The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Post-FIRE => Topic started by: Gunny on February 16, 2017, 06:42:57 AM
-
I do some sub teaching at a local elementary school as a "paying hobby." Yesterday one of the teachers asked if I was working on getting teaching creds. When I told her I was retired and didn't want a full time gig she responded shockingly that I was too young to retire. Thinking she meant that I had more years to offer to society, I reminded her that I mentor and coach kids as a way to "give back". However, as the discussion continued over lunch I realized that she was envious that I was retired and several years younger than her. As I began to explain how I got here through frugal lifestyle and high savings rate over the last several years, her eyes glossed over and she lost interest. I guess some people just don't get it.
-
They convince themselves that being a wage slave is "virtuous" and they are "helping society". Self righteous self delusion.
-
I have only encountered the "you're too young to retire" comment once. I responded, "Oh, how old do you have to be?" It didn't go any further than that.
I suspect many people don't really think about retirement at all until they are ready to BE retired. That someone else retires and doesn't fit their definition of "old enough" messes with their subconscious view of the universe.
-
Problem with society thinking retirement is an age instead of being a number. Everyone just assumes you have to work to the traditional "retirement age".
-
When I reach RE I think I'm gonna stick with "I do personal finance and investing" to avoid some of the awkward conversations.
-
When I reach RE I think I'm gonna stick with "I do personal finance and investing" to avoid some of the awkward conversations.
Pretty much my plan for anyone outside of direct family or if someone happens to bring up whether I am retire or FI and sounds like they are open to hearing more. If it isn't brought up directly and/or someone doesn't seem all that open to having their beliefs about it challenged I would just say I'm in personal finance. They don't need to know I'm only managing my own money. So it isn't an outright lie, but it is said expecting them to assume something else. However I believe this little "white misdirection" is the better option, because most people do not want to have the beliefs here challenged and will feel attacked simply by you showing something they could do but haven't is possible.
-
I'm always surprised at the number of people on this forum who can't help but tell people they are retired. If you look young, then you know exactly the kind of conversation that is going to ensue when you mention the R-word to a normal person... and yet you do it anyway. Maybe folks enjoy having these awkward, humble-brag-y conversations?? :)
I agree, it does seem plenty humble-brag-y to me too. If you are at a MMM meeting sure, but out among the regular working folk, I don't think people appreciate having their faced rubbed in it. Also again, if you are speaking with a co-worker then are you really retired? Retirement is a hot button for many folk, which is why I prefer financial independence generally, but only among MMM company. Always pays to think how it makes other people feel that want to retire but for some reason or another, cannot.
-
I think depending on how it is discussed it can come across as braggy, but sometimes we feel we found on of the secrets to life and want to help others achieve the same thing...even if they don't always seem interested.
-
I'm always surprised at the number of people on this forum who can't help but tell people they are retired. If you look young, then you know exactly the kind of conversation that is going to ensue when you mention the R-word to a normal person... and yet you do it anyway. Maybe folks enjoy having these awkward, humble-brag-y conversations?? :)
It's not like you walk up to strangers, extend your hand and say "I'm retired!"
It's an honest answer to an honest question. "What do you do?"
I could lie. I could be evasive. Or I could just answer what they ask. I choose the latter. If they react negatively -- meh -- who cares.
-
I'm always surprised at the number of people on this forum who can't help but tell people they are retired. If you look young, then you know exactly the kind of conversation that is going to ensue when you mention the R-word to a normal person... and yet you do it anyway. Maybe folks enjoy having these awkward, humble-brag-y conversations?? :)
It's not like you walk up to strangers, extend your hand and say "I'm retired!"
It's an honest answer to an honest question. "What do you do?"
I could lie. I could be evasive. Or I could just answer what they ask. I choose the latter. If they react negatively -- meh -- who cares.
