
Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money. Or: "FU, Money" (2012) - Mz
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/02/money-and-maneuvering-room.html
======
breischl
I see someone already mentioned Mr Money Mustache, which is great. But for
really getting to "independently poor" you can't beat Early Retirement
Extreme:
[http://earlyretirementextreme.com/](http://earlyretirementextreme.com/)

Similar idea, but he got his living expenses down to something under $10k/year
(initially, I think they've risen a bit since) so that he could retire a lot
earlier. At various points he talks a lot about how having the skills to
support yourself is worth more than having money to buy things, a topic
briefly touched on in the linked article.

I just wish his English was a little more grammatical and properly
spellchecked, but I guess you can't have everything. :)

~~~
judk
Retire to a (parked) RV to live on rice and lentils and not get medical care
or have children. Such an inspiring way to live...

~~~
breischl
You're exaggerating somewhat, though not a ton. It's definitely not a
lifestyle for everyone - I'm definitely not aiming for that. But a lot of the
concepts can be applied to living a less Spartan lifestyle while still
spending very little. Knowing how to make and maintain as many things as
possible, live well in a small space by minimizing extraneous possessions,
keep yourself in shape so you don't need medical care, cook tasty meals with
inexpensive ingedients, that sort of thing.

And you have to admit, being financially independent at the age of 30 is worth
a lot. Not having to work 2000+ hours a year makes up for a lot of little
inconveniences.

------
theorique
"The most important thing in life is to be free to do things. There are only
two ways to insure that freedom - you can be rich or you can you reduce your
needs to zero." (John Boyd)

edit: for more about this interesting man, read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who
Changed The Art Of War" by Robert Coram.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _" The most important thing in life is to be free to do things. There are
> only two ways [...] or you can you reduce your needs to zero." (John Boyd)_
> //

If you reduce your [other] needs to "zero" you still need money to be "free to
do things". There are many activities that are free - but often you need to
pay to get somewhere to do them.

For example we live on very modest means but are able to afford a holiday each
year. We'd love to go abroad, the only prohibition to that is the cost of
passports. We're entirely free to travel abroad and experience a different
culture with our kids, we just don't have the money to do it.

~~~
vinceguidry
Boyd was a highly influential fighter pilot and military strategist. He
himself took the latter path. He was known as the Ghetto Colonel because he
hardly spent a dime of his income. His idea of "doing things" is probably
vastly different from your idea. I doubt he would consider going abroad with
no goal other than experiencing other cultures to be "doing things".

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So, um, where does that leave us. Is that acceptance that it's just a nice
quotable phrase with no real basis or what?

Why do you feel that teaching children about other cultures by direct
experience is not "doing things". One can watch TV, read stories, meet people
from all around the world but the only way to really understand your position
as a global citizen and to appreciate the cultural wealth, the different
challenges and the bond of humanity that we share on our small blue speck of
earth is to travel - even just once. My ideal would be to sail as a family for
a few months; but that again is not something we can aspire to without a vast
change in wealth. As a child I felt I learnt a vast amount from my parents
taking me abroad.

Tell me what things he did without finance?

It's a truism that we can't reduce our needs to _zero_ and live.

[http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/comments/c199.htm](http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/comments/c199.htm)
seems like it probably gives a good, though biased in Boyd's favour, review of
his life. Notably:

>'John Boyd always said the choice facing us all is "To Be or To Do."
Paradoxically, Genghis John did things — and still ended up being somebody.'

So he disproved his own maxim it seems.

His life seems to be rather defined by being involved in extreme expense of
money - involved in development of fighter aircraft, part of the Pentagon.
There is no mention of his personal life beyond that he smoked cigarillos
until just before retirement - perhaps that was the only expense he allowed
himself in the support of his 7-strong family? Maybe he grew his own tobacco?
On land he acquired without money?

