Author Topic: Another "you're too young to retire" comment  (Read 16146 times)

trashmanz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2017, 10:38:48 AM »
In conclusion from me, since there seems to be no end to the go around with this:

While OP may not have intended to make someone feel bad or humble brag, I do believe as stewards of the early retirement community we should be more conscious of how coworkers that may be trapped in the hamster wheel of debt and wage slavery can perceive the injection of their fellow coworker's financial status, when that is not an answer to the specific question asked.  Yes, if they ask, they can get an honest answer, that is not the axe that I grind.   

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2017, 10:43:46 AM »
They put themselves in the hamster wheel.  Not much sympathy.  After saying I retired I usually do a back flip.  :)

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2017, 10:51:26 AM »
What is the big deal with being honest?  Making up stuff like I'm a trader, or I work from home simply isn't true.  I am retired is a true statement.  I don't go around bragging about it.

Sure, if a specific question is asked it isn't bragging.  Q: What do you do? A: I am retired  VS.  Q: Hello coworker, what time is it?  A:Oh I'm retired, I don't need a watch.  Notice both are "true" and "factual" statements yet to me one is more asshat than the other. 

Not sure how more simply to explain the difference between answering a question asked vs. tangentially bringing in a humble brag in a work situation.  Maybe it is just too subtle for people to follow, but I don't know how else to more succinctly phrase it.

This is kind of a disingenuous argument though. If being asked hey what are you doing to further your career?(which is what the OP was asked) Then saying you are effectively FI/retired, doing it just for enjoyment and so feel no need to do so actually elaborates on the answer to their question rather than a simple no. Saying Oh I'm retired, I don't need a watch even if factual does not elaborate on the question about asking for the time. The first is a personal question asking about the OPs situation and plans and the OP answers with some personal information. The latter is a neutral question with no inquiry to the situation/plans of the person being asked. Even though I agree avoiding the conversation is probably more convenient your analogy isn't a workable one given the situation.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3552
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2017, 10:56:21 AM »
Oh I'm retired, I don't need a watch.

Hahahaha.  I'm totally going to use that.
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

AZryan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2017, 01:34:12 PM »
We need a new word for "relatively frugal badass person who's independently wealthy and I do pretty much whatever strikes my fancy as something I want to do"

There's a perfect word for this that already exists: RETIRED.

But that's not what 'retired' means to almost anybody. And often none of those attributes are even true of most retirees (i.e. -bad with money and a routine heavily restricted by low income and old age). Let's not ruin a perfectly common and well-understood word.

Really... 'Mustachian' is actually the only current word that closely fits this description (and it allows for doing work for money for the rest of your life -which 'retired' logically does not).

But since it includes anyone 'on this path', it doesn't differentiate between 'building the 'stache' (pre-FIRE) 'spending it' (post-FIRE / 'something like retired').

I'd suggest 'Flaming Mustachian' for post-FIRE, but I assume that's already a popular gay bar somewhere.

It's too bad 'FIRE' doesn't work when talking to someone. It's a bit confusing even in written form to really become mainstream, but it roughly fits the description. It only fails it by including people who just inherit money and never learn to be frugal or invest.

What about 'Frugal, Investment-Based, Early Retiree'? Ok, wait, no... I see that ain't gonna work, either.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3552
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2017, 02:21:51 PM »
We need a new word for "relatively frugal badass person who's independently wealthy and I do pretty much whatever strikes my fancy as something I want to do"

There's a perfect word for this that already exists: RETIRED.

But that's not what 'retired' means to almost anybody. And often none of those attributes are even true of most retirees (i.e. -bad with money and a routine heavily restricted by low income and old age). Let's not ruin a perfectly common and well-understood word.


It does if you're retired in your 30s or 40s or 50s.  It's the best descriptive word for this situation.  Your problem seems to be viewing all retirees as a monolith.  That's not even remotely true, no matter their age.

Our fearless leader happens to agree, btw.
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

Mr. Green

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • Age: 33
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2017, 02:57:56 PM »
But that's not what 'retired' means to almost anybody. And often none of those attributes are even true of most retirees (i.e. -bad with money and a routine heavily restricted by low income and old age). Let's not ruin a perfectly common and well-understood word.
I don't know of anyone, even my parents' age, that consider the word retired to mean what we say it means anymore (no job, drink beer, and fish, etc.). The definition is changing. Inevitably, people take side jobs or do other things to keep busy. My wife's dad says he's "retired" and he works part-time picking up and dropping off riding mowers for a local dealer. He doesn't need the money but he likes being busy. I see it referred to in that light frequently.

