Do Extended Longevity Expectations Make the Slowlane More Palatable?

[Hayek]

Within the next generation it is likely scientists will make breakthroughs that allow for extended longevity, probably doubling current longevity. Assuming this turns into reality, does it make the Slowlane more palatable? Does working at a Slowlane job that is bearable and well compensated for forty years make more sense when it will still be possible to retire at that point and have seventy or eighty years of freedom to enjoy? Ever since finishing MJ's book this is a question I have been pondering. Your thoughts?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[XavierYZ]

Are you talking about people living longer lives through scientific research?

I doubt the establishment will allow for such a thing to happen. The powers that be want to see depopulation of the human race. Not further over populate. Its the same reason why cancer will never be cured


I don't think I would bet on people living an active life into your 90s and 100s

 

[MakeItHappen]

If longevity increases so will the age at which you retire.
I know in germany people used to work till they where 65 years old... now you work till you are 67 years old and it is already discussed to increase the age to 70 years. As people live longer they will have to work longer so i don't see a benefit in the slowlane at all. Also realize that there is no guarantee that you will become 80 years old just because that's the avg length of life. Nothing in life is guaranteed so live life to the fullest RIGHT NOW! If you are happy going the slowlane route that's fine but don't base your decision on something you don't fully have control of (longevity).

just my 2 cent

 

[Ikke]

When people live longer, they'll have to work longer. You are seeing it quite a lot in Europe where countries are upping the age of retirement with several years.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mike39]

Within the next generation it is likely scientists will make breakthroughs that allow for extended longevity, probably doubling current longevity

Anything to explain this? Facts, evidence? or are you just assuming it will happen

And even IF there was such a way to live longer, I would much rather spend 90 years accumulating wealth in the fastlane than in the slowlane?

 

[The-J]

No since Slowlaners will be forced to work for more and more years. Some people are now waiting until their mid 70s, early 80s to retire. That's nuts.

 

[Vigilante]

My life expectancy and my interest in being dependent on earning an income are two different things. Regardless of how long I live, that would never give me any more or less contentment working for "the man."

It's kind of a straw man argument for me though, because I intend to live well, spend my old(er) age living fast, and wrap my convertible around a tree before such time as some nurse's assistant is wiping drool off my chin.

Living longer and thus working longer is not part of the variables under my consideration.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[theDarkness]

As people live longer slowlane expectations will "somehow" shift such that they are expected to work for a wage longer. Count on it. Most people like to fantasize about financial independence more than they want to confront the day-to-day reality of it. Different strokes, etc. Don't demand something of the slowlane that it never promised.

 

[leono]

Does working at a Slowlane job that is bearable and well compensated for forty years make more sense when it will still be possible to retire at that point and have seventy or eighty years of freedom to enjoy?

Like everyone else is saying you won't get eighty years of "freedom" to enjoy. They'll merely lengthen the time people have to go to school and work a job. We're already seeing it now. Bachelor degrees = high school diplomas of yesteryear, more time spent in school just to get an entry level job. Good luck reaching freedom in the Slowlane because the odds are becoming slimmer and slimmer each year passes.

 

[socaldude]

I wanna retire in my 30s while cruising the Lamborghini Gallardo nera with cream interior even if it means eating dog shit.

I don't wanna be greeting people at walmart at age 60 cause the stock market collapsed and the boss decided to fire me.

Your argument seems to be: The more time I will have the more $ I can make! You added more time BUT you still have uncontrollable factors like HOPE.

Let me tell you something about slowlane corporate america. You can be the hardest worker in the company and if your supervisor and or manager doesn't like you; your never gonna get that promotion.

Wouldn't you rather retire in 7-10 years rather than in 50? Wouldn't you rather call the shots instead of dealing with office politics. Seriously once you get to advanced Fastlane business levels you can wake up monday morning and say "ehhhhh F**K it i'm gonna chill today".

