Turns out I am practically retired already!

[Bakari]

I think we can all agree that the "Internet Retirement Police" definition of retirement is completely wrong.

And, by the numbers, I am probably still at least 10 years off from

"hav[ing] sufficient savings (or other assets) that I could live indefinitely off the passive income they provide"

But something else in that post struck me:

     

"the complete abandonment of alarm clocks, and a soft chuckle specially developed for anyone who tries to make you be somewhere before 9AM."

I still have an alarm clock, but its never used.  The sun usually wakes me up.  Its great 28 days of the month, but it does make it especially hard those two days I actually have to be up early for my Coast Guard Reserve service.  Most days, if I work at all, I won't start before 10am.

     

a general lack of awareness of what day of the week it is

This was so frequent, that I eventually replaced my living room clock with this one


     

a work ethic that ebbs and flows with your natural human cycle. There may be times of extreme productivity and late nights, and other times of  dormancy.

This summer was filled with 15 consecutive work days, plenty of writing (some paid, some not), extra volunteer Coast Guard drills, home projects, giant work projects, was exhausting, but both fun and profitable.
I looked it up yesterday, and besides for CG Reserve (2 days a month) and the community bikeshop (1 day per week), I've only worked 20 hours in the past 2 months.  Its winter time.  I've called it an "involuntary vacation" all along, and I'm slightly sad that its gradually coming to an end.

     

work and areas of interest that change over the years, some of which might earn you money, and some of which might be neutral or even involve spending instead of earning money.

HA! over 30 jobs in 30 years!  Was the oldest person in my class at CG bootcamp, just last summer started writing for ecomodder.com, planning to make a hypermiling class some time this year, might take more jui-jitsu classes, helping girlfriend set up a new nursery business - heck, this one just sounds like ordinary life to me.  How the hell do other people go through an entire lifetime at the same job, behind a desk 8 hours a day, 50 weeks a year, for 30-40 years?


While I don't have the financial independence part of "retirement" yet, I have a big enough 'stash that I can easily go a month, or two months (or several years if I really wanted to) with minimal income, without even the tiniest bit of stress.  And the thing is, I enjoy all of my current jobs.  I feel good about them ethically, I enjoy the people I interact with because of them, and it gives me something to do with my time.  The income is almost just a bonus.  And, whenever I don't feel like working, I just don't schedule any jobs for that day (or week, or whatever), and do something else.
I'm still working on earning more than I spend, with the goal of a significant portion of income coming from passive investments, because I would enjoy even more freedom even more, but its really quite wonderful to realize just how much freedom the ERE/MMM principals of financial efficiency have already bought me.
Thanks Jacob and MMM

[arebelspy]

That's so awesome, and inspiring.

I imagine not much in your life will change when you hit FI, and that means you are already living the dream.

This post made me so happy, in contrast to the opinion here which basically just said you're a slave until you quit working, and you just have to suck up the misery until then.

I like your version of life much better, and it ends at the same point (FI).

Thanks for the smile.

[tooqk4u22]

Awesome post, love the clock.  Unfortunately am  "Jack of all trades, master of none" person but  I am stuck in the 8 hours 10-12 hours a day doing the same thing all day every day....uugggghhh, but it helps with getting the monetary part of FI.

Please don't take offense to this, but if I lived in a trailer I would be set and it would be awesome to ebb and flow with what interests me day day to day. 

Unfortunately with DW and three little tooqs that is not in the cards.

On the positive side, I was just telling DW the other day that I realized that while I was complaining about having to work given our stash I am doing it by choice now and not entirely need (still need to work but don't need to do what I do or make what I make) and now I am on the quest to find something that I will enjoy more.

[Phoebe]

Super inspiring Bakari!!  I think my new goal is to have a need for a "day clock."  That sounds like a lovely thing to lose track of.

Thanks for sharing!!

[darkelenchus]

This is the part that caught my eye:

“Retired” means you no longer have to work for money, and you are aware of this fact. You can then proceed to do whatever you want, as long as you do it consciously and of your own accord.

My brother-in-law receives a disability check each month from the US Navy, which is sufficient to cover his travels in Asia and South America, his photography hobby (the two are related), and then some. According to the definition as stated above, my brother-in-law is retired. But this seems wrong. I want to say he's got an allowance, which brings many of the features to his life that retirement does, but that he's not retired.

Bakari, this is in contrast to your being practically retired. The features of your life that are akin to retirement are due to your having accumulated savings, combined with your awareness of the "leverage" that comes with. So even if you don't

have sufficient savings (or other assets) that could live indefinitely off the passive income they provide,

financial independence is still at play.

It's quite insightful, really. The combination of FI and "self-awareness" is sufficient for retirement, but seeing as one could possess either to varying intensities it's quite possible to enjoy retirement before one's situation formally fits the definition.

[sol]

I think we can all agree that the "Internet Retirement Police" definition of retirement is completely wrong.

Yes, the IRP definition is weird, but I'm not happy with MMM's definition either.  By his rules, my wife and I are already retired because we could technically live off of our assets, even though we both still go sit in a cube all day. 

Funny, I don't feel retired.  I still have a work ID.  I still collect a paycheck to do the same work I've always done.  I still get employer match to my 401k plan, because I'm still saving for retirement.

We do like our jobs, but not so much that we would do them for free.  We work because our current assets will not support our current lifestyle expenses.  If we both got fired today and could never work for money again, we'd have to move somewhere cheaper and cut back on the vacations, but we'd be fine.  We COULD retire today.  We are NOT retired.  Despite MMM telling me that I'm retired already just because I don't have to work for money to avoid starving to death.

[arebelspy]

Despite my not being an IRP, I share sol's reservations with MMM's definition.

It's certainly possible to FI before RE, IMO.

But I also think that MMM is retired.

I think my new goal is to have a need for a "day clock."  That sounds like a lovely thing to lose track of.

Hah, glad I'm not the only one.  I saw that, and added it to my "someday" list - can't wait to need it.

[burly]

Sol,

I like your point but I don't think that was MMM's intention (maybe I should re-read his post). Taking your argument one step further, anyone who has zero debt with a small stash could move out of the country to a extremely low cost of living area and would then be defined as retired. I believe the definition of retired relates to your current cost of living. As you stated you are not retired due to where you live and your lifestyle. The final step to retiring for you would be to move, if that was your intention.

Therefor you are correct in that you are not retired because ceteris peribus, you cannot afford to retire. However, you are capable of retirement if you choose to reduce cost of living.

I think we can all agree that the "Internet Retirement Police" definition of retirement is completely wrong.

Yes, the IRP definition is weird, but I'm not happy with MMM's definition either.  By his rules, my wife and I are already retired because we could technically live off of our assets, even though we both still go sit in a cube all day. 

Funny, I don't feel retired.  I still have a work ID.  I still collect a paycheck to do the same work I've always done.  I still get employer match to my 401k plan, because I'm still saving for retirement.