+1
-
I'm always surprised at the number of people on this forum who can't help but tell people they are retired. If you look young, then you know exactly the kind of conversation that is going to ensue when you mention the R-word to a normal person... and yet you do it anyway. Maybe folks enjoy having these awkward, humble-brag-y conversations?? :)
I often avoid it. I must admit one time I did say I was retired, just to get the very reaction you are thinking of. The woman has always been a bit of a strange-to-me kind of person. I disagreed with almost everything I have ever heard her say. Typical late-in-life, angry at the world, everyone is against me, I can't get ahead kind of person. Never an enjoyable conversation with her. I didn't see her much, because she is a close friend of an aunt I do not spent a lot of time with, but as a child I got to know all I wanted to know about her.
I saw her about 6 months ago for the first time in about 20 years. In 5 minutes I could tell she hadn't changed a bit.
About 2 weeks ago, I saw her at the grocery store in the middle of the day. She said "so do you have the day off?" I just responded, no.. I'm retired. JAW MET FLOOR! For the first time ever, I saw her and she was not talking some nonsense. She could not say a word, and just sort of stared out in space for a while.
She spent her entire life trying to keep up with my Aunt and Uncle, and you could tell she was physically unable to even comprehend what I just told her.
An unbelievably fantastic moment. I am smiling now just thinking about it :) <------ see
-
I think depending on how it is discussed it can come across as braggy, but sometimes we feel we found on of the secrets to life and want to help others achieve the same thing...even if they don't always seem interested.
I think this is key. Delivery of the information matters - it can be bragging or it can be helping someone else have the same success that you did. I definitely want the people I care about to know that they don't have to be stuck in the rat race.
-
I'm always surprised at the number of people on this forum who can't help but tell people they are retired. If you look young, then you know exactly the kind of conversation that is going to ensue when you mention the R-word to a normal person... and yet you do it anyway. Maybe folks enjoy having these awkward, humble-brag-y conversations?? :)
I told people "retired" at first but now say "I'm a trader". And "I work from home". It's just easier to avoid the confrontations.
-
I've still got about 7 years to formulate my plan for how to answer that question, but I've been leaning towards doing the "I tell people that I'm a # but if you really want to know, ask me again some other time" and then steer the conversation elsewhere (# being something vague, like wealth manager, or stock fund trader, or something suggestive of financial that could describe my monthly spreadsheet updates and yearly rebalancing). Maybe it's just me and my personality, but I know that if someone said that to me, I would be very intrigued and primed to learn something new and interesting the next time I asked. I figure this would weed out those who are ready to learn, and everyone else will do what they were going to probably do anyway and that's basically ignore what was actually said in order to make their next great pronouncement or thought or opinion that the rest of us just need to hear.
-
Maybe that is just a complimentary remark.
-
Gawd I can't wait for this "problem" to happen to me.
-
A good reply to this would be "You're too old to be working", but that would be mean and nasty and insulting to the person that told you you were too young to be retired. Maybe not a response to verbalize but internalize and smile to yourself.
-
I've been found out. I walk around just hoping someone will ask so I can "brag" about being retired. Yep, that's what I do.
-
I don't see the point in avoiding telling people you are retired. Who cars what they think. Aren't admittedly many of us here motivated by seeing others retiring early? It's not all that different in actual human interaction. Might help motivate someone else who otherwise is thinking, like most of society, that you need millions to retire and will probably drop dead before then.
Heck my co-workers know I am calling it quits soon and a couple have been motivated to up their savings.
-
A good reply to this would be "You're too old to be working", but that would be mean and nasty and insulting to the person that told you you were too young to be retired.
Lol, thanks, I'm saving that one in case I get an overly snide 'you're too young to retire'.
-
I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to have cultural expectations. I also think some of those expectations will be stupid, but that doesn't make "having a culture" stupid.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be surprized, in a society so bad at retiring young, at our retiring young. It just would be better if more were aware of it.
