Because if you're a college graduate from an o&g focused school, like me, that's five of your best years, gone. It's a dull, dull industry. However, since I became addicted to the Mr. Money Mustache blog and realized I'm going to retire when I'm ~32 if I continue being intelligent -- I've gotten over my general sadness.Let's say you worked oil and gas for . . . I dunno, 5 years and saved as much as you possibly could. That would be enough money to open up a dive shop with a little guest house and/or a little cafe attached to it, somewhere in the Pacific.
The blogger's absolutely killer argument is that no one really gets to raise their kids anymore. What good is a high SOL if you're too busy scrambling up the ladder to get to know your child? (Which is why what kleinbl00 said above is so apt in my opinion. I respect the hell out of him, not for having a ton of money or something inane like that, but for having a flexible job that means he sees his daughter.) But if you retire in your early 30s... suddenly you can actually have a family. That's an unbreakable argument. Don't get me wrong, traveling is what I most enjoy in the world. I'd be better set up financially if I'd never been out of the country. It's all about tradeoffs...
And humanodon too of course as he's throwing in on the discussion. But the point of the blog in general is as a money-saving budgeting sort of thing? I was initially interested, having heard (read) you speak (write) about it. However, seeing that his main argument is an early retirement so that you can raise your kids - I totally get how that would be very interesting and desirable for those who want kids, but currently, I don't. So that means the blog in general may end up being less interesting to me. After all, theoretically if I did retire at 32 - what would I do? You still need ways to spend your time. Raising kids is a great way to spend that time, if that is what you want to do. Frankly, I think I'd end up still working in some way because a totally idle life doesn't appeal to me. So, learning this, the blog becomes slightly less interesting to me. Does that make sense? Like, in part I was following this conversation because I saw you mention the blog, I'd seen someone (I think you) submit a post about it, so it was coming up a few times in my periphery. It's still a great goal to be retirement-ready at 32 even if I chose not to retire or to start a family, I'm not trying to knock the purpose of the blog or the value of what you're doing. But if the blog is pretty grow-up-and-get-a-family-focused, I lose interest.
Never said that was his main argument! It's his clincher, from a certain point of view. I bet a ton of society's problems boil down to parents not really having time to truly raise their kids anymore. Vicious cycle. Retire at 32 and travel. Retire at 32 and start your own carpentry business -- your dream -- as opposed to a shitty software job, like the blogger did. Retire at 32 and move somewhere completely different to start a new life with the knowledge that even if you somehow couldn't work at all, you'd be fine. Or retire at 32 and spend 30 hours a week with your 3-year-old son. Keep reading, trust me. If you want you can skim the occasional bits where he says, "ha, I spent six hours in a creekbed with my son yesterday while you were at work," but in my opinion we all need the reminder that work-to-live is a necessary evil, not something we should blindly accept. Skim that stuff and get to his financial advice -- index funds -- or his transportation advice -- bikes or if you must a used Honda -- or his lifestyle advice -- nature isn't something to look at, it's free entertainment -- or his;; anyway.
Yeah, but you can shift the focus for you. For example, if you retired at 32 and didn't need to work, you could spend the days writing or figuring out a way to finance personal travel or something. It's an appealing idea to me. I am very, very frugal, but when I spend money, I really spend money. If I didn't love my dog, I would have some. Fun fact: on some airlines, if an animal (with shots and papers of course) weighs 25 lbs or less, it can be hand carried on an airplane to the US for no additional charge. However, my dog weighed 28lbs at the time and the carrier was very . . . I'll use the word, "insensitive" and so I had to ship my dog as cargo via a pet shipping company. Not only did he arrive in America on a nicer airline than I took, but his ticket and cost of travel cost more too. :(
Is that internationally only? Trying to figure out why I haven't seen a lot more cats on airplanes.Fun fact: on some airlines, if an animal (with shots and papers of course) weighs 25 lbs or less, it can be hand carried on an airplane to the US for no additional charge.