[Boglehead vs Mr Money Mustache philosophies]

[mnnice]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

Who exactly “pays their own way” with regards to healthcare in this country? Just curious?

[TheNightsToCome]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

A local friend my age shopped for health insurance last year. The premiums alone were $25,000/year for a couple (no kids).

[HomerJ]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

A local friend my age shopped for health insurance last year. The premiums alone were $25,000/year for a couple (no kids).

What's your age?

[Curlyq]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

A local friend my age shopped for health insurance last year. The premiums alone were $25,000/year for a couple (no kids).

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

A local friend my age shopped for health insurance last year. The premiums alone were $25,000/year for a couple (no kids).

MMM's 2016 budget included $6720 for insurance premiums, which he said the family business paid for, and $3,807 for son's broken arm. He said that at $30,193 that he claimed the family spent, represented less than 10% of their taxable income. He said he donated $100,000 to charities. In his spending budget, he did not include the $30,000 he spent on a fancy shed that he built in the backyard, $14,000 for a Nissan Leaf car that he bought, $4,000 for travel for MMM, $20,000 for Etsy supplies. He said some of these could be classified as business expenses. I did not see any college savings for his son. He said that by subtracting yoga/crossfit classes, luxury food purchases, home improvement expenses (which were in addition to the shed), travel for pleasure (not included in the $4,000), and donations (not included in the $100,000 to charity), his "bare bones" budget was only $22,000 and gave himself a pat on the back for doing such a good job of keeping spending down.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/ ... -spending/

I do think it's great that $100k was given to charity, that's what other have been wondering. I think a strategy for MMM'ers may be to wrap spending under the auspices of a business, although I don't know if the car and shed would really qualify as business expenses. MMM said in another post that he bought the car to evaluate it for his blog. FWIW, this is not someone living on a 4% SWR of $500,000 as is espoused on the website.

[MossySF]

You can get health insurance cheap -- if you're willing to live with super-targetted HMO plans where you must go to these X clinics/medical centers at all times. A bunch of our friends use these cheap plans and don't pay much.

Intellectually, I know this planet cannot support everybody on it living even a middle-class American lifestyle. Selfishly, I'm not willing to go to extremes to reduce my ecological footprint. Hence I am glad there are Mustachers who are reducing their footprints to extremes ... and enough of them might offset me. (Maybe we need a Bogleheads <--> MMM carbon credit trading board.)

[VictoriaF]

Intellectually, I know this planet cannot support everybody on it living even a middle-class American lifestyle. Selfishly, I'm not willing to go to extremes to reduce my ecological footprint. Hence I am glad there are Mustachers who are reducing their footprints to extremes ... and enough of them might offset me.

Here is a paradox:
One can have the lowest footprint by living in a city apartment and commuting by foot or public transportation.
but
Living in a large city with public transportation is very expensive.

I have solved this problem by being able to pay for a city apartment, but it would be unaffordable for most Mustacheans.

(Maybe we need a Bogleheads <--> MMM carbon credit trading board.)

We can start with an intra-Bogleheads trial. I will accept contributions from gas-guzzler owners to refill my WMATA (Metro) card.

Victoria

[TheNightsToCome]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

A local friend my age shopped for health insurance last year. The premiums alone were $25,000/year for a couple (no kids).

What's your age?

57 last year (when quotes obtained)

[queso]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

This is why the world needs the bogleheads. If everybody is either Trump rich and pays no taxes or MMM poor (by choice) and pays little taxes and qualifies for educational assistance, government healthcare, etc. then who is left to pay for everything? The whole system (current system anyway..) breaks down without people in the middle earning decent incomes to pay for everything (most BHs).

[queso]

MMM's 2016 budget included $6720 for insurance premiums, which he said the family business paid for, and $3,807 for son's broken arm. He said that at $30,193 that he claimed the family spent, represented less than 10% of their taxable income. He said he donated $100,000 to charities. In his spending budget, he did not include the $30,000 he spent on a fancy shed that he built in the backyard, $14,000 for a Nissan Leaf car that he bought, $4,000 for travel for MMM, $20,000 for Etsy supplies. He said some of these could be classified as business expenses. I did not see any college savings for his son. He said that by subtracting yoga/crossfit classes, luxury food purchases, home improvement expenses (which were in addition to the shed), travel for pleasure (not included in the $4,000), and donations (not included in the $100,000 to charity), his "bare bones" budget was only $22,000 and gave himself a pat on the back for doing such a good job of keeping spending down.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/ ... -spending/

I do think it's great that $100k was given to charity, that's what other have been wondering. I think a strategy for MMM'ers may be to wrap spending under the auspices of a business, although I don't know if the car and shed would really qualify as business expenses. MMM said in another post that he bought the car to evaluate it for his blog. FWIW, this is not someone living on a 4% SWR of $500,000 as is espoused on the website.

If this is all accurate then he's 10x the hypocrite I thought he was. The truth is probably that he started out living according to his Mustachian principles but his philosophy caught on and the blog took off and now he's struggling to stay the course because he wants to buy all the crap he has been railing against everyone buying for years because now he has the means to do so. Leaf or no, it's still a "mobile La-Z-Boy" in his world. I must not be drinking the right flavor KoolAid. I would still argue that calling everything a business expense (who has business expenses when they are retired?) and working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement" and the above bare bones spending is at or above the household average total HHI in the US so doesn't fit my definition of bare bones at all. I'm surprised there are still so many rabid followers when it's obvious what a shill he is. The followers who are truly following the philosophy are the ones I feel sorry for. They won't have the millions that he does to fall back on when an unexpected medical crisis or other black swan rears its head.

[supersecretname]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

[phisher4]

Is there a forum that represents the polar opposite of MMM/Bogleheads? I would be greatly interested in reading a spend-all-you-can/seize the day/go into debt forum.

If not, perhaps it's a good business idea.

[queso]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

ok, so he just redefined "retired" as financially independent. Look at me, here I was retired all this time and never knew it. I think I'll start a blog and make some soap. Enjoy your KoolAid.