We do like our jobs, but not so much that we would do them for free.  We work because our current assets will not support our current lifestyle expenses.  If we both got fired today and could never work for money again, we'd have to move somewhere cheaper and cut back on the vacations, but we'd be fine.  We COULD retire today.  We are NOT retired.  Despite MMM telling me that I'm retired already just because I don't have to work for money to avoid starving to death.

[darkelenchus]

By his [i.e. MMM's] rules, my wife and I are already retired because we could technically live off of our assets, even though we both still go sit in a cube all day. 

Funny, I don't feel retired.  I still have a work ID.  I still collect a paycheck to do the same work I've always done.  I still get employer match to my 401k plan, because I'm still saving for retirement.

The definition is defensible. This is a harder case, but possibly could be resolved by considering retirement as an ability and an act rather than simply a state of being (i.e. something that you have or that you undergo), which I think strikes at the heart of the tension between MMM/EREJacob and the IRP. During the Pre-FI period, one might have a savings rate capable of acquiring the ability to retire; one would be an aspiring-"retire-er," to coin a new term. After attaining FI and gaining awareness of what FI entails, one would have the ability to retire; one would then be a retire-er (just as, say, that a guitar player is a guitar player even when she isn't playing). Finally, one retires when she exercises her ability.

sol, you've acquired the ability to retire - you're a retire-er - but don't yet feel it's prudent to exercise that ability.

I understand the IRP point to an extent. Our grammar can lure us into thinking of retirement as a passive set of events (compare "I'm retired" with "I'm incapacitated;" and "I'm in retirement" with "I'm in young adulthood"), and this aspect of the term tends to be emphasized and reinforced in society. So, even though it's not introducing something alien to the concept, it still seems foreign when the FIRE community mostly focuses on the active aspect.

Anyway, my two cents.

[Zaga]

I love that day clock!  I'm also looking forward to the day when that will be needed around here!

[Nords]

Retirement, financial independence, same concept, different vocabulary.  When a language stops growing & changing then it's referred to as "dead".

Semantic analysis aside, here's the real emotional flashpoint with the concept of early retirement:  our credibility.

What if the finances of ER don't work?  What if us ERs, especially us blogger ERs, are lying to ourselves frantically scrambling to patch up some sort of financial fig leaf to hide the flaws in our financial planning-- or the lack of planning?  What if Wade Pfau's articles really do mean that ER doesn't work anymore?  What if all of our "leisure" activities are really just a massive coverup to generate the income that we so desperately need in order to afford rubber gloves & facemasks for our dumpster diving, and a new axe-sharpening file to cut more firewood for the stove, and maybe some tarps to cover the holes in the roof of our RV until we donate enough blood plasma to buy a tube of caulk?

What if we articulate ER evangelists are just makin' stuff up?

It's happening even now.  While MMM was a speaker at FINCON12, here's the background of one of the panelists at another presentation:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/rob_bennett_know.html

Look at the creator of one of the Web's most successful personal-finance blogs, Get Rich Slowly.  It's easy to form the conclusion that he "sold out" and hid behind a non-disclosure agreement for nearly three years before he revealed (most of) the facts.  Then he abandoned the blog moved on to more fruitful activities.  I think he's a good guy who's realizing out what he wants as he goes along.  But that's too simple for a compelling conspiracy theory behind the behavior of a public figure.

I'm guilty of ER skepticism myself.  The more Jacob Lund Fisker insists that he's doing what he wants, the more I wonder whether he really has the experience & confidence to know what he wants.  (Of course he does.  But if I'm wondering about it then there must be plenty of others who are wondering too.)  The more he protests & defends, the more skeptical I am.  He's probably the ER equivalent of Warren Buffett (or at least Bill Miller) but his decisions & actions expose him to accusations of abandoning the experiment before sufficient data was gathered to discriminate between skill & luck.  Or maybe I've formed the impression that a certain length of temporal suffering has to be experienced before someone is really motivated to pursue ER-- and stay that way.  Otherwise my daughter could have attempted to ERE on her college fund during her senior year of high school.

FI should be even easier for military retirees, with inflation-fighting pensions and cheap healthcare.  Yet one PhD thesis (by a military retiree) showed that at least 85% of them go right into a bridge career, frequently earning a civilian paycheck while they're still on terminal leave before starting retirement.  If this ER stuff was so easy, then shouldn't the military be able to do it?  Surely servicemembers are logical and amenable to mathematical financial persuasion-- if they're not falling for the ER lifestyle, then what flaws are we hiding from the gullible civilians?

One of the ways I persuade people to share their advice & stories for my book & blog is to give contributors a vote on which military charities get the royalties and blog income.  It's a nice PR tactic, and it's good karma.  But it's also about the only way I've found to deflect the criticism that I'm writing the book to pay my utility bills.  The more successful you are at drawing a crowd and generating the income, the more you're accused of being financially dependent on it.

The only way I know to persuade someone that you're FI is to show that you're living on passive income and giving all of your earned income to charity.  And frankly, that requires a degree of financial disclosure with which even I am uncomfortable.  I don't mind sharing info that's already public (like my pension) but I don't want to make myself an attractive target for charity fundraisers-- or even worse, theft & ransom.

I consider myself retired, and I see myself doing pretty much the same thing in my 70s that I'm doing now.  (Hopefully using a better way to interact with the Internet.  A flying car and a personal jetpack would be nice, too.)  Yet many of my relatives (let alone my neighbors) consider me chronically unemployable.  The humorous part of their perspective is that they're absolutely right-- I don't ever want to work for an employer ever again, even if the workplace offered twice-daily surfing breaks.

The Internet Retirement Police might sound like they're complaining, even wussy, but what they're really asking for is independent verification... and a warranty would be nice, too.  I can respect that caveat emptor attitude, even while it proves that they're not intellectually committed or sufficiently emotionally burned-out ready to retire yet.

Otherwise the probate process is the only way to tell whether we've been financially brilliant... or whether we're just makin' stuff up.

As you can see, I don't have a good answer to this conundrum.  But feel free to help me edit this draft blog post, so that I can try to persuade more servicemembers to pursue financial independence.

My brother-in-law receives a disability check each month from the US Navy,...

Would that payment be for a disability retirement?  Was he discharged on a set of orders that used the word "retirement"?

[Spartana]

As you can see, I don't have a good answer to this conundrum.  But feel free to help me edit this draft blog post, so that I can try to persuade more servicemembers to pursue financial independence.

My brother-in-law receives a disability check each month from the US Navy,...

Would that payment be for a disability retirement?  Was he discharged on a set of orders that used the word "retirement"?

