NY Times early retirement article

[dude]

Nothing groundbreaking, just profiles some early retirees and how they coped with the usual stuff.  Also inspiring that a UPS worker living in Queens could retire at 51.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/your-money/early-retirement.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=8&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F12%2F23%2Fyour-money%2Fearly-retirement.html&eventName=Watching-article-click

[Yankuba]

It's hard for me to consider some of these folks retired since their spouses are working and earning.

[arebelspy]

Good article, thanks for the link.

It's hard for me to consider some of these folks retired since their spouses are working and earning.

Depends if they need the income or not.  The one lady who quit to be a stay at home mom didn't seem ER'd, but the other person who quit and they had rentals did, despite the spouse still working.

A couple with $0 saved, and one of the two quits to be a stay at home parent while the other keeps working, I wouldn't say retired, I'd say "quit to be a SAH parent."

A couple with $1MM saved (and < 40k annual spend) and one of the two quits to be a SAH parent, I would say they "retired to be a SAH parent".

So depends on the financial situation.

If you need the income from the spouse, you didn't retire, IMO (and even under MMM's definition).

[dougules]

It's odd how the article makes it sound like early retirement is some terrible burden. 

[arebelspy]

It's odd how the article makes it sound like early retirement is some terrible burden.

It's tough, I tell ya, getting to do whatever I want, all the time.

Man I long for the days where I had to go to work day after day.  I mean, everyone hates the weekends, and loves Mondays, right?  So why would you want a perpetual weekend, and never get that thrill of a Sunday night "I get to work tomorrow" feeling?

Early retirement is for suckers.


;)

[dougules]

It's odd how the article makes it sound like early retirement is some terrible burden.

It's tough, I tell ya, getting to do whatever I want, all the time.

Man I long for the days where I had to go to work day after day.  I mean, everyone hates the weekends, and loves Mondays, right?  So why would you want a perpetual weekend, and never get that thrill of a Sunday night "I get to work tomorrow" feeling?

Early retirement is for suckers.


;)

I'm just going to take that purely at face value, no sarcasm, since it's artificial Monday for me. 

[aperture]

Early retirement is for suckers.


;)

I hate you arebelspy.  BTW, sorry to hear of the death of your princess and her mother.

[tooqk4u22]

Good article, thanks for the link.

It's hard for me to consider some of these folks retired since their spouses are working and earning.

Depends if they need the income or not.  The one lady who quit to be a stay at home mom didn't seem ER'd, but the other person who quit and they had rentals did, despite the spouse still working.

A couple with $0 saved, and one of the two quits to be a stay at home parent while the other keeps working, I wouldn't say retired, I'd say "quit to be a SAH parent."

A couple with $1MM saved (and < 40k annual spend) and one of the two quits to be a SAH parent, I would say they "retired to be a SAH parent".

So depends on the financial situation.

If you need the income from the spouse, you didn't retire, IMO (and even under MMM's definition).

I kind of feel that if both can't retire then the one that quits just simply quit and is not retired like you say above, but the gray area I guess is if the couple has 40k spend and 500k then couldn't it be argued that the one that quit/retired is living off of a 4% SWR for their share and the other is working to pay their share - I mean this is how it works for single/non-married people.....of course with marriage half of the $500k would still belong to the other spouse unlike with single people.

[arebelspy]

Yes, I agree, except in the case that they split their finances. If combined finances, both would need to be able to ER (and one not because they like their job) for the one stopping work to be "retired" and not just "quit."

Even under MMM's definition, FI is a prerequisite for "retired."

If they have split finances, and the one is FI, and the other not, that's fine, as long as the ER'd one is living off their stache, not off the other's work.

(I've always thought split finances in a marriage is weird, but it works for some.)

[Metric Mouse]

It's odd how the article makes it sound like early retirement is some terrible burden.

Sometimes it is hard to get up the motivation to put down the guitar and even leave the house. :D

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

It's odd how the article makes it sound like early retirement is some terrible burden.

Sometimes it is hard to get up the motivation to put down the guitar and even leave the house. :D

Oh you poor baby lol

[dougules]

It's odd how the article makes it sound like early retirement is some terrible burden.

Sometimes it is hard to get up the motivation to put down the guitar and even leave the house. :D

Oh you poor baby lol

Yes, my heart bleeds for you. 

[Metric Mouse]

It is certainly a hurdle I will have to overcome. Thank you all for your support. :D