[pennywise]

I think a lot of that has to do with Age. I think there is a big difference in the average age of the BH forum member vs the average MMM forum member. A 55 year old about to pull the plug and go into retirement knows that he has little hope of getting a decent job in 10 years if things don't work out as planned, and little hope of recovering from the financial hit. A 35 year old about to pull the plug knows that there will still be time to work and repair his financial situation if he needs to return to work 10 years from now.

Personally, as I've gotten older and seen what life can throw at you, I've learned to become more cautious.

And in the particular case of MMM, he was employed as a software engineer in some very go-go companies and at a particular moment in time when that industry was growing explosively with the concomitant need for talent that enabled him to turbocharge income for a decade, while certainly living a very austere lifestyle. Then of course he also hit lightning in a bottle twice via a VERY lucrative online presence.

So for him that carefree view of life has been validated. So far. Not that one wishes anyone ill, but life can certainly throw some very expensive curves both good and bad. Disregarding the online windfall, would be interesting to watch MMM deal with his only child's college expenses for example. Suppose that child desires and is accepted into a place that will end up costing 200-300K (or more) out of pocket for the degree, that could really derail the perpetual 4% withdrawal to yield a modest annual income. Or he or his wife are diagnosed with a serious, debilitating and lengthy illness that will drain cash for months or years to enable survival or a comfortable life for the sufferer. And disregarding outlier events, eventually he won't be a hale and hearty 40 YO and able to do lots of arduous physical labor or ride dozens of miles daily to pick up groceries without having a car. And so it goes...MMM is best enjoyed by the young and untested, I personally see Bogleheads as more the older and experienced folks' way of ensuring a good life for a long time

[Grt2bOutdoors]

MMM's 2016 budget included $6720 for insurance premiums, which he said the family business paid for, and $3,807 for son's broken arm. He said that at $30,193 that he claimed the family spent, represented less than 10% of their taxable income. He said he donated $100,000 to charities. In his spending budget, he did not include the $30,000 he spent on a fancy shed that he built in the backyard, $14,000 for a Nissan Leaf car that he bought, $4,000 for travel for MMM, $20,000 for Etsy supplies. He said some of these could be classified as business expenses. I did not see any college savings for his son. He said that by subtracting yoga/crossfit classes, luxury food purchases, home improvement expenses (which were in addition to the shed), travel for pleasure (not included in the $4,000), and donations (not included in the $100,000 to charity), his "bare bones" budget was only $22,000 and gave himself a pat on the back for doing such a good job of keeping spending down.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/ ... -spending/

I do think it's great that $100k was given to charity, that's what other have been wondering. I think a strategy for MMM'ers may be to wrap spending under the auspices of a business, although I don't know if the car and shed would really qualify as business expenses. MMM said in another post that he bought the car to evaluate it for his blog. FWIW, this is not someone living on a 4% SWR of $500,000 as is espoused on the website.

If this is all accurate then he's 10x the hypocrite I thought he was. The truth is probably that he started out living according to his Mustachian principles but his philosophy caught on and the blog took off and now he's struggling to stay the course because he wants to buy all the crap he has been railing against everyone buying for years because now he has the means to do so. Leaf or no, it's still a "mobile La-Z-Boy" in his world. I must not be drinking the right flavor KoolAid. I would still argue that calling everything a business expense (who has business expenses when they are retired?) and working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement" and the above bare bones spending is at or above the household average total HHI in the US so doesn't fit my definition of bare bones at all. I'm surprised there are still so many rabid followers when it's obvious what a shill he is. The followers who are truly following the philosophy are the ones I feel sorry for. They won't have the millions that he does to fall back on when an unexpected medical crisis or other black swan rears its head.

+1 - IMO, he's running a business that espouses one thing, but he's doing the complete opposite. $300K taxable income? - is what pre-tax? $500K? Won't waste my time clicking on to his website.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

I think a lot of that has to do with Age. I think there is a big difference in the average age of the BH forum member vs the average MMM forum member. A 55 year old about to pull the plug and go into retirement knows that he has little hope of getting a decent job in 10 years if things don't work out as planned, and little hope of recovering from the financial hit. A 35 year old about to pull the plug knows that there will still be time to work and repair his financial situation if he needs to return to work 10 years from now.

Personally, as I've gotten older and seen what life can throw at you, I've learned to become more cautious.

And in the particular case of MMM, he was employed as a software engineer in some very go-go companies and at a particular moment in time when that industry was growing explosively with the concomitant need for talent that enabled him to turbocharge income for a decade, while certainly living a very austere lifestyle. Then of course he also hit lightning in a bottle twice via a VERY lucrative online presence.

So for him that carefree view of life has been validated. So far. Not that one wishes anyone ill, but life can certainly throw some very expensive curves both good and bad. Disregarding the online windfall, would be interesting to watch MMM deal with his only child's college expenses for example. Suppose that child desires and is accepted into a place that will end up costing 200-300K (or more) out of pocket for the degree, that could really derail the perpetual 4% withdrawal to yield a modest annual income. Or he or his wife are diagnosed with a serious, debilitating and lengthy illness that will drain cash for months or years to enable survival or a comfortable life for the sufferer. And disregarding outlier events, eventually he won't be a hale and hearty 40 YO and able to do lots of arduous physical labor or ride dozens of miles daily to pick up groceries without having a car. And so it goes...MMM is best enjoyed by the young and untested, I personally see Bogleheads as more the older and experienced folks' way of ensuring a good life for a long time

He'll have no problems paying for college, he earns in one year "net" what his followers will not earn in ten. He's not putting his money in the bank, he's investing it - this guy is worth millions and adding to that pile each year by six figures+.

[mak1277]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

If I (or queso) can't challenge his definition of retirement, then you can't challenge ours. If I was working side jobs, I wouldn't consider myself retired.

[rustymutt]

I sometimes reuse paper plates. Hey I'm an Okie.

[AlarmFuerCobra11]

MMM is Canadian and so is his wife and child, I think, so ultimately, health care doesn't matter to them. If it becomes that expensive, they will just pull the pulg here and move back to Canada. So among many of his other advantages and luck in life already mentioned here, he has that going for him too.