Even if he didn't get a disability "pension" he still may earn enough to be FI and retired (not workin for the man) with a VA disability benefit. I have a 50% rated service connected disability and will get a monthly benefit for life - plus free/low cost use of the VA hospital. if I were frugal enough ( I am) and had inexpensive or paid off rent or mortgage (I do) then I can easily live on just my small military/VA disability pension and retire. So it's not so much how much income (from any source) you get each month, it's more about how much you spend. Living the military life definetely prepares you for a frugal ciivilian life and ER if you don't need every new fangled do-dad that comes along.  I was only in 10 years so didn't earn a pension, but worked a government job afterwards and was able to add my time in service to my government pension (able to recieve at age 50). But the VA disability benefit, combined with savings, no debt and a paid off house, allowed me to retire at age 42.

[arebelspy]

Nords clearly isn't retired.

My theory is Nords' full time job is bragging about how much he gets to surf.

I'm not sure how he's monetizing it, but my current working theory is that he has invented some machine to convert jealousy into dollars.

[Nords]

Nords clearly isn't retired.
My theory is Nords' full time job is bragging about how much he gets to surf.
I'm not sure how he's monetizing it, but my current working theory is that he has invented some machine to convert jealousy into dollars.

The Hawaii Visitors & Conventions Bureau gives us tax credits (and an affiliate commission from your frequent-flyer mileage redemptions) when we post regular surfing/weather reports during the winter months.

Surfing is also a metaphor for:
1.  Any enjoyable activity with a somewhat unpredictable frequency/intensity of occurrence, and
2.  Requiring you to efficiently manage your time/obligations so that you can instantly reorganize your plans according to emergent conditions.

Luckily I only have the recuperative capacity to do it about 3x/week, and around here everyone understands surfing having priority over other commitments.  And I'm really really glad that I didn't learn how to surf until I'd retired.  If I'd had to balance surfing with my military duties then I'm not sure I would have made the right choices.

[Spartana]

Nords clearly isn't retired.

My theory is Nords' full time job is bragging about how much he gets to surf.

I'm not sure how he's monetizing it, but my current working theory is that he has invented some machine to convert jealousy into dollars.

Ha ha! If gloats were dollars I'd be rich too :-)! I have been known as the Gloat-Queen on another early retirement forum.

I don't look at retirement and being FI as the same thing at all. To me retirement means you are no longer working a "real" paying  kind of job - whether for someone else or self-employed - and that you have no plans to ever return to working life. You basicly have an income stream from some other source than a job to support you. If you continue to work part time or need to earn extra money to live on, then I'd consider that partial or semi-retired.

FI mean you have enough money or passive (i.e. non-working) income stream from a source other then a job to support you - whether you are still working or not. Two seperate things IMO. So you can be FI and not retired. By the same token you can be retired (i.e. not working and no intent to ever work again) but don't have enough income or assets to be permanently FI. You may just be hoping rich grandmama passes away leaving you everything so that you never have to work again :-)!

[dharmon]

I too was not satisfied with the MMM definition. Some good points were brought up in the comments, but unfortunately the response they received was dismissive (along the lines of, "if you don't like my definition, start your own blog and make up your own."). Amusing? Maybe. The way things work? No.

In particular, somebody brought up a point about Warren Buffett. He clearly has enough money to be considered FI, but is he retired? By the MMM definition, yes. But something rubs me the wrong way about calling someone still very active in his career (see recent news!) "retired". It just doesn't fit.

I think the problem stems from looking for an answer to the question: "What do you do?" Saying, "I'm financially independent!" sounds kinda stupid as a response. "Retired" sounds better, but then requires retrofitting the definition of "retired" to fit "what you do".

How about instead, just telling them the literal answer to their question? "I raise my son, do some carpentry work part-time, and act as a landlord, although it doesn't take much time, blahblahblah", or "I work on cars and volunteer at the local XYZ." Unless you're insistent on letting everybody around you know that you have enough money in the bank where you can do what you want, even though you're relatively young? What's the point of insisting on calling oneself, "retired"?

Personally, I prefer, "I am a man of independent means." as an answer. :)

[secondcor521]

If this ER stuff was so easy, then shouldn't the military be able to do it?  Surely servicemembers are logical and amenable to mathematical financial persuasion-- if they're not falling for the ER lifestyle, then what flaws are we hiding from the gullible civilians?
...

As you can see, I don't have a good answer to this conundrum.  But feel free to help me edit this draft blog post, so that I can try to persuade more servicemembers to pursue financial independence.

Nords,

To me there is an inherent conflict between ER, which requires a willingness to take a path far less traveled (e.g. saving 50% of one's income for a decade is rather atypical behavior in the broader populace but boringly common on the kinds of websites you and I frequent), and one of the central premises of a military organization:  a common brotherhood characterized by everyone wearing uniforms, hair off the collar, and a pretty rigid set of behavioral expectations.

More simply, intelligence, logic, and basic personal finance aren't sufficient for FIRE.  You also need to add some measure of willingness to be a contrarian.

My 2 cents,

2Cor521

[Bakari]

Nords,

To me there is an inherent conflict between ER, which requires a willingness to take a path far less traveled (e.g. saving 50% of one's income for a decade is rather atypical behavior in the broader populace but boringly common on the kinds of websites you and I frequent), and one of the central premises of a military organization:  a common brotherhood characterized by everyone wearing uniforms, hair off the collar, and a pretty rigid set of behavioral expectations.

More simply, intelligence, logic, and basic personal finance aren't sufficient for FIRE.  You also need to add some measure of willingness to be a contrarian.

My 2 cents,

2Cor521

Granted, I am 1) only a reserve, and 2) live in the San Francisco area, but I have found it very easy to do both.  It feels no more conflicting than, say, wearing fancy clothes at a nice restaurant, jeans and a t-shirt at the supermarket, a swimsuit at the beach and nothing in bed.  When in Rome... you know?  The people I work with - both reserves and active - aren't mindless automatons at all.  They do, however, have a fairly high rate of buying new cars and motorcycles on credit, and every single person at my Station besides me has a smart phone.
I think the reason military retirees have trouble living on pension is the same reason most Americans can't live on 401k + SS, we all tend to spend as much as we have, and get used to that lifestyle.  In the military you get used to free rent and meals, too, so you get to pretend you are making more than you really are.

[Nords]

To me there is an inherent conflict between ER, which requires a willingness to take a path far less traveled (e.g. saving 50% of one's income for a decade is rather atypical behavior in the broader populace but boringly common on the kinds of websites you and I frequent), and one of the central premises of a military organization:  a common brotherhood characterized by everyone wearing uniforms, hair off the collar, and a pretty rigid set of behavioral expectations.
More simply, intelligence, logic, and basic personal finance aren't sufficient for FIRE.  You also need to add some measure of willingness to be a contrarian.

Well, that sheds a whole new light on the comments in a few of my fitness reports!

I agree with both you and Bakari-- we're trained to conform (and punished for blatant nonconformity), but we also know how to flip the switch on our cultures and blend in when necessary.  (If we choose to do so.)  And we certainly tend to focus on the career instead of financial management ("20 years:  where did all the money go?!?").

