And really, threads like this are just another way to question the 4% rule. The 4% rule holds up as long as the future is similar to the past.
If you start positing that the future is going to be different, then the 4% rule doesn't hold up.
Many people that do this, say it's because they want to be prepared, "just in case". But the real underlying emotion is fear. Fear expressed as uncertainty.
Now, I'm all for having a backup plan (I know I have one), but the truth is that, based on all historical evidence, the 4% rule is very, very robust. If you're going to start undercutting the assumptions that underly the 4% rule, of course it'll fall apart. And then all that additional worry and fear will seem justified!
This illustrates very clearly what we know about how people's minds work. People "start" with the conclusion that feels correct, and then they pull in logic/reason to justify that initial emotional conclusion.
Case in point. The 4% rule is very robust. But for some people that just doesn't "feel right", so they start to undercut or change the underlying foundations of the 4% rule until the 4% rule doesn't work anymore. Then they say - "See, there's danger here, better to be safe than sorry!".
The funny thing is that everyone thinks they are being very rational and clear headed. But in fact the entire logical construct is put in place merely to serve the pre-existing emotional need.
And EVERYONE does it. Even people that are aware of the dynamic. Its almost impossible to avoid doing it. Still it's interesting to see it play out....