[EddyB]

MMM is Canadian and so is his wife and child, I think, so ultimately, health care doesn't matter to them. If it becomes that expensive, they will just pull the pulg here and move back to Canada. So among many of his other advantages and luck in life already mentioned here, he has that going for him too.

I think Canadian citizens are also entitled to the lower tuition at Canadian universities, regardless of being resident outside Canada.

[SmileyFace]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

Who exactly “pays their own way” with regards to healthcare in this country? Just curious?

A lot of us in the US do (MMM is Canadian - different story up there - but many of his followers who have now made him wealthy are American). I work a full time job and work hard and in return - my employer pays me a salary plus benefits which includes health insurance. I am paying my own way by working in return for having a private company pay my insurance. No government sponsorship or subsidies. I also pay a lot in taxes which in turn pays for public school for my kids, local and federal law enforcement, public transportation infrastructure, etc. I am proudly paying my own way through life. Someone who retires at 30 with kids and near poverty level payouts from an investment account is relying on the rest of us hard-working folk to subsidize his living. I guess they would call the rest of us suckers - but I don't see it that way.

[sschullo]

AND ONE MORE THING: HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADS ON HIS WEBSITE, just like here!!!!!!

Seems odd for him to make $400K a year from the site without any ads doesn't it? These don't count?
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/mmm-recommends/

There are ads at the bottom of the page in both the blog and the forum. Not obnoxious but they exist.

As I knew I was going to be challenged by my comment about no ads, I checked and rechecked MMM homepage before I wrote my comment. All I see at the bottom of MMM home page is being featured in all of the news outlets. Of course, I know he makes a ton which was reported in the New Yorker. I am not that stupid!

This is where I give him a pass, his homepage has always been clear, as you say there are no "obnoxious" ads. While I cannot verify this, I don't think he intended to monetize his blog. Just like the Bogleheads didn't monetize this blog, but BH forum makes money by donations and small percent from Amazon to cover expenses. Still, the philosophy of MMM and BH are the same: GIVE AWAY advice and suburb content.

Lastly, it's his thinking and life philosophy that I value. My goodness, he has a life philosophy that apparently millions of his viewers want to emulate, and I think most Bogleheads would like our friends and family to cut back on spending, reduce stress, learn to manage and invest their money, feel financially secure, and live happily. MMM is living it, he writes brilliantly, and hundreds of thousands of people all over the country talk about him. He writing is poetic, scientific, humorous, compelling and inspiring. With millions of views, I wonder how many book publishers and TV producers have offered him massive lucrative deals. There have been many discussions here at BHs, for good reason, he is a force to be recognized with and a great one because he talks about reducing American's thirst for material things. So if he has some ads buried in his blog somewhere, its because other companies want to tap into his massive audience.

[supersecretname]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

If I (or queso) can't challenge his definition of retirement, then you can't challenge ours. If I was working side jobs, I wouldn't consider myself retired.

Y'all are completely missing the forest for the trees. It's not about retired vs FIRE. It's about having the financial capacity to choose how to spend your days.

If you love your job, great. If you want to spend your "retirement" golfing and visiting grandkids, great. For you.

But for others, the point is that there is another way. I don't want to be in my office until I'm 65, and walk out with a pat on the back and a gold watch. Again, if you do, great, for you.

The issue with the internet retirement police is not that you are doing your retirement wrong, it's that I want to do mine differently.

[avalpert]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

If I (or queso) can't challenge his definition of retirement, then you can't challenge ours. If I was working side jobs, I wouldn't consider myself retired.

Y'all are completely missing the forest for the trees. It's not about retired vs FIRE. It's about having the financial capacity to choose how to spend your days.

If you love your job, great. If you want to spend your "retirement" golfing and visiting grandkids, great. For you.

But for others, the point is that there is another way. I don't want to be in my office until I'm 65, and walk out with a pat on the back and a gold watch. Again, if you do, great, for you.

The issue with the internet retirement police is not that you are doing your retirement wrong, it's that I want to do mine differently.

Nah, it isn't the 'internet retirement police' who are engaging in mere semantics - they are the ones using words as commonly understood (which is generally what makes actual conversation possible). It is the ones who insist on inserting a novel definition of an existing word who are engaging in semantics - typically when that is done to a general (as opposed to technical) audience it is to engage in an equivocation fallacy. And lo and behold that is exactly what is going on here - you use your definition of 'retirement' and when you describe what you are doing they don't see it as retirement because it doesn't fit the usual definition and you insist no that really is 'retirement' because words mean what I say not what others understand them to be...

Why do you need to co-opt the existing concept - why not come up with a new way of describing what you want to get across? Heck, there is already a phrase for it anyway - what is being described are 'men of leisure', why not use that (or does it attach some connotations that might undercut the philosophical justification for your superior choice?).

[marklar13]

I'm a little surprised at the number of negative comments directed at MMM. I read his blog occasionally (although not the forums), and I really enjoy it. Not all of the advice is actionable or realistic for me, but it is still a good read. The point he emphasizes is to challenge the generally accepted norms, and do everything within reason to live life the way you want. The "within reason" part will vary from person to person -- there are obviously different levels of willingness to cut spending, and MMM himself is on the extreme side.

I've picked up a few good tips on frugality from the blog (that I think are within reason). I still enjoy reading about the extreme cost cutting ideas, even if I am not going to implement them myself. If nothing else, it is an interesting exercise to question how/why certain practices become accepted as given in our society.

I don't think the MMM blog is in any way a substitute for a solid financial plan -- which is where bogleheads comes in. However, it is a thought provoking read... and to completely shun it because he has ideas that are different than your long held beliefs is a mistake.

If readers of his blog are deciding that they can forgo real financial planning, and just wing it because they live frugally... then that is on them, not on the blogger (in my opinion). While I enjoy the blog, I would be the first to tell you that planning your life solely around advice you found on a blog (no matter how compelling), without real thought into your own personal circumstances is... not a recipe for success.

I would say the same thing about the bogleheads forum... while I get lots of actionable advice from this forum, I don't just blindly implement life changing investment philosophies on a whim after reading a few posts. Sure, I will take these ideas into consideration, but at the end of the day I'm making my own decisions.

