At what Age do MMMers actually FIRE?

[LibrarianFuzz]

I plan on retiring the day after my 50th birthday. It's the earliest possible day that I can begin drawing (a very small but I'm still not giving it up) pension.

Cohort 2032 for me.

[PhilB]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?  It's fairly common in the UK for early retirees to leave their pension untouched until normal retirement age and live off their stash in the meantime - Mrs B and I will have an 11 year gap between FIRE and starting our small pensions.  Any job that has a pension you get to keep those pension rights whatever age you leave.

[matchewed]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?  It's fairly common in the UK for early retirees to leave their pension untouched until normal retirement age and live off their stash in the meantime - Mrs B and I will have an 11 year gap between FIRE and starting our small pensions.  Any job that has a pension you get to keep those pension rights whatever age you leave.

The idea exists but is not necessarily in place depending on a particular pension plan.

[Fomerly known as something]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?  It's fairly common in the UK for early retirees to leave their pension untouched until normal retirement age and live off their stash in the meantime - Mrs B and I will have an 11 year gap between FIRE and starting our small pensions.  Any job that has a pension you get to keep those pension rights whatever age you leave.

I do have this but the big difference for me is that I would lose my included health care in this scenario.  If I had NIH I'd be FIRED right now.

[PhilB]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?  It's fairly common in the UK for early retirees to leave their pension untouched until normal retirement age and live off their stash in the meantime - Mrs B and I will have an 11 year gap between FIRE and starting our small pensions.  Any job that has a pension you get to keep those pension rights whatever age you leave.

The idea exists but is not necessarily in place depending on a particular pension plan.

Wow.  In the UK it has been a legal requirement for decades that on leaving an employer you get to keep any pension entitlement built up over your employment.

[talltexan]

Labor has really lost a lot of ground here in the US. Defined benefit pensions are getting more and more scarce.

[jim555]

My company froze the pension so I get something just not the whole amount.  Retiree medical they cut down so it is minimal now, and they never increase it.  I wouldn't qualify since I left too soon, 55 min age.

[sol]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?

I am taking a deferred pension, as a former federal employee.  The benefits totally suck, compared to retiring at a normal retirement age, because the pension amount is based on your years of service so if you only work for ten years your pension will only pay 10% of your high-3 salary at the time you retired.

You also lose all of the associated benefits, like participation in the employer's group health insurance plan, inflation adjustments, and the social security supplement designed to bridge the gap between federal retirement age and SS collection age, for people who get their 30 years in earlier than normal by starting out young and never changing jobs.

In retrospect, I would have been financially better off taking all of those pension contributions as cash.  The loss of inflation adjustments alone approximately halves the value of my pension between retiring early and collecting it.  The loss of health care coverage will cost me more than the remainder of the pension is worth.  Early retirees like me are the reason why everyone else's pensions can be so generous.  I'm getting robbed on mine, even though I technically get to collect it at age 60.

If you're US military, it's a whole different story.  Their pensions, both deferred and immediate, are head and shoulders above the civilian workforce's offering.  There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

[EnjoyIt]

Let's compare to the other relevant data: Average retirement age for Americans*



If the stats in the OP are right, a median age of 49 would put the half of Mustachians below that in the very first bubble (<50), and in the top 1% of Americans. The median MMMer ERing in 2018 and reporting in that thread is in the top 1% of Americans retiring. Nice.

In fact, except for the two people who reported 60+, everyone else falls below that giant bubble, which means they're in the top 18%. Let's round to 20. The vast majority of MMMers retiring this year and reporting in that thread are in the top 20% of Americans, even if they are in their late 50s.

Aka, even your late 50s is still a very early retirement. :)

Pretty awesome.

*I understand this site has a broad international demographic, but the majority are still American, and American retirement age is likely more relevant than worldwide retirement age, which doesn't happen for most people worldwide, still.

(Image credit to recent Financial Samurai article agreeing with Suze Orman that 5MM+ is needed to retire early.)

