[CarelessSmirch]

I think there are two unethical aspects to this: Firstly, less money spent will harm the economy, and, secondly, if lots of people do it, the system will adjust to lower salaries until it is not feasible anymore, i.e. this cheatcode depends on most other people still working their entire lives and constantly spending lots of their incomes.

[Fredej]

Honestly I found none of that unethical.

If you're able to live with a lower consumption you should not increase it just to "not harm the economy". On the contrary I would find it unethical to increase your consumption beyond your need.

To your second point, I don't find it compelling either. First off, the FIRE way requires some amount of restraint and discipline - in many ways it's like dieting. It's good for you, but that doesn't mean people will do it - it will continue to be only a subset of people. Secondly, how would the system would adjust? What would be the driver for lower wages? The method is basically to save and invest half your income - that doesn't depend on your income. The people are still equally skilled, working equally hard during their working years. The output at their work while they work remains unchanged.

If anything it might drive wages _up_, as people would require increasingly higher compensation to stay at work, if the alternative is to live happily and safely without working.

[benj111]

No because instead of retiring at 60-70 and having a 40+ year career, you have a <20 year career, so twice as many people can get a bite at your career cherry, rather than subjecting half the population to under employment, low pay etc.

Plus large percentages of the population living in debt, and paycheque to paycheque isn't particularly sustainable. So everyone having lots of savings would add stability.

[rdiddly]

Just because money isn't spent on BS doesn't mean it's not active in the economy. Savers end up lending money to others who deploy it usefully as capital.