One of that PhD survey's tentative findings (not much data) was that the higher up the rank ladder, the more likely you were to continue working in a bridge career.  The military culture is very strong in service, "take care of people", "having a dog in the fight", and "stay relevant".  It's all hard to turn off.  One enlistment might not set the mold, but after 10 years it's pretty tough to break out.  After 25 years you probably don't even realize there's a mold anymore.

It's been very difficult for me to throttle back my competitive side.  Even today, after a decade of retirement, when I see those USMC commercials I still catch myself heading for the recruiter's office.  You think I'd know better by now.  I find it very challenging to NOT enter contests for surfing, taekwondo, blogging, pullups... you name it.

[Jamesqf]

I understand the IRP point to an extent. Our grammar can lure us into thinking of retirement as a passive set of events (compare "I'm retired" with "I'm incapacitated;" and "I'm in retirement" with "I'm in young adulthood"), and this aspect of the term tends to be emphasized and reinforced in society.

I think you have hit the nail, but haven't quite driven it all the way home.  Not only is "retired" like "incapacitated" in a grammatical sense, in this society they tend to have overlapping meanings.  "Retired" is often seen as meaning that the retired person has been incapacitated by age, and so is no longer capable of doing anything that's worth the money an employer would pay them.  (Hence the frequent suggestion that retired folks fill their empty hours with volunteer work - it's not like they could do anything worth paying for, is it?)  Then tie the idea of retirement to the sometimes legally mandated forced retirement, and is it any surprise that some of us don't exactly embrace the idea of retirement with open arms?  Or even that we can't see much in MMM's lifestyle - or FTM my own, since I'm "retired" by his definition - that matches up with our idea of retirement?

[Spartana]

To me there is an inherent conflict between ER, which requires a willingness to take a path far less traveled (e.g. saving 50% of one's income for a decade is rather atypical behavior in the broader populace but boringly common on the kinds of websites you and I frequent), and one of the central premises of a military organization:  a common brotherhood characterized by everyone wearing uniforms, hair off the collar, and a pretty rigid set of behavioral expectations.

More simply, intelligence, logic, and basic personal finance aren't sufficient for FIRE.  You also need to add some measure of willingness to be a contrarian.

My 2 cents,

2Cor521

But that rigid set of behavioral expectations while in the service is in pursuit of a different goal - one of self sacrifice, a life of personal hardship, and discipline - then the goal of most of the civilian population.It is not focused on money or aquiring "stuff" but more on doing and experiencing things - often for others not themselves (a higher calling for many in many cases). I think that those things make the military member much more able to choose a life style that can lead to FI much quicker then that of a civilian who's focus is often on working to  attain money to buy things or have better things. Of course in realitity everyone is different - whether in the service or not - and so what they want out of life (money or freedom or both) will be more of an indicator of when they retire and/or reach FI.

[Spartana]

I understand the IRP point to an extent. Our grammar can lure us into thinking of retirement as a passive set of events (compare "I'm retired" with "I'm incapacitated;" and "I'm in retirement" with "I'm in young adulthood"), and this aspect of the term tends to be emphasized and reinforced in society.

I think you have hit the nail, but haven't quite driven it all the way home.  Not only is "retired" like "incapacitated" in a grammatical sense, in this society they tend to have overlapping meanings.  "Retired" is often seen as meaning that the retired person has been incapacitated by age, and so is no longer capable of doing anything that's worth the money an employer would pay them.  (Hence the frequent suggestion that retired folks fill their empty hours with volunteer work - it's not like they could do anything worth paying for, is it?)  Then tie the idea of retirement to the sometimes legally mandated forced retirement, and is it any surprise that some of us don't exactly embrace the idea of retirement with open arms?  Or even that we can't see much in MMM's lifestyle - or FTM my own, since I'm "retired" by his definition - that matches up with our idea of retirement?

I retired early so I could "do" stuff. My job was the thing that incapacitated me. It was a time suck that left little time in my life to really live.

[Jamesqf]

I retired early so I could "do" stuff. My job was the thing that incapacitated me. It was a time suck that left little time in my life to really live.

Then perhaps the problem was not the fact that you were working, but the particular job you worked at.  I certainly think my job enhances my life in ways quite apart from the money.  I've never had a job I really hated (particular managers excepted).

[Nords]

I think that those things make the military member much more able to choose a life style that can lead to FI much quicker then that of a civilian who's focus is often on working to  attain money to buy things or have better things. Of course in realitity everyone is different - whether in the service or not - and so what they want out of life (money or freedom or both) will be more of an indicator of when they retire and/or reach FI.

The confounding conundrum of this concept continues to be this:  if military veterans can get to FI more quickly (especially with inflation-fighting pensions and cheap healthcare) then where are all the FI military veterans?

We got a whole book out of the question.

[Bakari]

I retired early so I could "do" stuff. My job was the thing that incapacitated me. It was a time suck that left little time in my life to really live.

Then perhaps the problem was not the fact that you were working, but the particular job you worked at.  I certainly think my job enhances my life in ways quite apart from the money.  I've never had a job I really hated (particular managers excepted).

I'm sure thats true for many, but there is no possible job I would ever be happy doing 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. 
Doesn't matter if it was something I do for fun, its the fact of having to be somewhere, doing something specific, for the majority of my waking hours.

Surely as a libertarian you can understand the desire for freedom, just on principal, even if its a freedom from being forced to do something you enjoy?

[Jamesqf]

Surely as a libertarian you can understand the desire for freedom, just on principal, even if its a freedom from being forced to do something you enjoy?

Sure, and that's one of the reasons I have saved & invested enough to be FI.  I don't have to work, and haven't had to for maybe a decade now.  Barring the sort of financial collapse that makes '08 look like a minor hiccup, I have enough to ensure that I can eat and have a place to sleep out of the weather - and with indoor plumbing, even. 

The flip side of this is equally true: if I want to work at something I am good at, but can't because I've passed the official retirement age, then aren't I just as unfree as if I were forced to work a job I hated?

[Spartana]

I think that those things make the military member much more able to choose a life style that can lead to FI much quicker then that of a civilian who's focus is often on working to  attain money to buy things or have better things. Of course in realitity everyone is different - whether in the service or not - and so what they want out of life (money or freedom or both) will be more of an indicator of when they retire and/or reach FI.

The confounding conundrum of this concept continues to be this:  if military veterans can get to FI more quickly (especially with inflation-fighting pensions and cheap healthcare) then where are all the FI military veterans?

We got a whole book out of the question.