If you took a hang-glider to work and mentioned it casually in conversation, and the person reacted as if you were lying or withholding a crazy/amazing story... well... that... would totally make sense.
Like hang-gliding to work, it's a little dishonest to respond to retiring at 35 with "what? I made good decisions," as if the listener should obviously know what you're talking about. It's not like any part of our compulsory education teaches this stuff. If you dye your hair blue and really enjoy it, great! If you dye your hair blue and can't wait to give someone shit for finding it strange, that's... kinda... lame.
-
When I reach RE I think I'm gonna stick with "I do personal finance and investing" to avoid some of the awkward conversations.
This is what I say. Most people don't even understand that when I say personal I mean my own. I will say every year I get it less and less. Amazing the difference between just 50 and 52.
-
Gawd I can't wait for this "problem" to happen to me.
Me too!
-
( told the neighbors I work from home and/or on call with very flexible hours so they don't bug me all the time)
I plan on going part time soon as an 'experiment' and possibly fully FIREing if my tastebuds like the freedom too much - and this is EXACTLY what I have lined up to tell my neighbors etc. Lots of nosy-pants folks around here. I like them enough, but I'm also a private person.
-
I have only encountered the "you're too young to retire" comment once. I responded, "Oh, how old do you have to be?" It didn't go any further than that.
Haha love this one! I'm still a few years out, but like others I'll probably give some vague statement about "managing investments" which is technically true for anyone that has investments. Since most people don't want to ever discuss investing, I'm anticipating having plenty of opportunity to change the topic of conversation. Probably avoid the "retire" word given the negative connotation it typically causes when associated with someone in their 30's.
-
I've been found out. I walk around just hoping someone will ask so I can "brag" about being retired. Yep, that's what I do.
Lemme guess - you hang around in grocery stores during working hours?
-
My dad always said he was "semi-retired." Seemed like an easy way to express that he wasn't doing nothing in retirement, but whatever he was doing was entirely elective.
-
I'm 59 and retired a couple of years but look young for my age. Usually people get a bit of a shock when I say I'm retired but that's their issue not mine.
-
I'm always surprised at the number of people on this forum who can't help but tell people they are retired. If you look young, then you know exactly the kind of conversation that is going to ensue when you mention the R-word to a normal person... and yet you do it anyway. Maybe folks enjoy having these awkward, humble-brag-y conversations?? :)
Come on. Half of the reason to FIRE is to rub it in people's face! ;)
-
Come on. Half of the reason to FIRE is to rub it in people's face! ;)
To each his own. I prefer to keep my business to myself. Others generally prefer that as well.
-
To each his own. I prefer to keep my business to myself. Others generally prefer that as well.
I was hoping the smiley at the end of my sentence made it clear I was joking
-
To each his own. I prefer to keep my business to myself. Others generally prefer that as well.
I was hoping the smiley at the end of my sentence made it clear I was joking
Damnit. I missed the winky face. ;)
-
I've been found out. I walk around just hoping someone will ask so I can "brag" about being retired. Yep, that's what I do.
So she did ask you if you were retired? Because you say "Yesterday one of the teachers asked if I was working on getting teaching creds." Which to me does not prompt a discussion on FI or retirement. This question could well be answered, "not interested in getting my credential because I like subbing". Seems a leap to tell a co-worker who is seemingly not retired that you are retired when that is not the question asked. Thats akin to answering the question: oh what are you doing this weekend? with: "Oh I'm flying the Cessna up to my lake cabin", vs. "I'm going swimming." You just gotta think how it makes people feel sometimes, thats just being considerate.
-
Thats akin to answering the question: oh what are you doing this weekend? with: "Oh I'm flying the Cessna up to my lake cabin", vs. "I'm going swimming." You just gotta think how it makes people feel sometimes, thats just being considerate.
