# Enjoy Yourself



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

For those of you that are all work and no play, here's a little reminder...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ But then I have also been reminded that am I ever-so-lucky to have a job still.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I remind myself that having to work for a living is not something to consider as being 'lucky' to have to do. Not having to work isn't 'lucky' either, you have to make it happen. But if you think you're lucky to have a job, you aren't likely to be aiming for NOT having to have a job. It's later than you think.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Seems to be a common theme/undertone here lately that one can't enjoy life and be working .... interesting.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> Seems to be a common theme/undertone here lately that one can't enjoy life and be working .... interesting.


No, that is an assumption on your part cainvest. I enjoyed life while I was still working........but not as much as when I no longer needed to work. 

It is not an either or thing as you seem to interpret it. You can enjoy life while still working, it's just a question of would you enjoy it more if you were not working. Trying to view it otherwise may make someone who still has to work feel better, but come on, wouldn't you rather not have to work and be free to do whatever you want with your ALL your time rather than just a part of your time?

Really it's simple. Work is WORK. We really shouldn't need to define the word work for people. Do you really think you can enjoy life while you are working as much as I can enjoy life while not needing to work?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I really think that it comes down to one's definition of work and to the nature of that work. 

Each to his own.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Seems to be a common theme/undertone here lately that one can't enjoy life and be working .... interesting.


I don't know if that's a reference to my sabbatical, but if so, you might have misunderstood what I've said. I have been able to enjoy life *and* work, but it takes some real effort and planning to make that happen.

For me, it's about relative amounts and how much of my waking hours are occupied. If I work so much that I have no free time left for leisure and other interests, then I'm working too much.

I intend to work for another ~ 40 years, but I'm trying to organize my life so that I have enough time for leisure and other important pursuits.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Most people I have met who say they like their job, actually mean to say, I have to work to earn an income, so if I am going to work somewhere, the place I work now is the best job for me. That is not loving their job. That is loving their job more then other jobs but most likely less then no job at all.

Anyway, each to their own. I've hated working since I had a paper route when I was 11, so retirement and me go together quite well. That said, not everyone is me.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> Most people I have met who say they like their job, actually mean to say, I have to work to earn an income, so if I am going to work somewhere, the place I work now is the best job for me. That is not loving their job.


I agree entirely and that describes most people I know as well.

One of the most illuminating conversations I had was with one of the executives at work. I suspect his view is pretty common:

He started off by saying he loves his job, then told me that he didn't always love working. He said that at first, the daily grind was tiring... having to go to the office every day, dealing with never ending issues and never ending bad behaviour from people. Exhausting, stressful, depressing. He says that a lot changed once he got married, bought a house, and started having kids and building a family. He started seeing a purpose for all the hard work. He wanted to provide for his family, and was motivated to keep working and build a better future for his family. He needs to pay the mortgage. He sees working as the path to providing for his family and kids and eventually paying off the house.

_To me_, this doesn't sound like he loves working or that it's a joyful experience. Instead it sounds like he's come to terms with the fact that he realistically has to work, otherwise his family will starve, he'll lose his house, and his children will suffer. Work is a necessary duty, and maybe he derives some enjoyment out of having duties and fulfilling his obligations and responsibilities.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

At one time I worked with, and became a friend of, a professional photographer who worked well into his seventies. One man business all his life, doing what he enjoyed most until he was no longer able to do it.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I don't know if that's a reference to my sabbatical, but if so, you might have misunderstood what I've said.


Nope, nothing to do with your plans at all.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Do you really think you can enjoy life while you are working as much as I can enjoy life while not needing to work?


That's not a valid question IMO. It should be, would *I* enjoy my life more while working or will I enjoy it more when in retirement.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What if you could do anything, anytime you wanted? For example, I enjoy looking for new rental properties, negotiating deals and other forms of “work” involved in the process, however I may not want to do it today, tomorrow, this month, etc. And I don’t have to. I have a choice. Same with running my companies, trading stocks, or even working around my home. 

I enjoy doing all those jobs, but maybe not right now. I always enjoy spending time with my family, watching my kids play sports (even when it’s cold out), and doing things with them. I probably wouldn’t enjoy having to miss something with them. I doubt I’d ever miss not doing some sort of job, especially if I didn’t feel like doing it on a particular day. 

I 5hink that illustrates the difference. I enjoy the jobs, but I’ll never be forced to do them, I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, I have that freedom now. My kids are on the path to create that same environment at the start of their working careers. My son currently loves his job, it pays him exceptionally well, but he’s also building a passive income. In the future he may decide he wants to be a painter, a basket weaver, a poet, or he may continue his job...he’ll have all the options if things go to plan because he won’t need to work with his passive income. He could be financially free in his early 20’s. I expect he’d continue to work, but on his own terms and, if he wants to quit or change, he’ll have the freedom to do so.

The side benefit is, he has no limits on his income either as passive income isn’t limited by the number of hours he can work, or his abilities. He can continue to increase his income and still not have to work.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Enjoying life.........hmm

I often drive around our city to get out and about. I have found that in the wealthy areas I barely see a soul. Nobody is outside, not even their kids.

In the poorer areas, people have lawn chairs out and they are sitting in a group. Their kids are playing around. Everyone seems to be having a good time.

Sometimes I think the less people have, the less they have to worry about..........or conversely the more people have the more they have to worry about.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> That's not a valid question IMO. It should be, would *I* enjoy my life more while working or will I enjoy it more when in retirement.


Yes that's true cainvest. Now what is the answer to your own question?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> What if you could do anything, anytime you wanted? For example, I enjoy looking for new rental properties, negotiating deals and other forms of “work” involved in the process, however I may not want to do it today, tomorrow, this month, etc. And I don’t have to. I have a choice. Same with running my companies, trading stocks, or even working around my home.
> 
> I enjoy doing all those jobs, but maybe not right now. I always enjoy spending time with my family, watching my kids play sports (even when it’s cold out), and doing things with them. I probably wouldn’t enjoy having to miss something with them. I doubt I’d ever miss not doing some sort of job, especially if I didn’t feel like doing it on a particular day.
> 
> ...


All true Just a Guy. What you are saying is that being free to choose does not mean someone will not chose to do something that happens to make them some money. I have done that several times since I 'retired'. But the important point is being FREE to CHOOSE. When I have become involved in something that I just fell into after retiring, I have stayed with that right up until I decided I no longer wanted to be involved and then I stopped because I CAN.

