One dynamic worth considering here is that a person with near-typical longtermist views about the future also likely believes that there are a large number of salient risks in the future, including sub-extinction AI catastrophes, pandemics, war with China, authoritarian takeover, âwhite collar bloodbathâ etc.
It can be very psychologically hard to spend all day thinking about these risks without also internalizing that these risks may very well affect oneself and oneâs family, which in turn implies that typical financial advice and financial lifecycle planning are not well-tailored to the futures that longtermists think we might face. For example, the typical suggestion to save around 6 months in an emergency fund makes sense for the economy of the last hundred years, but if there is widespread white collar automation, what are the odds that there will be job disruption lasting longer than six months? If you think that your country may experience authoritarian takeover, might you want to save enough to buy residence elsewhere?
None of this excuses not making financial sacrifices. But I do think itâs hard to simultaneously think âthe future is really riskyâ and âthere is a very achievable (e.g., <<$1M) amount of savings that would make me very secure.â
Thatâs a fair point, but a lot of the scenarios you describe would mean rapid economic growth and equities going up like crazy. The expectation of my net worth in 40 years on my actual views is way, way higher than it would be if I thought AI was totally fake and the world would look basically the same in 2065. That doesnât mean you shouldnât save up though (higher yields are actually a reason to save, not a reason to refrain from saving).
One dynamic worth considering here is that a person with near-typical longtermist views about the future also likely believes that there are a large number of salient risks in the future, including sub-extinction AI catastrophes, pandemics, war with China, authoritarian takeover, âwhite collar bloodbathâ etc.
It can be very psychologically hard to spend all day thinking about these risks without also internalizing that these risks may very well affect oneself and oneâs family, which in turn implies that typical financial advice and financial lifecycle planning are not well-tailored to the futures that longtermists think we might face. For example, the typical suggestion to save around 6 months in an emergency fund makes sense for the economy of the last hundred years, but if there is widespread white collar automation, what are the odds that there will be job disruption lasting longer than six months? If you think that your country may experience authoritarian takeover, might you want to save enough to buy residence elsewhere?
None of this excuses not making financial sacrifices. But I do think itâs hard to simultaneously think âthe future is really riskyâ and âthere is a very achievable (e.g., <<$1M) amount of savings that would make me very secure.â
Thatâs a fair point, but a lot of the scenarios you describe would mean rapid economic growth and equities going up like crazy. The expectation of my net worth in 40 years on my actual views is way, way higher than it would be if I thought AI was totally fake and the world would look basically the same in 2065. That doesnât mean you shouldnât save up though (higher yields are actually a reason to save, not a reason to refrain from saving).