[alpenglow]

Lastly, it's his thinking and life philosophy that I value. My goodness, he has a life philosophy that apparently millions of his viewers want to emulate, and I think most Bogleheads would like our friends and family to cut back on spending, reduce stress, learn to manage and invest their money, feel financially secure, and live happily. MMM is living it, he writes brilliantly, and hundreds of thousands of people all over the country talk about him. He writing is poetic, scientific, humorous, compelling and inspiring. With millions of views, I wonder how many book publishers and TV producers have offered him massive lucrative deals. There have been many discussions here at BHs, for good reason, he is a force to be recognized with and a great one because he talks about reducing American's thirst for material things. So if he has some ads buried in his blog somewhere, its because other companies want to tap into his massive audience.

I think you summed it up much more eloquently than I would. Just because you don't agree with everything on his site doesn't mean there isn't some value there.

[EddyB]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

If I (or queso) can't challenge his definition of retirement, then you can't challenge ours. If I was working side jobs, I wouldn't consider myself retired.

Y'all are completely missing the forest for the trees. It's not about retired vs FIRE. It's about having the financial capacity to choose how to spend your days.

If you love your job, great. If you want to spend your "retirement" golfing and visiting grandkids, great. For you.

But for others, the point is that there is another way. I don't want to be in my office until I'm 65, and walk out with a pat on the back and a gold watch. Again, if you do, great, for you.

The issue with the internet retirement police is not that you are doing your retirement wrong, it's that I want to do mine differently.

I think the issue is that “having the financial capacity to choose how to spend your days” just means being financially independent. But if someone satisfies that standard and then chooses to spend his days at the same kind of job that got him there, he wouldn’t claim to be retired. If someone quits that job and starts a business that delivers vegan soup by bicycle, that seems to mean she has “retired,” in the MMM world. Many in the MMM world make a point of saying that their flexibility to be willing to work is a safeguard for their ability to “retire,” while I sometimes see Bogleheads write that they “came out of retirement,” to take on a consulting job, or similar. I’m all for people taking advantage of their own opportunities to do what they’d like with their time, including the kind of work that they enjoy or which allows them to pursue their other priorities, but touting the aspiration to “retire,” when actually promoting continued work, comes across as hucksterism to many, given that “retire” already had a meaning before MMM came along.

[mak1277]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

If I (or queso) can't challenge his definition of retirement, then you can't challenge ours. If I was working side jobs, I wouldn't consider myself retired.

Y'all are completely missing the forest for the trees. It's not about retired vs FIRE. It's about having the financial capacity to choose how to spend your days.

If you love your job, great. If you want to spend your "retirement" golfing and visiting grandkids, great. For you.

But for others, the point is that there is another way. I don't want to be in my office until I'm 65, and walk out with a pat on the back and a gold watch. Again, if you do, great, for you.

The issue with the internet retirement police is not that you are doing your retirement wrong, it's that I want to do mine differently.

I don't intend to work until I'm 65 either (or 55 for that matter). But when I retire, I'm retiring. If I have a job, then I'm working still and not retired, even if it's not my current office job/career. If I quit my office job and bartend because it's fun, I'm *still* working.

[Sandtrap]

working a bunch of side jobs isn't "early retirement"

ah, yes. The internet retirement police. Please read the article below.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/ ... nt-police/

Thanks for the interesting link.

Reading the link reminded me why I had visited MMM only briefly long long ago.

I find the juvenile language, preaching, and plethora of non actionable input and opinionated banter., awkward

Regardless of content between the two forums, it seems the Bogleheads encourages more mature and substantive content and exchange.

I'm an old quirky soul in mind so perhaps it's just me that thinks this way.

Thanks OP for posting this interesting thread. It encourages appreciation of the value of both forums.
Peace
j

[sschullo]

Lastly, it's his thinking and life philosophy that I value. My goodness, he has a life philosophy that apparently millions of his viewers want to emulate, and I think most Bogleheads would like our friends and family to cut back on spending, reduce stress, learn to manage and invest their money, feel financially secure, and live happily. MMM is living it, he writes brilliantly, and hundreds of thousands of people all over the country talk about him. He writing is poetic, scientific, humorous, compelling and inspiring. With millions of views, I wonder how many book publishers and TV producers have offered him massive lucrative deals. There have been many discussions here at BHs, for good reason, he is a force to be recognized with and a great one because he talks about reducing American's thirst for material things. So if he has some ads buried in his blog somewhere, its because other companies want to tap into his massive audience.

I think you summed it up much more eloquently than I would. Just because you don't agree with everything on his site doesn't mean there isn't some value there.

Thanks alpenglow!
But even the disagreements attracts people to his blog who might otherwise never even think about living frugally. MMM is one of the most successful anti-establishment figures in my lifetime, daring to write about cutting back spending in our culture that literally worships spending! Think about that!
So what if he goes to an extreme, he is getting people's attention about how to live a better, less stressful life. NOTHING wrong with that. So extreme that some BHs are mocking him. I say go for it MMM! Millions are reading his stuff and he never stops!

He is doing a GREAT SERVICE!

[The Wizard]

This thread is a tempest in a teapot. What is the point?

Everything one needs to know about BH "philosophy" is in the Wiki and MMM's philosophy is probably similarly accessible.

I don't think so.
There's a lot more lifestyle related things that go way beyond the BH Wiki.
It takes time reading the forum to appreciate the variation in approaches here.
Few Bogleheads are minimalists, retiring as early as possible.
We have a lot of people with Teslas and a lot of people who do significant recreational travel...

[avalpert]

This thread is a tempest in a teapot. What is the point?

Everything one needs to know about BH "philosophy" is in the Wiki and MMM's philosophy is probably similarly accessible.

I don't think so.
There's a lot more lifestyle related things that go way beyond the BH Wiki.
It takes time reading the forum to appreciate the variation in approaches here.
Few Bogleheads are minimalists, retiring as early as possible.
We have a lot of people with Teslas and a lot of people who do significant recreational travel...