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2017, 04:29:42 PM »
When I reach RE I think I'm gonna stick with "I do personal finance and investing" to avoid some of the awkward conversations.

People kept asking to make an appointment with my husband for investment advice when I told them that. So now I just tell the truth: He's retired.

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Location: WDC
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2017, 06:04:27 PM »
Oh I'm retired, I don't need a watch.

Hahahaha.  I'm totally going to use that.
yes you do need a watch when RE. How else will you know when its TGIM mimosa Happy Hour on the beach?

Careful Spartana, you might offend those of us who still have to work and can't drink on Mondays.  ;)

There's no need for humble bragging around here...we're happy for those of you who have achieved the goal, so go for full-on bragging!!!  :)
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

markbike528CBX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2017, 08:27:16 PM »
Quote from: spartana link=topic=68634.msg1455044#msg1455044 date=
yes you do need a watch when RE. How else will you know when its TGIM mimosa Happy Hour on the beach?
Do you have an actual beach in mind?   Do tell. Looks like a bucket list item.

The closest to that I can get is a hickmosa (PBR  and orange juice) served after noon.

Mr. Green

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • Age: 33
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2017, 07:41:25 AM »
The closest to that I can get is a hickmosa (PBR  and orange juice) served after noon.
Is that actually a drink? That sounds awful!

markbike528CBX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2017, 08:22:58 AM »
Off topic warning.
The closest to that I can get is a hickmosa (PBR  and orange juice) served after noon.
Is that actually a drink? That sounds awful!
Yes, cold and fizzy stuff with OJ.   Given the bounds of the name of the drink, acceptably potable.

AZryan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2017, 04:44:09 PM »
We need a new word for "relatively frugal badass person who's independently wealthy and I do pretty much whatever strikes my fancy as something I want to do"

There's a perfect word for this that already exists: RETIRED.

But that's not what 'retired' means to almost anybody. And often none of those attributes are even true of most retirees (i.e. -bad with money and a routine heavily restricted by low income and old age). Let's not ruin a perfectly common and well-understood word.


It does if you're retired in your 30s or 40s or 50s.  It's the best descriptive word for this situation.  Your problem seems to be viewing all retirees as a monolith.  That's not even remotely true, no matter their age.

Our fearless leader happens to agree, btw.

Like I said, you can simply be born rich and shitty with money at any age.  Plenty of spoiled, rich adults who inherited wealth worldwide. By your definition, those people can't be retired because retired (esp. younger adults) means frugal and smart with money?? You're restricting the definition to something ridiculous that most people don't ever think of it as being.

Then, you're placing the blame on me by saying I consider all retirees as one group -like I'm close-minded. But you're not getting my point. It's that the word 'retired' has a clear meaning to most people as being 'no longer in employment for income'. That's how words are defined -by how people think they're defined. It counts for shit if some fringe blog group decides it means something very different, and it's an utterly illogical definition.

Why try to ruin a word just so you can use it to mean anything you want?? You really wouldn't prefer our own unique term to define something that currently has no word for it??? With it, you could promote this sort of lifestyle in a single word that defines the rare few of us living it.

Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries have added 'not-literally' to the definition of 'literally', so now that word literally means nothing. But it's true... lots (but probably not most) people are now too dumb to know what literally even means (or used to mean). The dummies are winning. You think that's progress?

Or how people use 'risk' to define 'volatility' in only financial jargon. That's stupid, too. That's not what risk means in common usage, and volatility is already a perfectly good word for this in financial terms. Why ruin another word?
In practice, it has people posting all the time that lowering volatility is super awesome 'cuz it lowers risk. And how many newbies trying to get smarter misunderstand what that really means??

Or the words 'selfish'. It's inherently 100% neutral, but a suffering-is-good anti-culture has raised most of us to think the word is negative -an insult. 'Greedy' is right there for just that use. Or just say 'too or overly selfish'. Why ruin clear words? It's like cultural vandalism, and makes us more easily confused about what other people really mean. We don't need more of that.

And plenty of people dislike MMM having claimed he was 'retired' at 30, when he continued to do plenty of jobs for money, and his wife was still a realtor, etc. But you don't make a big splash on a big money-making blog by saying you kinda, mostly, but not really exactly, retired.
Calling the people 'retirement police' who called him out on this was totally lame.

You may think it's all pointless, but maybe pointless means 'has a point' now? Why not? When we start defining anything as whatever we want, nothing will make sense, but everyone will get to 'feel' right.