People always seem to want to see things as an either/or and have difficulty seeing that being free to not work does not mean that you cannot choose to work on something if you want to. That's entirely different from someone who works because they HAVE to to earn a living. 

If someone is able to retire at 30 or 40 or whenever, they will have 100% of their time available to do whatever they want to do, each and every day. Someone who has to work for a living will not have that same freedom to choose. So which is better should not be a question anyone has difficulty knowing the answer to. Being financially independent (not having to work) is always going to be better than not being financially independent. Financial independence is freedom.

Maybe it would help some people to stop thinking of 'retirement' and instead think of what being 'financially independent' would mean to them.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Enjoying life.........hmm
> 
> I often drive around our city to get out and about. I have found that in the wealthy areas I barely see a soul. Nobody is outside, not even their kids.
> 
> ...


How do you come up with this kind of nonsense sags? In the wealthy areas, people can afford to do things away from their home. Their kids are at hockey or the whole family is visiting Disneyland, etc. In poorer areas they can only do what they can do around their homes. The wealthier have air conditioning and can stay indoors in comfort, while the homes of the poor are sweat boxes necessitating having to sit out on the porch to try and get a breeze. It is as easy to write nonsensical generalizations about one group as any other.

How much people worry and about what, has nothing whatsoever to do with how much they have. People who worry, will always find something to worry about regardless of their economic conditions. I'm sure you probably subscribe to the nonsense saying that 'I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and unhappy.' A typical case of it must be either/or thinking. But it is of course just as likely for someone rich to be happy as it is for someone poor to be happy, so where in that kind of thinking is being 'rich and happy'? 

Your families sitting outside in poor areas and not in wealthier areas is just such a either/or suggestion. The wealthy can't be in the house or off on an expensive vacation when you drive by and perfectly happy. No, according to you, if they aren't sitting on their lawn they must be unhappy. Total nonsense.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> How do you come up with this kind of nonsense sags? In the wealthy areas, people can afford to do things away from their home. Their kids are at hockey or the whole family is visiting Disneyland, etc. In poorer areas they can only do what they can do around their homes. The wealthier have air conditioning and can stay indoors in comfort, while the homes of the poor are sweat boxes necessitating having to sit out on the porch to try and get a breeze. It is as easy to write nonsensical generalizations about one group as any other.
> 
> How much people worry and about what, has nothing whatsoever to do with how much they have. People who worry, will always find something to worry about regardless of their economic conditions. I'm sure you probably subscribe to the nonsense saying that 'I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and unhappy.' A typical case of it must be either/or thinking. But it is of course just as likely for someone rich to be happy as it is for someone poor to be happy, so where in that kind of thinking is being 'rich and happy'?
> 
> Your families sitting outside in poor areas and not in wealthier areas is just such a either/or suggestion. The wealthy can't be in the house or off on an expensive vacation when you drive by and perfectly happy. No, according to you, if they aren't sitting on their lawn they must be unhappy. Total nonsense.


When one is anecdotally making a casual point or observation, it is not necessary to be ignorant and analytically pick every molecule of the post apart piece by piece . Stop trying to make the world see everything the way you do. The less is more point SAGS is making is entirely valid . It does not apply to EVERYBODY who has less or more but it doe have its merits.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

In areas we have lived it has as much to do with demographics as it does with income. Older, more established areas tend to have fewer children and more empty nesters. You can really see this when the school boards start listing schools with either dwindling enrollment or those that will be closing because of insufficient enrollment. We have seen this this first hand in the Lower Mainland and in Calgary. 

Ve


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Yes that's true cainvest. Now what is the answer to your own question?


At this point in time, work and play over retirement.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> At this point in time, work and play over retirement.


Forget 'retirement'. What about work and play over having 100% of your time to CHOOSE whether you want to work or play. If you HAVE to work to earn a living, you do not have that choice but as JustaGuy wrote 'what if you could do anything, anytime you wanted?' Would you still choose what you have now rather than that?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Never understood why people are willing to wait until they are old and probably infirm to start “enjoying” life. Had a buddy who owned his own company, had a chance to cash out for millions and retire very young, instead drove it into the ground because he wanted to work until retirement, instead of cashing in and enjoying life...now he has to keep working until retirement because he wasn’t a good businessman.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Forget 'retirement'. What about work and play over having 100% of your time to CHOOSE whether you want to work or play. If you HAVE to work to earn a living, you do not have that choice but as JustaGuy wrote 'what if you could do anything, anytime you wanted?' Would you still choose what you have now rather than that?


If I could do "anything, anytime I wanted" I would need to win a big lottery! But in the real world, I need enough funds to meet my retirement needs and wants and I'm just not quite there yet based on my budgeting plan.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Never understood why people are willing to wait until they are old and probably infirm to start “enjoying” life. .


And this relates to my post #4 

Of course I do realize that some people might not have "enjoyed" life until they were retired.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> *I remind myself* that having to work for a living is not something to consider as being 'lucky' to have to do.


 ... The reminder(s) came in the form of having been "told (aka literally)" by the top brass that "you're ever-so-lucky to still have a job here. Do you know how many people are lining for your job. So quit b1tching and do as you're told." I don't think this is far removed from the real workplace when you're not the boss. 



> *Not having to work isn't 'lucky' either, you have to make it happen. * But if you think you're lucky to have a job, you aren't likely to be aiming for NOT having to have a job.


 ... of course and that's why I'm on this forum, learning. And one day, I may be able to say "adios" to the job (the polite version) if I don't get the shaft first. 



> It's later than you think.


 ...yes, I quietly remind myself of that. And what goes around comes around.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

cainvest said:


> If I could do "anything, anytime I wanted" I would need to win a big lottery! But in the real world, I need enough funds to meet my retirement needs and wants and I'm just not quite there yet based on my budgeting plan.


Is this really true, or something you tell yourself in order to justify holding yourself back? Even when I was younger, I never needed to win a lottery to live out my dreams, maybe my dreams aren’t big enough, maybe I’m easily satisfied...

If you built up a passive income which gave you new funds each month, it’s the same as getting a steady payout from a lottery, but I’m curious as to what you “want” that cost so much money you’d need several million just to accomplish it out of the gate. As I said, for me, I’ve always lived my life the way I wanted to, winning a lottery wouldn’t have changed me.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> If I could do "anything, anytime I wanted" I would need to win a big lottery! But in the real world, I need enough funds to meet my retirement needs and wants and I'm just not quite there yet based on my budgeting plan.