But I think the point is those aren't relevant to 'boglehead philosophy' (if such a thing could really be codified) - that is why the forum supports a wider variance in lifestyle choices, it isn't trying to be a holistic life-philosophy which MMM explicitly is to the point of using exclusionary tactics to rile up his followers against 'heresies' to that philosophy. It's why you can have a thread on 'Is there a Consensus on Car Buying' where the answer is no, people offer personal opinions (stated as such), nobody throws a virtual 'face punch' and no-one ends up on a virtual 'wall of shame'.

[cantos]

MMM= preach living in poverty to everyone, while accumulating millions in a "side-job" by boggling. Disengenuous if you ask me. This will come to roost when he ages and can no longer live happily in poverty.

Bogleheads=Living below your means and investing to maintain a standard of living until old age and death.

[Whakamole]

MMM's 2016 budget included $6720 for insurance premiums, which he said the family business paid for, and $3,807 for son's broken arm. He said that at $30,193 that he claimed the family spent, represented less than 10% of their taxable income. He said he donated $100,000 to charities. In his spending budget, he did not include the $30,000 he spent on a fancy shed that he built in the backyard, $14,000 for a Nissan Leaf car that he bought, $4,000 for travel for MMM, $20,000 for Etsy supplies. He said some of these could be classified as business expenses. I did not see any college savings for his son. He said that by subtracting yoga/crossfit classes, luxury food purchases, home improvement expenses (which were in addition to the shed), travel for pleasure (not included in the $4,000), and donations (not included in the $100,000 to charity), his "bare bones" budget was only $22,000 and gave himself a pat on the back for doing such a good job of keeping spending down.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/ ... -spending/

I do think it's great that $100k was given to charity, that's what other have been wondering. I think a strategy for MMM'ers may be to wrap spending under the auspices of a business, although I don't know if the car and shed would really qualify as business expenses. MMM said in another post that he bought the car to evaluate it for his blog. FWIW, this is not someone living on a 4% SWR of $500,000 as is espoused on the website.

Thanks for finding this.

Classifying the purchase of a car or the building of a barn as a "business expense" is questionable - I'd be fascinated to hear what would happen if he tried to claim it as such on his tax returns. As an aside, if we go with his philosophy of living on a 4% SWR of $500K, the purchase of the Leaf alone would have been almost 3% of that, which is crazy.

Saying "here is how much I spent, I could have spent less but I didn't, but I'm going to use that as my budget anyway" is useless. Most of us here could have "spent less" in the previous year (not taking that vacation, no dinners or drinks out, etc.) But we didn't, probably because we enjoy vacations and having a nice dinner out, those are things that keep us going. That may be useful from the perspective of "if the market collapsed, how much could I have cut back", but there's no end there (could have moved the family into a one bedroom apartment in an extremely LCOL area, could have eaten lentils & rice for every meal, could have driven an Uber 80 hours a week, etc.) and I take those claims with a huge grain of salt unless the person has actually done that.

If his blog didn't take off, he would be looking at returning to the workforce at his current spending rates.

But I think the point is those aren't relevant to 'boglehead philosophy' (if such a thing could really be codified) - that is why the forum supports a wider variance in lifestyle choices, it isn't trying to be a holistic life-philosophy which MMM explicitly is to the point of using exclusionary tactics to rile up his followers against 'heresies' to that philosophy. It's why you can have a thread on 'Is there a Consensus on Car Buying' where the answer is no, people offer personal opinions (stated as such), nobody throws a virtual 'face punch' and no-one ends up on a virtual 'wall of shame'.

And this is one of the great things about Bogleheads.

[The Wizard]

I think that in MMM’s application of the 4% SWR rule, he allows for inflation increase. That said, I think his adherents do not sufficiently take into account the possibility that they will be locked out of future real increases in the standard of living. He won’t be, because he will have millions stashed away from the blog, but many of his followers will be. If he really wanted to stick to his principles, why didn’t he put ownership of the blog into a charitable foundation he couldn’t benefit from?

I think it's quite important to completely separate the average adherents to the MMM approach from the owner of that blog, MMM himself.

Continued focus on MMM himself will get this thread locked, like all the previous ones...

[The Wizard]

MMM= preach living in poverty to everyone, while accumulating millions in a "side-job" by boggling. Disengenuous if you ask me. This will come to roost when he ages and can no longer live happily in poverty.

Bogleheads=Living below your means and investing to maintain a standard of living until old age and death.

This is exactly the sort of post targeting MMM himself that will get this thread locked.

The topic is supposed to be the MMM PHILOSOPHY vs the BH one...

[bligh]

It is interesting reading the responses on this thread. Bringing the thread back on topic.

Would you all agree then that the MMM philosophy in a nutshell is to lower your living expenses to the bare minimum, and then pursue an early retirement via a big enough portfolio that it provides you with the bare minimum margin of safety, and then to engage in entrepreneurial activity to try to build on the safety margin and then later it is okay to increase your living expenses as (or if) your entrepreneurial activity begins to pay dividends? The focus is on EARLY retirement through expense reduction, not safe retirement.

The BH philosophy is to stay the course until you have built a portfolio large enough that it provides a comfortable and wide enough safety margin on its own, regardless of entrepreneurial activity post FI? Am I right in thinking that BH leaves the exact level of margin of safety, and living expense reduction up to you, your life situation and tolerances? There is no focus on EARLY retirement, just safe retirement with little to no expense reduction.

Beyond that both espouse LBYM, Low cost passive investing, diversification, tax efficiency, etc.

Is the difference then only in degree of how much you are asked to lower your living expenses, how big of a safety margin you are comfortable with and whether entrepreneurial activity post FI is optional or not? Is the concern essentially then, that the lifestyle and margin of safety built into the MMM philosophy so thin as to be unsafe?

[HomerJ]

The topic is supposed to be the MMM PHILOSOPHY vs the BH one...

The MMM philosophy is that one can live extremely frugal and happy for 50 years. Trouble is, he doesn't know if that's true.

Living like that for a couple of years when young and healthy, sure. I lived extremely frugal in college, and for multiple years after college. I was perfectly happy.