Do you want to extend your life even more than what any scientist can do? Then choose the Fastlane so you can win your freedom.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Hayek]

Anything to explain this? Facts, evidence? or are you just assuming it will happen

Check out Ben Bova's "Immortality: How Science is Extending Your Life-Span and Changing the World" and Sonia Arrison's "100+: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith" if you want to learn more about the topic.

Long story short: It is pretty much certain that scientific advances will radically extend longevity going forward.

 

[Hayek]

No since Slowlaners will be forced to work for more and more years. Some people are now waiting until their mid 70s, early 80s to retire. That's nuts.

If you diligently save while in the Slowlane, there will be no need to work longer and longer. Once you save enough, it should be able to provide an essentially perpetual stream of income. Saving for thirty years of retirement isn't much different than saving for eighty years of retirement.

 

[Hayek]

My life expectancy and my interest in being dependent on earning an income are two different things. Regardless of how long I live, that would never give me any more or less contentment working for "the man."

You don't necessarily have to work for "the man" to be in the Slowlane. I provide financial planning and portfolio management for a living, work for myself, and very much enjoy what I do. But it is pretty much a Slowlane occupation because, although I make good money, there is little opportunity to cash out in 3-5 years with multiple millions in my pocket. I would have no problem doing what I am doing into my seventies, though.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mike39]

Check out Ben Bova's "Immortality: How Science is Extending Your Life-Span and Changing the World" and Sonia Arrison's "100+: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith" if you want to learn more about the topic.

Long story short: It is pretty much certain that scientific advances will radically extend longevity going forward.

I will believe it when I see it, words on a paper are just that until they put them to use, secondly, say you can live to be 150 or something. So you can become rich by the time your 110, you waste 75 years working in a factory, one day during that 75th year you get in a horrible car crash and die, was it worth it? See not everyone dies of old age, thats why I want to become successful as soon as possible, you never know when one day could be your last, I don't want to spend ANY time wasting it in the mediocre world of slowlane slavery to the rich, not me, I want to maximize my time to be able to REALLY live life, the sooner the better, after all, I may drop dead tomorrow.

Lastly, I avidly oppose the idea of increasing life span by a large number, our overwhelming greed (the developed world) to live as long as possible will ultimately kill billions (with a B) of people who will get the short end of the stick when our consumption and population skyrockets. What makes your life more valuable than theirs?

There is a saying truly believe in, it goes: life is not measured by the amount of breaths you take, but rather the amount of moments that take your breath away

Think about it.

 

[Trevor Kuntz]

While this view is as qualified as the OP's, I don't believe that we will live longer due to medical advances. Maybe globally we will, due to the development of more second and third world countries, but within this country, I think that we are either very close to peaking or that we have already peaked.

First of all, we really haven't made THAT much progress. Even in the days of the Revolutionary War, those who lived to age 18 could expect to live to around age 60. The reason that the life expectancy then was so short was because they factored in deaths before age 5, which were very high.

Secondly, there is only so much that the body can do to defend itself naturally, and with the "food" that we eat nowadays, the chemicals that we are exposed to that we weren't exposed to 100 years ago, and the amount of inactivity inherent in our society, it's just a perfect storm for chronic diseases and death.

I think that if anything, advances in medicine will only serve to balance out the problems we create for ourselves. As a society, we prefer to fix the problem at the surface (i.e. getting triple bypass surgeries) instead of fixing the problem at the root (not eating crap).

Anyways, even if we do live longer, it shouldn't make a difference in how we live our lives now.

 

[Mike39]

You don't necessarily have to work for "the man" to be in the Slowlane. I provide financial planning and portfolio management for a living, work for myself, and very much enjoy what I do. But it is pretty much a Slowlane occupation because, although I make good money, there is little opportunity to cash out in 3-5 years with multiple millions in my pocket. I would have no problem doing what I am doing into my seventies, though.