What I find interesting in that graph is 20% of people work past 70.

[Cassie]

Those older people are most likely working part time like I am at 64. I do it because I love it and can work from anywhere so it doesn’t interfere with my life style.

[EnjoyIt]

Those older people are most likely working part time like I am at 64. I do it because I love it and can work from anywhere so it doesn’t interfere with my life style.

I am in my early 40s and working part time as well.  But, I need to work part time for 1-2 more years to make our math work.  I would be more than happy working part time for the next decade because I do enjoy what I do.  Just not so much that I would be doing it every day.

[TheAnonOne]

28 here and 3 years from bare bones. So sometime in my 30s I will retire, its just a matter of what lifestyle I really want (barebones, mid level, fat fire, and with/without kids) all options should be open to me by around 35. I will pass what MMM FIRE'ed with maybe next year barring any crash.

I assume the age here will drop as people who find this younger are often times at the start of their journey and need a good decade. If you find this at 47 and already have 800k its a no brainer.

To me, anthing over 55 seems a little suspect as far as the lable "RE" goes, at least here. Obviously, most would call that early outside of the community. 49

[nereo]

I assume the age here will drop as people who find this younger are often times at the start of their journey and need a good decade. If you find this at 47 and already have 800k its a no brainer.

I'm interested in how the next recession will influence the whole FIRE community.  This forum hasn't yet been through a recession and there's a human tendency to assume that the most recent conditions will continue more-or-less indefinitely ("recency bias").  Certainly broad market losses will delay many people's FI date.
OTOH, and I think the 'great recession' was a catalyst for the FIRE community; many people were driven to reassess the 'spend what you make, work 40 years til you're eligible for SS' model.

[Nords]

There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

You say that as if it's a fact. 

My years of blogging experience, and a military retiree's PhD thesis (based on a survey), indicate that more than 80% of military retirees immediately embark on a bridge career.  I'm not aware of any data which indicates that military retirees achieve retirement any sooner than the rest of their age group.

It's ironic because American military retirees have a COLA'd pension and cheap healthcare.  You'd expect that a lot of them would reach FIRE.  That does not seem to be the case, which implies that they either don't realize it's achievable or else choose to live a consumerism lifestyle.

[Monkey Uncle]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?

I am taking a deferred pension, as a former federal employee.  The benefits totally suck, compared to retiring at a normal retirement age, because the pension amount is based on your years of service so if you only work for ten years your pension will only pay 10% of your high-3 salary at the time you retired.

You also lose all of the associated benefits, like participation in the employer's group health insurance plan, inflation adjustments, and the social security supplement designed to bridge the gap between federal retirement age and SS collection age, for people who get their 30 years in earlier than normal by starting out young and never changing jobs.

In retrospect, I would have been financially better off taking all of those pension contributions as cash.  The loss of inflation adjustments alone approximately halves the value of my pension between retiring early and collecting it.  The loss of health care coverage will cost me more than the remainder of the pension is worth.  Early retirees like me are the reason why everyone else's pensions can be so generous.  I'm getting robbed on mine, even though I technically get to collect it at age 60.

If you're US military, it's a whole different story.  Their pensions, both deferred and immediate, are head and shoulders above the civilian workforce's offering.  There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

Sol - I believe you will start getting an inflation adjustment once you reach age 62.  But yes, you are losing a lot to inflation until you reach that age.

https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/computation/

Your annuity will be increased for cost-of-living adjustments, if:
•You are over age 62; or
•You retired under the special provision for air traffic controllers, law enforcement personnel, or firefighters; or
•You retired on disability, except when you are receiving a disability annuity based on 60% of your high-3 average salary. This is generally during the first year of receiving disability benefits; or
•Your retirement includes a portion computed under Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) rules.

FERS retirees under age 62 who do not fall into one of the categories above, are not eligible for cost-of-living increases until they reach age 62.

[arebelspy]

There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

You say that as if it's a fact. 