But MMM doesn't know how happy he or his followers would be living that life for decades, because they haven't done it. He can't even say he did it for more than 2 years, because his new fame allowed him to trade work for luxuries. He remodeled a house 12 hours day for 2 weeks in exchange for 6 weeks free lodging in Hawaii.

That's working a job for a higher lifestyle. Something the rest of us also chose to do, but are ridiculed for doing on his blog.

He also travels for his blog, but doesn't count it against his budget. He buys a car (for blog research) but doesn't count it against his budget. His followers may actually have to live on that tight budget for 50 years. I hope they don't regret their choices later on.

[HomerJ]

It is interesting reading the responses on this thread. Bringing the thread back on topic.

Would you all agree then that the MMM philosophy in a nutshell is to lower your living expenses to the bare minimum, and then pursue an early retirement via a big enough portfolio that it provides you with the bare minimum margin of safety, and then to engage in entrepreneurial activity to try to build on the safety margin and then later it is okay to increase your living expenses as (or if) your entrepreneurial activity begins to pay dividends? The focus is on EARLY retirement through expense reduction, not safe retirement.

The BH philosophy is to stay the course until you have built a portfolio large enough that it provides a comfortable and wide enough safety margin on its own, regardless of entrepreneurial activity post FI? Am I right in thinking that BH leaves the exact level of margin of safety, and living expense reduction up to you, your life situation and tolerances? There is no focus on EARLY retirement, just safe retirement with little to no expense reduction.

Beyond that both espouse LBYM, Low cost passive investing, diversification, tax efficiency, etc.

Is the difference then only in degree of how much you are asked to lower your living expenses, how big of a safety margin you are comfortable with and whether entrepreneurial activity post FI is optional or not? Is the concern essentially then, that the lifestyle and margin of safety built into the MMM philosophy so thin as to be unsafe?

That's a pretty good breakdown. I'm not sure MMM stresses the fact that one should plan for entrepreneurial activity in his plan. I mean, HE has, but I'm not sure that's a core component of his message. His message seems to be to retire as early as possible by controlling expenses with a minimal safety net, then do whatever you want.

I don't think he stresses that one should plan on starting some kind of part-time side business as part of his core plan.

Bogleheads are more conservative in general. We seem to want a much bigger safety net before we pull the plug.

But the living below your means, and save a good percentage of your income messages do overlap.

[DarthSage]

I read on both sites, and I find them to be very complementary. TBH, I haven't actually looked at MMM as a person, just read threads on various topics that interest me. DH and I are in our mid-50's, we pretty much have our own personal investing style--I read more to tweak things, maybe get ideas, reinforce what I understand, that kind of thing.

I see Bogleheads as more of an investment site. People here tend to be (or aspire to be) professionals with a decent income coming in. It's more about accumulating enough wealth to retire, or at least live comfortably for the rest of your days.

I see MMM as more of a site about being thrifty and spending as little as possible. Again, this allows for the accumulation of wealth, by not spending rather than by earning more. I find lots of good ideas there--some are too extreme for my taste, but I have no problem with others rinsing out sandwich bags or dumpster diving or whatever. I guess I like the "thrill of the hunt" when it comes to bargains.

I think both aspects can lead to similar goals--having enough money to live comfortably, however you define that. And being able to retire--in this case, I mean retire from a corporate, 9-5 type job. For some it might be total retirement, spend your days on a golf course. Others might like to scale back, working part time or taking on side jobs that are interesting rather than schlepping to an office. Either way, money=freedom.

[Sandtrap]

I think that in MMM’s application of the 4% SWR rule, he allows for inflation increase. That said, I think his adherents do not sufficiently take into account the possibility that they will be locked out of future real increases in the standard of living. He won’t be, because he will have millions stashed away from the blog, but many of his followers will be. If he really wanted to stick to his principles, why didn’t he put ownership of the blog into a charitable foundation he couldn’t benefit from?

I think it's quite important to completely separate the average adherents to the MMM approach from the owner of that blog, MMM himself.

Continued focus on MMM himself will get this thread locked, like all the previous ones...

+1
Many a wonderful post/thread has been locked once input becomes argumentative and/or opinionated.
Bickering is not actionable or constructive per forum guidelines.

Onward:
There's a lot to be gained In comparing and contrasting the MMM and Boglehead approach to financial management.

MMM tends to focus primarily on the accumulation phase (with perhaps more input from entrepreneurs and lst time businessman) while the Boglehead concepts carry well beyond that into estate planning, retirement, and beyond (senior care and post death issues).
As has been said earlier, same goal, slightly different demographic perspective.

[rgs92]

I like Bogleheads because I find it balanced with a diversity of opinions on lifestyle and consumer decisions. I never feel it is preachy or dogmatic.
I feel Bogleheads is the greatest source of truth from any media source, with no vested interests involved.

A great deal of credit for the site belongs to the seemingly tireless, talented, and extremely observant moderators, who deserve a big salute for their generous work in making Bogleheads so valuable.

The only bias is towards minimizing investment expenses and and using indexing for investments, which is of course a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.

[But there is a lot of love for Toyotas and Hondas I notice ]

[mnnice]

You cannot live on 25k for a family of three and be able to afford full health insurance without subsidies or fund a college education. You can opt out of insurance or not pay for your kids education which is a huge risk and a bad idea for most people.

This is one of my biggest questions in the MMM philosophy. Are they all paying their own way with regards to ever-increasing health insurance costs? and if the answer is no, should we be encouraging a lifestyle (albeit a niche lifestyle) that is completely dependent on the government tit for healthcare? Can one honestly say they're free from 'economic serfdom' when one is being subsidized directly in one aspect or another? inquiring minds want to know.

Who exactly “pays their own way” with regards to healthcare in this country? Just curious?

A lot of us in the US do (MMM is Canadian - different story up there - but many of his followers who have now made him wealthy are American). I work a full time job and work hard and in return - my employer pays me a salary plus benefits which includes health insurance. I am paying my own way by working in return for having a private company pay my insurance. No government sponsorship or subsidies. I also pay a lot in taxes which in turn pays for public school for my kids, local and federal law enforcement, public transportation infrastructure, etc. I am proudly paying my own way through life. Someone who retires at 30 with kids and near poverty level payouts from an investment account is relying on the rest of us hard-working folk to subsidize his living. I guess they would call the rest of us suckers - but I don't see it that way.