Cainvest, that is too simple an answer. No one needs to win a big lottery to become financially independent, but it is real easy to tell yourself that, rather than coming up with an actual plan to get there without winning a lottery. I don't know how old you are now or what kind of income you earn and don't expect you to tell me such details but bear this in mind. At age 35, when I decided to become financially independent, I was earning around $60k (30 years ago), had no real savings and basically spent as much as I earned. Nothing that uncommon in other words. I could have said, 'well if I win a big lottery I will not have to work anymore'. Instead I did the work to come up with a plan to retire in 10 years from there and achieved that goal in fact in 7 years. I've never had to work since then.

The idea that you have to win a lottery or follow the 'normal' route to 'retirement' at 65 is just a BELIEF, it is not carved in stone. THAT is the real world too. So don't be dismissive of the question of what would you do if you could do anything you want, anytime. If the answer to that question is, 'that is where I want to be', then come up with a plan to get there as quickly as possible, not dismiss it with 'I would need to win a big lottery.' That answer is only ONE way you could get there.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Cainvest, that is too simple an answer. No one needs to win a big lottery to become financially independent, but it is real easy to tell yourself that, rather than coming up with an actual plan to get there without winning a lottery.


The lottery win was just in response to your "Do anything, anytime you wanted"!

My "real answer" is I need enough funds to meet my retirement needs and wants and I'm just not quite there yet based on my budgeting plan. I also have no "urgent need" to get out of work as quick as I can, I enjoy my work and gets tons of holidays with the ability to take them pretty much whenever I want. Right now I'm sitting in a win-win situation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Retirement isn't required to enjoy one's life.

The greatest pleasures in life are kids and family. Then comes good times with friends.

I worked with 600 "friends" and we grew up together, had kids together, and retired together. The cycle of life was very evident when it seemed like just yesterday we were organizing the Christmas party for hundreds of employee kids and the next day they were working with us as summer students in university and college.

I like the freedom of retirement but really miss my co-workers. After retirement people scatter all over and life long connections are lost.

Personally, I am happy I enjoyed my life before retirement while I was young and full of energy, and am content to stay around home now.

I complained to my dad once about working and how I wished for retirement. He advised me not to wish for retirement because ...."you will also be getting older every year."

My only regret really is that I didn't enjoy it more. I should have went to the camp that one last time with dad. That part of life sucks.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What was it Warren Buffet said...........he would gladly exchange all his money to be young again.

One of the richest men in the world who knows time is our most precious commodity.....much more than money.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think you misunderstand the word retirement. You don’t have to be old, you technically don’t even have to give up working...you just no longer have to work.

Some people argue, even when they agree with the general concept. We’re all saying enjoy life while youre young and able bodied, not waste it working and missing out on spending time with family.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... The reminder(s) came in the form of having been "told (aka literally)" by the top brass that "you're ever-so-lucky to still have a job here. Do you know how many people are lining for your job. So quit b1tching and do as you're told."


I have had friends relate pretty much the same description for what management has said to them. The closest that any of my employers came were:

a) as part of her introduction as the new head of IT, the VP outlined that she was mandated to cut costs by 10%. The comment was that her door was open for suggestions as the lack thereof meant that staff cuts would provide the savings.

&

b) after being bought out, the culture shifted away from trying to help the employee work where they needed to. The comment was that travel was part of the job so if one couldn't travel, one should investigate other jobs. (Previously, resources would have been shifted to give those that temporarily needed to work locally whatever was available locally.) 





Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't think this is far removed from the real workplace when you're not the boss ...


It seems to vary depending on the management in question.


Cheers


----------



## Mookie (Feb 29, 2012)

It’s interesting to see all the different perspectives and reactions to the song I posted to start off this discussion. 

This song was sent to my wife by our neighbour and friend. Her husband had worked hard all his life, and only had a few months of retirement before passing away suddenly. Another neighbour of ours also died suddenly around age 60, and several of my former colleagues from work have also died within a few years of retirement. It really saddens me when I hear about guys like this who never had much of a chance to really enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Of course, we all need money to cover our needs and wants, so we all need to do something to get us to that point where we no longer have to trade our time for money. For those that are still young, I hope you can find a way to strike a good work/life balance until you get there. For those that are nearing financial freedom, it may be tempting to repeatedly tell yourself “just one more year”, but at some point you have to decide that it’s time to stop chasing “more”, and settle for “enough”. You can always make more money, but you can never make more time.

Anyway, I just wanted to send out a reminder to you all that life is short. For some of us, it will be even shorter than we expected, so while you’re still able, please make time to “Enjoy Yourself”.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Thanks Mookie. I enjoyed my whole life so far. And I loved Doris back in the Day! I had teachers that loved me (mostly) and bosses that loved me (mostly). I also had extended family that loved me. I worked at it.

Right now my much older extended family is passing beyond the pale, and I only have two remaining cousins, both in wheelchairs but with great attitudes. So it is a continuing lesson.

Enjoy yourselves because not if.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know a guy who was in his mid to late 40’s and was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Fortunately he had been living off of passive income for years...couldn’t imagine working and doing chemo every two weeks. I don’t think any benefits could replace his needed salary, and even with coverage his drugs still cost money. Young family too, kids all in school. So far he’s beating it, but you never know. When he’s not in treatment, he spends it with his family and friends.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mookie said:


> It really saddens me when I hear about guys like this who never had much of a chance to really enjoy the fruits of their labour.
> 
> Of course, we all need money to cover our needs and wants, so we all need to do something to get us to that point where we no longer have to trade our time for money. For those that are still young, I hope you can find a way to strike a good work/life balance until you get there. For those that are nearing financial freedom, it may be tempting to repeatedly tell yourself “just one more year”, but at some point you have to decide that it’s time to stop chasing “more”, and settle for “enough”. You can always make more money, but you can never make more time.


It is sad to lose friends when they are young, I've lost a number of friends all the way from my teenage years till now, some forty years later. Some enjoy life all the way through while others seem to (mostly) back load enjoyment for the "retirement years" in favor of work they don't really like just to collect the money. There are also others that never seemed to make ends meet and their retirement is just existing hoping to get by with what little they have saved.

Like you said, if one can find a good work/life balance throughout their life there really is nothing to be sad about or regret. If my number comes up sooner than later I can look back and say I had a great time. I definitely wouldn't be saying, "darn, I was this close to retirement when I was just going to start to enjoy myself!"


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mookie said:


> This song was sent to my wife by our neighbour and friend. *Her husband had worked hard all his life, and only had a few months of retirement before passing away suddenly*. Another neighbour of ours also died suddenly around age 60, and several of my former colleagues from work have also died within a few years of retirement. It really saddens me when I hear about guys like this who never had much of a chance to really enjoy the fruits of their labour.