I see this as everyone else's problem, not my own. You're essentially asking someone to filter everything they say, removing specificity based on a prejudice of what might offend someone or make them feel bad. For one, I couldn't possibly know the economic situation of the person I'm talking to so how do I make the decision on how much detail to omit? Plus, for all I know the co-worker could have an interest in planes and we could end up having a really awesome conversation. But instead I missed that experience because I was worried about making my co-worker feel bad about the fact that I have a Cessna? That's just another form of mental enslavement.
-
One persons mental enslavement is another persons polite etiquette. Its all in where you draw the line. Not farting in someones face must be considered bodily gas enslavement. Also don't want to enslave any mucous when you sneeze, let it fly, freedom for all!
Personally I don't find it any more mentally taxing than remembering to keep my mouth closed when I eat or not drool on myself, but I am willing to acknowledge that not everyone may be as mentally well endowed as myself and such things can be difficult to grasp.
-
Thats akin to answering the question: oh what are you doing this weekend? with: "Oh I'm flying the Cessna up to my lake cabin", vs. "I'm going swimming." You just gotta think how it makes people feel sometimes, thats just being considerate.
No it's not and implying it is is unfair to the OP. Saying you're retired is not rubbing anyone's face in anything. If the OP said "I'm don't want to get my teaching credentials because I have so much money I don't need to earn any more ever in this lifetime", that would be one thing, but that's not the case. trashmanz, you read way too much into the statement, IMHO and no one should be made to feel badly because they saved enough money and lived frugally enough to live their dreams earlier than others.
-
Thats akin to answering the question: oh what are you doing this weekend? with: "Oh I'm flying the Cessna up to my lake cabin", vs. "I'm going swimming." You just gotta think how it makes people feel sometimes, thats just being considerate.
No it's not and implying it is is unfair to the OP. Saying you're retired is not rubbing anyone's face in anything. If the OP said "I'm don't want to get my teaching credentials because I have so much money I don't need to earn any more ever in this lifetime", that would be one thing, but that's not the case. trashmanz, you read way too much into the statement, IMHO and no one should be made to feel badly because they saved enough money and lived frugally enough to live their dreams earlier than others.
"I'm don't want to get my teaching credentials because I have so much money I don't need to earn any more ever in this lifetime" That is actually what retirement means to many if not most people.
My comment was only to address the insinuation that the coworker asked OP if they were retired (or even prompted the discussion), when according to the original post, they did not ask OP whether they were retired, merely if they were going to get credentialed. Furthermore, this isn't a passing conversation in a coffee shop or a MMM gathering, this is presumably from the context, a coworker. I don't think I'm unique thinking it untoward to initiate a FIRE conversation with a coworker that did not specifically ask to discuss finances.
-
One persons mental enslavement is another persons polite etiquette. Its all in where you draw the line. Not farting in someones face must be considered bodily gas enslavement. Also don't want to enslave any mucous when you sneeze, let it fly, freedom for all!
Personally I don't find it any more mentally taxing than remembering to keep my mouth closed when I eat or not drool on myself, but I am willing to acknowledge that not everyone may be as mentally well endowed as myself and such things can be difficult to grasp.
I am definitely less mentally endowed because I just can't make the leap in logic, comparing an unsolicited fart in the face to responding to another person's question with a societally standard level of detail. Just because the person doesn't like the answer does not make it impolite. If a lady was wearing a blue dress and she asked my how I liked it and I said it's nice, my favorite color is blue, am I being impolite because her favorite color is red and she dislikes it if other people have different favorite colors? I don't get it. It seems I have no recourse but to remain oblivious and happy.
-
One persons mental enslavement is another persons polite etiquette. Its all in where you draw the line. Not farting in someones face must be considered bodily gas enslavement. Also don't want to enslave any mucous when you sneeze, let it fly, freedom for all!
Personally I don't find it any more mentally taxing than remembering to keep my mouth closed when I eat or not drool on myself, but I am willing to acknowledge that not everyone may be as mentally well endowed as myself and such things can be difficult to grasp.
agreed but you can be polite and respectful in your response to those kinds of questions as I felt the OP was. Politely stating a fact is not akin to rubbing someones face in it.