I am not going to have much response to this that would pass the moderation process. I would point out that your employer writes off (gets a subsidy for providing you health coverage). As someone who has chosen to semi-retire way later than 30 and way younger than 65, the people I have encountered in real life that have negative stuff to say are always the people that have never saved a dime. I would question why you would care if someone in his or her 30s would retire, semi-retired, or take a sabbatical regardless of if they were someone in your real life or a random internet stranger?

[roflwaffle]

In my view, MMMianism focuses on minimizing consumption and maximizing savings/investment to minimize the time before someone has enough assets to retire. BHianism also focuses on minimizing consumption and maximizing savings/investment, but the goal here is to insure you have sufficient assets to support your standard of living when you retire.

To put it another way, MMMianism tries to minimize the time you need to work to safely retire, while BHianism tries to maximize the safety of your retirement, although there's obviously a lot of overlap because the better off your savings/investments are and the lower your consumption is, the easier it is to retire in terms of time, standard of living, and risk as it relates to fluctuations in the value of your savings/investments.

[VictoriaF]

I think that in MMM’s application of the 4% SWR rule, he allows for inflation increase. That said, I think his adherents do not sufficiently take into account the possibility that they will be locked out of future real increases in the standard of living. He won’t be, because he will have millions stashed away from the blog, but many of his followers will be. If he really wanted to stick to his principles, why didn’t he put ownership of the blog into a charitable foundation he couldn’t benefit from?

I think it's quite important to completely separate the average adherents to the MMM approach from the owner of that blog, MMM himself.

Continued focus on MMM himself will get this thread locked, like all the previous ones...

+1
Many a wonderful post/thread has been locked once input becomes argumentative and/or opinionated.
Bickering is not actionable or constructive per forum guidelines.

Onward:
There's a lot to be gained In comparing and contrasting the MMM and Boglehead approach to financial management.

MMM tends to focus primarily on the accumulation phase (with perhaps more input from entrepreneurs and lst time businessman) while the Boglehead concepts carry well beyond that into estate planning, retirement, and beyond (senior care and post death issues).
As has been said earlier, same goal, slightly different demographic perspective.

The problem is not argumentativeness or opinionatedness. This is a discussion forum where people should express their opinions and argue their points.

The problem is that people don't follow the rules of logic and raise false arguments.

In my opinion:
The MMM's philosophy is highly beneficial for the environment and a powerful force against mindless consumerism. MMM is a force for the good. The more followers he has, the more good they will create and more "bad" they will avoid. Even if MMM himself does not follow his own principles, it does not matter. What matters is the impact his followers will create on cleaning up the human act.

The BH philosophy is selfish in comparison. The Bogleheads have found a system for maximizing their investment returns and minimizing their fees. Jack Bogle is NOT selfish. Jack is a force for the good; he has foregone large wealth potential to implement a system that benefits small investors. We, the BHs, are benefiting from Jack's struggle but are not contributing to a greater good.

The MMM and BH philosophies overlap:
- MMM is using BH investment principles.
- BH are cutting consumption to have greater investible assets.

But ultimately, MMM's and BH's aims are different, and MMM's are better for the humanity.

Victoria, a BH

[peterinjapan]

Bogoeheads love mutual funds more than they should when ETFs are often a better option. And Bogleheads _love_ Vanguard.

[Jack FFR1846]

MMM may have planned to turn his blog into a business, but there was no certainty. Starting a blog has a low barrier to entry, and thousands of people get into blogging every day. We notice successful bloggers and count their money, but they represent a tremendous survivorship bias. We are oblivious to the silent evidence of wanna-be bloggers who have tried, failed, and disappeared.

Victoria

I don't know that this was Pete's goal. I think that he and his wife did a reverse gender traditional maternity-retirement without the excuse of a baby. He "retired" while she continued working. He started the blog as just an info kind of thing while running his (not on purpose) custom home building company (he made zero money). In the business world, we'd think that he quit his job to start a business, learned that he didn't know how to make a profit at the business he chose, failed and shut it down.

I don't know when his site started making money, so someone else would have to continue the story. If I remember correctly, his wife quit her job a year after he did. Seems odd to me. Right at the point where he realized that he couldn't support himself doing what he really wanted to do (building houses), he breadwinner of the family calls it quits and retires too.

[avalpert]

I think that in MMM’s application of the 4% SWR rule, he allows for inflation increase. That said, I think his adherents do not sufficiently take into account the possibility that they will be locked out of future real increases in the standard of living. He won’t be, because he will have millions stashed away from the blog, but many of his followers will be. If he really wanted to stick to his principles, why didn’t he put ownership of the blog into a charitable foundation he couldn’t benefit from?

I think it's quite important to completely separate the average adherents to the MMM approach from the owner of that blog, MMM himself.

Continued focus on MMM himself will get this thread locked, like all the previous ones...

+1
Many a wonderful post/thread has been locked once input becomes argumentative and/or opinionated.
Bickering is not actionable or constructive per forum guidelines.

Onward:
There's a lot to be gained In comparing and contrasting the MMM and Boglehead approach to financial management.

MMM tends to focus primarily on the accumulation phase (with perhaps more input from entrepreneurs and lst time businessman) while the Boglehead concepts carry well beyond that into estate planning, retirement, and beyond (senior care and post death issues).
As has been said earlier, same goal, slightly different demographic perspective.

The problem is not argumentativeness or opinionatedness. This is a discussion forum where people should express their opinions and argue their points.

The problem is that people don't follow the rules of logic and raise false arguments.

In my opinion:
The MMM's philosophy is highly beneficial for the environment and a powerful force against mindless consumerism. MMM is a force for the good. The more followers he has, the more good they will create and more "bad" they will avoid. Even if MMM himself does not follow his own principles, it does not matter. What matters is the impact his followers will create on cleaning up the human act.