Cassie

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3667
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2017, 05:56:43 PM »
We say semi-retired since we choose to work p.t. for fun. I don't think it matters what you call it.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3552
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2017, 06:29:42 PM »
We need a new word for "relatively frugal badass person who's independently wealthy and I do pretty much whatever strikes my fancy as something I want to do"

There's a perfect word for this that already exists: RETIRED.

But that's not what 'retired' means to almost anybody. And often none of those attributes are even true of most retirees (i.e. -bad with money and a routine heavily restricted by low income and old age). Let's not ruin a perfectly common and well-understood word.


It does if you're retired in your 30s or 40s or 50s.  It's the best descriptive word for this situation.  Your problem seems to be viewing all retirees as a monolith.  That's not even remotely true, no matter their age.

Our fearless leader happens to agree, btw.

.... pedantic rant....


I'll continue to use retired.  So will most of us.  We're still well within the normal definition of the word.  No matter how much you complain, it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, Retired is still the perfect word.  Ahhh, retirement!  Too bad you'll never get there until you're old.  That would probably make me cranky too!
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

fredbear

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2017, 03:52:17 AM »

People kept asking to make an appointment with my husband for investment advice when I told them that. So now I just tell the truth: He's retired.

I have used, "I manage my own investment program,"as a conversation-stopper, with reasonable success.

FIREby35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2017, 01:00:21 PM »
These threads always make me smile. I'm not retired, but I did just take a sabbatical for 2 months. I own my own business. We have a lot of freedom and occasionally get asked "How can we have so much time off" or "Why I'm not working." I am 32.

I have occasionally tried to strike up a conversation with someone who recently retired and received lots of comments about how far away it is and that I'm to young to know anything about that. It also makes me chuckle :)

PS, that might be some of you 50 years olds doing that to me!

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Location: WDC
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2017, 01:31:35 PM »
These threads always make me smile. I'm not retired, but I did just take a sabbatical for 2 months. I own my own business. We have a lot of freedom and occasionally get asked "How can we have so much time off" or "Why I'm not working." I am 32.

I have occasionally tried to strike up a conversation with someone who recently retired and received lots of comments about how far away it is and that I'm to young to know anything about that. It also makes me chuckle :)

PS, that might be some of you 50 years olds doing that to me!
yep, you're too young!  (I'll turn 50 late this year, so I'm just practicing)
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

AZryan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2017, 06:35:30 PM »
Quote from: Eric
I'll continue to use retired.  So will most* of us.

*-'most' meaning some on this obscure forum who don't care what words mean -like alternative facts and 'fake' news that actually happened.

It makes me sad that you're so close-minded when challenged to reconsider something you said that was so nonsensical. Pointlessly distorting clear language is a travesty. This should be the LAST place for smart people to get mentally lazier.

Just a clip from a headline Morningstar article today, " -one of the best times to consider converting all or a portion of a traditional IRA or 401(k) kitty to Roth is after retirement (and, thus, there's no salary income coming in the door) and before that traditional IRA or 401(k) is subject to RMDs."

As I claimed, THIS is how most people mean retired. That advice hinges on not having any other income (or so little that it's negligible). But sure, let's try to make this word more random and confusing so it becomes completely stupid and useless. Very smart.

Quote from: Eric
Ahhh, retirement!  Too bad you'll never get there until you're old.  That would probably make me cranky too!

I don't think you even understand the words I'm typing? I didn't say retired means old. I said it just doesn't inherently mean young, since most retirees aren't. I've been FI long before I ever heard of MMM or started posting here. He and I are about the same age, and I was doing much the same things as him at the same time. I just didn't consider myself RE, simply because retired doesn't fit. That fact certainly never made me sad or cranky.

Mr. Green

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • Age: 33
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2017, 11:00:37 AM »
*-'most' meaning some on this obscure forum who don't care what words mean -like alternative facts and 'fake' news that actually happened.

It makes me sad that you're so close-minded when challenged to reconsider something you said that was so nonsensical. Pointlessly distorting clear language is a travesty. This should be the LAST place for smart people to get mentally lazier.

Just a clip from a headline Morningstar article today, " -one of the best times to consider converting all or a portion of a traditional IRA or 401(k) kitty to Roth is after retirement (and, thus, there's no salary income coming in the door) and before that traditional IRA or 401(k) is subject to RMDs."

As I claimed, THIS is how most people mean retired. That advice hinges on not having any other income (or so little that it's negligible). But sure, let's try to make this word more random and confusing so it becomes completely stupid and useless. Very smart.
Did you read the MMM blog post about using the word "retired"? How would you answer all those questions?

I'm quitting my career and afterward I will indeed do Roth conversions because I have little to no income. I'm in my early 30s. If I help some people occasionally and they choose to pay me for it am I no longer retired?

