CNBC - Savers needs $2M to retire

[sherr]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

[DadJokes]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

Something else to keep in mind is that it's incredibly unlikely that someone will retire early and never earn income from work again. I assume that most people are eventually going to pursue some form of freelance work.

In a recent interview on her podcast, Paula Pant noted that she can only think of one early retiree who doesn't do some form of work after "retiring." Now, that may be selection bias, since I assume that most of the early retirees that she knows are fellow bloggers/podcasters. However, even if I don't plan to work when I retire, I imagine that I will earn some form of income over the following 40+ years.

[slappy]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

I'm quite familiar with MMM. (I say that because a lot of people here actually aren't. They just somehow found the forum.) Several posters have explained that they are currently or are planning to FIRE on "small" dollar amounts. I personally am planning for approx $2mill, but the implication that people who are planning for $500k (or MMM's $800k) haven't thought things through doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's something I see a lot around here. (Sorry for that crazy run on sentence!) I generally assume that people who are smart enough to FIRE, with any amount of money, have likely considered all aspects of that decision. There are always people here who live on very small amounts, and people who live on much more. I just find it strange that it's so hard for people to accept that other people's situations are so different. I've actually talked to a lot of people who live on SS with some to spare. (Yes, that does usually surprise me.) I've also talked to a lot people who "live on" SS with help from family, or who barely scrape by on SS. (I used to work in the financial industry.)

[soccerluvof4]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

I'm quite familiar with MMM. (I say that because a lot of people here actually aren't. They just somehow found the forum.) Several posters have explained that they are currently or are planning to FIRE on "small" dollar amounts. I personally am planning for approx $2mill, but the implication that people who are planning for $500k (or MMM's $800k) haven't thought things through doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's something I see a lot around here. (Sorry for that crazy run on sentence!) I generally assume that people who are smart enough to FIRE, with any amount of money, have likely considered all aspects of that decision. There are always people here who live on very small amounts, and people who live on much more. I just find it strange that it's so hard for people to accept that other people's situations are so different. I've actually talked to a lot of people who live on SS with some to spare. (Yes, that does usually surprise me.) I've also talked to a lot people who "live on" SS with help from family, or who barely scrape by on SS. (I used to work in the financial industry.)

To your point but a bit different, I often wonder why people never talk about where the market is as well when the want to Fire. If you are taking withdrawals at all on a market today worth 500 or 700k  and the Market is lofty can you survive a 50% drop or more?  Alot of people say they will fire at 2Mil but there is alot more to it than just hitting that and calling it a day. I understand most people here understand that but its an important thing to be thinking about.

[TomTX]

To your point but a bit different, I often wonder why people never talk about where the market is as well when the want to Fire. If you are taking withdrawals at all on a market today worth 500 or 700k  and the Market is lofty can you survive a 50% drop or more?  Alot of people say they will fire at 2Mil but there is alot more to it than just hitting that and calling it a day. I understand most people here understand that but its an important thing to be thinking about.

I suggest reading considerably more of this Forum. The topic has been discussed repeatedly at length.

Perhaps this would be a good start:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/stop-worrying-about-the-4-rule/

[TomTX]

It's amazing to me how little some of your are living on. Are you all really counting everything?

We (couple in 61 and 63) have been spending in the low $80k area the past few years since DH retired at 59 (though some of that was for one-time purchases/expenses, like a new furnace - if I subtract those, it's a bit more modest). We have no kids, paid-off house, and are not extravagant by any means. Our stash is now up to about $2.5 million, so it seems the $2 million figure is about right. I would be nervous with less, given that we really are pretty careful about spending.

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

[NorthernBlitz]

It's amazing to me how little some of your are living on. Are you all really counting everything?

We (couple in 61 and 63) have been spending in the low $80k area the past few years since DH retired at 59 (though some of that was for one-time purchases/expenses, like a new furnace - if I subtract those, it's a bit more modest). We have no kids, paid-off house, and are not extravagant by any means. Our stash is now up to about $2.5 million, so it seems the $2 million figure is about right. I would be nervous with less, given that we really are pretty careful about spending.

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

I think this is pretty dependent on where you live, if you have kids, and if yes do you intend to help them with things like tuition.

[slappy]

It's amazing to me how little some of your are living on. Are you all really counting everything?

We (couple in 61 and 63) have been spending in the low $80k area the past few years since DH retired at 59 (though some of that was for one-time purchases/expenses, like a new furnace - if I subtract those, it's a bit more modest). We have no kids, paid-off house, and are not extravagant by any means. Our stash is now up to about $2.5 million, so it seems the $2 million figure is about right. I would be nervous with less, given that we really are pretty careful about spending.

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Our budget is $80k with three kids and a fifteen year mortgage. It would be $60kish without the mortgage, but with keeping the $7k per year prop tax. It also includes line items for things like home maintenance. I may not actually spend $3k a year on home maintenance, but it needs to be considered in the overall budget and planning. I wonder if that is what PP means when they ask about including everything.