My years of blogging experience, and a military retiree's PhD thesis (based on a survey), indicate that more than 80% of military retirees immediately embark on a bridge career.  I'm not aware of any data which indicates that military retirees achieve retirement any sooner than the rest of their age group.

What about the other 20%? That still is very high compared to the general population, no?

Or do they take a short gap and then bridge career (wasn't clear since your qualifier was "immediately"), or are they disabled and thus you aren't counting them as early retired, or is there some other factor not mentioned?

Because otherwise, while you indicate that you're not aware of data that military retirees retire earlier, it sounds like that IS the data--20% of people leaving a military career with a pension not going back to work is a very high FIRE rate compared to their peers of the same age, right?

[Nords]

There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

You say that as if it's a fact. 

My years of blogging experience, and a military retiree's PhD thesis (based on a survey), indicate that more than 80% of military retirees immediately embark on a bridge career.  I'm not aware of any data which indicates that military retirees achieve retirement any sooner than the rest of their age group.

What about the other 20%? That still is very high compared to the general population, no?

Or do they take a short gap and then bridge career (wasn't clear since your qualifier was "immediately"), or are they disabled and thus you aren't counting them as early retired, or is there some other factor not mentioned?

I would love to find any surveys or DoD studies about financially-independent military retirees who never pursued a bridge career.  (More than Spartana and other MMM forum members.)  As near as I can tell from the past two decades, there are none.  I'm afraid that I'm the lead researcher.

There should be many more military veterans who reach FI on active duty or through a combination of active duty, Reserve/Guard service, and a high savings rate.  It seems like a slam dunk:  persistence, resilience, hard-core deprivation --> frugality, COLA'd pension, cheap healthcare.  It's the conundrum which started the book project in 2004.

The other 20% of military retirees are dealing with significant disability, or going back to college (even in their 40s and 50s), or facing prolonged unemployment.  I see those disability issues on PEBForum.com and many Facebook pages.  I see the unemployment issues on Linkedin and several nonprofit sites.

The PhD candidate said that some of his data indicated that the more senior (in rank and/or age) the military retiree, the more likely they were to return to bridge careers right after military retirement.  O-5s and O-6s were higher than 80% at returning to the workforce but there weren't enough survey responses for the confidence factor to include it in his thesis.  Even retired admirals and generals who "don't have to work" tend to immediately get sucked up into corporate boards or paid billets at non-profits.

Gap years are more common today.  (As late as the early 2000s it was perceived to be a resume gap, now it's "just spending a few months with family".)  These tend to be families retiring at an overseas duty station and wanting to travel Europe & Asia before finding a job/home, or traveling the U.S. in an RV to find their mythical forever home.  (They're usually advised to go where the job offer is, not waste their time seeking a clan homestead.)  There's also a six-month wait before senior retirees (mostly officer) can be hired into federal civil service... if they're waiting on USAJobs then they're counted as "unemployed".

I spend a lot of time on military Facebook groups and forums where the vast majority of retiring servicemembers are stressed about succeeding in a civilian career.  Their spouses are crazed with the drama of getting through the retirement process and the uncertainty of the bridge career search before the family can focus on housing & schools.  The stress is evenly distributed among officers, enlisted, and ranks.  It's all because military families have been living paycheck-to-paycheck for 20 years, or perhaps contributing just 10%-15% to their TSP accounts.

I know several military retirees (admirals, generals, and senior enlisted) who cheerfully admit that they'll never stop working.  I know many more military retirees who are afraid that they'll never reach financial independence. 

When I retired in 2002, there was exactly one other financially-independent military retiree on Early-Retirement.org who had retired immediately from active duty and never sought a bridge career.  I was on several other forums where there were zero FI military retirees. 

Today I know several FI military retirees.  (One of them has been hiking the Appalachian Trail from end to end.)  I know about two dozen military servicemembers who are either at or very close to FI and will retire from active duty in the next 1-5 years without worrying about a bridge career. 

