[I_Am_Nous]

Sure, but the mindset of the FIRE Zoomer is much different than wealthy people in the past. An easy example would be Fred Trump, whose "winners and losers" mindset was taught to Donald in a way that Donald went to college, started businesses, and maximized his "wins". He taught this mindset to his children and they went to college, even if it was just for networking.

What would a FIRE Zoomer teach their children, especially if they invested in crypto early and got lucky? Why work hard if mom and dad "don't" work at all? Why go to college if the point of college is training for a career? How will those children be shown by example how to be a helpful member of society?

I suppose a lot of FIRE people likely intersect with the Child Free crowd where they are achieving financial independence by not having any expensive dependents they need to care for. That does reduce the amount you must spend by quite a lot, but if enough people do it the economy will have issues finding workers at all as more people voluntarily check out of the system and leave no descendants to continue in the future.

[hotpotamus]

Well, there's a few things there I'm not really interested in touching, but perhaps if a society is interested in perpetuating itself, it should try and make people happy to live in it and reproduce?

[I_Am_Nous]

>perhaps if a society is interested in perpetuating itself, it should try and make people happy to live in it and reproduce?

I agree with you. Currently at odds with the goal of having a society of happy people is the society-wide tendency to attempt to extract value from others. This can make for a lot of very unhappy people who have no resources to reproduce.

Regardless, society is made up of people, and people come from families. The tendencies those families normalize are likely passed down. There are negative tendencies that damage society, and positive tendencies that support society. Working for and with each other is one of those supportive tendencies, and while it can be learned at work or school, kids imprint and learn from their parents the most.

My main point is that if a FIRE couple ends up raising a family but don't have to work for a living, the kids may be missing out on a fundamental aspect of society in their day to day lives. Obviously entitlement is an issue with humans in general, but at a societal level FIRE feels a lot like a selfish "FU, I got mine" and that's not a great tendency to pass down to kids.

[hotpotamus]

> My main point is that if a FIRE couple ends up raising a family but don't have to work for a living, the kids may be missing out on a fundamental aspect of society in their day to day lives.

Again, if you replace FIRE with wealth, I don't see much of a difference. Perhaps you have bought into some wealthy ubermensch-like mythos of the rich as the "job creators", but I assure you that they're capable of as much laziness as anyone else. Much more in fact since they don't actually need to work.

[I_Am_Nous]

I agree with you again. My original question was asking "how many FIRE people can there be before it negatively affects society" so my thoughts and comments are scoped at that level -- how many FIRE people/families/descendents would it take to affect society in a meaningful way.

I haven't done a good job of making that clear at all, and I apologize. There are surely a lot of people trying to reach FIRE goals and if that were to be a meaningful 15% of the population, how would we be affected as a society?

One thing that's interesting in all this is that a common FIRE tactic is to live very frugally your whole lives to achieve and then maintain FIRE. If a meaningful percentage of Americans stopped spending as much money, the economy would feel it at a certain point.

These are the kinds of society-level thoughts I have been aiming to discuss. FIRE makes for some interesting futurism if it becomes the dominant American household financial strategy.

[hotpotamus]

I suppose the whole concept of FIRE is a bit hard to pin down. I believe most peoples' goal is indeed to retire eventually, so who's to say when the appropriate age for them is? If someone takes 50 years to generate enough value to live out their remaining days while someone else only takes 5, then isn't that determined by the labor market and their desired lifestyle? I'm all for a more collectivist "we're all in it together" type of society where retirement is a bit more of a managed concept (I get the impression France is like that where private retirements are rare and that's why Macron raising the retirement age was such a bitter pill), but that is not exactly the way that the US works.