To me, context is key, is it polite to state a fact to a question not asked? Maybe its just me, but if I asked someone if they are working on getting a teachers credential and they answered that they were retired, I'd think, yeah but WTF does that have to do with my question which is left unanswered. Seems presumptuous to assume someone would only get a credential because they need money and could not retire. Am I the only one that can see how it could be perceived by a coworker?
I *personally* don't see a coworker asking "are you working on getting teaching creds" as a logical segue into discussion of personal finance/FI status.
I *personally* think it uncouth to inject discussions of wealth/status into conversations with coworkers when not specifically asked, but it seems at least a few of you are more free in exposing your financial well being in this regard and see any personal restraint on waiving the retirement flag as a personal affront to your civil liberties.
Also, yes I think stating a fact can definitely be stated to rub someones face it in. For example, in one extreme: "Would you like a ride to the train station?" -> "No thanks, I have a brand new Tesla with wonderful heated leather seats and a high end sound system, so I will drive myself." I don't see how whether something is in fact true has any bearing on politeness?
-
We don't know exactly what was said. I would see the following as a totally normal response.
"Are you getting your teaching credentials?"
"No, I'm retired and I just enjoy being a substitute teacher."
In that context, saying one is retired is simply part of the answer to the next question the co-worker is likely going to ask if the response is simply "no" and that is "Why?" I feel like it's pretty normal in conversation to try and provide enough data that our awesome brains can make leaps over standard questions. Instead of A->B->C->D->E, we're smart enough to know typical conversation patterns so we respond in a manner that allows someone to skip questions because the answer has already been provided. So they only have to ask A->C->E. In general, limiting a response to a question where the obvious next question is why tends to convey unfriendliness.
"Are you getting your teaching credentials?"
"No."
That response would make me think my co-worker doesn't want to talk to me. And if he said it while displaying a friendly and open demeanor it would be confusing because that's not how we tend to interact with each other.
Of course all of this depends on what was actually said, which we don't really know.
-
To give another example, if I saw Michael Phelps in college at age 28 and asked him curiously why he was there in his late 20s (assuming I didn't know who he was) and his response was that he was an Olympian so he had been focused on swimming for the last ten years, I would not take his response as an affront to my own physical prowess, or any lack thereof. It's simply an answer that provides data. If he aggrandized his answer it's different.
"How come you're in college in your late 20's?"
"Well, I won 6 gold medals in Athens in '04, 8 gold medals in Beijing in '08, 4 gold medals in London in '12, and 5 more golds in Rio in '16. I did a bunch of commercials and stuff in between so I didn't have time."
That's aggrandizing. Your Tesla comment is more in line with aggrandizing than it is providing a data point. Simply saying "retired" is not aggrandizing. It doesn't give any details as to what exactly that is for you but it provides typical data that would allow the other person in the conversation to make leaps to other questions, rather than having to pull each detail out of you with it's own question.
-
It shows how culturally we are absent the whole concept that we don't really have a word for this. Retire to me is not the right word because (perhaps this is my intrinsic cultural bias) it speaks of 65+ living on some kind of pension.
I'd probably describe myself as an independent business man. or maybe a consultant. But as I'm older it probably won't be a similarly jarring thing.
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"
Maybe some other language has a word we can steal, which is what English normally does in such situations.
-
I'm certainly going to be a lot more selective on what I post on MMM in the future.
-
One persons mental enslavement is another persons polite etiquette. Its all in where you draw the line. Not farting in someones face must be considered bodily gas enslavement. Also don't want to enslave any mucous when you sneeze, let it fly, freedom for all!
Personally I don't find it any more mentally taxing than remembering to keep my mouth closed when I eat or not drool on myself, but I am willing to acknowledge that not everyone may be as mentally well endowed as myself and such things can be difficult to grasp.
