Another lazy or clueless Personal Finance author

[SwordGuy]

https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20181020/can-you-afford-to-retire-at-40-or-70


Mentioned MMM and then went on a long list of how the FIRE movement is a bad idea and can't really work.  Clearly didn't do her homework as she provided no real details from the FIRE side of the argument.

[SwordGuy]

The best clue that a personal finance author doesn't really understand FIRE concepts is when they talk about savings based on current income instead of planned retirement expenses.

[Freedomin5]

“If everything is perfect, 70 should probably be the goal,” Copeland said. “But nobody’s life is perfect.”

This was my favorite line from the article. Apparently, 70 is the perfect age to retire if you want to maximize SS benefits, because we are incapable of living without SS.

[bostonjim]

“If everything is perfect, 70 should probably be the goal,” Copeland said. “But nobody’s life is perfect.”

This was my favorite line from the article. Apparently, 70 is the perfect age to retire if you want to maximize SS benefits, because we are incapable of living without SS.

To be fair, they were talking about when you start collecting SS, not when you retire.  It was actually saying that it if you are FIRE and don't depend on SS for income, delaying makes financial sense -  a perfectly reasonable point.

IDK, I thought it was overall a pretty evenhanded article.  It pointed out a few caveats, but it wasn't doing a Suze Orman type hackjob...

[Miss Piggy]

IDK, I thought it was overall a pretty evenhanded article.  It pointed out a few caveats, but it wasn't doing a Suze Orman type hackjob...

I agree. Not a bad "toe in the water" article. I can especially appreciate the mention of healthcare being a major challenge/roadblock.

[SwordGuy]

I thought it was completely unfair.

Why?

Because it asserted that people believed in FIRE, but did not produce any of their reasons for having that belief.

The entirety of the article after that assertion was why FIRE was a bad idea.