Die with Zero Chapter 3: Why Die with Zero?

This chapter answers “why” we should aim to die with zero, while the next addresses “how”. For Perkins, the “why” is simple: If we have money left over, we did not efficiently maximize our “enjoyable experiences”, which, for him, seems to be the meaning of life.

To illustrate: Imagine you take home $100,000/year while working. After a happy retirement, you die and have $200,000 left to your name. For Perkins, the waste is not necessarily that you did not spend that $200,000, but that your time working in those two final years was "needlessly wasted”. You spent those final two years essentially working for free, when you could have instead pursued your defined enjoyable experiences.

The rebuttals that might be coming to mind (as they did for me) include: my estate does not vanish when I die, it goes to my heirs. Having extra money on hand was for unexpected expenses, and it’s better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I liked my work, and intentionally worked longer than I needed to financially. We’ll address these in turn over the next few weeks.

Perkins points to data that most people in retirement either keep their net worth roughly the same (modest declines are common), though some increase it over their retirement years. He would very much like everyone instead to have a declining net worth, especially considering that most people spend more in the earlier years of their retirement when they can still enjoy experiences that they won’t be able to at an older age. Again, how to spend down your assets without risking running out early is something we’ll discuss next week.

---Reflection---

If I set aside the practical issues with implementing this intention (which I will address next week) I’m still not fond of Perkins’ reasoning in this chapter. Here’s my attempt to track his argument so far. Life is for maximizing enjoyable experiences. Enjoyable experiences can be improved through greater financing. Money left over means there were enjoyable experiences you didn’t have or ones that could have been improved. We should aim to die with zero, having used all our money to maximize our enjoyable experiences.

I disagree with Perkins’ on the argument above within the context he seems to convey. Without considering the moral connotations, Perkins’ argument seems intentionally self-directed, or a better word: selfish. Whether good or bad, the focus is you, your money, your time, what you enjoy, etc. There isn’t a second thought for all the people you would have helped in those remaining two years of work. Maybe this is the right way to think, maybe it’s moral, but at the least it’s what we’ll call selfish.

There is a way to espouse Perkins’ argument above that’s the opposite: selfless. If the most enjoyable experiences for you are helping others, it’s likely true that the more money you have, the more you can help (in total, though not in each individual situation). Money leftover here would mean more people you could have helped. Perkins addresses giving money to charity/others now vs leaving it when you die, and we’ll see if that’s convincing (though it’s also largely for the same selfish/self-directed reasons).

While I’m happy with the second reading of his argument, where I divert from Perkins is: what happens when what we most enjoy is not helping others? Is there an external moral framework/directive that ought to lead us, or should we merely go where the whims of our current desires take us? I’ll leave us with the questions below.

Let us know

• Is it ever possible that we enjoy things that we ought not? Or that we do not enjoy things that we ought?

• If we take the approach that all we do ought to be in service for others, is there room for any of the personal enjoyments Perkins has in mind? Spa-day, trip to Europe, vacation home, etc.

Until next time, happy reading!