A confounding conundrum it is ;-)! I really don't know the answer but I think it's probably the same reason civilians with high incomes can't seem to become FI - they just want stuff and more stuff. Those high earning civilians spend all their money or get into deep debt despite having a high income.  Be that a bigger house, a nicer car, or luxury items. And I think that same "Affluenza" effects those in the military as well - maybe even to a higher degree because they often feel deprived of those things/lifestyle while in the service. So once they are out of the service they sort of run amok financially and find they aren't able to stay debt-free and live on their retirement pay. Not sure how to teach the joys of frugal living nd ER to military people so that they can be FI on their pensions if they want. Maybe more sites like this and people like you writing books geared towards military members.

[Spartana]

I retired early so I could "do" stuff. My job was the thing that incapacitated me. It was a time suck that left little time in my life to really live.

Then perhaps the problem was not the fact that you were working, but the particular job you worked at.  I certainly think my job enhances my life in ways quite apart from the money.  I've never had a job I really hated (particular managers excepted).

No - I actually liked my job but it wasn't something I could do part time or on the road (I love to travel long term) and it just took up  too much of my time for me to do much of anything else.  Plus I longed for that freedom to direct my day to day life without having to compromise any of it for a job. However I do know lots of people who do what they love and get paid for it - and who often thrive, or at least survive, all the other crap that goes along with having a job - even a job they love. And if I could find someone who would pay me to play beach volleyball all day I'd still be working too :-)!

[tooqk4u22]

I retired early so I could "do" stuff. My job was the thing that incapacitated me. It was a time suck that left little time in my life to really live.

Then perhaps the problem was not the fact that you were working, but the particular job you worked at.  I certainly think my job enhances my life in ways quite apart from the money.  I've never had a job I really hated (particular managers excepted).

No - I actually liked my job but it wasn't something I could do part time or on the road (I love to travel long term) and it just took up  too much of my time for me to do much of anything else.  Plus I longed for that freedom to direct my day to day life without having to compromise any of it for a job. However I do know lots of people who do what they love and get paid for it - and who often thrive, or at least survive, all the other crap that goes along with having a job - even a job they love. And if I could find someone who would pay me to play beach volleyball all day I'd still be working too :-)!

I think this is probably the biggest issue facing people who are FIRE but want to work as well - there are very few jobs that provide ample flexibility to do what you want and when you want.  Obviously this makes complete sense as businesses (even noble ones and non-profits) need reliable and predictable employees to meet their goals. 

[Mrs MM]

I think we can all agree that the "Internet Retirement Police" definition of retirement is completely wrong.

Yes, the IRP definition is weird, but I'm not happy with MMM's definition either.  By his rules, my wife and I are already retired because we could technically live off of our assets, even though we both still go sit in a cube all day. 

Funny, I don't feel retired.  I still have a work ID.  I still collect a paycheck to do the same work I've always done.  I still get employer match to my 401k plan, because I'm still saving for retirement.

We do like our jobs, but not so much that we would do them for free.  We work because our current assets will not support our current lifestyle expenses.  If we both got fired today and could never work for money again, we'd have to move somewhere cheaper and cut back on the vacations, but we'd be fine.  We COULD retire today.  We are NOT retired.  Despite MMM telling me that I'm retired already just because I don't have to work for money to avoid starving to death.

I guess retirement also requires a mental leap. A big enough leap that you decide to leave your old life behind and start a new one.  You should try it!  :)

We were in the same situation as you, except me made that mental leap and quit.

But this is the real key of your statement and why you are not retired: "We work because our current assets will not support our current lifestyle expenses."  This does not fall within MMMs definition.

So, you're not Retired... yet.

[Mrs MM]

I'm sure thats true for many, but there is no possible job I would ever be happy doing 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. 
Doesn't matter if it was something I do for fun, its the fact of having to be somewhere, doing something specific, for the majority of my waking hours.

Surely as a libertarian you can understand the desire for freedom, just on principal, even if its a freedom from being forced to do something you enjoy?

Well said Bakari!

I love what you're doing, by the way.  After our "Retirement", I realized that it would have been easy to technically retire later, but start doing what you want right now.  That's why I'll never understand those folks that work like crazy to reach FI (many of whom feel they need an awful lot of money to get there).  Why not enjoy some of that life earlier?  It's not all or nothing.

[Spartana]

I retired early so I could "do" stuff. My job was the thing that incapacitated me. It was a time suck that left little time in my life to really live.

Then perhaps the problem was not the fact that you were working, but the particular job you worked at.  I certainly think my job enhances my life in ways quite apart from the money.  I've never had a job I really hated (particular managers excepted).

No - I actually liked my job but it wasn't something I could do part time or on the road (I love to travel long term) and it just took up  too much of my time for me to do much of anything else.  Plus I longed for that freedom to direct my day to day life without having to compromise any of it for a job. However I do know lots of people who do what they love and get paid for it - and who often thrive, or at least survive, all the other crap that goes along with having a job - even a job they love. And if I could find someone who would pay me to play beach volleyball all day I'd still be working too :-)!

I think this is probably the biggest issue facing people who are FIRE but want to work as well - there are very few jobs that provide ample flexibility to do what you want and when you want.  Obviously this makes complete sense as businesses (even noble ones and non-profits) need reliable and predictable employees to meet their goals.

And it's not just the case with employers, it's often the case with volunteer organizations. They want people who are able to have a schedule and stick to that schedule and often don't want you to volunteer if you can't do that. For example: I volunteer at my local VA hospital when I am in town (travel about 6 months a year) and they have pretty much stopped allowing me to volunteer for anything except the Homeless Vets program where I can provide clothing and essentials. So even if I contact them when I am in town, they don't want me. Same when I tried to do volunteer work at my local Humane Society. They wouldn't even sign me up for anything unless I could make a long term commitment. I thought it was crazy - I mean I can walk a dog or play with a cat or clean out a cage when I'm able too  to help relieve staff or other volunteers - but NOPE they wouldn't do it. So unless you do have the type of retirement that the IRP mandate (vegetating on the rocker with a glass of Metamucial), it's hard not only to find some sort of employment on a p/t/ or temp basis, but hard to find volunteer activities as well if you are travelling or involved with a lot of varied recreational activities.

[Jamesqf]

I think this is probably the biggest issue facing people who are FIRE but want to work as well - there are very few jobs that provide ample flexibility to do what you want and when you want.

I agree on that, and I am lucky* that I work in a field (the scientific side of tech) where flexibility is possible, and to a significant degree accepted.  Even my last actually on a salary job was like that: I could bike in to work at about 9 am (nice in itself, since the company located their lab in about a thousand acres of wildlife preserve), take off an hour or two in the afternoon to go for a walk or bike ride, stay until 10 pm or later if I got absorbed in something, work from home about half the time...

I think a lot of the reason there isn't more of this job flexibility is at least partly because employees don't insist on it.  They've still got the "work 'til you retire, then play golf every day" mindset.


(*If you want to call it luck - I chose this path because it looked like it would provide both income and flexibility, and worked pretty darned hard to get here.)