You too are changing the scope of the word beyond its typical use in conversation. Where do you draw the line? Why waste the mental energy thinking about that line. Just say retired and move on. If you retired at 50 but you bagged groceries for a few hours a week just to get out would you stop saying you're retired? Just thinking about it that much seems like a job.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2017, 11:38:10 AM »
Oh I'm retired, I don't need a watch.

Hahahaha.  I'm totally going to use that.
I used it yesterday. I read to gradeschoolers for Read Across America day. The clock was behind me and I didn't want to keep turning away from the kids, so I just asked for a five-minute warning. It was fun.

One more take on the "I'm retired" response. It also means that one is not looking for a permanent job. This leaves more opportunities for the people who are. That's not braggy to my ear.
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3552
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2017, 05:20:25 PM »
Quote from: Eric
I'll continue to use retired.  So will most* of us.

*-'most' meaning some on this obscure forum who don't care what words mean

Oh, no no no.  I care what words mean.  That's EXACTLY why retired is the proper word to use.

It makes me sad that you're so close-minded when challenged to reconsider something you said that was so nonsensical. Pointlessly distorting clear language is a travesty. This should be the LAST place for smart people to get mentally lazier.

Pot, meet kettle.  It makes me sad that you're so close-minded to reconsider that words change over time and that your own stubbornness is causing you to be mentally lazy.  How's that sound?  About the same?  Or maybe even worse, as it seems like the world is passing you by and you're making one last angry grasp to make sense of it?  If you told someone you were gay in the '50s vs today, you'd have said two different things using the same word.  How is that possible?  Words can never change or have multiple meanings, right?


Just a clip from a headline Morningstar article today, " -one of the best times to consider converting all or a portion of a traditional IRA or 401(k) kitty to Roth is after retirement (and, thus, there's no salary income coming in the door) and before that traditional IRA or 401(k) is subject to RMDs."

As I claimed, THIS is how most people mean retired. That advice hinges on not having any other income (or so little that it's negligible). But sure, let's try to make this word more random and confusing so it becomes completely stupid and useless. Very smart.

It's almost if financial advice can be tailored to whatever your income level is.  A real miracle of our times. 

And yes, I agree that if you're earning a salary, it's unlikely you're retired.  But I'll leave it up to the retiree, instead of trying to berate them to admit that they're not really retired.

You seem to be the only one confused here the word retired, by the way.  The rest of us seem to grasp the meaning just fine.


Quote from: Eric
Ahhh, retirement!  Too bad you'll never get there until you're old.  That would probably make me cranky too!

I don't think you even understand the words I'm typing? I didn't say retired means old. I said it just doesn't inherently mean young, since most retirees aren't. I've been FI long before I ever heard of MMM or started posting here. He and I are about the same age, and I was doing much the same things as him at the same time. I just didn't consider myself RE, simply because retired doesn't fit. That fact certainly never made me sad or cranky.

So it doesn't have anything to do with age, yet you have to be at least a certain age.  That makes a lot of sense!  No contradiction there AT ALL!  Nice job!
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3552
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2017, 05:22:22 PM »
Does anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the Internet Retirement Police are ALWAYS people that work full time?  I've never once heard someone who is retired worry about whether someone else "qualifies" to join them.  It's starting to make me think that maybe there's a tad bit of jealously involved.  But nah, that couldn't be.
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2017, 05:31:39 PM »
If you are financially independent and don't work at all, you are fully retired. 

If you are FI and work part time, you are semi-retired. 

If you are FI and you work full time, you are not retired.

If you're not FI then you're not retired.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 11:22:15 PM by tyort1 »
Frugalite in training.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2017, 08:21:32 PM »
I always book my annual "lady stuff" appointment around my birthday. Yesterday, I sat down to book the appt. on line at 12:58.  I noticed there was a 2:00 appt. available. I grabbed it and then tried to schedule a mammogram, but there was nothing available for 6 weeks, boo.

When I got to the doctor's office at 1:45, they commented on how fast I got there and how lucky I was to snag that appointment. I said it was because I'm retired, which raised a few eyebrows. Then, at the end of the appointment, my doctor gave me a pass for a walk-in mammogram. I zipped over to radiology and by 2:30, I was all done. I love being retired!
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

AZryan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #75 on: March 04, 2017, 08:33:29 PM »
MOD EDIT: I don't feel like going line by line to edit this, but chill out, and don't be rude to other forum members.  Cheers!

Quote from: Eric
-you're so close-minded to reconsider that words change over time and that your own stubbornness is causing you to be mentally lazy.  How's that sound?