Thanks for posting this and sharing the stories.

My colleagues in their 30s and 40s are working at full steam, sometimes beyond levels that are healthy or sustainable. One of my friends enjoys skiing and a few years ago, he used to regularly take days off work to go skiing. We work within just a couple hours drive of some amazing ski locations. In the last few years, however, he's taken on so much extra work and become so single minded about work that he never takes any time off now. He doesn't use any vacation time. Instead he's accumulated so much that the company is warning him he must use some, or forfeit it. There are many people in our office who haven't used any of their vacation time in years.

Around the time that my skiing friend turned into a workaholic, he developed a somewhat serious medical condition, an outbreak of a disease that could have been life threatening if it progressed further. I don't know this for certain but I suspect that the stress and exhaustion of work weakened him, and that he failed to take enough time to rest and take it easy... _this is a really bad tradeoff_.

Stress can kill.

Since announcing that I'm going to quit my job and take some unstructured time for leisure, I've had interesting conversations with coworkers. Their first obvious question is, how will you survive without a paycheque? Once I explain that I have savings and investments, they understand the mechanics of it, but are surprised that I am willing to eat through my savings and live off the capital. This strikes me as a bit funny, because what else is the money for? I'm not planning on framing the broker statements and hanging them over the mantel. This money is for living!

(Though I will say that the TDDI statements have become more aesthetically pleasing recently and could be framed)



Mookie said:


> You can always make more money, but you can never make more time.


That's exactly the thought behind my upcoming break from work. Sure, it's a bit nuts to say "no thanks" to ~ 180K salary, but I figure that I can make more money later. What I can't get back are these years.


----------



## BigMonkey (May 31, 2016)

I think one of the things people fail to account for is how much time is required on their jobs and the amount of stress associated with certain positions, which could be one of factors that leads to dissatisfied career and life.

It seems like lots of people seem to chase what compensates the highest on an annual basis. But once you factor in how many hours is worked into pay per hour, this seemingly "high pay" goes down drastically.

Ex: If person A has to work 75 hours a week to hit $150k. This is the same pay per hour as someone who makes 75k a year but works 37.5 hours. Once you factor in tax, person B who makes 75k will make more per hour, since their tax rate is lower. Not to mention the lower responsibility (not always a good thing) and lowered stress associated with this Person B's job.

One thing that is also quite difficult to measure, is how hard you must work as well. There is a difference between someone who is "sprinting" every minute during the day vs someone does the equivalent of "walking/jogging". While I'm not advocating for settling and just coast. I have seen people who are in an environment that have to "sprint", they seem to look older for their age and they appear to have more health problems as they get older.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Crazies driving in the fast lane - where do they need to be?

Crazies driving in the slow lane - don't they have somewhere to be?

If everyone just drove the same as me, I wouldn't have to worry.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> I think you misunderstand the word retirement. You don’t have to be old, you technically don’t even have to give up working...you just no longer have to work.
> 
> Some people argue, even when they agree with the general concept. We’re all saying enjoy life while youre young and able bodied, not waste it working and missing out on spending time with family.


Technically, retirement is exactly no longer working. Financial independence close but not the same. I know many people who are financially independent, but still work at a ‘job’. If you think about many CEO,s executives, celebrities, ect, they would not considered themselves retired even thought they are financially independent. Warren Buffet is not retired, but we can all agree he is financial independent.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

True, but what is working? Technically I still run my companies, but I rarely go into the offices. I think of my real estate as more of a hobby, playing monopoly with real houses, I’ve got systems, and people, set up to manage them. I may travel to look at them, love the search and negotiations, but not so much the management and repairs. 

I spend a lot of time volunteering or with family, even done some teaching...am I retired, just financially independent or both?

I do work every once in a while, attend some meetings and have my phone available to deal with issues...but it’s certainly different than before, especially before I got injured.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

JAG>. You sound like a lot of people I know. There’s no doubt that you are financially independent. I would say be strict definition you are partially retired. Before, I would would have thought you were retired too. I heard a really interesting definition from someone in pretty much your exact same situation. Though he stepped away from the daily work, he still is on the board and goes to meetings once in a while (maybe a few times a year), he still runs real estate like like, and has more than he needs, so is financially independent and can choose what he wants to do. He considered himself partially or almost retired but not fully retired. Based on the fact that some Of these companies still required something of him. They would move board meetings to his scheduled, but still needed his input, so he was not retired from the board, even though he was no longer part of the company.

I thought it was interesting, that is someone would need to replace him if he fully retired, he considered that he wasn’t fully retired because there was still a responsibility. It’s the same argument that many made about Mr.money moustache [mmm] and Derek foster. Both were self proclaimed FIRE, but many critics argues that they weren’t really retired. Was Derek fosters book writing a hobby that produced income, what about MMM blog and he charges for speaking. Was he actually retired, even though is essentially the person that evented the term FIRE.

My personal thoughts are it does really matter if your are retired or not, but it is the financial independence that is the most important part which I think many here are trying to achieved. You can be retire when though being financially independent, and that sucks. But if you are financially independent, then who cares if you still till choose to work full time or part time. 

On a flip side, I think it’s just easier telling people that are retired, part time retired, taking a break, vs financially independent.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I think the point to this thread is to take the time to enjoy life. For many, it may be difficult to do while working. Some would argue that Ione should do what they love, in my case I have learned to loved whatever I do. It’s all about perspective. I know there are pros and cons for everything in life, but happiness is dependant which part you focus on. 

I work very hard using the day, and put equal effort with my family life. We have enough if we lived very frugally, we could ‘retire’. However, that would mean I wouldn’t work that hard, and I couldn’t play as hard. I would be able to afford all the extras that we enjoy. I would have more time, but not enough in funds. 

Right now, the things that I don’t have enough TIME for because I am working are cleaning/house maintenance stuff, cooking long meals ever night, sleep/working out and long travel when my kids are off in the summer. If I retired, I could do more of those things, except I would have to currently give up some things due to not having our current income. The things I would have to give up are really expensive trips, being able to provide my kids all the extras in terms of activities, the security of knowing that we can help them with their higher education, and lots of other things, etc. 