[DoubleDown]

I guess retirement also requires a mental leap. A big enough leap that you decide to leave your old life behind and start a new one.

This is a very important point and one that differentiates between:

- Having all the absolute certainties, facts, and figures to guar-an-damn-tee you can retire with 100% certainty you'll never need to earn another dollar your entire life; and

- Having the optimism or built-in confidence to set forth and blaze a path, knowing you can always deal with any adversities that might come your way

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you and MMM didn't just willy-nilly decide one night after work to retire in the course of a 5-minute conversation.* But you also had the positive attitude to say, "While it might seem unusual to retire at age 30, we can do this, and if some adversity comes up, we can always handle it and do something else. We don't need to wait until we can show with mathematical proof that our portfolio will survive every eventuality we could ever dream up."

I think many in the IRP camp lack that enthusiastic self-confidence. They just can't understand making the mental leap and THEN making the actual ER jump, not doing things the other way around.

*That would be an awesome and interesting post I'd like to see one day: The thought process, the back and forth, that went into making the leap!

[sol]

I guess retirement also requires a mental leap. A big enough leap that you decide to leave your old life behind and start a new one.  You should try it!  :)

We were in the same situation as you, except me made that mental leap and quit.

I don't disagree with this definition of retirement, but it also highlights the problems with the MMM IRP post. 

Essentially, the IRP argument is that the MMM family is still earning money from working and so are not retired.  Whether or not they need the money is irrelevant to such people.

The MMM response is that anybody who doesn't have to work is retired, as long as they have made some kind of mental leap like leaving a stable job. 

Which is fine, but it does sort of blur the line. 
Are you retired if you leave your corporate job and work part time as a kayak instructor because you love kayaking?  Sure.
Are you retired if you leave your corporate job to work two part time jobs, even if you could survive without them?  Probably.
Are you retired if you leave your corporate job to work another corporate job, even if you could survive without it?  Umm...
Are you retired if you keep your corporate job, even if you could survive without it?  I think not.

This line of reasoning only highlights the silliness of it.  Yes, my family could survive on Jacob-level frugality and be just fine.  But if we like working, and it provides a lifestyle that we think is worth the obligation, I don't think we count as retired.  By that rationale, anybody with $150k in assets would be retired, if only they could share rent in an RV and learn to insource all of their other costs, regardless of how they spend their days.

[Jamesqf]

I guess retirement also requires a mental leap. A big enough leap that you decide to leave your old life behind and start a new one.  You should try it!  :)

So how does that mental leap of work -> MMM-style retirement differ from the leap of making a total career change?  Which I've done, along with simultaneously moving ~500 miles from where I had the previous business.

That's why I'll never understand those folks that work like crazy to reach FI (many of whom feel they need an awful lot of money to get there). 

Ever been in a situation where you didn't know which dumpster your next meal was coming from?  If you had, you might understand why some people's standards for FI are different from those who've spent their lives within reach of a middle-class family support system.

[Mrs MM]

I guess retirement also requires a mental leap. A big enough leap that you decide to leave your old life behind and start a new one.  You should try it!  :)

We were in the same situation as you, except me made that mental leap and quit.

I don't disagree with this definition of retirement, but it also highlights the problems with the MMM IRP post. 

Essentially, the IRP argument is that the MMM family is still earning money from working and so are not retired.  Whether or not they need the money is irrelevant to such people.

The MMM response is that anybody who doesn't have to work is retired, as long as they have made some kind of mental leap like leaving a stable job. 

Which is fine, but it does sort of blur the line. 
Are you retired if you leave your corporate job and work part time as a kayak instructor because you love kayaking?  Sure.
Are you retired if you leave your corporate job to work two part time jobs, even if you could survive without them?  Probably.
Are you retired if you leave your corporate job to work another corporate job, even if you could survive without it?  Umm...
Are you retired if you keep your corporate job, even if you could survive without it?  I think not.

This line of reasoning only highlights the silliness of it.  Yes, my family could survive on Jacob-level frugality and be just fine.  But if we like working, and it provides a lifestyle that we think is worth the obligation, I don't think we count as retired.  By that rationale, anybody with $150k in assets would be retired, if only they could share rent in an RV and learn to insource all of their other costs, regardless of how they spend their days.

Hmmmm... I'm trying to understand your point of view.  It seems pretty simple to me. 

1. You Retire - officially.  You no longer need to work.  Done.  You celebrate.  Your passive income can cover you for your entire lifetime.  There's no question about it because your expenses are LESS than your investment earnings.

2. If you decide to later work for pay, then that money does not get used AT ALL.  You don't spend it, you don't use it, you either save, invest, or donate it.  If you start increasing your lifestyle in such a way that your income becomes required, then you're not really retired any more.

So, we spend $25K per year.  Our investments bring in more than that.  So, we're retired.

[Mrs MM]

Ever been in a situation where you didn't know which dumpster your next meal was coming from?  If you had, you might understand why some people's standards for FI are different from those who've spent their lives within reach of a middle-class family support system.

Come on Jamesqf.  You knew what I meant.  You don't know my background or what myself or members of my family have been through, so no need to go there.

[arebelspy]

Hmmmm... I'm trying to understand your point of view.  It seems pretty simple to me. 

1. You Retire - officially.  You no longer need to work.  Done.  You celebrate.  Your passive income can cover you for your entire lifetime.  There's no question about it because your expenses are LESS than your investment earnings.

2. If you decide to later work for pay, then that money does not get used AT ALL.  You don't spend it, you don't use it, you either save, invest, or donate it.  If you start increasing your lifestyle in such a way that your income becomes required, then you're not really retired any more.

So, we spend $25K per year.  Our investments bring in more than that.  So, we're retired.

Yup, that's exactly my point of view (don't know if it's sol's as well). 

If I choose to keep teaching even after hitting FI, I won't say I'm retired (even though I could be), until I do step 1 (retire "officially," whatever that means).

You and Mr. MM are definitely retired, even though you earn money.

Sol's final example ("Are you retired if you keep your corporate job, even if you could survive without it?  I think not.") is where I think most - even those of us not IRP - disagree with MMM.  MMM would say yes, you're retired.  Sol and I would not.

At that point though, who cares?  You're FI, you can do whatever the hell you want, and who cares if you say "I'm retired, but still working" or "I'm FI but still working" or "I'm glorblydorp but still working."  You have the freedom to do whatever, and I don't care what you call it.

[Bakari]

It seems like Sol's argument is largely focused on the "able to survive" part - he is able to "survive" on his passive income, but not at the level of consumption he would prefer.

So what if we just change "sufficient savings (or other assets) that you could live indefinitely off the passive income they provide"
to "sufficient savings (or other assets) that I could live indefinitely off the passive income they provide at whatever level of consumption you are happy with?

That's the point where there is absolutely no incentive to work other than enjoying the work itself, and your boss (or clients) no longer has any power over you because you can quit at any time for any reason.  So you have freedom, whether or not you choose to exercise it at any given moment.

