One of the top stories on CNBC today.

[afuera]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/15/how-one-couple-saved-1-million-in-4-years-to-retire-by-age-43.html

[Done by Forty]

I was pumped to see the 1500s there.

Though save yourself the trouble and skip the comments section. Sheesh.

[Inaya]

Title is a little disingenuous. They really saved $430,000, since they had a hefty nest egg to begin with. But the advice is pretty sound. And the comments are spectacular.

[coynemoney]

Why do people get so angry at these articles? It's not attacking anyone's lifestyle or intentionally tricking people, it's just a quick write up of one bloggers personal retirement strategy.

[ysette9]

The comments are depressing and whiny, unsurprisingly. Somehow I can't leave well enough alone and feel obligated to dive into the fray sharing my own take that is decidedly more optimistic. It's a bummer that the title of the article is so misleading; people seemed to be hung up on that and ignore all the parts that make sense. I've heard before that the people who write titles are not the same as the authors of the articles themselves. This seems to result in a fair number of misleading headlines.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

The comments are depressing and whiny, unsurprisingly. Somehow I can't leave well enough alone and feel obligated to dive into the fray sharing my own take that is decidedly more optimistic. It's a bummer that the title of the article is so misleading; people seemed to be hung up on that and ignore all the parts that make sense. I've heard before that the people who write titles are not the same as the authors of the articles themselves. This seems to result in a fair number of misleading headlines.

The title is misleading therefore everything contained within the article is complete horseshit!!1!!11!!!!

[The Fake Cheap]

Yes, an extremely misleading title to say the least.  I really really dislike many of these FIRE articles that are coming out lately.  I feel they don't do any good to actually promote the low consumption lifestyle, or explain the path to FIRE, and many of them just come off like the people/couples are bragging.  I'm sure their blog tells the whole story and offers a different (and much better) perspective on their path to FIRE.  No fault of the 1500s and more the fault of the writer of the article I'm sure.  Given the tone of the article I get why the comments are the way they are (not that the comments are that much different normally). 

[RosieTR]

The comments are depressing and whiny, unsurprisingly. Somehow I can't leave well enough alone and feel obligated to dive into the fray sharing my own take that is decidedly more optimistic. It's a bummer that the title of the article is so misleading; people seemed to be hung up on that and ignore all the parts that make sense. I've heard before that the people who write titles are not the same as the authors of the articles themselves. This seems to result in a fair number of misleading headlines.

The title is misleading therefore everything contained within the article is complete horseshit!!1!!11!!!!

Well this part is: "Whether you choose to invest in real estate or the stock market, or neither,.." And then what? Cash? Wishes? The whole thing works because, um, money making money (rent or compound interest). I suppose a single profitable business that you build yourself would also count but this makes it sound like stuffing money in a mattress is relatively equal to real estate or stocks.

Other than that, big congrats to Mr and Mrs 1500Days!

On a side note, I do find it interesting the decent presence of Colorado folks in this community. Maybe because when you're stuck in an office on a beautiful bluebird day with the mountains singing to you every time you look out the window, it's pretty motivating to choose saving over stupid bling?

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Yes, an extremely misleading title to say the least.  I really really dislike many of these FIRE articles that are coming out lately.  I feel they don't do any good to actually promote the low consumption lifestyle, or explain the path to FIRE, and many of them just come off like the people/couples are bragging.  I'm sure their blog tells the whole story and offers a different (and much better) perspective on their path to FIRE.  No fault of the 1500s and more the fault of the writer of the article I'm sure.  Given the tone of the article I get why the comments are the way they are (not that the comments are that much different normally).

I've read quite a few of these ER profile pieces, and I've noticed that there is essentially no correlation between the quality of the article and the furor contained within the comments. People hear that saving money is easy, that retiring before age 60 is possible, and they immediately begin frothing at the mouth over people who are clearly upsetting their rigid and inaccurate worldview.

[Inaya]

Yes, an extremely misleading title to say the least.  I really really dislike many of these FIRE articles that are coming out lately.  I feel they don't do any good to actually promote the low consumption lifestyle, or explain the path to FIRE, and many of them just come off like the people/couples are bragging.  I'm sure their blog tells the whole story and offers a different (and much better) perspective on their path to FIRE.  No fault of the 1500s and more the fault of the writer of the article I'm sure.  Given the tone of the article I get why the comments are the way they are (not that the comments are that much different normally).