Were you feeling too mentally taxed by the end of your sentence to not be condescending? Or does your mental strength with respect to polite etiquette and keeping your mouth closed not apply to insults as well?
-
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.
-
To me, context is key, is it polite to state a fact to a question not asked? Maybe its just me, but if I asked someone if they are working on getting a teachers credential and they answered that they were retired, I'd think, yeah but WTF does that have to do with my question which is left unanswered. Seems presumptuous to assume someone would only get a credential because they need money and could not retire. Am I the only one that can see how it could be perceived by a coworker?
I *personally* don't see a coworker asking "are you working on getting teaching creds" as a logical segue into discussion of personal finance/FI status.
I *personally* think it uncouth to inject discussions of wealth/status into conversations with coworkers when not specifically asked, but it seems at least a few of you are more free in exposing your financial well being in this regard and see any personal restraint on waiving the retirement flag as a personal affront to your civil liberties.
Also, yes I think stating a fact can definitely be stated to rub someones face it in. For example, in one extreme: "Would you like a ride to the train station?" -> "No thanks, I have a brand new Tesla with wonderful heated leather seats and a high end sound system, so I will drive myself." I don't see how whether something is in fact true has any bearing on politeness?
Trashmanz, I thought about writing a rebuttal but then thought why should I. You are way off base. I don't need to brag or rub anyone's face into anything. Not my style.
-
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.
I agree 100%. We retired at 51 and 52 and when someone asks us what we do, that's what we tell them because it's the truth. We're not bragging about it but we are damned happy about it and smile when we tell people. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
One persons mental enslavement is another persons polite etiquette. Its all in where you draw the line. Not farting in someones face must be considered bodily gas enslavement. Also don't want to enslave any mucous when you sneeze, let it fly, freedom for all!
Personally I don't find it any more mentally taxing than remembering to keep my mouth closed when I eat or not drool on myself, but I am willing to acknowledge that not everyone may be as mentally well endowed as myself and such things can be difficult to grasp.
Were you feeling too mentally taxed by the end of your sentence to not be condescending? Or does your mental strength with respect to polite etiquette and keeping your mouth closed not apply to insults as well?
Yes, my apologies, I did get a bit carried away there.
-
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.
-
They put themselves in the hamster wheel. Not much sympathy. After saying I retired I usually do a back flip. :)
-
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.
-
Oh I'm retired, I don't need a watch.
Hahahaha. I'm totally going to use that.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/), btw.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!! :)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/), 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.
-
We say semi-retired since we choose to work p.t. for fun. I don't think it matters what you call it.
-
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 (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/), 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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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)
-
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.
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.
-
*-'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.
-
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'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.
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!
-
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.
-
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 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!
-
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!
-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.
-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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
I never thought I'd see an angry tennis match on here shadowing C.S. Lewis' commentary on "gentlemen." It made me smile.
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.
-
Good one, Hargrove. Thanks for that.
-
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 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."
-
I never thought I'd see an angry tennis match on here shadowing C.S. Lewis' commentary on "gentlemen." It made me smile.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 :)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Tyoer1 - don't forget while you save for the 1.6M number, you mortgage continues to drop, so you won't need that much :-)
-
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 ... :(
-
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 :)
-
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!
The "don't pay your house off" crowd here at MMM would probably encourage you to keep the mortgage and invest that money instead. You'll need a higher income but will have higher assets. I'm personally in the "no debt or mortgage in ER" club myself but ymmv. Lots of threads around about both.
I think many of us keep a mortgage crowd are generally referring to those in solid accumulation mode. As you get close to fire a moderate paid off house lowers your need for taxable income which may aid other subsidies and reduce taxes and a need to sell equity in a market dip. YMMV
-
I think many of us keep a mortgage crowd are generally referring to those in solid accumulation mode. As you get close to fire a moderate paid off house lowers your need for taxable income which may aid other subsidies and reduce taxes and a need to sell equity in a market dip. YMMV
Oh, I intend to pay the minimum on the mortgage until I accumulate $1.2 million. Then I can pay off the mortgage in full, but between now and then it's all going Vanguard index stock and index bonds. I've had job instability in the past and I've learned in my situation it's far, far better to have $$ invested than sunk into extra payments on the mortgage.
