I really found this passage of the essay ironic.... he talks so much shit about his partner and other people needing to "keep up" with the rest of society and how he isn't like that.... but then he actually does feel the need to keep up with HIS community, which is the FI crowd.

I hate when people confuse not wanting to belong to and impress a particular community with not wanting to belong to or impress ANY community.

He is just like everyone else, just in a different group.

I didn't get that read at all. A desire to maintain happiness whilst having no job to dictate time and activities isn't "just in a different group".

I think they're somewhat non-conformist by posting about negatives and the fact that life will push you in unpredictable directions - even when you've done the maths.

But maybe that's because I tend to agree with the commentary around 'other people needing to "keep up" with the rest of society'.

I don't see how you can read this passage and not see that his feelings of inadequacy compared to other FI bloggers isn't the same "keeping up" that he criticized in his ex and others:

> I looked at other FI bloggers who quit work and retired. They all appeared to be blissful. Stoic. Confident and without reservations. Since I ran into problems myself, I started to feel like I was defective. Like something was wrong with me and that’s why it didn’t work so well.

That is the EXACT same emotion people feel when seeing their peers who are posting their wealth on Facebook. It might not be material wealth he is trying to keep up with, but it is still the same emotional desire.

He is still keeping up with the Jones's... just a different group of Jones's

There is nothing wrong with that, except he expresses such disgust for other people having that need, while pretending his own doesn't exist.

I can see your point, but I don't feel it. My mind wants to say those two things aren't comparable; apples and oranges. The only way I can explain it exposes my own bias, so I have to grant that you're right, but at the same time it doesn't change my bias as to which one is more "correct" or "wholesome" or "mentally healthy".

The need to have or display material wealth, on any level, as some kind of basis for happiness just isn't the same as the ability to be happy in ones self, naked to the world. One is unhealthy and unsustainable, the other isn't. "Like there was something wrong with me" more sounds like "maybe I do need that external validation more than I thought I did", more as a desire to be self-satisfied, or of a healthy state of mind, like (seemingly) other FI bloggers (the very fact they're bloggers may undermine the entirety of the argument, however).

OK, to put it into an analogy: if the Jones' were getting fit and healthy and looking after themselves would undertaking a health kick still be "keeping up with the Jones'" or would that be a good kick in the pants to get healthy yourself? (motivation and tenacity (w|c)ould be the differentiator).

If it's intrinsically positive, is that still pandering? If there's no perceived value other than the perceived value, then I'm on board with your argument.

It's likely to be a case of the ugliness of reality not often being blogged about, and so OP had an unrealistic expectation - in which case there's definitely an amount of Jonesing, but I'm maintaining there's a distinction between positive/healthy and negative/unhealthy Jonesing (so maybe I'm trying to move your goal posts whilst agreeing with you but still trying to appear to disagree).

This many words to justify my position. If it was anyone else I'd call denial.

So I think you might be confusing two different things.

One is the pursuit of wealth and the other is the need to seek validation and acceptance from your peers.

The writer (and you, it seems) believe the pursuit of wealth is unhealthy. This is a cohesive world view, and I feel the writer (and you) are fine for feeling this way. There are some compelling arguments against the constant pursuit of wealth, and nothing is hypocritical in the essay (or your comment) on that point.

The second point is where I have issue. Seeking validation and acceptance from your peers is present both in the people pursuing wealth and in the writer’s own life. He simply doesn’t see his own need for acceptance as being equivalent to other people’s, but it is. That is the part that I take issue with, not the anti-materialist stuff.

In addition, there is nothing wrong for wanting and seeking acceptance from your peer group. We are social animals, and this is normal and healthy (as long as it doesn’t lead to self destructive behaviors seeking validation!)

But: he's still giving investment advice and he still doesn't realize just how lucky he got.

You mean MMM or the author here? How do you know he "got lucky", since he doesn't mention how he got his nest egg? (Yes in a wider sense lucky to be born smart enough for a good job, in a country with good jobs and so on, but that applies to many people).

Maybe he took those FI blogs seriously and dedicated himself to reaching that goal, and he did. And then people who never tried say "he got lucky".