Sounds dumb. I know full well words can change over time and can have multiple meanings. My point is that you believe you've changed the word 'retired' and you haven't. Your definition is NONSENSICAL, and no one but a few on some obscure blog use it that way -which does not constitute a legit definition of a word.

If it did, anything would mean anything anyone insisted something meant. I always fight when logic is blindly being trampled on.

Quote from: Eric
-the world is passing you by and you're making one last angry grasp to make sense of it?

WFT are you talking about???? I'm guessing we're around the same age. Hell, maybe I'm younger than you. And I'm annoyed by your childish non-arguments, but I'm not 'angry'. Certainly not fuming as I calmly type this.

And you totally misunderstood my Morningstar quote. Intentionally or just a blunder?

Quote from: Eric
And yes, I agree that if you're earning a salary, it's unlikely you're retired.

Well, that's not agreeing with me. That's you fabricating something illogical I didn't write and you agreeing with yourself. NO ONE earning a salary is retired. The word would have no meaning at all if that were somehow true to most people.

Quote from: Eric
You seem to be the only one confused here the word retired, by the way.  The rest of us seem to grasp the meaning just fine.

Seriously, how full of yourself are you? Not even every person on this single thread think your definition makes sense, much less on this forum, much less the rest of the actual real world where, for a fact, essentially no one uses 'retired' like your deluded imagination is telling you they are.

Quote from: Eric
So it doesn't have anything to do with age, yet you have to be at least a certain age.  That makes a lot of sense!  No contradiction there AT ALL!  Nice job!

Once AGAIN, retired doesn't mean only 'old' people. That would be totally stupid. And you only have to be a 'certain age' to the extent that no one calls CHILDREN 'retired'. Retired means you 'have had' some sort of career/work that you no longer have, so people who've never worked aren't logically retired, either. Is 'adult of essentially ANY age' too restricting for you??

It's funny that you had a grasp of this plain logic just a few years ago when you posted that someone else shouldn't conflate 'risk' and 'volatility' (like MANY do as terms of finance). You were 100% right, even though that's a weaker argument than mine on 'retired'.
But when someone challenges you, you suddenly forget logic and cling to a nonsensical defense?

To tie this back 'on topic', "You're too young to retire" obviously meant 'no longer working to earn money' and BECAUSE OF THAT, was meant, and understood, as an insult.
C'mon, man... just be honest. You know you're wrong. NO ONE ELSE uses your version of 'retired' in the real world. Your def. is obscure jargon nonsense and contradicts how most people think of the word.

Quote from: Eric
Does anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the Internet Retirement Police are ALWAYS people that work full time?  I've never once heard someone who is retired worry about whether someone else "qualifies" to join them.  It's starting to make me think that maybe there's a tad bit of jealously involved.  But nah, that couldn't be.

I'll assume you're talking about me. And every sentence you wrote was entirely deranged. Might not want to all-caps ALWAYS when you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't work full time, and obviously qualify as 'Internet Retirement Police' (and not the only one) in the phrasing of your 'dear leader' as you slavishly called him. So, you're just straight-up wrong.

And AGAIN, it's not about 'qualifying' for the title of 'retired'. IMO, 'retired' is not even a title of prestige to 'join'. Since it means something so simple as 'no longer working for income', most 'Mustachians' are far more sophisticated than just doing nothing and collecting SS and dividends (as is far more typical).

As I said, what we do really does deserve it's own word for what this is. Then it would take making that word known (and making sure the definition doesn't get fucked up by pig-headed idiots). Making a mess of a completely ill-fitting, banal word already in wide use is face-punchingly stupid.

Once AGAIN, 'Mustachain' essentially defines this and would almost work, and coined by your beloved leader. It's only flaw is that it defines post and PRE financial independence.

As for jealousy... AGAIN... I'm FI and don't need to work. I have nothing to be jealous of. Monday morning can go fuck itself, and I could buy any dumb new gadget or go on whatever vacation I want at will. But this has nothing to do with me, or what I want 'retired' to mean. I'm just emphatically telling you how people use it, and that you're using it nonsensically, so stop.

The core of 'Mustachianism' is using logic to call out dumb shit most people just do without thinking. Forcing the word 'retire' into obscure jargon only those 'inside the cult' will ever understand totally undermines that logic.



« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 06:42:42 AM by arebelspy »

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3552
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #76 on: March 04, 2017, 11:19:21 PM »
I appreciate good trolling as much as the next guy, but your schtick is just a bit to angry to work.  You come off like a crazy person as opposed to someone who just wants to make a point.  Which is too bad, because you have the ability to take things out of context and also pretend like what you said isn't what you said, and those are really important qualities in trolling.  But it's just the anger that gives it away.  If you toned it down a bit, I bet you could really hit your peak.