But at some point I'd like to be mortgage free, looks like another 14 year or so. Maybe even sooner now that my wife got her real estate license and is heading back into the work force.
-
The "don't pay your house off" crowd here at MMM would probably encourage you to keep the mortgage and invest that money instead. You'll need a higher income but will have higher assets. I'm personally in the "no debt or mortgage in ER" club myself but ymmv. Lots of threads around about both.
Debt sucks, IMO. I'll pay the minimum for the next 15 years, but once I'm at FI I'll probably take out some $$ and pay off the mortgage. Hell, I might even time the market by doing that on an upswing rather than a dip. Shocking, I know :-)
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 :)
Oh man you have no idea how much of a life saver MMM was for me. Not just money either. A complete re-alignment of my perceptions of this world and my place in it, and what's important. I used to want to have a "nice life" because my parents were poor during the early parts of my life and it set me to separate myself from "poor people" by spending money and showing I had made it.
Small example - recently I was eating some oatmeal for breakfast and I was scraping the poot to et the last bit out. I would have never have done that in the past because "poor people scrape". Now my mentality is "non-wasteful rich people DO scrape". Haha, that's quite a shift!
I also notice more recently, as we've gotten to around $300k invested, that my desire to buy shiny things is dropping almost in directly inverse proportion to the amount of money I actually have. It was like, when I was not wealthy (no savings), I wanted to give the impression of wealth by having new/shiny things. Now that I have ACTUAL wealth, the desire to show it off just drops like a rock.
Anyway, I owe a HUGE thanks to MMM and especially to the people on this forum. MMM got my mindset turned around with his blog posts, but it was the members here that help people methodically work out the real-world applications that was the final piece of the puzzle. So... THANK YOU ALL!
-
I think many of us keep a mortgage crowd are generally referring to those in solid accumulation mode. As you get close to fire a moderate paid off house lowers your need for taxable income which may aid other subsidies and reduce taxes and a need to sell equity in a market dip. YMMV
Oh, I intend to pay the minimum on the mortgage until I accumulate $1.2 million. Then I can pay off the mortgage in full, but between now and then it's all going Vanguard index stock and index bonds. I've had job instability in the past and I've learned in my situation it's far, far better to have $$ invested than sunk into extra payments on the mortgage.
But at some point I'd like to be mortgage free, looks like another 14 year or so. Maybe even sooner now that my wife got her real estate license and is heading back into the work force.
I'd quote the post below this one, but this one's shorter.
You're rocking it, ty! I am so glad you asked, listened and learned about the upsides of letting a cheap, affordable mortgage play out naturally while your marshall your green soldiers into a mighty early retirement army. You're going to be amazed at how fast that 300k grows! Woot!
-
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 :)
This is what I did and it put me solidly into FI (wasn't there yet) and able to retire. Sold the paid off house in a HCOL area and moved to a nicer LCOL area and bought a place with cash for about 1/3 the cost. Eventually moved back to HCOL area again during housing crash/great recession, bought a foreclosure with cash very cheap and now deciding if I should sell for big bucks, rent it out for big bucks or stay as it doesn't cost me much. Lots of paths to FIRE.
This is FANTASTIC.
California right? How about another option? Sell it at cost to a fellow FIRE family to allow us to afford the California sun :) I would even consider an even swap for a 3BR ranch on 1 1/2 acre in WI.
PM me if interested (ha ha).
