a bunch of 20 somethings, quite a few of whom have degrees in film, who are willing to stay up late, grind out screenplays and hustle like hell for a career in film. Will he do that?
[+] [-] neogodless|6 years ago|reply
More so - the more money you have prepared for your future, the more flexibility you now have to choose the work you want to do. You can still get paid, but you also have a massive cushion and the power to say "no."
[+] [-] pxue|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raintrees|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yathern|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defen|6 years ago|reply