However the vast majority of my reader questions are about where to catch up on saving for retirement or how to find a bridge career-- not about what they'll do all day or how to use military Space A flights for slow travel.

[CowboyAndIndian]

I'm one of the people who FIRED at 60.

I learned about MMM at age 54, or six years earlier.   Before that, my best hope was to retire at 70.
We could have pulled it off 2 years earlier but we decided to play it a bit safer.

If I had known about this at age 30 when we reached median family income, we could have FIRED by 45 at the latest.

+1

I found MMM when I was 55 and retired at 59.

If I did not have the support of Mustachians (and Petes Knowledge), I would n have waited till 65 or 67 to retire.
At 59, I am still in the 18% of the earliest retirees.

[arebelspy]

Very interesting, Nords! Thanks for the explanation/details! :)

[PizzaSteve]

Very interesting, Nords! Thanks for the explanation/details! :)

Agreed.  Excellent post.  Mirrors my family experience.  Several successful career officers from Academy to 20+yr retired, actually had savings and means to retire (so maybe exceptional), but instead took senior exec civilian jobs well into 60s.

[Nords]

Very interesting, Nords! Thanks for the explanation/details! :)

Agreed.  Excellent post.  Mirrors my family experience.  Several successful career officers from Academy to 20+yr retired, actually had savings and means to retire (so maybe exceptional), but instead took senior exec civilian jobs well into 60s.

To be fair, many military retirees either want to continue taking care of people or just never realize that they're FI and could retire earlier than the traditional Social Security age.  It's the culture of service.

Great post as usual @Nords. I also don't know anyone who didn't pick up another full time career after retiring from the military. Even those who were in 30 years or who were FI and could financial afford to retire and live a pretty nice life. My extremely frugal mustashian ex-DH was one of those who stayed in an additional 10 years and now has continued on as a civilian Fed in the same job. He did it for love of the job rather than any financial need. So I think that is common as well. Its very hard to give up the life.

But mostly it seems like military members just view their pension as a back up and want more money for fancy things or to raise a family or to supplant their spouses missing career income which may be non-existent due to military life and being a following spouse.

Also I didn't retire myself (just 12 years in) so no pension or medical benefits. That was the plan...retire at 38 with a pension and medical benefits.... but it didn't work out that way. So my pension is from a civilian job combined with several years of my military time ( "service credit") I bought back to add to my gov pension. Regret not staying in and getting that sweet military pension and medical. Off to face punch myself now ;-).

Thanks, Spartana, and sorry about my military retirement assumption!

Am I imagining statistics that don't exist, or isn't the divorce rate significantly higher for military service members?  I believe it is pretty high in the foreign service, too, and is one thing that contributes to people staying in the workforce even though they are eligible for solid pensions after just 20 years of service.

Yeah, DoD isn't going to put itself on report if they can avoid it.  There are some statistics that they just never seem to get around to releasing, like military retiree rates broken down by service and by rank.  One persistent rumor-- which we all find easy to believe-- is that Marine enlisted retire at a rate of less than 10% while Air Force officers retire at a rate of nearly 50%. 

Amy Bushatz has been writing about military divorce for a while, and "it's complicated".  She says "The divorce rate among military personnel and the total U.S. divorce rate cannot be easily compared because they are not measured the same way."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/21/troop-divorce-rate-unchanged-marriage-rate-continues-fall.html

High-stress careers tend to correlate with higher divorce rates.  The divorce rate in the military is also linked to military policies, though:
"When you see these changes, what's driving it is almost never changes in values or couples' abilities to talk effectively to each other," he said. "What is changing it is military policy."

[Travis]

Very interesting, Nords! Thanks for the explanation/details! :)

Agreed.  Excellent post.  Mirrors my family experience.  Several successful career officers from Academy to 20+yr retired, actually had savings and means to retire (so maybe exceptional), but instead took senior exec civilian jobs well into 60s.

To be fair, many military retirees either want to continue taking care of people or just never realize that they're FI and could retire earlier than the traditional Social Security age.  It's the culture of service.

