What would Thomas Friedman think of Mustachianism?

Toward the end of October, Mr. Money Mustache (MMM) wrote an article called "Obamacare: Friend of the Entrepreneur and Early Retiree." In it, he argues that the ACA has the potential to allow everyone in the US to get affordable health insurance without needing an employer. If so, this could provide a degree of freedom for people looking to start their own business, take a job without benefits, or retire early from mandatory work. As MMM writes:

"With this new law, you can now drop the decades-old tradition of great fear and dependence on your employer for health coverage. You can quit your job, switch to another one, or create your own, with no more worry about who will cover you, because cost is affordable and minimal at lower incomes."

As MMM points out, given that early retirees don't have an outside employer and that their income is often derived from passively-earning assets, it's likely that a large portion of them would qualify for federal subsidies. Though one can argue the rights and wrongs of offering relatively wealthy people subsidized health insurance, the ACA does seem to have the potential to move us away from employer-centered insurance.

Perhaps as interesting, however, is the argument that the changing world of employment almost requires we move away from employer-based insurance. This is the argument made by Thomas Friedman in his column from Sunday, entitled "Why I (Still) Support Obamacare."As we've discussed in previous posts (see here and here), Friedman suggests that the recent merger of Globalization and the IT-Revolution has removed many of the walls, ceilings, and floors on--and within which--much of our middle-class prosperity has heretofore rested. In particular, he points to the elimination of many "high-wage or decent-wage, medium-skilled jobs," characterized as one in which: 

"... many people could lead a middle-class lifestyle — with less education and more security — because they didn’t have to compete so directly with either a computer or a machine that could do their jobs faster and better (by far the biggest source of job churn) or against an Indian or Chinese who would do their jobs cheaper."

Increasingly, it appears such lifestyles will require more skills in demanded fields, such as technology, finance, or services, and a deep commitment to continuing education and constant adaptation. Citing Jame Manyika, a "lead research[er] on economic and technology trends at the McKinsey Global Institute," Friedman suggests that:

"...how we think about 'employment' to sustain a middle-class lifestyle may need to expand 'to include a broader set of possibilities for generating income' compared with the traditional job, with benefits and a well-grooved career path."

For Friedman, this "broader set of possibilities for generating income" could include "...leveraging your skills through Task Rabbit, or your car through Uber, or your spare bedroom through AirBnB to add up to a middle-class income." 

At the heart of this argument is the assumption that increasingly, as traditional avenues of employment disappear, large numbers of people will need to take up some form of entrepreneurship. This will not be easy for everyone, and so Friedman believes, "Having a national health care safety net under the vast majority of Americans — to ease and enable people to make this transition — is both morally right and in the interest of everyone who wants a stable society."

From both perspectives--Mr. Friedman's and MMM's--decoupling health insurance from employers is useful; that whether by temperament or of necessity entrepreneurship seems likely to grow, and ensuring such folks can acquire affordable health insurance is one way of broadly supporting them.

Yet I think the picture Mr. Friedman and Mr. Money Mustache paint here is indicative of larger issues than health insurance, or the new healthcare law. Friedman argues that employment is changing, while MMM argues that people could really benefit by making their own jobs. The former views the decoupling of heath insurance from employment as necessary for future stability, while the latter sees it as an incentive to become financially independent and do work one enjoys. 

Reading Friedman's column on Sunday, I wondered what he would think of Mustachianism, the basic approach to life espoused by Mr. Money Mustache, that eschews convenience and encompasses frugality, positive thinking, and an interest in developing our many sources of strength. My personal view is that in a world without ceilings, walls, or floors--the world Friedman sees developing before our eyes--Mustachianism by all its names (think Stoicism, Self-Help, etc.) could help many to thrive in an environment in which the sky is the limit, but traditional paths to success have mostly disappeared.

When I read about Mustachians, I'm struck by their willingness to question conventional ideas while embracing ancient principles like hard work, honesty, and a well-kept mind. Happiness from their perspective is a nurtured condition, tended with close relationships, optimism, a lifestyle full of life-affirming challenges and interesting work (and of course, less stuff).  It's as though they build a modern life using old-fashioned principles, with a wholesome blend of old and new.

I suspect such a blend will come in handy down the road, particularly if Friedman's predictions about the future of work come to pass. And while I can't say what Mr. Friedman would think of Mustachianism, I suspect it represents a useful approach for succeeding in a world short of secure employment, and long on opportunity. We shall see.