[Metalcat]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

I'm quite familiar with MMM. (I say that because a lot of people here actually aren't. They just somehow found the forum.) Several posters have explained that they are currently or are planning to FIRE on "small" dollar amounts. I personally am planning for approx $2mill, but the implication that people who are planning for $500k (or MMM's $800k) haven't thought things through doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's something I see a lot around here. (Sorry for that crazy run on sentence!) I generally assume that people who are smart enough to FIRE, with any amount of money, have likely considered all aspects of that decision. There are always people here who live on very small amounts, and people who live on much more. I just find it strange that it's so hard for people to accept that other people's situations are so different. I've actually talked to a lot of people who live on SS with some to spare. (Yes, that does usually surprise me.) I've also talked to a lot people who "live on" SS with help from family, or who barely scrape by on SS. (I used to work in the financial industry.)

To your point but a bit different, I often wonder why people never talk about where the market is as well when the want to Fire. If you are taking withdrawals at all on a market today worth 500 or 700k  and the Market is lofty can you survive a 50% drop or more?  Alot of people say they will fire at 2Mil but there is alot more to it than just hitting that and calling it a day. I understand most people here understand that but its an important thing to be thinking about.

Isn't that exactly what every single thread about the 4% rule/SORR talks about in excrutiating detail?

[rantk81]

SWR and SORR are discussed at length.

An important point, that has been discussed, but to a much lesser extent is:  There's an inherent built-in selection-bias that our individual portfolios will more-often-than-not end up hitting "our number" while the market is high or frothy relative to recent history.  I don't think the original Trinity study took that into account.

[Much Fishing to Do]

SWR and SORR are discussed at length.

An important point, that has been discussed, but to a much lesser extent is:  There's an inherent built-in selection-bias that our individual portfolios will more-often-than-not end up hitting "our number" while the market is high or frothy relative to recent history.  I don't think the original Trinity study took that into account.

Good point.  There is a lot out there on CAPE and SWR which kinda gets into this.  The overall affect on this was quite noticeable to me, as I hit 103% FI earlier this year based on my acceptable SWR, but then found myself at more like 80% in the April lows, with the obvious irony being that instead of being happy I was still working I felt more like I should of hurried up and retired "back when I was FI" b/c now it may take years to 'become FI' again ;-) ... of course that turned into just months and I feel like I need to hurry up and retire again before we have another big drop...  Obviously that's all nonsense but sets up the discussion of including CAPE within my definition of being FI.

[American GenX]

SWR and SORR are discussed at length.

An important point, that has been discussed, but to a much lesser extent is:  There's an inherent built-in selection-bias that our individual portfolios will more-often-than-not end up hitting "our number" while the market is high or frothy relative to recent history.  I don't think the original Trinity study took that into account.

Lesser extent, but it's certainly been discussed.  This thread always comes to mind when I think about that:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/cfiresim-severely-overestimates-success-rates-for-mustachians/

[American GenX]

It also includes line items for things like home maintenance. I may not actually spend $3k a year on home maintenance, but it needs to be considered in the overall budget and planning. I wonder if that is what PP means when they ask about including everything.

I mentioned that as well.  Over the last 27 years of owning two homes (not at the same time), I always had an amount in my budget for home maintenance that I underspent, but I can see some big ticket items on the horizon (roof, heating/cooling, flooring, appliances), so I actually dedicate $30K of my stash to these approaching costs and increased my maintenance budget by 50% in the last year.  That's all figured in to my FIRE budget along with a car sinking fund.  $500K would still work out for me with plenty of extra, but I'm glad I saved a lot more than that so that I can have a healthy discretionary budget and buffer.

[American GenX]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

Something else to keep in mind is that it's incredibly unlikely that someone will retire early and never earn income from work again. I assume that most people are eventually going to pursue some form of freelance work.

In a recent interview on her podcast, Paula Pant noted that she can only think of one early retiree who doesn't do some form of work after "retiring." Now, that may be selection bias, since I assume that most of the early retirees that she knows are fellow bloggers/podcasters. However, even if I don't plan to work when I retire, I imagine that I will earn some form of income over the following 40+ years.

....er....work after RE? Nah.  Guess that makes two people who never plan to work for an income since FIRE. Sitting here on a sunny beach midday on a Thursday trying not to fall asleep after a long run is already too damn taxing for me  ;-).  Oh yeah...and it didn't cost me a dime.

Seriously I think you ( and Paula Pant) are right that many people will earn some income after RE. Whether they intend to, or need to,  or it his just a by-product of doing the things they love and  money comes from that. I'm not in that group myself.

I can't see myself working and making any job income to be of any significance after I FIRE.  I have a fairly well paying job doing interesting work and am even working from home now, so when I FIRE in my mid 50's, I want to be free and truly retired, not work some low pay job or do any freelance work when I don't need to.  That's why I've saved so much to this point so that I don't have to work when I'm older.

But I did just see something recently that said around 60% of those polled plan to work in retirement.