Great post as usual @Nords. I also don't know anyone who didn't pick up another full time career after retiring from the military. Even those who were in 30 years or who were FI and could financial afford to retire and live a pretty nice life. My extremely frugal mustashian ex-DH was one of those who stayed in an additional 10 years and now has continued on as a civilian Fed in the same job. He did it for love of the job rather than any financial need. So I think that is common as well. Its very hard to give up the life.

But mostly it seems like military members just view their pension as a back up and want more money for fancy things or to raise a family or to supplant their spouses missing career income which may be non-existent due to military life and being a following spouse.

Also I didn't retire myself (just 12 years in) so no pension or medical benefits. That was the plan...retire at 38 with a pension and medical benefits.... but it didn't work out that way. So my pension is from a civilian job combined with several years of my military time ( "service credit") I bought back to add to my gov pension. Regret not staying in and getting that sweet military pension and medical. Off to face punch myself now ;-).

Thanks, Spartana, and sorry about my military retirement assumption!

Am I imagining statistics that don't exist, or isn't the divorce rate significantly higher for military service members?  I believe it is pretty high in the foreign service, too, and is one thing that contributes to people staying in the workforce even though they are eligible for solid pensions after just 20 years of service.

Yeah, DoD isn't going to put itself on report if they can avoid it.  There are some statistics that they just never seem to get around to releasing, like military retiree rates broken down by service and by rank.  One persistent rumor-- which we all find easy to believe-- is that Marine enlisted retire at a rate of less than 10% while Air Force officers retire at a rate of nearly 50%. 

The rank disparity at retirement also affects bridge career needs/opportunities.  In the Army you can reach 20 years as an E-6 ($24k/yr pension).  Most folks outside this forum are going to need another job even if they've been saving.  Meanwhile, an O-5 is going to make $60k/yr in pension income, and while most of them that I've known were accustomed to spending $100k/yr, they were also being offered an awful lot of money by the private sector to pick up that new career.  It's not universal, but I can't help but feel it's like someone is dangling a pair of golden handcuffs in front of officers who can see the end of the tunnel so that they spend all of their money with the knowledge a pension and a Fortune 500 career are waiting for them.  This mentality bit a lot of my friends in the ass in 2015 when the Army suddenly fired hundreds of officers who thought they were safe to reach pension and had to scramble to start up a second career without that bridge under their feet.

[Linea_Norway]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?  It's fairly common in the UK for early retirees to leave their pension untouched until normal retirement age and live off their stash in the meantime - Mrs B and I will have an 11 year gap between FIRE and starting our small pensions.  Any job that has a pension you get to keep those pension rights whatever age you leave.

This is what DH and I plan to do. We have an automatic government pension built up for all the years we have worked. We can check on the internet how much we will get paid out. This pays for all our life. We can start taking it up as a reduced sum from age 62, but can also wait until 67 for full sum.
Beside that, our employers and ourselves have paid pension premium. Mine is one that will pay out for lifetime. I have 15 years in it, while you need to have 30/40 for full pension. If you stop early, the 30 years become 40. So I am not even halfway there. I cannot check how much I will get from this pension, as they are still working on the pension reform for my situation. I will get some numbers in January 2019, hopefully.
DH has a different pension, where he and his employer just put money into a pension fund. He can start taking out from 62 or from 67, and you need to decide for yourself over how many years you will spread the money. We intend to take up the maximum over 10 years, then it will be empty. But hopefully we can save/invest it in our own way.

[OurTown]

Mine will be around age 53, but I started later than some of you.

[Lan Mandragoran]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?

I am taking a deferred pension, as a former federal employee.  The benefits totally suck, compared to retiring at a normal retirement age, because the pension amount is based on your years of service so if you only work for ten years your pension will only pay 10% of your high-3 salary at the time you retired.

You also lose all of the associated benefits, like participation in the employer's group health insurance plan, inflation adjustments, and the social security supplement designed to bridge the gap between federal retirement age and SS collection age, for people who get their 30 years in earlier than normal by starting out young and never changing jobs.