At this current time, by some standards I would have financial independence for their lifestyle, for my lifestyle and choices, , not enough. I would gladly work at what I do for the other things that are important to me. I am not waiting for retirement, but rather ensuring that my kids are going to be well set and enjoying this chapter of my life. More time without more money will do me little good, 

On the flip side, at my age and income, I know how much I need and how I am going to get there. Switching gears to try to develop a full system of passive income does not make sense in my case. It would take me time that I do not want to give up with my family to do so. However, if I was laid off, and the opportunity cost is less, and I have more time, then I would look for other non corporate work.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Retirement isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either...I do a lot of laundry, dishes, cleaning, maintenance...

Not to mention travelling across North America for kids sports...next year probably all over the world. I hardly ever get up to the lake like I used to when I was working.

Oh the 1st world problems we face and have to deal with...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

The real crux of the issue to me, has been mentioned a couple of times and that is TIME. You cannot bank time or get it back in any way. Once it is gone, it is gone and however much of it an individual gets is all they are ever going to have. How an individual chooses to use their allotted time is up to them, but they should realize they are in fact making a choice. Whenever I hear someone say something like, 'I have no choice but to work, I need to earn a living', I know they don't understand that in fact they do have a choice.

As I have said in this forum before, when I had my 'eureka moment' at age 35, I realized I did not want to work till age 65, retire and then drop dead on the golf course 2 years later. I wanted to enjoy life far more than having to spend part of my time working would allow me to do. From that simple thought, as I saw it, I had no CHOICE but to find a way to not have to work for a living in order to become FREE to use all my time as I pleased.

That is an entirely different case of what someone can perceive as 'having no choice.'


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> The real crux of the issue to me, has been mentioned a couple of times and that is TIME. You cannot bank time or get it back in any way. Once it is gone, it is gone and however much of it an individual gets is all they are ever going to have. How an individual chooses to use their allotted time is up to them, but they should realize they are in fact making a choice. Whenever I hear someone say something like, 'I have no choice but to work, I need to earn a living', I know they don't understand that in fact they do have a choice.
> 
> As I have said in this forum before, when I had my 'eureka moment' at age 35, I realized I did not want to work till age 65, retire and then drop dead on the golf course 2 years later. I wanted to enjoy life far more than having to spend part of my time working would allow me to do. * From that simple thought, as I saw it, I had no CHOICE but to find a way to not have to work for a living in order to become FREE to use all my time as I pleased.*
> 
> *That is an entirely different case of what someone can perceive as 'having no choice.'*


 ... sorry but this is all confusing or rather contradictory??? Which is it in both cases *as perceived*, choice or no choice?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> Warren Buffet is not retired, but we can all agree he is financial independent.


I would argue that Buffett never worked a day in his life. He developed a lifelong hobby of making money through investing wisely.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> As I have said in this forum before, when I had my 'eureka moment' at age 35, I realized I did not want to work till age 65, retire and then drop dead on the golf course 2 years later. I wanted to enjoy life far more than having to spend part of my time working would allow me to do. From that simple thought, as I saw it, I had no CHOICE but to find a way to not have to work for a living in order to become FREE to use all my time as I pleased.


So do you think everyone, say at age 35, that has the same thought as you will be able gain financial independence far before age 65?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

kcowan said:


> I would argue that Buffett never worked a day in his life. He developed a lifelong hobby of making money through investing wisely.


That's a really good point! Though, he probably did "work" initially back when he was a young guy working at his dad's brokerage firm, until he was able to save up some capital.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I think the answer for many, those who can, is to do what you love for a living. then it isn't like toil and you can do it even after "retirement age". 
Don't just go for the money when picking an occupation, go for what is meaningful to you. Then the division between work and recreation gets blurred.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> kcowan said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that Buffett never worked a day in his life. He developed a lifelong hobby of making money through investing wisely.
> ...


Not sure why there is much doubt that initially he worked as there are references to what is probably not a complete list:
- selling Juicy Fruit chewing gum packs
- buying six packs of Coke then reselling the individual bottles
- working in the family grocery store in Omaha
- washing cars 
- making $175 a month selling Washington Post newspapers 
- saving $1200 to buy 40 acres of farmland in Omaha, Nebraska
- starting Wilson Coin Operated machines that bought pinball machines that were put in local businesses
- being willing to work for free for Benjamin Graham but was not offered the job
- buying a Texaco station as well as other real estate while also working as an investment salesman for Buffett-Falk & Company, his father's investment firm
- Graham evidently changed his mind as Buffet starting working for him at $12K a year, in 1954


Contrary to never working a day in his life, he started out as an entrepreneur first then investments to make the earned money keep growing was added in and eventually became the main business.



Cheers


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Retirement isn’t all it’s cracked up to be either...I do a lot of laundry, dishes, cleaning, maintenance...
> 
> Not to mention travelling across North America for kids sports...next year probably all over the world. I hardly ever get up to the lake like I used to when I was working.
> 
> Oh the 1st world problems we face and have to deal with...


Lol... this is another reason why am happy to work. I hate cleaning and the maintenance, always have, and am slow at it So I have been happy to work and pay someone to do the things I don't enjoy. 

I remember as a kid, it was always a fight with my parents to get me to clean my room. My friends felt so bad because I was constantly not allowed to go out until it was clean and so my friends would come over just to help me clean. Then one day my mom said, 'Do you think that you will be able to get people to help you when you are older? Do you know how much it costs to get someone to come clean up after you?' I was stunned as I didn't realize there was such an option. I was so excited at the thought that if I made enough money as an adult, I could potentially not have to clean. THAT was my life dream, so I did it as soon as I could. 

I would feel a little guilty (maybe) if I retired on a more limited income, that I would still probably hire someone to clean. So I would rather just work longer so I can still have that help.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> The real crux of the issue to me, has been mentioned a couple of times and that is TIME. You cannot bank time or get it back in any way. Once it is gone, it is gone and however much of it an individual gets is all they are ever going to have. How an individual chooses to use their allotted time is up to them, but they should realize they are in fact making a choice. Whenever I hear someone say something like, 'I have no choice but to work, I need to earn a living', I know they don't understand that in fact they do have a choice.
> 
> As I have said in this forum before, when I had my 'eureka moment' at age 35, I realized I did not want to work till age 65, retire and then drop dead on the golf course 2 years later. I wanted to enjoy life far more than having to spend part of my time working would allow me to do. From that simple thought, as I saw it, I had no CHOICE but to find a way to not have to work for a living in order to become FREE to use all my time as I pleased.
> 
> That is an entirely different case of what someone can perceive as 'having no choice.'


