Posted by Canadian Dream on July 21, 2009
So when I decided to focus on paying off my mortgage for the next few years I stated one of the reasons to consider doing that was to allow me to pull off a semi-retirement earlier than 45. So an obvious question is how much earlier since I have previous looked at doing this option when I was 40.
Well the truth be told, I could do it the day after I finish paying off the mortgage. Which would put me about age 36, about nine years earlier than my original goal. I could get away with working about three days at week at my current job. I would have enough to live on and also still have enough to continue saving for full retirement. Yet like all things there is a price to our choices. This choice would mean I would have to stay employed part time until about age 50.
The numbers on my quick analysis here isn’t as much as I normally do for a full run, so it might not actually be that long, but still the general concept is valid. If you go semi-retired earlier it allows you work less up front, but often you have to keep working longer on a total basis. So the real question becomes would you make that trade?
The reality is for me is I’m now seriously considering it. After all I never planned to stop working entirely when I pulled the plug at 45. I was considering doing some part-time or contract work anyway, but the income would just be for fun things like extra trips. So in the semi-retired case I end up just having to work for a few more years, rather than it being optional for a few years. In exchange I could possibly have four day weekends for nine extra years.
Obviously I’m not deciding this right now or anything. I’ve got a few years to roll this around in my head and think about what kind of work would I like to do if I did it. After all I don’t have to stay at my same job if I do this option, which is good considering I have no idea if my current job would allow me to work three days a week in the future.
So you might wonder why I’ve change my mind of this option from my last look at it. The reality is I’m starting to think people really shouldn’t be working full time. There is so much more to life than just a job, that I don’t think I want to push off getting more time for myself for too much longer.
So would you be willing to make a trade like this? More time off sooner, but you have to keep working longer.
Posted by Canadian Dream on July 20, 2009
I was recently reading a book which pointed out something very important. Marketing is all about making you unsatisfied and unhappy. After all if you were happy and content you won’t need to buy what they were selling would you. For some reason this concept was never that obvious to me.
So that to me that begs the question are people who avoid ads (by not watching TV for example) in general more happy than those that don’t? I did a brief look around for some information on that question and came up with this link. So in a generalized statement it appear a study has shown that TV does in fact make you less happy, but is it the ads or the shows (or is there really a difference anymore)? To be honest I’m not sure, but the concept is still interesting.
So let’s step back and examine this in a larger context. So watching TV makes you unhappy and provides you with ideas on ways to spend money on things that make you temporarily happy until you watch more TV and feel unhappy again. WOW, that has the potential to be a down right evil cycle to get sucked into! No wonder people I run into who are in this cycle don’t seem all that happy in their lives.
Is that what’s wrong with us? Too many ads and wants from those ads for things we don’t need. I don’t think it’s the only reason, but there does seem to be a good idea on watching less TV or subjecting yourself to ads. You could end up happier and buying less stuff. Then if you are really smart you could save part of that money to leave work earlier and likely have a better retirement since you actually have interests outside of a TV.
It would be an interesting experiment to do for someone who does watch a fair amount of TV. Cut back for a month and see if your spending drops as well and if you seem happier. I would do it myself, but I suspect my three hours a week on TV are really not influencing me all that much. So do you know anyone who cut back on ads, did it make them happier and spend less or not?
Posted by Canadian Dream on July 17, 2009
During my recent discussions at work I’m starting to realize that in the world of environmental policy there is almost never a ‘pure’ cap and trade system. Almost always you end up with parts of it that look a lot like a carbon tax, but they never call it that.
It’s all about the spin factor. You can’t use the words ‘carbon tax’ or ‘intensity’ without people jumping down your throat in Canada so now the game is to spin off the words into other concepts that conviently avoid those words.
Take for example the term: technology fund. Often this is tossed around as an idea where companies can pay into it at a set price and then the government uses the money to fund low or none emitting projects. Sounds great right, but consider this the government is selling a carbon credit at a set price which is basically by definition a carbon tax. Just in this case a voluntary one that you don’t have to use if you can find offsets or other internal reductions for less money.
Other ideas include a price ceiling which means if the price of carbon exceeds a certain amount you get to buy credits at a set price. Which again is a carbon tax, but if you don’t limit the number of credits at that ceiling you have effectively allowed your cap and trade system to have no cap. So now depending on the numbers the system looks a lot like a intensity based system.
So in general don’t accept just about anything a government comes up with at face value on regulating carbon. The reality is there is always some element of spin to it, but it is just a matter of well it has been spun and what they want you to see. It’s sort of similar to the word ‘green’ in marketing, it often means nothing but it is often hard to tell that fact.