I mean, trying to pretend like "Mustachianism" agrees with you, when the Mustache Man himself obviously would nominate you to a top post in the IRP has so much trolling potential.  So please, for all of us, work on the anger thing, because I really think you can be the top "YOU'RE NOT RETIRED" troll on the internet with a little better tone and emotion control.  I believe in you!  You can do it!
« Last Edit: March 05, 2017, 02:23:16 AM by Eric »
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

Mmm_Donuts

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #77 on: March 05, 2017, 07:25:15 AM »
What are you guys arguing about? It's just getting silly.

I agree with AZ Ryan that on this forum we have a different definition of "retirement" than 99% of the population. I don't mind the word being used here more loosely, because we all get it, but when used just as loosely out in the real world, it might confuse people. For example, if you're retired in the Mustachian sense, but working full time in a coffee shop because you used to be an engineer but always wanted to be a barista, people are going to be confused when you tell them you're retired. As you're pouring them a coffee.

That's all there is to it! Can we at least agree on that?

Hargrove

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #78 on: March 05, 2017, 07:42:21 AM »
I never thought I'd see an angry tennis match on here shadowing C.S. Lewis' commentary on "gentlemen." It made me smile.

Quote
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2017, 07:44:09 AM by Hargrove »

Mmm_Donuts

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #79 on: March 05, 2017, 07:53:54 AM »
Good one, Hargrove. Thanks for that.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #80 on: March 05, 2017, 08:48:15 AM »
If you are financially independent and don't work at all, you are fully retired. 

If you are FI and work part time, you are semi-retired. 

If you are FI and you work full time, you are not retired.

If you're not FI then you're not retired.

 I have some quibble saying those living month to month on their SS as FI, but they can certainly be retired.

yandz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #81 on: March 05, 2017, 10:00:28 AM »
Don't have the pleasure of having to navigate these conversations yet, but my immediate thought upon hearing "too young to retire" is something like, "Yeah, but I met the minimum height requirement, so they let me ride."

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Location: WDC
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #82 on: March 05, 2017, 04:09:28 PM »
I never thought I'd see an angry tennis match on here shadowing C.S. Lewis' commentary on "gentlemen." It made me smile.

Quote
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Any thoughts on what a "gentleman's gentleman" is?
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Location: WDC
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #83 on: March 05, 2017, 04:14:04 PM »
If you are financially independent and don't work at all, you are fully retired. 

If you are FI and work part time, you are semi-retired. 

If you are FI and you work full time, you are not retired.

If you're not FI then you're not retired.

 I have some quibble saying those living month to month on their SS as FI, but they can certainly be retired.

I knew someone who said he was retired 3 times.  The first one he left a career after 20 years with a full pension package.  The second he went to a competitor and earned credit for some of his years at the other company and retired from them when he became eligible for their pension (some reduced amount, but it was over $1k per month).  The third one was the job where I knew him.  He was leaving and finally moving away and no longer planned to work.  I don't think he received any retirement benefits from the 3rd place other than what he may have saved up in a 401k. 
I have no squabbles with any of his claims. 
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

RyanAtTanagra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #84 on: March 06, 2017, 12:04:10 PM »
I agree with AZ Ryan that on this forum we have a different definition of "retirement" than 99% of the population. I don't mind the word being used here more loosely, because we all get it, but when used just as loosely out in the real world, it might confuse people. For example, if you're retired in the Mustachian sense, but working full time in a coffee shop because you used to be an engineer but always wanted to be a barista, people are going to be confused when you tell them you're retired. As you're pouring them a coffee.

Well said.  I don't think many here are going to argue over the use of the word, but we all know the general population has an idea of what 'retirement' means, and many of us, while financially independent (in whatever form), don't fit into their view of it.  We can say retirement means whatever we think it should, but if the person you're talking to doesn't understand the word to mean the same thing, then there's going to be a breakdown in communication and understanding.  And we've been through this enough we should know and expect any random person we're talking to outside of these forums is probably going to get confused with our use of 'retirement'.  It's not their fault for being close-minded or not keeping up with the modern reality.  It's just how it is.