There is a balance between time and money. I found when I wasn't working and we didn't have any income, we were not doing the things we enjoyed because didn't have the money at the time. How one spends there time or money is completely a choice. This was very empowering to think about it. My parents who immigrated to Canada with nothing, taught us that our success was based on the choices we made. I have always taught my kids not that we could afford to do something, but rather we choose to spend our money elsewhere that brings up more value. This really gets them thinking about the purchase and what is valuable to them.

I also recognize that I could choose not to work, but the options it gives me in other areas ($$$) buys more options in other areas of my life. I happy to choose to work in order to have the choices that having more money buys me. Like I said in my previous post, I am happy to work to have someone do my cleaning. However, I looked at the decision, that I can work one hour to bring back 3-4 hours of my time in cleaning. Or I could choose not to clean, but eventually that catches up with me. 

This lead to my other view that money can buy time. So working for money can save me time elsewhere. My parents were doing 'slow travel' (buses) They like it that is cheap and it matches how they like to travel (they don't like being rushed). I on the other hand, hate a slow pace, even when I am supposed to be relaxing. I would rather see many things and go to many places. I am that person the in fast lane on the highway. I found with that I could pay more to have someone do my research and plan out my itinerary. Then I could choose to have a private tour, and by pass all the line ups. There is a huge cost to this but I see more things and feel I don't waste any time. An executive I know travels exclusively this way. He pays 5x more for trip, and then has everything run so efficiently that experiences so much more. I couldn't do this all the time, so I am somewhere in between , my parents and the executive.

So the point about time once is gone is gone is totally true. However, you can 'buy' time (up to a point) if you have the means. I have always tried to use my 24 hours a day in the way that brings me the most enjoyment. That means take some of that time to work which I don't mind my work, to make money to buy time in the areas that I hate doing. 



cainvest said:


> So do you think everyone, say at age 35, that has the same thought as you will be able gain financial independence far before age 65?


Jumping in, I do in terms of people need to make some choices earlier. So at 35, you make the choice not to overspend, etc. 



Pluto said:


> I think the answer for many, those who can, is to do what you love for a living. then it isn't like toil and you can do it even after "retirement age".
> Don't just go for the money when picking an occupation, go for what is meaningful to you. Then the division between work and recreation gets blurred.


Or you go and find a REALLY great paying job, make a crap load of money, and then retire early. One of the exec I know, was telling his kids, "Passion doesn't always pay the bills. So if you can't find something that you are passionate about that will pay enough, then find something that you are really good at, and make a crap load of money. Then you can use your money to do the things you are passionate about' He used the example that he was passionate about hockey, travelling, etc. He know he wouldn't make it in these areas. So, he was just really good at starting up companies, he didn't love it, it was hard but he was/is great at it. He has sold several companies worth for 7 to 9 figures. He doesn't love it though, but loves the lifestyle that it can by. It's pretty sereal.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Plugging Along said:


> Or you go and find a REALLY great paying job, make a crap load of money, and then retire early.


The problem is that when people land in a position that pays a lot, they tend to adopt an expensive lifestyle (often with influence from peers) and then the high income becomes the norm. This can even have the opposite effect of what's intended... because now they also have high expectations of expenses for retirement years, so they need even more savings. 

I work with several people who make over 200K, which is far more than their earlier jobs. One might think this would put them in a place where they can save a ton and retire early, but no. These people also have high expenses, big homes, big mortgages, wives with big spending expectations.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^ again it’s about choices. It’s much easier to retire earlier if you have a high income. If one chooses not to, then that’s they choice.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What happens if you don’t get a choice? What would you do if suddenly, one day, you woke up with a terminal disease and couldn’t work anymore (like my buddy who I mentioned earlier). You can’t really work if you’re going to chemo every two weeks. No more income, limited time left...would you still be thinking “at least I had a good job”? My buddy had no signs or symptoms, went in for a minor cough (unrelated) and found out he had stage 4 cancer with a 5% two year survival chance.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

Before I retired many years ago from the financial services industry I was often asked questions on savings, mortgages, investments, buying a house, etc and my answer was usually a simple on and that is "it depends on how you wish to live your life"?. I then gave examples like "Do you plan on having children?, Do you plan to have one spouse stay at home as a homemaker?, Would you like to retire early?, Do you wish to live in a large city like Vancouver?, Do you want a house?, Do you wish to take vacations with your children and if so where to, eg with Disneyland, Overseas, Hawaii, or camping and fishing/hiking,etc. Also, do you have interests when you retire and if you wish travel overseas it will need more $$ as opposed to day trips, or camping, RVing, etc. The other follow up question was if you have children do you want to spend 60 hrs a week working or have time to spend with your family and friends? All tough questions for a younger person(s). Fortunately, somehow I managed to satisfy my and my spouses goals and have been married 50yrs, have children and grandchildren, retired early at 55, wife worked at home, worked reasonable hours, and we are still active and pretty well do what we want and have enjoyed our life and continue to do so. 
While things have changed a lot since I retired (higher housing prices, technology and the workplace, more spouses working, etc) but I think you need an idea of where you want your life to go and how to you get there? And yes "Just a Guy", life does throw curves at us such as loss of employment, loss of spouse or child, illness, etc and unfortunately we did experience one but got through it.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

People keep making assumptions to justify their viewpoint. 

To write, "So I have been happy to work and pay someone to do the things I don't enjoy." makes the assumption that you could not pay someone to do the things you don't enjoy AND not have to work. This it must be this 'either/or' assumption simply isn't the only option. 

I do not work, there are things I either do not want to do myself or are simply things I cannot do myself for whatever reason. For example, we just had our driveway done for a cost in the low $20s. The guy who has seeded and will come and water that seed each day until it gets going, will be paid a few hundred for his part of it. The garden centre people are coming at the end of this week to put in some new landscaping as part of the overall project, that's another few thousand. Then there is the arborist who is coming to do a general trimming of the trees near our driveway that need the canopy raised to let more light in to the new garden bed areas. All jobs I do not want to do or cannot do myself. Also all jobs I do not have to work to pay to have done. So how does that line up with the assumption that you need to work to pay to have others do these jobs? I certainly don't, nor do others.

Then there is the statement, "I would feel a little guilty (maybe) if I retired on a more limited income, that I would still probably hire someone to clean. So I would rather just work longer so I can still have that help.", is simply based on an assumption that you would have to work longer to pay for help. It could just as easily be assumed by someone else that an individual just has to figure out how to earn the amount needed to pay for help, in the SAME amount of time as someone else who earns only enough in a given amount of time to retire on a 'more limited income.'