Granted, there are those who would continue working 9-5 cubicle jobs even at that point, and then we would still have to debate whether those crazy people are "retired".
One common example of people who are wealthy who keep working is movie stars.  But sometimes some may officially "retire" from acting - and then start directing, or producing, or writing.  If they weren't independently wealthy, that could be seen as a career change, but since they are, its more like a hobby (that happens to pay)

I don't know if that really solves the debate any, but I think just adding in enough to live on "comfortably" (what ever that means to you) should resolve most of the conflict, between MMM and Sol's versions at least

[arebelspy]

I don't know if that really solves the debate any, but I think just adding in enough to live on "comfortably" (what ever that means to you) should resolve most of the conflict, between MMM and Sol's versions at least

I think you still have the issue of someone who has not yet quit their job they've been doing for 30 years, even though they have enough to live comfortably (or more) off of solely passive income.

That, to me (and I think to sol), is FI, but not retired.  It is retired to MMM.

But again, as above, if you're in that position, who gives a flip what you call it.

[Jamesqf]

So, we spend $25K per year.  Our investments bring in more than that.  So, we're retired.

OK.  Except that by that definition, Warren Buffett is retired :-)

[tooqk4u22]

This line of reasoning only highlights the silliness of it.  Yes, my family could survive on Jacob-level frugality and be just fine.  But if we like working, and it provides a lifestyle that we think is worth the obligation, I don't think we count as retired.  By that rationale, anybody with $150k in assets would be retired, if only they could share rent in an RV and learn to insource all of their other costs, regardless of how they spend their days.

The lifestyle part of the comment is the determining factor in this whole discussion and is the distinction between Retired and FI. 

I agree with SOL on the premise that he could be retired if ala Jacob at ERE but of that is not the lifestyle he wants then he won't be happy/satisfied - but on some level SOL is FI if he is willing to to cut back to that level to survive/live.  FI is being in a position to choose your lifestyle but still may require work - somewhat akin to FU money.

EDIT:  Just got to comments by Bakari and Arebelspy the above seems in line with their view.  If I have a $50k lifestyle but can live on $30k if had to and my passive income is $30k then I may be FI but I am not retired.  Obviously what is a good lifestyle is a whole different debate.

[arebelspy]

If I have a $50k lifestyle but can live on $30k if had to and my passive income is $30k then I may be FI but I am not retired. 

I wouldn't say that's FI or retired, but merely some FU money (aka you could say FU, quit, and have enough to cover your minimum lifestyle, but not the one you desire).

I think the "edge case" where we most disagree though is someone who is working a job for 20 years, gets enough money to cover all their expenses (including lavish ones, everything they'd want to spend) and even more (say they have 5MM, and expenses of 40k/yr) and keep working.  MMM would call them retired.  sol and I would call them FI, but not yet retired.

If they quit their job, and took on another paying job just for fun, then I'd call them retired.  For some reason the act of changing what they are doing, in my mind, is required to actually be "retired" - you need to retire from what you've been doing first.

[tooqk4u22]

If I have a $50k lifestyle but can live on $30k if had to and my passive income is $30k then I may be FI but I am not retired. 

I wouldn't say that's FI or retired, but merely some FU money (aka you could say FU, quit, and have enough to cover your minimum lifestyle, but not the one you desire).

I disagree - well with a caveat anyway.  If the the $30k lifestyle makes me unhappy then yes I agree with you.  But I mean it more in the way that at $30k I can still live happily and comfortably but maybe with less wants being satisfied (luxuries, travel, etc.) ala MMM's trip to HI - the true cost of that trip would have eaten into his principal if paid for with cash but if he had foregone the trip he and the family's happiness would not have been less but it was a luxury that he was willing to pay for through labor/air miles or other employment production such as the blog. I still consider him retired and FI.  Conversely if it was an expecation (i.e. effectively mandatory) that the MMM family do an annual multiweek trip to HI or they will not be happy/satisfied and it couldn't be fully covered by the SWR from investments only (without work/miles/labor for the trip or any other efforts throughtout the year as money is fungeable) then no he is not retired or FI.

I would like to do a multi-continent trip, but if I don't so be it, but if I do I would be willing to do some work to fund it.

I think the "edge case" where we most disagree though is someone who is working a job for 20 years, gets enough money to cover all their expenses (including lavish ones, everything they'd want to spend) and even more (say they have 5MM, and expenses of 40k/yr) and keep working.  MMM would call them retired.  sol and I would call them FI, but not yet retired.

If they quit their job, and took on another paying job just for fun, then I'd call them retired.  For some reason the act of changing what they are doing, in my mind, is required to actually be "retired" - you need to retire from what you've been doing first.

I guess this is the inherent problem with the question of is one retired, FI, FU, etc?

If somebody has $5MM and $40k expenses but chooses to work then I consider them FIRE - how is it different than becoming a kayak instructor or other job for fun - maybe they like the work or social aspect or maybe it is more sad as that is their whole identity but if can be retired but chooses to work than one is retired otherwise then the standard definition of retirement has to apply in that if you work (for fun or otherwise) then you are not retired - no gray area.

[Bakari]

I think the "edge case" where we most disagree though is someone who is working a job for 20 years, gets enough money to cover all their expenses (including lavish ones, everything they'd want to spend) and even more (say they have 5MM, and expenses of 40k/yr) and keep working.  MMM would call them retired.  sol and I would call them FI, but not yet retired.

If they quit their job, and took on another paying job just for fun, then I'd call them retired.  For some reason the act of changing what they are doing, in my mind, is required to actually be "retired" - you need to retire from what you've been doing first.

In our society, one question to ask is do they actually realize they can live off passive income indefinitely with no reduction in lifestyle?
If they are working because they haven't considered the question, surely they are not retired, even though they could be.

What if, instead of quitting (or changing careers), they reduce work hours to half time, and decide to work from home 50% of the time, because they enjoy their job, but not 40 hours a week in an office?

And then, what if they had that already, feel their life has the perfect work / recreation / whatever balance already, and they just keep it all the same once they have enough passive income?  Seems like what James will do (assuming he isn't FI at current lifestyle cost already).

At some point it seems like yall are just arguing semantics. 
The key issue is just whether you are working for the purpose of income, like Sol and Tooq, working purely for pleasure, like Jacob and MMM, or both, like James and I.
Its like a crime vs negligence; its the intent that makes the difference, not the actions.

Job for the purpose of money = work
Job for the purpose of fun = hobby

Even if that job is 40 hours, or if it pays really well, or if its what you were doing before FI.

Here's an example of something most "wage slaves" would not consider doing:

"while negotiating a $5 billion investment in Goldman at the height of the financial crisis—an investment that would shore up the bank’s finances and possibly be the key to its survival—Buffett disappeared for a few hours of personal time.

