this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
178 points (95.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34368 readers
1360 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The founder of Myspace retired in early thirty's after selling his company for $80 million. He travels the world and does photography. People who say they will be bored if they retire aren't being creative enough to think of doing something else.

[–] rollerbang@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Living on $80 million is not living frugally. Living frugally severely limits your hobbies and travel.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You can do a lot on a frugal budget

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What does that mean? You said 65% of current earnings in the OP. Most people couldn't pursue any significant hobbies or interests on that level of income.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

65% of your spendings, addmittedly this question is mostly relevant to people that spend at least a somewhat above the median, where they can reduce their lifestyle by 35% and still live, just frugally.

I'm not sure what you mean by significant hobbies, but personally with the exception of one, all of my hobbies are cheap/free.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure, fine, whatever. You do you.

I think there are very few people who could spend 40 years painting warhammer figurines and call that a rewarding satisfying life.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why are you so skeptical? I could spend 40 years doing:

  • hikes
  • walks in nature
  • camping
  • volunteer work
  • going to the beach
  • reading
  • doing diy projects
  • helping others
  • learning new things
  • exploring my country
  • etc

There is so much more to life than work and paid services.

And yes, this is a privileged position, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

I'm not suggesting that it's "wrong", merely that over time these things wouldn't be satisfying for most people. I suspect that even you would find that life unfulfilling.

It's one of life's great questions and I don't really expect to be able to find a consensus with you.

Loads of people, perhaps even most people, would describe the list of activites you've presented as being the ideal recipe for long term contentment and happiness.

However, most people can simultaneously acknowledge that contentment and happiness is fleeting, intangible, and unstable. I'm sure you've thought of the "new car" example - it's great for a few weeks.

People tend to think they want "happiness" but in practice actually pursue other desires, like being challenged, being needed, being engaged with complex situations and problems. I'm not saying this is good or correct or better, it's just how I observe humans really behave.

If I had no responsibilities, and sufficient wealth to live off passive income, I might plan to do as you say for a year or so, but during that year hope to identify some kind of direction I could devote the rest of my life to.

[–] rollerbang@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

That's extremely relative. Especially when compared to what you can do with $80m.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I guess I have a different understanding of frugal. For me, you can be rich and yet frugal, only spending money on the needs and occasional wants. Some people don't even show that they're net worth increased. I forgot the name of the person, but he worked as a janitor throughout his life. When he passed away, to his family's utter surprise, he left $8 million from his investment account to his family. The guy could have cashed in the investment profits and lived lavishly but he didn't.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

In this hypothetical circumstance described by OP, you don't have $80m on which to live frugally travelling the world pursuing your interest in photography.

For most people, living on 65% of their current earnings would mean a serious curtailment of their current activities. A subsistence if you will.

Besides which, most hobbies aren't really satisfying in a way that can nourish the soul, certainly not the ones you can do at home for little or no cost anyway.