If you see the earning potential per year as limited and the goal as a given amount of capital, then yes, the amount of time it will require to reach the goal will increase as the amount of capital required is increased. But there is nothing to stop you from reversing, so to speak, the equation. If the capital required is determined and the time available to get there is determined, then the amount required to be earned per year mus then be set to balance the equation.

So you don't start out with, 'I want $1 Mil in capital and can save $50k per year, therefore I will be able to retire in 20 years.' Instead you start out with, 'I want to retire in 10 years with $1 Mil in capital, therefore I must find a way to save $100k per year.' The equation is simple, it is which part/s you choose to consider fixed or variable that differs.

There is another common misconception that 'money can buy time' or 'save you time'. Let's work that out. If you earn $100 for an hour of work, you could then turn around and hire someone who is paid $25 per hour to do 4 hours of work for you that you do not want to do yourself. So you would have 'bought' or 'saved' yourself 3 hours of work right? That's the thinking. But it is wrong, you would still have only had the same 4 hours of your life available to you. You may have used those 4 hours differently but you will not have bought or saved MORE time. You cannot BANK time. Whatever your allotted number of years, days and hour of life you have will not have changed.

Consider the travel example, "I would rather see many things and go to many places. I am that person the in fast lane on the highway. I found with that I could pay more to have someone do my research and plan out my itinerary. Then I could choose to have a private tour, and by pass all the line ups. There is a huge cost to this but I see more things and feel I don't waste any time."

Let's examine that idea. The apparent objective is to 'see many things and go to many places.' But what does that actually mean? Does it mean the objective is quantity, without quality? Or would it be that the objective is really to see and do as much as possible in a given amount of time? The common phrase you see all the time in travel forums is, 'I want to see and do as much as possible'. But the word 'much' is not synonymous with the word 'many'. Unless all you want to do is 'tick the list', really what you want is to 'experience' as much as possible in a given amount of time. To experience something, you have to rely on your senses of touch, hear, see, smell and taste. The amount you can do that in a given amount of time does not VARY. All that varies is WHAT you experience. 

If you fly in a private jet for example, you will not experience what travel through a commercial airline consists of. You may PREFER to experience a private jet over a commercial flight but you will not experience MORE, no matter how much you may think you will. What someone can experience in a day on a 'chicken bus' in S. America is just as much as someone who takes a guided tour for a day in Rome. In other words, money CANNOT buy you more experience, only a DIFFERENT experience. Money can buy you a CHOICE of what you may experience but it will not let you 'see more things', only different things.

A few years ago, I used public buses every day for 10 days in Switzerland as part of a hiking vacation. Previously, I had always had a car on such trips. I have spent a lot of time in Switzerland on hiking vacations and consider myself to know the country, the culture, etc. pretty well. But I learned quite a bit over those 10 days of using the local buses daily. I saw and heard how people interact on those buses. In particular I learned a great deal about school children. 

They do not have 'school buses' in Switzerland. Children ride to and from school using the local bus. Parents do not walk or drive them to the bus stop to be picked up, the children walk or ride their skateboards to there by themselves. They do the same at the other end. What does that tell you about how parents perceive the risk to their children of not being 'protected' by parents, compared to here in N. America?

The children that I saw, who take the bus by themselves, were as young as 8 or 9. Their level of maturity and self-confidence was very evident to me. It was not only apparent, it was highly noticeable. Why was it noticeable to me? Because I was comparing it to what I would expect to see here in N. America. 

My point in relating this 'experience' of riding local buses is that money might have bought me travel with a chauffeur driven limo in half the time from A to B, but it would NOT have bought me more experience or any kind of 'better' experience of something else.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

james4beach said:


> The problem is that when people land in a position that pays a lot, they tend to adopt an expensive lifestyle (often with influence from peers) and then the high income becomes the norm. This can even have the opposite effect of what's intended... because now they also have high expectations of expenses for retirement years, so they need even more savings.
> 
> I work with several people who make over 200K, which is far more than their earlier jobs. One might think this would put them in a place where they can save a ton and retire early, but no. These people also have high expenses, big homes, big mortgages, wives with big spending expectations.


That's true for many people james4beach but it is also an assumption if we then go on to say it applies to all people. It is a choice to increase your spending as your income increases and I would say that it even makes sense is some respects. If you can afford 5 star, why not enjoy it. Money is for spending after all. But if you have a GOAL, you are far less likely to increase your spending rather than increase your saving. 

It is people who do not have a goal other than to earn more or buy a bigger yacht that just spend more as they earn more. If someone has a specific goal of financial independence and a plan as to how they are going to achieve that goal, they are not likely to increase spending at the cost of achieving their goal.

So while you can reasonably say, 'they tend to adopt an expensive lifestyle', it only applies to some, not all people.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> People keep making assumptions to justify their viewpoint.
> 
> To write, "So I have been happy to work and pay someone to do the things I don't enjoy." makes the assumption that you could not pay someone to do the things you don't enjoy AND not have to work. This it must be this 'either/or' assumption simply isn't the only option.
> 
> ...


Let's see if we can keep it simple without stories and assumptions and stick to the facts. 

FACT: Paying people to do things for you is more expensive than doing it your self. 
IRREVLEVANT what the item is. This could be fore a canopy, garden, arborist, cherry planter, driveway, cleaning, put is X. 
STILL FACT: It cost more to have something done for you. 
FACT: You have to find a way to pay them. 
FACT: In order to pay them, you must find a way to earn that money. 
FACT: There are many ways to earn money. I am aware of many of them (Not sure if this istwo facts?)
FACT: Working is one way to earn money. 
IRRELAVENT FACT: You choose a different way to pay for X. 
FACT: I am happy working to pay for someone to X. This is a choice I have made. 
FACT: I know my scenarios, and beliefs better than you know my scenarios and beliefs. 
IRRELEVANT FACT: I don't care about your way or your choices as I have weighed other options, and this is the best under my scenarios. 

ASSUMPTION: People keep making assumptions to justify their viewpoint. 
FACT: The only assumptions made were your own.

SUMMARY OF FACTS: My choice to work to pay someone to do the things I do not enjoy are factually correct under my circumstance. I have weighed the options, and feel its worth exchanging my time at work in order to purchase certain services.



> If you see the earning potential per year as limited and the goal as a given amount of capital, then yes, the amount of time it will require to reach the goal will increase as the amount of capital required is increased. But there is nothing to stop you from reversing, so to speak, the equation. If the capital required is determined and the time available to get there is determined, then the amount required to be earned per year must then be set to balance the equation.
> 
> So you don't start out with, 'I want $1 Mil in capital and can save $50k per year, therefore I will be able to retire in 20 years.' Instead you start out with, 'I want to retire in 10 years with $1 Mil in capital, therefore I must find a way to save $100k per year.' The equation is simple, it is which part/s you choose to consider fixed or variable that differs.


