An issue I always have with early retirement is whether it is morally acceptable. When retiring early from a skilled profession you are depriving society of a big contribution you could have given, that was also expected and invested in by society. Utilising a power dynamic by having more money and knowledge to capitalise on other people exacerbates this issue.
How are you dealing with this? Are you of the mindset that you do not owe anything to society? That it is completely fair, as you earned that money and there is a perfect market that trades all aspects in a meritocratic fashion (e.g., delayed consumption should be gratified this hard)? Or that you were not just lucky to have the talents to earn so much money?
You’re begging the question, and I mean that in a literal way, it’s not an insult. You have assumed a definition of output as something that happens through participation in capitalistic endeavours
This effectively devalues any other form of output. What of the value to society of a grandparent spending more time with their grandchild. What is the value to the grandparent? The child? The parent who can now work extra hours?
There is enormous value to society in spending time with family, growing your own produce, exercising your body and mind etc. but many people sacrifice their ability to do those things for income during part of their lives, and change focus when the means are available
I did not assume that the output for society only happens through capitalistic endeavours. You are right that it is important to think about what is a contribution to society.
But in my -admittedly fuzzy- definition, and I think this is also the one most people really would apply, is that retired people usually will have less contributions even when considering time with family.
As an example you are saying growing your own produce is an enormous benefit. But in my opinion this is a really small contribution. Farming, even organic, is really cheap and decentralising on the scale of individual households is extremely inefficient and probably not even environmentally friendly due to the increased space and resources used by the inefficiency. It would be better to take a job at a company or NGO trying to improve the sustainability of current farming methods. Your work will impact millions of people and not just a few.
Taking care of your fitness, also won’t have a clear and big benefit for society. You might save the healthcare system some money per year lived, but you also won’t immensely change your fitness level just because you retire early. The money saved here might be optimistically 2000$ per year. 14000$ is the average cost in the US and you need to subtract everything that you can not prevent by your probably small change in fitness (inheritance, age, bad luck). Additionally most benefits here will be by living longer with the same total healthcare cost (with age you will get similar diseases). Therefore the benefit will be mostly reaped by yourself and not the others in society (but you are a part of society so it counts a bit).
Taking care of family might actually convince me :). In a utopian world I would also like everyone to work less and take care of family. But again the question here is how much value does this exactly give to society.
Is it really enough to compensate for the missed work contributions? Does it allow the society to still compete on a global scale so that it will not lose its values over time?
It sounds like we both value the intangibles, but are still slightly disagreeing on what they mean in this discussion. Having said that, it’s your discussion, your question, and I’m just trying to answer in a way that adds value
I don’t mind how you’ve picked apart my examples, but you have to acknowledge it’s still primarily through economic analysis. Output, competition, and cost benefit analysis all imply an economic lense
The discussion is getting pretty long, so I’ll keep myself to these 5 points:
I don’t think everyone should grow their own produce. It comes across as a straw man (because I never said we should decentralise) and we always have to be careful not to say that what is good for one is good for all (see Idle Kantianism)
Non-economic benefits are devalued through economic analysis. My mental health is improved, it’s physical exercise, the nutrient value is likely higher, it contributes to a local ecosystem etc. I agree that none of these has much economic value
In the same way that economies of scale have efficiency value, specialisation and expertise in scientific and policy fields has efficiency value. Transitioning to research and policy simply because you have amassed capital will likely generate diminishing returns (even if you remain close to your industry/experience)
Government can and should allocate resources to important issues. If we require more resources for these goals we can raise taxes, keeping more people working for longer, and achieving some measure of additional economic contribution per person
A competitive society implies some other society against which we compete. Humanity has enough resources to raise the living standards of all. Why do we need to keep maximising productivity within separate societies if the problem is distributive?
I tried not to only focus on economic value in my counter arguments. I just wanted to use monetary value as a proxy for general value for society.
Regarding the transition to research and policy my argument would be that you will have more impact when taking a full time research position instead of retiring from the working world. I would still consider most research positions a part of the working world.
With a competitive society I actually meant that there are groups that will not support early retirees. These groups will dominate society after some time. An example might be China vs US. If many people in the US retire early, the US will not be able to compete and in the long run will stop existing together with all its values.