[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.