You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Saving for the long term - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: adamzerner 24 February 2015 03:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vaniver 24 February 2015 09:07:15PM 4 points [-]

I'm putting perhaps 7% of my income into long-term retirement savings, and significantly more than that into generic investments. This is mostly to take full advantage of various subsidies offered to me to incentivize retirement savings, but if there weren't a sharp cutoff to use as an anchor I'm not sure what exact value I'd settle on. (I haven't run the numbers, but it looks like the tax ramifications of investing in a retirement account and then pulling the money out early are bothersome enough to not make it a good idea unless you're subsidized in some fashion or have a very high probability you won't want to pull the money out until you're old enough.)

It seems to me like hedging arguments should be most convincing. That is, in the case where there's an egalitarian singularity, it doesn't matter how much wealth you have saved, but in the case where there's an inegalitarian singularity, it matters a lot how much wealth you have saved. So it makes more sense to structure your savings in light of an inegalitarian singularity / you burn out early or have some medical issue / tech growth plateaus or slows.

Comment author: adamzerner 26 February 2015 04:06:32AM *  1 point [-]

I'm putting perhaps 7% of my income into long-term retirement savings, and significantly more than that into generic investments.

Thank you for the data point.

It seems to me like hedging arguments should be most convincing... So it makes more sense to structure your savings in light of an inegalitarian singularity / you burn out early or have some medical issue / tech growth plateaus or slows.

Would you mind commenting a bit more on what you think the likelihoods of the various possibilities are? In particular, what do you think the likelihood of !1 && !2 && !3 is? Because that's what I'd be saving for if I put money in a 401k or something where I can't take it out until I'm 59. (The opportunity cost to me saving for retirement is spending more time working on startups and increasing my knowledge.)

Comment author: Vaniver 26 February 2015 02:43:18PM 0 points [-]

Thank you for the data point.

You're welcome!

Would you mind commenting a bit more on what you think the likelihoods of the various possibilities are? In particular, what do you think the likelihood of !1 && !2 && !3 is?

I don't feel like I have any special knowledge, and don't want to put where my gut points now down in writing.

My hedging point is that I don't think that number is very relevant, though: it seems like you should condition on no x-risks and not being in the !1 && !2 && !3 state, because both of those states are ones where the actions you take now don't meaningfully impact your position, relative to their impact in the other alternative.

But there are strong counterarguments to that: you might think that you can nudge the x-risk number, or that it matters to you how soon a positive singularity happens, or so on.

The opportunity cost to me saving for retirement is spending more time working on startups and increasing my knowledge.

Most retirement funds allow you to pull it out early with a minor penalty--I think it's 10%? If you have access to matching funds, I think you could put money into a retirement fund, get the match, and then pull it out and be ahead. You would have to look at the particulars of your match and fund, though.