> since you're giving up that total control of your life whether you're working 20 hours or 80.
You forget the age effects: when you're 80 you will have less control on the basics (like, control over being able to run for a few hours without pain)
> Then, when you've got enough money, you get total control of your life for as many years as possible. Depending on what you value, it can be a totally reasonable optimization.
No, the FIRE logic seems self-inconsistent to me: if you do believe in this "control" part, it's not a reasonable optimization!
A much better logic would take into account the age effects to conclude it's better to enjoy life as much as possible until say 40, then slave away to repay the debt incurred.
Or even better- die in debt!
> A lot of folks talk like a person who has a job has the same amount of freedom as someone without a job, just minus the time they spend in the office. That's part of it, but there's also the loss of spontaneity/flexibility/control.
Personally, I disagree with the FIRE logic for other reasons: I believe it's better to participate to society, to do great things together as species, as a team!
I've seen some people call it "team mankind" or "team earth" and I wholeheartedly agree: we've accomplished miracles at the planet level!
Why go FIRE and be lonely? Isn't that waiting for death?
Having a job means participating to society, which is not just a net-negative of losing "spontaneity/flexibility/control", but doing interesting things with other people, which requires coordination/synchronization and therefore entails some degree of a loss of control.
However, I personally believe it's for the better, not just at the species/planet level, but at the individual level: I like having colleagues. I like the small talk. I like being part of a multiple persons effort. And so are you, unless you've got some quirks, because most humans are pro-social.