Communication is generally done to transfer ideas and information, and it's up to the speaker to know their audience and take that into account if they want their message to be understood.  Otherwise, why bother communicating...  Saying 'well they should know retirement can mean different things' doesn't help either side in the dialog.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #85 on: March 06, 2017, 03:22:18 PM »
Don't have the pleasure of having to navigate these conversations yet, but my immediate thought upon hearing "too young to retire" is something like, "Yeah, but I met the minimum height requirement, so they let me ride."
So glad I was not consuming a beverage when I read this.
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

SwordGuy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
    • Flipping Fayetteville
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #86 on: March 06, 2017, 06:14:03 PM »
If you are financially independent and don't work at all, you are fully retired. 

If you are FI and work part time, you are semi-retired. 

If you are FI and you work full time, you are not retired.

If you're not FI then you're not retired.

 I have some quibble saying those living month to month on their SS as FI, but they can certainly be retired.

Don't see why you should.  They invested a significant chunk of their earnings into that investment and now they are receiving the proceeds.   Same as a pension, or bonds, or stock, or rental property, or whatever provides cash flow without being a job.

Rollin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Location: West-Central Florida - USA
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #87 on: March 07, 2017, 06:20:02 AM »
I simply answer the question ands let them sort out their feelings. If I made something up that was a diversion it would not feel right. When their follow up question (sometimes) is what do you do then (now that you aren't working) I respond depending on how I feel and the situation, but I don't make up a story and I try and catch myself before I try to give an answer that will please them.

"Whatever I want pretty much whenever I want", is a good one to cut it short.
I love being outside.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #88 on: March 09, 2017, 10:12:27 AM »
If you are financially independent and don't work at all, you are fully retired. 

If you are FI and work part time, you are semi-retired. 

If you are FI and you work full time, you are not retired.

If you're not FI then you're not retired.

 I have some quibble saying those living month to month on their SS as FI, but they can certainly be retired.

Don't see why you should.  They invested a significant chunk of their earnings into that investment and now they are receiving the proceeds.   Same as a pension, or bonds, or stock, or rental property, or whatever provides cash flow without being a job.

 We can all define FI as we would like, the minimum combined SS payment a married couple can get is
$19,008* dollars, personally I wouldn't call that FI. The maximum SS combined for a couple is $64,000,
I would consider that FI. But both spouses had to pay the maximum into SS for 35 years to get that and may consider $64,000 to be a huge pay cut from the $220,000 they were earning at retirement.
  * $19,008 is above the government poverty level.

Mr. Green

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • Age: 33
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #89 on: March 09, 2017, 01:14:07 PM »
We can all define FI as we would like, the minimum combined SS payment a married couple can get is
$19,008* dollars, personally I wouldn't call that FI. The maximum SS combined for a couple is $64,000,
I would consider that FI. But both spouses had to pay the maximum into SS for 35 years to get that and may consider $64,000 to be a huge pay cut from the $220,000 they were earning at retirement.
  * $19,008 is above the government poverty level.
That person may have a paid off home, no debt and a low cost lifestyle and only need half of that amount ($8k) to cover expenses and the other half goes for fun stuff. I call that FI myself.
Any time income amounts are associated with FI, there seems to be a disconnect. The assumption is that a mortgage and some other debt is included so you couldn't possibly be living well on less than $20,000. If you take those debts away, someone who is entertained by a bunch of low or no-cost activities can live a fantastic life on a very small amount of money.

w@nker

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #90 on: March 12, 2017, 05:11:21 PM »
Silly arguments.  I think it its just as reasonable for a 35-year-old former office worker to state that she is "retired" from her professional career as it is for a 30-something-year-old Peyton Manning to state that he is "retired" from his professional football career.  I never hear anyone questioning this usage when it is in the context of professional athletes. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #91 on: March 13, 2017, 08:42:48 AM »
Silly arguments.  I think it its just as reasonable for a 35-year-old former office worker to state that she is "retired" from her professional career as it is for a 30-something-year-old Peyton Manning to state that he is "retired" from his professional football career.  I never hear anyone questioning this usage when it is in the context of professional athletes.
True, but household name pro athletes often live a much more conventional "retired" lifestyle than at 20 something mustachian.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5333
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2017, 08:46:28 AM »
If you are financially independent and don't work at all, you are fully retired. 

If you are FI and work part time, you are semi-retired. 

If you are FI and you work full time, you are not retired.

If you're not FI then you're not retired.

 I have some quibble saying those living month to month on their SS as FI, but they can certainly be retired.

Don't see why you should.  They invested a significant chunk of their earnings into that investment and now they are receiving the proceeds.   Same as a pension, or bonds, or stock, or rental property, or whatever provides cash flow without being a job.