As much fun as driving a Lambo/Bugatti/whatever you like in the Gumball 3000? As much fun as scuba diving Australia's most beautiful coral reefs? As fun as base jumping the Burj Dubai? Do I need to go on...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[theDarkness]

As much fun as driving a Lambo/Bugatti/whatever you like in the Gumball 3000? As much fun as scuba diving Australia's most beautiful coral reefs? As fun as base jumping the Burj Dubai? Do I need to go on...

None of those things sound very fun to me. It's all relative to how expensive the "dream" lifestyle a person wants is.

 

[Mike39]

It's all relative to how expensive the "dream" lifestyle a person wants is.

That statement in itself is flawed, I look at it like this, you can have 10 million sitting in the bank and spend a ton on vacations and cool stuff or you can have 10 million in the bank and rarely spend over a couple hundred bucks a month on fun things. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend a lot of money if you have a billion bucks in the bank, getting just barely enough cash flow to live the dream lifestyle is slowlane in a sense, if your making just enough money to support a lifestyle (no matter the cost of the lifestyle) and you don't have any cash on reserve, you are no better than the guy barely making it form paycheck to paycheck each month so he can drive his Lexus to work and look rich.

Why accept mediocrity? You can never have to much money

 

[theDarkness]

That statement in itself is flawed, I look at it like this, you can have 10 million sitting in the bank and spend a ton on vacations and cool stuff or you can have 10 million in the bank and rarely spend over a couple hundred bucks a month on fun things. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend a lot of money if you have a billion bucks in the bank, getting just barely enough cash flow to live the dream lifestyle is slowlane in a sense, if your making just enough money to support a lifestyle (no matter the cost of the lifestyle) and you don't have any cash on reserve, you are no better than the guy barely making it form paycheck to paycheck each month so he can drive his Lexus to work and look rich.

Why accept mediocrity? You can never have to much money

I don't really think it's "slowlane in a sense." Having a "money system" that supports your lifestyle is vastly different than not having it. One person has achieved his goals and is living exactly how he wants, and the other likely isn't. Unless by "just barely enough cash flow" you mean something a little different. I'm not sure if you mean this guy is financing most his crap and can't really afford it, or what exactly.

My basic outlook re my own plan is mostly the same as yours so it's not like we disagree. But I don't think it's useful to critique someone's financial plan by bringing up a bunch of crap that they might never want. What does the person want from life? Is their financial plan doing that for them? If yes then I just don't care beyond that. Will they ever base jump Mt Rushmore? Will they ever stick the length of their arm down the mouth of a hammerhead? Who cares? If it's not what they want then what does it matter.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Trevor Kuntz]

My basic outlook re my own plan is mostly the same as yours so it's not like we disagree. But I don't think it's useful to critique someone's financial plan by bringing up a bunch of crap that they might never want. What does the person want from life? Is their financial plan doing that for them? If yes then I just don't care beyond that.

I don't think that there really is a definition of the Fastlane, at least from a monetary point of view. The goal I have for my business probably wouldn't be considered "Fastlane" by at least half of the people on this forum. My goal is not to rise meteorically and make billions. My goal is to work for myself, be able to live the lifestyle that I want to live, and be able to help the greatest number of people possible by providing them with the greatest products and the greatest customer service. Will I be making killer profits and retire at 25? Probably not. But again, that's not my goal and that's not my personal definition of the Fastlane. Everyone has - as they should - their own personal definition of what the Fastlane is for their life.

 

[Kak]

If people are living longer then retirement is typically going to be longer. Thus the slowlane still sucks because it will cost more to retire at the same age.

 

[Trevor Kuntz]

Yeah, plus, why would I want to live longer than most people already do anyway. Yeah, I would like to live to about 70, but not much past that. I spent years interviewing World War II veterans, and most of them did amazing things in their twenties and thirties. I mean, most of the guys were incredible. But in old age, they described their lives as still waking up every day feeling like a 20 year old but being stuck in 70 year old body that just continued to decline and fail them. I don't know about you, but I don't find that very appealing to endure for a very long time!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The-J]

That statement in itself is flawed, I look at it like this, you can have 10 million sitting in the bank and spend a ton on vacations and cool stuff or you can have 10 million in the bank and rarely spend over a couple hundred bucks a month on fun things. Nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you spend a lot of money if you have a billion bucks in the bank, getting just barely enough cash flow to live the dream lifestyle is slowlane in a sense, if your making just enough money to support a lifestyle (no matter the cost of the lifestyle) and you don't have any cash on reserve, you are no better than the guy barely making it form paycheck to paycheck each month so he can drive his Lexus to work and look rich.