“He promised his grandkids he would take them to Dairy Queen, and he did not want to be interrupted,”

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/05/25/buffetts-new-message-damn-the-deal-keep-work-and-life-in-balance/"

[arebelspy]

I guess this is the inherent problem with the question of is one retired, FI, FU, etc?

If somebody has $5MM and $40k expenses but chooses to work then I consider them FIRE - how is it different than becoming a kayak instructor or other job for fun - maybe they like the work or social aspect or maybe it is more sad as that is their whole identity but if can be retired but chooses to work than one is retired otherwise then the standard definition of retirement has to apply in that if you work (for fun or otherwise) then you are not retired - no gray area.

I consider them FI, but not RE.  "FIRE" can be broken up, IMO.

If they chose to become a kayak instructor in retirement, they are still retired, but with a job in retirement.  If they continue the same job they always did, they just haven't retired yet.

Choosing to work for fun after FI can be in retirement, or not, but MMM's definition (and yours, it seems like) says that FI = FIRE.  They are the same.  And, to me, they are not.  FI and RE are separate.  You can retire without being FI, and you can be FI without retiring.  Or you can be both.

MMM, IMO, is both.  Warren Buffet is FI, but not RE. 

[James]

I think the "edge case" where we most disagree though is someone who is working a job for 20 years, gets enough money to cover all their expenses (including lavish ones, everything they'd want to spend) and even more (say they have 5MM, and expenses of 40k/yr) and keep working.  MMM would call them retired.  sol and I would call them FI, but not yet retired.

If they quit their job, and took on another paying job just for fun, then I'd call them retired.  For some reason the act of changing what they are doing, in my mind, is required to actually be "retired" - you need to retire from what you've been doing first.

I think this is where I come down on the issue as well. 

Retirement is more than just a financial situation one is in, it's a choice. I don't see the point of describing "retirement" for someone else in general.  It's a word to be self imposed, not a description to be applied to others.  I think someone COULD work a job for 20 years, and at 10 years in realize they are FI and call themselves "retired", while continuing to work at whatever level they choose.  But it would be wrong for someone else to insist that they be considered "retired".

For myself, I will probably consider myself "retired" when I reach the point of both FI and dropping down to only working to fund my medical trips and extras I might desire.  But I think it's my choice when I consider myself retired, and I'm happy to let others have their own definition within pretty broad reasoning.

[arebelspy]

At some point it seems like yall are just arguing semantics. 

Yup.  That's all the whole "retired versus not" debate is.  That's all the IRP is, and MMM's whole post is.

The key issue is just whether you are working for the purpose of income, like Sol and Tooq, working purely for pleasure, like Jacob and MMM, or both, like James and I.
Its like a crime vs negligence; its the intent that makes the difference, not the actions.

Job for the purpose of money = work
Job for the purpose of fun = hobby

Even if that job is 40 hours, or if it pays really well, or if its what you were doing before FI.

I agree, that's the key issue. And when you are no longer working for money, but pleasure, you're FI (to me).  You're retired (to MMM).  Potato, potato.  (That doesn't work as well typed.)

Here's an example of something most "wage slaves" would not consider doing:

"while negotiating a $5 billion investment in Goldman at the height of the financial crisis—an investment that would shore up the bank’s finances and possibly be the key to its survival—Buffett disappeared for a few hours of personal time.

“He promised his grandkids he would take them to Dairy Queen, and he did not want to be interrupted,”

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/05/25/buffetts-new-message-damn-the-deal-keep-work-and-life-in-balance/"

Yeah, he has plenty of FU money, he's totally FI.  But he's not retired, IMO.

Otherwise, if there was a headline in the newspaper tomorrow that says "Warren Buffett to retire at the end of the month" it would be nonsensical and meaningless (because he's already retired).  But I certainly think that sentence makes sense.

If a headline said "Warren Buffett on track to be financially independent by the end of the month" I think that WOULD be nonsensical and meaningless, because he already is.

Thus my opinion of him being FI, but not RE, despite being able to take time to take the grandkids to DQ and doing what he loves daily.

[darkelenchus]

My brother-in-law receives a disability check each month from the US Navy,...

Would that payment be for a disability retirement?  Was he discharged on a set of orders that used the word "retirement"?

He receives compensation, but I'm fairly certain it's not a pension. Nevertheless, suppose my brother-in-law's compensation is a pension. I don't think it matters. The sense of "retire" in this case is similar to how we speak of tools/livestock that we cherish but are too worn out to use: something we still care for, but we nevertheless cease using because its utility no longer provides the results we seek. In other words, the military retired my brother-in-law (or, more properly, they retired the services he offered), which is quite different from the sense we're concerned with, which is when the retiree is the one who did the retiring.

I understand the IRP point to an extent. Our grammar can lure us into thinking of retirement as a passive set of events (compare "I'm retired" with "I'm incapacitated;" and "I'm in retirement" with "I'm in young adulthood"), and this aspect of the term tends to be emphasized and reinforced in society.

I think you have hit the nail, but haven't quite driven it all the way home.  Not only is "retired" like "incapacitated" in a grammatical sense, in this society they tend to have overlapping meanings.

Sure. But it seems part of MMM's point is to bring about a paradigm shift in the way we think about work (in the sense of mandatory labor, or working for a paycheck), what it means to cease working, and the possibilities that ensue after you leave work behind. The fact that people use the term "retirement" in a way that overlaps with "incapacitated" isn't really a counter-point. People needn't envision retirement that way, and MMM is trying to popularize another vision latent within the concept.

I think the "edge case" where we most disagree though is someone who is working a job for 20 years, gets enough money to cover all their expenses (including lavish ones, everything they'd want to spend) and even more (say they have 5MM, and expenses of 40k/yr) and keep working.  MMM would call them retired.  sol and I would call them FI, but not yet retired.

If they quit their job, and took on another paying job just for fun, then I'd call them retired.  For some reason the act of changing what they are doing, in my mind, is required to actually be "retired" - you need to retire from what you've been doing first.

Right, past tense indicates one has exercised the capacity. But I think the spirit of MMM's remarks indicate that retirement is a capacity afforded by FI. That is, by reaching FI, one has reached a stage when one can retire and one is actually retired after actually quitting one's job in an FI state.

All the cases we've dealt with so far have tried to discount MMM's definition by claiming it's too broad (i.e. it includes instances that we wouldn't claim are instances of retirement). Again, I seems that each of the instances can be fit with the definition by drawing on retirement as an ability and an act. What I think is more troublesome is scenarios which indicate that MMM's definition is too narrow (i.e. it excludes instances that we would want to claim are instances of retirement).

Consider the person who is not FI but has enough savings that she could support her desired lifestyle until she runs her natural course, she's aware of this, and she has exercised that ability. By making FI a necessary condition for retirement, the MMM definition excludes this as an instance of retirement. But clearly we want to call this person "retired."