In retrospect, I would have been financially better off taking all of those pension contributions as cash.  The loss of inflation adjustments alone approximately halves the value of my pension between retiring early and collecting it.  The loss of health care coverage will cost me more than the remainder of the pension is worth.  Early retirees like me are the reason why everyone else's pensions can be so generous.  I'm getting robbed on mine, even though I technically get to collect it at age 60.

If you're US military, it's a whole different story.  Their pensions, both deferred and immediate, are head and shoulders above the civilian workforce's offering.  There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

They would have let you take the pension contributions as cash?!  I desperately wish my company would let me do that. The way it works out for me its like they throw away 75%+ of the contribution compared to if I was just able to invest it.

[dude]

I only wish I had a pension, that would have sped things up even more.

Amen, a pension has been the linchpin to my early retirement dreams (that and reasonably priced retiree healthcare). I will retire with a pension that is higher than the median income for a family of 4 in the U.S. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, I've saved and invested diligently to amass (singly, not jointly) @$800k in investments. Will also qualify for max SS benefit when I reach the appropriate ages. Yay, "socialism."

[dude]

Great post as usual @Nords. I also don't know anyone who didn't pick up another full time career after retiring from the military. Even those who were in 30 years or who were FI and could financial afford to retire and live a pretty nice life. My extremely frugal mustashian ex-DH was one of those who stayed in an additional 10 years and now has continued on as a civilian Fed in the same job. He did it for love of the job rather than any financial need. So I think that is common as well. Its very hard to give up the life.

But mostly it seems like military members just view their pension as a back up and want more money for fancy things or to raise a family or to supplant their spouses missing career income which may be non-existent due to military life and being a following spouse.

Also I didn't retire myself (just 12 years in) so no pension or medical benefits. That was the plan...retire at 38 with a pension and medical benefits.... but it didn't work out that way. So my pension is from a civilian job combined with several years of my military time ( "service credit") I bought back to add to my gov pension. Regret not staying in and getting that sweet military pension and medical. Off to face punch myself now ;-).

Yeah, the few guys I know from my 6-year stint in the Navy who stuck it out for 20 immediately went to work for a military contractor after retiring from the Navy. And from what they tell me, their jobs are pretty gravy -- they're more or less doing what they did in the Navy, but for a lot more money.

amen, @spartana -- buying my military time toward my FERS pension was a no-brainer! I paid pennies on the dollar for what I'll get back (I think I paid a grand sum of @$3k, which will result in getting an additional 6% of my high-3 average (at a GS-15 salary) every year until I die).

[dude]

Does the idea of a deferred pension not exist in the US?

I am taking a deferred pension, as a former federal employee.  The benefits totally suck, compared to retiring at a normal retirement age, because the pension amount is based on your years of service so if you only work for ten years your pension will only pay 10% of your high-3 salary at the time you retired.

You also lose all of the associated benefits, like participation in the employer's group health insurance plan, inflation adjustments, and the social security supplement designed to bridge the gap between federal retirement age and SS collection age, for people who get their 30 years in earlier than normal by starting out young and never changing jobs.

In retrospect, I would have been financially better off taking all of those pension contributions as cash.  The loss of inflation adjustments alone approximately halves the value of my pension between retiring early and collecting it.  The loss of health care coverage will cost me more than the remainder of the pension is worth.  Early retirees like me are the reason why everyone else's pensions can be so generous.  I'm getting robbed on mine, even though I technically get to collect it at age 60.

If you're US military, it's a whole different story.  Their pensions, both deferred and immediate, are head and shoulders above the civilian workforce's offering.  There is a reason why we see so many military early retirees.

They would have let you take the pension contributions as cash?!  I desperately wish my company would let me do that. The way it works out for me its like they throw away 75%+ of the contribution compared to if I was just able to invest it.

FERS lets you take YOUR pension contributions as cash, not the government's. It's a pretty paltry sum.

