I really liked my dividends in 2008, they stayed constant. Where my stocks were dropping by 30% my dividend (total dollars) stayed the same.
Perhaps you got lucky with an undiversified portfolio of companies that didn't cut dividends or go bankrupt during that period? The S&P 500 dividend dropped precipitously in 2009 and didn't recover until 2012. Anyone living completely off dividends (which you are not suggesting, but others do) would have faced a 23% drop in income in 2009.
http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend/table
The drop in dividends lagged the recession and drop in prices by a year or more, but I'm not sure that helps. Getting through 2008 but then having to sell shares in 2009 when dividends were finally cut would suck.
During the exact same time, how much did stocks drop? How is geting through 2008 a bad thing, I think the ability to get through a terible year is always great!
Thank you for proving my point, stocks and dividends don't operate in lockstep. The same person all in stocks would have dropped in 2008 and be selling at a greater loss. However, if you mitigate some of that by having a cash reserve, supplemented by dividends, a person could have rode that out.
In practice, lets say you spend $30k/year and receive $20K from dividends and $10k from gains/year. If you hold a one year cash buffer you might skip selling in 2008 and end the year having spent your cash but getting $20k in dividends. In 2009 you get $15k and end the year with $5000. In 2010 you get another $15k, and sell $10k in stocks/bonds. In 2011 you start riding the bull market and start replenishing the cash buffers, also getting $15k in dividends. In 2012 you receive roughly $20k in dividends but need to get on replacing the cash reserves, when stock prices are back to great levels.
So from 2008 to 2010 I would have sold $10k of my portfolio, with the sharp divivdend cut you speak of. Would you rather sell $60k at a loss? Remember, I didn't say it was all or nothing, I said dividends operate on a different cycle and provide a level of diversification.
All these rules are for retired people, its meaningless to compare a person in the accumulation phase to a retired person. Is it easier to live off pure stocks or a blend of stocks/dividends? What will gurantee FIRE sucess more often?