The BH philosophy is selfish in comparison. The Bogleheads have found a system for maximizing their investment returns and minimizing their fees.
Note: Jack Bogle is NOT selfish. Jack is a force for good; he has foregone large income potential to implement a system that benefits small investors. We, the BHs, are benefiting from the Jack's struggle but are not contributing to a greater good.

The MMM and BH philosophies have some overlap:
- MMM is using BH investment principles.
- BH are cutting consumption to have greater investible assets.

But ultimately, the MMM and BH aims are different, and MMM's are better for the humanity.

Victoria, a BH

See this is where I really disagree (and I don't think we will go too deep into why on this forum because, well this forum isn't about debating philosophies of life after all and is well moderated to avoid that).

I don't think his philosophy is ultimately a force for good (or for the environment) or a force against mindless consumerism (just because what his followers are now mindlessly consuming is different then others doesn't make it not consumerism) and I think that he is sometimes disingenuous in how he frames his own experiences to support selling the philosophy is a big problem as it tries to paper over addressing some of the challenges to the philosophy head-on (including the true degree of riskiness, the free-rider problems it has, the sustainability of the lifestyle for most people, etc.).

I also don't buy that boglehead 'philosophy' is selfish (in comparison or in an absolute sense). It is agnostic as to what one does with the frameworks whether to the benefit of themselves or others - if a charity were to invest its endowment using a boglehead approach are the increased returns and lower fees not contributing to the greater good?

[HornedToad]

I think that in MMM’s application of the 4% SWR rule, he allows for inflation increase. That said, I think his adherents do not sufficiently take into account the possibility that they will be locked out of future real increases in the standard of living. He won’t be, because he will have millions stashed away from the blog, but many of his followers will be. If he really wanted to stick to his principles, why didn’t he put ownership of the blog into a charitable foundation he couldn’t benefit from?

I think it's quite important to completely separate the average adherents to the MMM approach from the owner of that blog, MMM himself.

Continued focus on MMM himself will get this thread locked, like all the previous ones...

+1
Many a wonderful post/thread has been locked once input becomes argumentative and/or opinionated.
Bickering is not actionable or constructive per forum guidelines.

Onward:
There's a lot to be gained In comparing and contrasting the MMM and Boglehead approach to financial management.

MMM tends to focus primarily on the accumulation phase (with perhaps more input from entrepreneurs and lst time businessman) while the Boglehead concepts carry well beyond that into estate planning, retirement, and beyond (senior care and post death issues).
As has been said earlier, same goal, slightly different demographic perspective.

The problem is not argumentativeness or opinionatedness. This is a discussion forum where people should express their opinions and argue their points.

The problem is that people don't follow the rules of logic and raise false arguments.

In my opinion:
The MMM's philosophy is highly beneficial for the environment and a powerful force against mindless consumerism. MMM is a force for the good. The more followers he has, the more good they will create and more "bad" they will avoid. Even if MMM himself does not follow his own principles, it does not matter. What matters is the impact his followers will create on cleaning up the human act.

The BH philosophy is selfish in comparison. The Bogleheads have found a system for maximizing their investment returns and minimizing their fees.
Note: Jack Bogle is NOT selfish. Jack is a force for good; he has foregone large income potential to implement a system that benefits small investors. We, the BHs, are benefiting from the Jack's struggle but are not contributing to a greater good.

The MMM and BH philosophies have some overlap:
- MMM is using BH investment principles.
- BH are cutting consumption to have greater investible assets.

But ultimately, the MMM and BH aims are different, and MMM's are better for the humanity.

Victoria, a BH

See this is where I really disagree (and I don't think we will go too deep into why on this forum because, well this forum isn't about debating philosophies of life after all and is well moderated to avoid that).

I don't think his philosophy is ultimately a force for good (or for the environment) or aforce against mindless consumerism (just because what his followers are now mindlessly consuming is different then others doesn't make it not consumerism) and I think that he is sometimes disingenuous in how he frames his own experiences to support selling the philosophy is a big problem as it tries to paper over some of the challenges to the philosophy head-on (including the true degree of riskiness, the free-rider problems it has, the sustainability of the lifestyle for most people, etc.).

I also don't buy that boglehead 'philosophy' is selfish (in comparison or in an absolute sense). It is agnostic as to what one does with the frameworks whether to the benefit of themselves or others - if a charity were to invest its endowment using a boglehead approach are the increased returns and lower fees not contributing to the greater good?

Yeah, I think it depends on a person's overall perspective. I don't think we should categorize either philosophy good or bad. MMM is good in that there's less consumerism. It's bad in that people are contributing less to society/advancement/etc by retiring at age 35. It's also potentially bad in that it encourages judging.

For Bogleheads, overall it's just truly neutral/good in that it's about living below your means and minimizing costs to maximize return.

Strictly speaking, I guess you can call them both selfish in that they are encouraging activities to benefit yourself. But that's a very broad definition of selfish.

[SmileyFace]

But ultimately, MMM's and BH's aims are different, and MMM's are better for the humanity.

Victoria, a BH

This conclusion could certainly be debated. If we all retired at 30 and lived off very modest poverty-level income there wouldn't be enough tax generation to put kids through public schools, pay law enforcement, pay for public infrastructure, etc.
Of course if we use the actual MMMs method of retirement versus the retirement definition found in the dictionary - we would all be making hundreds of thousands so there wouldn't be a problem.

[btenny]

People have been talking about living frugally and the road to riches for centuries or longer. MMM and BHs are not the first, just the latest. Ben Franklin was probably the first "blogger" who talked about frugality and life virtues with his "Poor Richard's Almanac" published in 1732. For those that have not read these, here are the links. They are great reads. I read most of it in grade school. I hope some of this is still used today.

http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Richard%27s_Almanack

I also know that I first read about very early retirement at age 35 in 1988 with a book by Paul Terhorst. I know reading that book woke me up to "alternate life styles" and trading time for money. I read it just after losing my older brother (I was 41 as I recall). So again MMM was not the first person to talk about frugality to allow very early retirement.

https://www.amazon.com/Cashing-American ... 0553278150
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue ... 09152a73ab
https://sites.google.com/site/paulvicgroup/

But the most important thing I learned in all these blogs and books is to LBYM and enjoy life as you go.

Good luck