I need to be prepared for the not too likely but entirely possible scenario of me ending up in a wheelchair. If that happens, having fun becomes a lot more expensive.
Really? I know several mobility impaired people, and I don't really see that many additional expenses. You need some cash to tip the people who are pushing the wheelchair through the airport, and you end up going on cruises and trips where there is more handholding and less on-your-own stuff, and those are expensive. But it's not like 2x or 3x overall life expenses type of increases as far as I've seen.
I can envision scenarios where an illness or disease that puts a person in a wheelchair can have additional medical expenses related to the disease, but I wouldn't describe those expenses as "having fun" expenses. I'd label them as medical expenses.
Sincerly curious what kinds of expenses you're talking about / envisioning.
Well, I'm not going to debate what *my* priorities are for *my* life if I am to further lose my ability to walk. I am very informed about what my options are.
I will however say that it's not like I'm stressed about saving the extra money and putting off happiness to do so. Working is part of my ideal life, and I can make 6 figures working part time, so it's really not a big deal for us to save 2-3 times what we need. Neither of us has any interest at all in ever fully retiring from work.
As I've said before, low withdrawal rates are only too conservative if you are trading off happiness to achieve them. I'm not, work is a huge part of my happiness.
I'm not trying to debate you. I'm trying to understand you. If you don't want to share examples, OK by me; I'm learning to live with mysteries. But if you had shared some explanation, it would have helped and I wouldn't have argued with you over them.
And as an aside, I am not a member of any retirement police, so if you want to work even if others think you're FI, then I don't care in the slightest and wouldn't criticize that either.
I didn't assume you were debating me. I just had no interest engaging on that topic beyond making a point, and didn't find it necessary to expand further for the point I was making. For the sake of not being unfriendly though, I will simply say that if I lose my mobility, I lose a lot of my favourite inexpensive things to do, and there are many very, very expensive cool things you can do if you are wheelchair bound. Which if I end up wheelchair bound, I sure as shit will be doing.
My actual thread-relevant point though, is that not worrying about the 4% rule doesn't necessarily mean not over-saving. Some of us have motivations to over save well beyond what's needed, but not because of SORR/market volatility.
I see a lot of people here equate not worrying about the 4% rule with not worrying about needing more money in retirement beyond 25X, and the two are not equivalent.
The 4% rule is predicated on your financial needs never changing. There are real life risks that absolutely can change your expenses in life. I simply shared my example of a real life risk that the 4% rule can't account for.
As for my comment about continuing to work, that was just to clarify my position that continuing to work to pad your 'stache can either be incredibly foolish or no big deal, depending on how much you enjoy your work.
Working extra years in a job you hate to lower your WR from 4% to 3% out of fear about the markets is, to me, fucking nuts. However, working for many, many extra years at something you love, bringing your WR down to <1% isn't irrational at all if you are living your best life.
I mean, that's MMM himself in a nutshell. He's worked more years and made more money since leaving his job than he did working. His WR is 0% and his stache is probably massive beyond what he could possibly need.
I still maintain quite firmly that I think that people who dislike their jobs should quit well before reaching FI. As I've said before, I think it's crazy overkill to think you need to save all the money you will ever need before you can consider changing your life for the better.