[sol]

They would have let you take the pension contributions as cash?!

No, the federal government does not let you take pension contributions as cash.  You do have the option to take your personal contributions out upon separation, but you lose all of those years of employer contributions and investment earnings if you do that. 

I was just observing that the feds do a particularly poor job of "investing" your pension funds, putting them 100% in the G fund, and I would have easily tripled that rate of return if I had been able to invest that money as part of a more diversified portfolio.  Over the duration of my pension-earning career, the G fund turned out to be a really stupid choice.

FERS lets you take YOUR pension contributions as cash, not the government's. It's a pretty paltry sum.

Newer hires pay a larger percentage (I think it's now 4.4%) of their wages towards their pension.  That all by itself puts federal employees far ahead of the average American saver.  I was hired ten years ago, when we only contributed about 1%, so my personal contributions would have been basically nil over a ten year period.  Even after the losses for 20 years of inflation eating away at it, my pension will be worth more than one percent of my of my total earnings.

[dude]

They would have let you take the pension contributions as cash?!

No, the federal government does not let you take pension contributions as cash.  You do have the option to take your personal contributions out upon separation, but you lose all of those years of employer contributions and investment earnings if you do that. 

I was just observing that the feds do a particularly poor job of "investing" your pension funds, putting them 100% in the G fund, and I would have easily tripled that rate of return if I had been able to invest that money as part of a more diversified portfolio.  Over the duration of my pension-earning career, the G fund turned out to be a really stupid choice.

FERS lets you take YOUR pension contributions as cash, not the government's. It's a pretty paltry sum.

Newer hires pay a larger percentage (I think it's now 4.4%) of their wages towards their pension.  That all by itself puts federal employees far ahead of the average American saver.  I was hired ten years ago, when we only contributed about 1%, so my personal contributions would have been basically nil over a ten year period.  Even after the losses for 20 years of inflation eating away at it, my pension will be worth more than one percent of my of my total earnings.

Good point, sol! I've only had to pay in 1.3% (higher than the 0.8% for regular FERS hired when I was, because of the Special Coverage), which over a 21-year career has totaled @$31k.

[RelaxedGal]

Interesting -
It looks like there might be a bi-modal distribution in the data, with one peak occurring around 40 and a second right around or just past 50; a simple median age may not be the best metric if this is true. 

Good point. 

I was also wondering about this.  My hypothetical guess is that this is based on salary distribution.

Those with 'high' salaries are able to FIRE by age 40. 
Those with 'regular' salaries, need to save longer and hence FIRE later, in their 50s.

Someone also hypothesized kids/no kids and divorce/no divorce.  Another possible factor: Kids college.  Late 40's is when a lot of people are getting close to sending their kids to college and stick around in the workforce to pad the college fund out as it looms large or cash flow the expense while they work.

[CowboyAndIndian]

...
Those with 'high' salaries are able to FIRE by age 40. 
Those with 'regular' salaries, need to save longer and hence FIRE later, in their 50s.

As an older FIRE'ee, I disagree. The only reason I FIRE'ed at 59 was that I found this community in my mid 50's.
I'm sure if I had found it when I was 40, I would have retired well before 50.

[TomTX]

Really interesting! It seems high to me given where we are, but I guess a lot of people either a) still spend a lot even though it's against the rules (/s), or b) got a late start.

They could also be using conservative figures with lower withdrawal rates than 4%. Would be more consistent to see the median for reaching 4%, but harder to find that data in such a neat way.

There seems to be a miscalculation here by overly focusing on the "RE" section of FIRE.

Several of the OMY "failures" in that cohort are already FI and decided out of choice (not necessity) to keep working.

Some of the 2018 RE folks are at a self-admitted very low WR, and were by most rational evaluations (4% WR) already FI for quite awhile before they actually retired with a ~2% WR.

Rephrasing the premise as "At what Age do MMMers actually RE?" would more accurately describe the conversation in this thread.