> Maybe he took those FI blogs seriously and dedicated himself to reaching that goal, and he did. And then people who never tried say "he got lucky".

My problem with most of the advice from FI and FIRE blogosphere is that it essentially boils down to "be the 1% (where you live) and live frugally". It's not wrong, per se, but it isn't actionable advice for 99% of the population[1].

In particular, while anyone could be MMM, not everyone can be MMM: There simply aren't enough people who read financial advice blogs to support a significant population of such bloggers living in rural LCOL-ville. Even if there were, someone has to stock the shelves at Walmart. Shelf-stockers simply don't earn enough to retire early, unless shelf-stocker wages rise to a level that makes blog-FIRE unsustainable.

It's sort of like asking why everyone doesn't buy a rental and become landlord. Who rents the apartment then? Or do all the landlords rent apartments from each other?

[1] Perhaps it isn't a 99/1 split. Maybe it's 90/10. But it sure isn't 50/50.

With advice, you have to read it, decide if it works for you and then utilize it or discard it. You do not have to decide if it works for everyone and discard if it doesn't.

There are aspects of MMM's that anyone can do, but obviously the huge income he got after retiring from the MMM blog is unique to him (and the few really successful FI bloggers) and for many, just having insufficient income compared to the cost of living will be a roadblock. In general, this post seems to be a rebuttal about these ideas people have about MMM - https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2018/10/05/the-fire-movement....

I mean if you want everyone to have the same opportunities, you are welcome to give up the advantages you might have so that others get better opportunities. Or you can look at your own life and decide what's best for you.

> You do not have to decide if it works for everyone and discard if it doesn't.

First, I am not discarding the advice. I was responding to the idea that successful practitioners didn't get lucky.

Second, my assertion is that the advice is useful for only a small segment of the population. The goalposts have moved to the opposite end of the field if we are now talking about advice for everyone except for a small segment of the population.

> I mean if you want everyone to have the same opportunities, you are welcome to give up the advantages you might have so that others get better opportunities.

Nowhere did I say that everyone should have the same opportunities.

Finally, your link does not seem to refute my point (I've seen it before).

"I was responding to the idea that successful practitioners didn't get lucky."

Of course they are "lucky", but only because they took the risks and went in prepared. There is no 100% guarantee for anything, so you also need luck. The article here actually shows that, because the blogger was unlucky to have an expensive disease that made his plan nonviable.

I think the point of FI is to lower consumption. As long as your total consumption matches your total production over your lifetime, it's sustainable. The level of consumption described in this post (30k/y) is at or below the median level of consumption, so it is certainly attainable for many people, even if they can't achieve it as quickly as the OP).

> In particular, while anyone could be MMM, not everyone can be MMM: There simply aren't enough people who read financial advice blogs to support a significant population of such bloggers living in rural LCOL-ville. Even if there were, someone has to stock the shelves at Walmart. Shelf-stockers simply don't earn enough to retire early, unless shelf-stocker wages rise to a level that makes blog-FIRE unsustainable.

If overall consumption were reduced by a factor of 10, everyone could work 10% as much over their lifetime. I see no reason that couldn't be a hard few years of shelf-stacking until you get together enough to retire. Maybe that would be a better way for society to operate.

> but it isn't actionable advice for 99% of the population

Should we stop giving advice unless it’s actionable for 100% of the world’s population?

I'm tired of this shelf stocker narrative (or more general, the "some people simply have no chance whatsoever"). I think most people don't remain shelf stockers forever. In my country, it is often pupils who do it, or retired people who make some extra bucks. I don't think anybody expects shelf stocking to be their life long career. And even if you were to do shelf stocking all your life, I don't think it means you can't do anything about your financial situation. Same goes for most other low wage jobs. All the "income equality" charts tend to omit the age distribution, a lot of it may simply be older people earning more because they had more time to acquire skills and progress in their careers.

I can perhaps agree that there is no single rule that everybody in the world could follow to become financially independent, like your "rent housing out to other people" example. Nevertheless, in most environments, there is something people can do. If you just have a house you yourself can live in, it also saves you a lot of money.

At the very least, most people have to retire eventually. And many manage to do so, too. As a last resort, perhaps try to have children who can take care of you.

Sounded like he did, no?