-
I purchased a condo for cash prior to FIREing. It allows me to live on very little income since only taxes, maintenance, electric and internet are required. The money tied up earns no taxable return and keeps my MAGI low which helps with the ACA. Now that the ACA will likely change I will probably sell and go nomad/slow travel until 65. Other advantages to owning are the nice 250k capital gains exclusion, 150k asset protection due to homestead laws. Being in control of when I move is important to me.
-
We have actually changed our minds about having a paid off house. Ours was but we decided with interest rates so low to take some of the $ out to boast our reserves while still only having a payment of 500/month. We took a 30 year but likely won't live that long. Rents for this house are 1500/month.
-
Problem with society thinking retirement is an age instead of being a number. Everyone just assumes you have to work to the traditional "retirement age".
I think the Social Security Administration has really brainwashed people on their retirement age. Now that people know I'm retiring. I get "I wish I would but I have to work to... fill in SSN FRA" Well I guess I should be offended they think I'm that old but hopefully once I get off the stress treadmill I can look younger. I'm 56 , My Social Security FRA is 66 1/2 , I don't give two shakes of a rat's rear about that age because I did the math and working till that age and then collecting Social Security gets me an amazing additional $100 per month as opposed to quiting now and then collecting Social Security at FRA. It has to do with the Social Security formula that returns very little for incomes over 60k per year but ofcourse taxes you right up to 130k per year in 2017. They look at 35 years and inflation adjust so if you worked at your professional job 35 years and then quit really makes a very minor difference in Social Security vs staying on the job to FRA.
-
The "don't pay your house off" crowd here at MMM would probably encourage you to keep the mortgage and invest that money instead. You'll need a higher income but will have higher assets. I'm personally in the "no debt or mortgage in ER" club myself but ymmv. Lots of threads around about both.
Debt sucks, IMO. I'll pay the minimum for the next 15 years, but once I'm at FI I'll probably take out some $$ and pay off the mortgage. Hell, I might even time the market by doing that on an upswing rather than a dip. Shocking, I know :-)
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 :)
Oh man you have no idea how much of a life saver MMM was for me. Not just money either. A complete re-alignment of my perceptions of this world and my place in it, and what's important. I used to want to have a "nice life" because my parents were poor during the early parts of my life and it set me to separate myself from "poor people" by spending money and showing I had made it.
Small example - recently I was eating some oatmeal for breakfast and I was scraping the poot to et the last bit out. I would have never have done that in the past because "poor people scrape". Now my mentality is "non-wasteful rich people DO scrape". Haha, that's quite a shift!
I also notice more recently, as we've gotten to around $300k invested, that my desire to buy shiny things is dropping almost in directly inverse proportion to the amount of money I actually have. It was like, when I was not wealthy (no savings), I wanted to give the impression of wealth by having new/shiny things. Now that I have ACTUAL wealth, the desire to show it off just drops like a rock.
Anyway, I owe a HUGE thanks to MMM and especially to the people on this forum. MMM got my mindset turned around with his blog posts, but it was the members here that help people methodically work out the real-world applications that was the final piece of the puzzle. So... THANK YOU ALL!
Well done tyort ! !
That's an interesting effect you've found. I agree, once you really get those little green soldiers (and even better, the ones they created) working for you the previously theoretical but now observable power of compounding interest is a siren call to keep adding more when you can see the earning taking off.
The more you save the more addictive saving gets.
-
Isn't that interesting, you just went from hopeless to half way there in just a couple of posts :)
I think if most people took the time to do the math and start thinking about what it really takes, more would have a better feeling about retirement. I know that was true for me. Before I actually ran my numbers, I firmly believed that I wouldn't be able to retire before age 74 (when mortgage was set to finish). Over time, and with the help of many great MMMers, I've discovered many alternate paths to get me there sooner. And in fact "there" has changed too. I've shaved roughly 20 years off of my original date, and I'm still playing around with how much I'll need, so that can keep changing.
But to point, yes, it is interesting that when you put some time into a proper analysis, and see other options available, many many different outcomes are possible.