~~~
derefr
I would guess his definiton of "doing" has to do with producing instead of
consuming. Travelling is basically a very active form of consuming culture. In
terms of _changing_ the world, it's no more useful than reading Wikipedia
articles all day. (And note, further, that his definition of _changing the
world_ was also probably rooted in a military geopolitical sensibility.
Travelling doesn't destroy dictatorships, etc.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _In terms of changing the world, it 's no more useful than reading Wikipedia
> articles all day._ //

In and off itself, yes. But education is far from impotent in changing the
world - would you consider someone to be properly educated if they had only
stayed at home and only fed on data rather than experiencing the world
outside?

>" _The second O, orientation – as the repository of our genetic heritage,
cultural tradition, and previous experiences – is the most important part of
the O-O-D-A loop since it shapes the way we observe, the way we decide, the
way we act._ " (John Boyd, via Wikipedia)

My intention is to help my children to become rounded individuals who will as
much as they are able make a positive impact on the world. Consumption is a
necessity of life however.

> _Travelling doesn 't destroy dictatorships_ //

How many wars might we prevent in the future by fostering a sense of world
citizenship rather than nationalism, by encouraging greater understanding of
humanities shared nature and of the need for us all to work together to
properly use the resources we have?

------
rthomas6
This concept is different but similar to Mr. Money Mustache's ideas. Minimize
expenses, because why wouldn't you if you're not less happy for it, and invest
all the money you don't spend with your minimal lifestyle. In 10 years, you
could retire if you've made a high salary for the past 10 years. The guy
publishes his spending every year, and he spends around $25k-$30k per year for
him, his wife, and his son. This is with smartphones, cars, and a large house.
Because he lived like this, and because he and his wife both made good white
collar incomes, he retired in his early 30s and just does whatever he wants
now.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com)

~~~
rhc2104
To be fair, his house is completely paid for, so the $25k-$30k does not
include rent/mortgage for his house.

~~~
bloaf
He didn't get a paid-off house for free though, he paid it off himself.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/11/the-elephant-in-
th...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/11/the-elephant-in-the-room-
housing/)

~~~
gibybo
It doesn't get rid of the substantial opportunity cost of the money used to
pay for that house. It's not at all fair to ignore that when stating his
yearly expenses.

They are more like $40-50k when you include it.

~~~
breischl
Opportunity cost is important to consider, but it's not the same as cash out
of pocket.

And if you're going to include the opportunity cost of the house, then you
also have to look at the cost of other options. Having a mortgage house costs
money, and rent costs money. A paid-off house that you can maintain yourself
may be the cheapest option - though that's not true for everyone all the time.

There are unconventional options that are much cheaper (camper, RV, tent) but
that's a whole different lifestyle.

------
begriffs
"On the hills to our right, a short distance out from Randolph, was the spot
where John Randolph of Roanoke had spent the greater part of his eccentric and
unhappy existence. It would be hard to imagine contradictions more glaring
than those that lurked in his environment. His home consisted of two rude
structures, erected in the bosom of the primeval forest: one his summer
residence; the other a mere log cabin, his winter residence. Yet the lonely
occupant of these two dwellings was as haughty an aristocrat in his way as any
who ever wore a coronet."

\-- Below the James: A Plantation Sketch, by William Cabell Bruce, 1918

------
smoyer
I wish there was a viable solution for making micro-payments! How many people
know to the penny what they need per week to remain independent? How many
people really know the difference between wants and needs?

Since she quoted two different numbers in the story, I'd like to propose
(assuming we figure out how to give small amounts efficiently) that we each
give either $1.34 or $2.49. I think it would be cool to have at least 52
donors (one for each week of a year), but what if we blew it out with half of
the HNers donating?

------
fexl
Keep up the good work. You'll be more independent when you stop depending on
food stamps, but you're on your way. Also, I recommend ordinary reusable cups
instead of plastic disposables.

~~~
Mz
Thanks for your kind words. But I have cystic fibrosis, as does my oldest son.
Our very expensive health issues are the reason I am deeply in debt and cannot
work a normal job. Disposable cups are dirt cheap germ control compared to the
thousands of dollars per month in medical care I and my oldest son are
supposed to require.

Cheers.

~~~
fexl
Sure, that makes sense. Wow, I didn't know it was cystic fibrosis.