FACT: The equation is simple, it is which part you choose to consider fixed or variable that differs.
FACT: the amount required to be earned per year must then be set to balance the equation.
FACT: I have chosen the variable of time. Specifically, based on a milestone linked to my kids. 
FACT: If I choose a different variable, such as you do, it wouldn't be wrong either
FACT: My equation balances
ASSUMPTION: There is an assumption that one variable is better than the other. That seems to be whatever you have chosen. That's not a fact. Again, only your assumption. 



> There is another common misconception that 'money can buy time' or 'save you time'. Let's work that out. If you earn $100 for an hour of work, you could then turn around and hire someone who is paid $25 per hour to do 4 hours of work for you that you do not want to do yourself. So you would have 'bought' or 'saved' yourself 3 hours of work right? That's the thinking. But it is wrong, you would still have only had the same 4 hours of your life available to you. You may have used those 4 hours differently but you will not have bought or saved MORE time. You cannot BANK time. Whatever your allotted number of years, days and hour of life you have will not have changed.


FACT: One cannot BANK time.
FACT: There are things that should be done that people don't like to do, but they need to be done. 
FACT: There are things that people enjoy spending more of there time on. 
FACT: Everyone has the same 24 hours in a day to do things.
FACT: If you have money (see first discussion in this post), you can pay people to the things you don't want, so you can do the things you want. So time is allocated differently. In the example of working an hour to have someone clean for 4. You now have 3 more hours that came from cleaning to do other things. So you have 3 more leisure hours. You have purchase someone else's 3 hours. In that day, you have 3 more hours of time to allocate that you previously didn't have. 



> "I would rather see many things and go to many places. I am that person the in fast lane on the highway. I found with that I could pay more to have someone do my research and plan out my itinerary. Then I could choose to have a private tour, and by pass all the line ups. There is a huge cost to this but I see more things and feel I don't waste any time."
> 
> Let's examine that idea. The apparent objective is to 'see many things and go to many places.' But what does that actually mean? Does it mean the objective is quantity, without quality? Or would it be that the objective is really to see and do as much as possible in a given amount of time? The common phrase you see all the time in travel forums is, 'I want to see and do as much as possible'. But the word 'much' is not synonymous with the word 'many'. Unless all you want to do is 'tick the list', really what you want is to 'experience' as much as possible in a given amount of time. To experience something, you have to rely on your senses of touch, hear, see, smell and taste. The amount you can do that in a given amount of time does not VARY. All that varies is WHAT you experience.
> 
> If you fly in a private jet for example, you will not experience what travel through a commercial airline consists of. You may PREFER to experience a private jet over a commercial flight but you will not experience MORE, no matter how much you may think you will. What someone can experience in a day on a 'chicken bus' in S. America is just as much as someone who takes a guided tour for a day in Rome. In other words, money CANNOT buy you more experience, only a DIFFERENT experience. Money can buy you a CHOICE of what you may experience but it will not let you 'see more things', only different things.


FACT: I specially said MORE and meant it to be quantitative. Quality is a subjective measure that makes no sense discussing here. Experience and WHAT requires too many assumptions
FACT: More, and as much as possible are quantity measures. If you bring quality or experience in, you are bring in to many assumptions. 

I even used an example of lines. A more concrete example is I want to ride as many rides in Disney land. I plan it out myself, or for $800 an hour, I can get a private guide for my family that will plan out the most efficient route and escort directly to the front of each line, have a seat reserved at each parade, get me the found from any restaurant or kiosk brought to me and drive me through the under ground tunnel system to I do ever ride multiple times. In this case, I did much more than any person in Disney that day. I would miss the experience of toddler having tantrums, and waiting in line in the heat, and those experiences. I would also have to pay an extra $4k on my tickets. But can it be argued that I saw much more than others? There are some trips that are worth this that I may be able to willing to pay for. I am not willing but I know many who have done this. 

The question of which cases am I personally willing to pay more $$ are riddled with assumptions. Which are based on personal preference and cannot be argued.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

> A few years ago, I used public buses every day for 10 days in Switzerland as part of a hiking vacation. Previously, I had always had a car on such trips. I have spent a lot of time in Switzerland on hiking vacations and consider myself to know the country, the culture, etc. pretty well. But I learned quite a bit over those 10 days of using the local buses daily. I saw and heard how people interact on those buses. In particular I learned a great deal about school children.
> 
> They do not have 'school buses' in Switzerland. Children ride to and from school using the local bus. Parents do not walk or drive them to the bus stop to be picked up, the children walk or ride their skateboards to there by themselves. They do the same at the other end. What does that tell you about how parents perceive the risk to their children of not being 'protected' by parents, compared to here in N. America?
> 
> ...


Lovely anecdote and story. Still you made the assumption that I would appreciate that experience. I may or may not. 



> People keep making assumptions to justify their viewpoint.


Yes, some people do may a lot of assumption, and try to make them view right.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Technically speaking, if I charge out my time or make say $100/hour, it’s actually cheaper to hire someone for $20/hour to do the work for me. I save $80/hour hiring someone else. So, your facts are indeed false.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Technically speaking, if I charge out my time or make say $100/hour, it’s actually cheaper to hire someone for $20/hour to do the work for me. I save $80/hour hiring someone else. So, your facts are indeed false.


Of course this is only true if you're giving up time that you'd be getting $100/hour and not your leisure time.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Of course this is only true if you're giving up time that you'd be getting $100/hour and not your leisure time.


Back when we retired, we reviewed all of our expenses with a view of getting rid of unnecessary expenses. So we eliminated duplicate bank and credit card accounts, for example. But we kept the housekeeper because we both hate housework. We selectively outsource handyman work when we lack the materials or skills to do them. We built these costs into our spending plan.

Similarly we have a trusted travel agent but only use her where she provides maximum added value.

In Mexico, we outsource much more because getting materials is harder than in Canada. And their costs are significantly less. One handyman was having trouble installing a three-way switch and I pointed to the wire he had to cut. I said I outsource because it is efficient, not because I cannot do it.

I handle my own investments because I like it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

What do you value your leisure time at? As MasterCard says, time with the kids...priceless. That doesn’t mean it’s worth nothing in my opinion. It also applies to leisure time.


----------