 We can all define FI as we would like, the minimum combined SS payment a married couple can get is
$19,008* dollars, personally I wouldn't call that FI. The maximum SS combined for a couple is $64,000,
I would consider that FI. But both spouses had to pay the maximum into SS for 35 years to get that and may consider $64,000 to be a huge pay cut from the $220,000 they were earning at retirement.
  * $19,008 is above the government poverty level.
That person may have a paid off home, no debt and a low cost lifestyle and only need half of that amount ($8k) to cover expenses and the other half goes for fun stuff. I call that FI myself.
And you're rockin' it, girl!
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #93 on: March 13, 2017, 12:37:11 PM »
For me, FI is 25x expense, plus enough additional money to pay off the mortgage completely.  For us that would be (oh, I'm calculating it here for the first time):

$50,000 x 25 = $1,250,000
Mortgage = $355,000
Total = $1,605,000

There we go.  Got almost $300k now, so only $1.2m more to go :)
Frugalite in training.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #94 on: March 13, 2017, 02:53:11 PM »
Good question - I never got into real estate because I never had any money saved before reading MMM about 2 years ago.  Wouldn't even know where to begin. 

I also just realized that if I got the house paid off, I wouldn't need $50k per year.  We pay about $30k per year right now for our mortgage, so if we got rid of that, we'd be only around $25k per year spending.  Bump it up to $30k because we'll maybe do more stuff out and about like travel.  So $30k per year.  Hmmm.....

$30,000 x 25 = $750,000
Mortgage = $355,000
Total = 1,105,000

Oh that's much better.  Glad I stopped by this thread!
Frugalite in training.

AZryan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #95 on: March 13, 2017, 03:04:51 PM »
Silly arguments.  I think it its just as reasonable for a 35-year-old former office worker to state that she is "retired" from her professional career as it is for a 30-something-year-old Peyton Manning to state that he is "retired" from his professional football career.  I never hear anyone questioning this usage when it is in the context of professional athletes.

If both of those people stopped their working careers, yeah... they're both retired. But if Manning goes on to start some other business or works as a spokesmodel or sportscaster, then no, he's not retired. But he is retired from football. It's so easy to add a word or two to make that distinction clear -if you're not trying to convince people you're something you're not.

If he decides to go back to football team later on, everyone calls that 'coming out of retirement'.

The meaning's always been clear to the general public -which is how words are created and defined.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #96 on: March 13, 2017, 06:42:21 PM »
Good question - I never got into real estate because I never had any money saved before reading MMM about 2 years ago.  Wouldn't even know where to begin. 

I also just realized that if I got the house paid off, I wouldn't need $50k per year.  We pay about $30k per year right now for our mortgage, so if we got rid of that, we'd be only around $25k per year spending.  Bump it up to $30k because we'll maybe do more stuff out and about like travel.  So $30k per year.  Hmmm.....

$30,000 x 25 = $750,000
Mortgage = $355,000
Total = 1,105,000

Oh that's much better.  Glad I stopped by this thread!
And don't forget any pensions or SS to reduce it further.

Oil Patch Adams

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #97 on: March 13, 2017, 06:55:12 PM »
Tyoer1 - don't forget while you save for the 1.6M number, you mortgage continues to drop, so you won't need that much :-)

SweetLife

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Central Canada
  • 8 years to retirement ... count down on!
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #98 on: March 13, 2017, 07:43:23 PM »
I called my pension lady the other day to discuss "the plan" ... when I talked to co-workers about my idea of retiring at 56 most were shocked that I could go so early (less than 8 year away) the rest said they can't retire EVER (divorced/spend too much/won't even look at the pension site for another 10 years) ... my advice to look and plan fell on deaf ears ... :(

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: Another "you're too young to retire" comment
« Reply #99 on: March 14, 2017, 07:27:24 AM »
Good question - I never got into real estate because I never had any money saved before reading MMM about 2 years ago.  Wouldn't even know where to begin. 

I also just realized that if I got the house paid off, I wouldn't need $50k per year.  We pay about $30k per year right now for our mortgage, so if we got rid of that, we'd be only around $25k per year spending.  Bump it up to $30k because we'll maybe do more stuff out and about like travel.  So $30k per year.  Hmmm.....

$30,000 x 25 = $750,000
Mortgage = $355,000
Total = 1,105,000

Oh that's much better.  Glad I stopped by this thread!

Don't forget that while you must live SOMEWHERE, you do not need to retire where you are. If you have $125,000 equity in your home now, for example, you could sell your current home and retire to a very nice home, paid in cash, in about 30-40% of the US. Keep running the numbers. You might be over half way there already.

Isn't that interesting, you just went from hopeless to half way there in just a couple of posts :)