I've read quite a few of these ER profile pieces, and I've noticed that there is essentially no correlation between the quality of the article and the furor contained within the comments. People hear that saving money is easy, that retiring before age 60 is possible, and they immediately begin frothing at the mouth over people who are clearly upsetting their rigid and inaccurate worldview.

I think part of the problem is that most of these profiles (at least the ones I've seen) are about people who are making well above median income. They read about somebody FIREing at 35 with a $75k, $100k, $150k, or what have you salary and they immediately turn off their receptors. I don't blame them. If you're making $40k and you read about somebody who retired at 35 after working for 10 years making $150 a year, you're going to focus on the disparity between your salary and theirs and automatically think it's not possible. The people retiring with $150 salaries are just not relatable to the average joe.

Sure, we all know the secret is more about saving than earning, but that is admittedly a difficult mental shift for people to make. These publications need to do profiles on teachers or public workers or welders who retire early, so that it seems more attainable to the average non-mustachian. Heck, I'm sure I'm not the only forum person who sometimes catches themselves thinking, "Well sure MMM was able to retire early--he did so on two engineer salaries." And we all know better than that, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

[Metric Mouse]

Thanks for sharing. More and more early retirees out there! Love the comments section.

[LadyStache in Baja]

The comments were fun!  Is healthcare for a family of 4 really 25k/year?!

[Hotstreak]

The comments were fun!  Is healthcare for a family of 4 really 25k/year?!

It's hilarious how people don't understand! 


If their income is less than $33,465, which is reasonable considering they spend $30k/year, they are under 138% FPL and are covered by medicaid, one of the cheapest healthcare plans there is.  Even if they increased their income to 200% FPL (45k, a 50% increase in their spending) subsidies would be so huge, they would be paying $200-300/month with a deductible of $2,000 or less in 2016 (for my state).


To the credit of the people throwing those #'s around, a non-subsidized plan could cost that much per year, if we add the OOP Max + monthly premiums.  That doesn't seem likely to happen every year though, or even most years.

[Squirrel away]

I think part of the problem is that most of these profiles (at least the ones I've seen) are about people who are making well above median income. They read about somebody FIREing at 35 with a $75k, $100k, $150k, or what have you salary and they immediately turn off their receptors. I don't blame them. If you're making $40k and you read about somebody who retired at 35 after working for 10 years making $150 a year, you're going to focus on the disparity between your salary and theirs and automatically think it's not possible. The people retiring with $150 salaries are just not relatable to the average joe.

Sure, we all know the secret is more about saving than earning, but that is admittedly a difficult mental shift for people to make. These publications need to do profiles on teachers or public workers or welders who retire early, so that it seems more attainable to the average non-mustachian. Heck, I'm sure I'm not the only forum person who sometimes catches themselves thinking, "Well sure MMM was able to retire early--he did so on two engineer salaries." And we all know better than that, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

Yes, I think so too.

[afuera]

I think part of the problem is that most of these profiles (at least the ones I've seen) are about people who are making well above median income. They read about somebody FIREing at 35 with a $75k, $100k, $150k, or what have you salary and they immediately turn off their receptors. I don't blame them. If you're making $40k and you read about somebody who retired at 35 after working for 10 years making $150 a year, you're going to focus on the disparity between your salary and theirs and automatically think it's not possible. The people retiring with $150 salaries are just not relatable to the average joe.

Sure, we all know the secret is more about saving than earning, but that is admittedly a difficult mental shift for people to make. These publications need to do profiles on teachers or public workers or welders who retire early, so that it seems more attainable to the average non-mustachian. Heck, I'm sure I'm not the only forum person who sometimes catches themselves thinking, "Well sure MMM was able to retire early--he did so on two engineer salaries." And we all know better than that, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

Yes, I think so too.

Here is one on a janitor/gas station attendant that CNBC just did today.  And now all the comments say he should have spent more on himself...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/29/janitor-secretly-amassed-an-8-million-fortune.html

[Inaya]

Here is one on a janitor/gas station attendant that CNBC just did today.  And now all the comments say he should have spent more on himself...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/29/janitor-secretly-amassed-an-8-million-fortune.html

...of course they do. Ugh. Why can't people make the connection between saving and wealth?

[MasterStache]

Yes the title was very misleading. And the article was not very great. The concepts are very sound though, as we all know. Just wish the article sounded less like a get rich quick scheme.