Why accept mediocrity? You can never have to much money

I dunno about you, but stuff bores me. I hate stuff. It collects dust and gets left around places and makes me anxious because I can't possibly keep up with all of it.

What I crave is the security of a large nest-egg that provides me with residual income. Bonds, dividend stocks, real estate, whatever I decide to get into (probably muni bonds, they have nice stable returns and are tax-exempt). At that point, working or not becomes a choice. That's the dream, at least for me.

I'll take barely enough if I become a free man. Hell, if my business does well enough, I could be a free man before I get my degree just from business passive income.

 

[Kak]

I don't see why not liking (or acting like you don't like) stuff puts people on some sort of moral high horse.

It is like the idiots who say "money doesn't buy you happiness".... Really? Money certainly can solve a shit ton of problems that keep people unhappy. People say crap like that when they want an excuse for their lack of motivation.

J, sorry to make it sound like I called you out. I understand that you crave time freedom more than stuff. I also do, or I would be working 70 hrs a week for an oil company or something and would already drive a mercedes. I also truly enjoy making money when I do it myself anyway.

I'm sorry, but I want fractional ownership in a private jet, a yacht, and money to run them as often as I would like between multiple homes and I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with that. Not to say I wouldn't be happy with less, but there is NOTHING wrong with trying.

 

[Trevor Kuntz]

See, I am aiming for almost exactly the opposite. I want to make money for myself precisely so I can move out, downsize, and enjoy my life unencumbered by stuff, if that makes sense. Since I have an addictive personality, "stuff" tends to use up a lot of my time. TVs waste my time. Video games waste my time. Plus, they are anchors. Even stuff like clothes are anchors. Now obviously, if I get married, that's a huge anchor (or it could be), but that's just part of the sacrifice. Other than that, I don't want to be anchored to one place because I have too much crap that I don't need. All I need is a laptop, a piano, a bed, an internet connection, a gym membership, a refrigerator, 800 sq. ft of living space, a cell phone, a printer, a camera, a passport and other important documents, a duffle bag full of clothes, and some books, and I'm good. Other than the bed and refrigerator (which can be replaced for a few hundred bucks) and the piano (maybe a keyboard until I settle down, if ever), which can be shipped, everything can be put in a carry-on.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mike39]

I agree more on Kak's side, but I understand that everyone has different values, all I am saying is that you can still live a completely average lifestyle with some 5,10,100 million in the bank, nobody requires you to life a particular lifestyle, so why decide to be satisfied once you reach your goals, once I reach my goals, I will make bigger goals. Like Ryan Blair said in his video, his goal was 75k, then 750k, then 7.7 mill, then 70 mill, and now hes going for 700 million, that's how I will approach my success over the years and I will never stop chasing wealth, you get to a point where you can't possibly spend all of that money on yourself, then you can really do some cool things, you can change the world, Elon Musk founded Tesla which is bringing electric cars to the masses, he also founded space-x, and has said that he will put a man on mars within 10 years, I have no doubt he will achieve it. For me, using my wealth to change the world in a positive way would be the holy grail of life, I would be completely happy at that point, but if I don't reach that point, I am perfectly content flying around in gulfstreams and driving million dollar cars

This vid was posted a while back, whoever posted it, let me know I need to give you some speed+. Skip to 7:00 to see the accumulation of wealth part:[video=youtube;WS1DKeDYk8g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS1DKeDYk8g[/video]

 

[The-J]

I don't see why not liking (or acting like you don't like) stuff puts people on some sort of moral high horse.