I like your comment about the medical care that you two are "supposed to
require." :)

------
benched
It's interesting to see someone else talk about this. Becoming something like
independently poor has become sort of a goal of mine. It's a little surprising
to me to realize how hard this is. There are so many organizations eager to
give me a high salary for full-time development work, which has a high
probability of keeping me feeling unhappy and trapped. But if I only want to
work 30 hours a week, and I only need to make about $25 an hour to live - so
far that seems like a harder situation to find. It's like, I'd be happy to
give up all this extra money for more time and less stress, but there aren't
as many takers for that deal.

~~~
debt
This position is harder to maintain as you get older. I'm assuming you're a
young guy and probably aren't even thinking about retirement.

~~~
marvin
Even young, given current salaries for software developers, this is very
viable. I was earning ~$80,000/year as a newly graduated bachelor of Computer
Science working 40-hour weeks at a flexible consulting shop before I started
my Masters degree.

Given my living arrangements and lack of dependents, it didn't require any
effort at all to save 50% of this money and put it into long-term (retirement)
investments. Ten years of a similar arrangement would ensure a very decent
nest egg, assuming I kept living below my means. Given that skills and
salaries increase quickly, after a couple of years it would almost certainly
be possible to scale back 25% and keep saving more or less the same amount.

As long as you are in a position to plan ahead, this shouldn't be a problem.
It helps to view the glass as half full rather than half empty; many people
will only see the negativity in any suggestion. Money is often a subject where
the naysayers talk louder than the rest.

~~~
debt
I'm with you 100%. Although, in terms of planning ahead, you might want to
have a family or girlfriend/boyfriend in the future which will eat into your
cash flow considerably. Also, you'll probably want nicer shit as time goes on.
Living in a shitty apt in some crappy part of town loses it's novelty when you
know you could easily, for a little bit more a month, get a better place.

Just something to plan for.

~~~
Jtsummers
Depending on the area you live in, with a salary like that and that level of
savings, you can own a house by your early to mid 30s. A decent house here can
go for as low as $100k (middle Georgia). Lower if you're willing to accept
older homes and the issues that usually entails (asbestos, will need more in
upkeep costs earlier, 60s/70s stylings for the interior). A single
professional can make in the upper 5 to low 6 figures. After retirement
accounts, you can pay off that mortgage in 5-10 years. If you don't go for the
ludicrous $500k homes (or higher) that we have around here, you can live
nearly debt free (in this case a mortgage no worse than rent at the decent
apartment complexes). And by your 30s be debt free (I was late getting into
the job market after a failed attempt at grad school, so for me it'll be late
30s, but close enough).

~~~
gknoy
Reading things like this make me wish that 15-years-ago-me had thought about
that, and been making that kind of money.

------
michaelochurch
You don't need money to have a happy and interesting life-- if you're willing
to forgo having a family, quite likely for good. Then schools and spouses and
making sure your kids get to make decisions instead of being affected by
them... all of those responsibilities go away.

The shitty thing about it is that it's too competitive, these days, for people
who decide to slum it in their 20s to get back on the career track. The people
who think they can fuck around while living on a shoestring are going to face
horrendous age discrimination when they decide that the career thing is
actually important.

In a morally decent society, people wouldn't be shut out of having a family
(properly, which means giving your kids the chance, should they have the
talent, of being owners rather than mid-grade meat for society to devour and
destroy) based on decisions they made at 22-23. But we don't live in a morally
decent society, so scratch that line of thought.

~~~
username223
> if you're willing to forgo having a family, quite likely for good.

Kids you have now will die around 2100 or so. Even if we avoid nuclear
annihilation, as seems increasingly likely, the world will be a pretty awful
place by then.

~~~
mitochondrion
Barring total catastrophe, I simply don't see how a relatively stable
population with incredibly advanced automating technology and biotechnology
would be incapable of "fixing" the world.

~~~
username223
A small minority will be perfectly capable of "fixing" their bit with multi-
billion-dollar storm surge protection, desalination, etc. Given that the rest
of humanity will be motivated by the threat of death, I wouldn't rule out
total catastrophe. There are levels of survival you should not be willing to
accept.