It is like the idiots who say "money doesn't buy you happiness".... Really? Money certainly can solve a shit ton of problems that keep people unhappy. People say crap like that when they want an excuse for their lack of motivation.

J, sorry to make it sound like I called you out. I understand that you crave time freedom more than stuff. I also do, or I would be working 70 hrs a week for an oil company or something and would already drive a mercedes. I also truly enjoy making money when I do it myself anyway.

I'm sorry, but I want fractional ownership in a private jet, a yacht, and money to run them as often as I would like between multiple homes and I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with that.

I'm not on a high horse, I'm just a guy who is slightly OCD, is all. I don't like stuff. It clutters easily and I'm not very good at organizing stuff. Once I feel like I don't need something, I throw it out or donate it without any regard for what it's worth.

And there is not anything wrong with wanting stuff, either, as long as you understand that the feeling is fleeting and it doesn't change your life, your perspectives or your happiness. Stuff is shiny and it makes you feel good for a while.

I love money, though. I love the idea of having wealth. Wealth is power. But I feel like I'd be wasting my wealth on buying stuff. Some people feel like they'd be wasting wealth NOT buying stuff. I'd rather buy either (1) more wealth or (2) stake in projects that I think are really effing cool.

One thing I do want, though: a Lamborghini Gallardo Nera, LP-570. I hope I'll be able to pick one up when I get my wealth. It's just... so beautiful...

 

[Trevor Kuntz]

This vid was posted a while back, whoever posted it, let me know I need to give you some speed+. Skip to 7:00 to see the accumulation of wealth part:

That was Kyle (Kak), I believe. Excellent video. I even posted it on my Facebook wall. Haha.

I don't like stuff. It clutters easily and I'm not very good at organizing stuff. Once I feel like I don't need something, I throw it out or donate it without any regard for what it's worth.

Haha, I hear you there. I'm horrible at organizing stuff. Actually, that's not true. I'm really good at organizing stuff. What I'm bad at is keeping that stuff organized and off my floor and desk. So yes, less stuff = less stuff to keep cleaned up. Haha.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[theDarkness]

I don't see why not liking (or acting like you don't like) stuff puts people on some sort of moral high horse.

It is like the idiots who say "money doesn't buy you happiness".... Really? Money certainly can solve a shit ton of problems that keep people unhappy. People say crap like that when they want an excuse for their lack of motivation.

J, sorry to make it sound like I called you out. I understand that you crave time freedom more than stuff. I also do, or I would be working 70 hrs a week for an oil company or something and would already drive a mercedes. I also truly enjoy making money when I do it myself anyway.

I'm sorry, but I want fractional ownership in a private jet, a yacht, and money to run them as often as I would like between multiple homes and I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with that. Not to say I wouldn't be happy with less, but there is NOTHING wrong with trying.

I think it's just more about knowing what's important to you and making a plan to suit that.

If I made a plan that was similar to MJ's and involved easily affording a lambo as the end-destination, I probably wouldn't stick to that plan because owning a lambo doesn't excite me. I don't even really like driving, so why would I want a thing I would actively avoid. That's not going to make me kick my own a$$ for years on end.

I'm a fan of just finding what works. If it's eventually owning a private jet or a lambo that gets you there, great. If it's being able to tend to your kids full-time, great. If it's being free to take on projects as they interest without concern for maintaining an income, great.

Personally I have several "breakpoints" in my plan that outline which new freedoms come with each new goal met. Some of these are time-freedoms, and some are the freedom to buy things. At each breakpoint I will reflect and try to figure out what's more important, the freedoms that come with the next breakpoint, or making the most of the lifestyle my wealth already affords me? Or a mix of both? I don't really know what the answer will be, and really there's not much point in worrying about it until I hit the first breakpoint.



I like that thing someone posted about the guy deciding to continue on at 70k then 7mil then 70mil then . . . love that. I'm going to watch that now. Sounds like a guy who knew how to keep his eye on exactly what he wanted.