[TempusFugit]

While it is certainly possible to retire with a stash of 'only' $500,000, I would caution anyone who is thinking of doing it to be sure they have educated themselves about every aspect of early retirement funding.  At that level it would be easy to find yourself painted into a corner due to unexpected taxes, an unexpected medical bill, a major household repair, etc.  You had better have a really good handle on your spending and then be realistic about how satisfied you will be maintaining that level. 

It can be done and it's possible to be very content at that level, but it isn't for early retirement dilettantes.

What forum is this?

MMM himself retired in 2007 with around $800k, which is right around $1MM in today's dollars.

Of course these numbers aren't really comparable because for MMM it was a very early retirement with a 60-year horizon, while the $500k is a stop-gap until Social Security kicks in in 15 years. But it's still a worthwhile caution. "Know what you're getting into" is never bad advice.

Something else to keep in mind is that it's incredibly unlikely that someone will retire early and never earn income from work again. I assume that most people are eventually going to pursue some form of freelance work.

In a recent interview on her podcast, Paula Pant noted that she can only think of one early retiree who doesn't do some form of work after "retiring." Now, that may be selection bias, since I assume that most of the early retirees that she knows are fellow bloggers/podcasters. However, even if I don't plan to work when I retire, I imagine that I will earn some form of income over the following 40+ years.

....er....work after RE? Nah.  Guess that makes two people who never plan to work for an income since FIRE. Sitting here on a sunny beach midday on a Thursday trying not to fall asleep after a long run is already too damn taxing for me  ;-).  Oh yeah...and it didn't cost me a dime.

Seriously I think you ( and Paula Pant) are right that many people will earn some income after RE. Whether they intend to, or need to,  or it his just a by-product of doing the things they love and  money comes from that. I'm not in that group myself.

I can't see myself working and making any job income to be of any significance after I FIRE.  I have a fairly well paying job doing interesting work and am even working from home now, so when I FIRE in my mid 50's, I want to be free and truly retired, not work some low pay job or do any freelance work when I don't need to.  That's why I've saved so much to this point so that I don't have to work when I'm older.

But I did just see something recently that said around 60% of those polled plan to work in retirement.

Yeah, to me this notion of working - excuse me, "earning some money" after RE - that is tossed out there by the FIRE bloggers just seems a little off.  Sample issue, most likely that they are themselves surrounded by other people who have found some way of monetizing their FIRE experience online.

Depends on your professional field I suppose, but to me the idea of staying up-to-date on technical stuff just so I can work freelance jobs to make ends meet sort of defeats the purpose of RE. I'm tired of trying to stay up-to-date on that crap now.   

Maybe it also depends greatly on how old you are when you retire.  I don't know, maybe I'll be bored and want to go back to work but I'd like to think I can find unpaid activities that will make me happier.  In any regard, I certainly don't want my retirement plan to rely on some further income from paid work. 

[fattest_foot]

SWR and SORR are discussed at length.

An important point, that has been discussed, but to a much lesser extent is:  There's an inherent built-in selection-bias that our individual portfolios will more-often-than-not end up hitting "our number" while the market is high or frothy relative to recent history.  I don't think the original Trinity study took that into account.

Similarly though, I want to say there's a statistic out there that the market is within 5% of it's all time high something like 80% of the time.

It's all a function of the market constantly going up. Your statement makes it sound like "they retire at the peak of their portfolio value," where it's really "they retire when the market is going up, and they will likely end up with a higher balance as the market continues its climb."

[ixtap]

Most of us don't have hobbies that accidentally make money. I don't even want to monetize my blog, there are plenty of charities that will gladly use my skills and time for free...

My husband has skills that are more likely to get him an invitation to participate in a money making venture, but unless one of his game ideas solidifies beyond a week of rule of making, he probably won't strike out on his own.

[DadJokes]

I will probably keep my CPA up-to-date for the first ~5 years just in case things go sideways, but I don't plan to earn additional income as an accountant.

However, the odds are that I'm going to end up doing something to earn an income at some point. 40 years is a long time. I haven't even lived that long yet, so I can't say with any degree of certainty what I'll do for the rest of my life.

[rockstache]

I consider it highly unlikely that I will make any money in FIRE. My job is pretty traditional 9-5 corporate stuff so there’s not a lot of consulting or freelance work available if I wanted it. Which I adamantly don’t...that’s why I’m trying to retire. I’ll do lots of things, but I don’t see any of them making me any money.

[Sandi_k]

I have absolutely no interest in working after retirement. Which is why I've pursued a higher income, and stash a lot in savings every year.

DH might choose to make some pocket money, but the likelihood is that he won't need to, either. Without any inheritance from parents who own CA real estate, we should be FatFI in another 5 years.

If the parents pass sooner, and we do get an inheritance, it will advance the RE date.

I'm tired of (some of) the people, I'm tired of work budget cuts, I'm tired of the politics, I'm tired of being always asked to do more, more, more, with less, less, less. I'm ready to get out.

[clarkfan1979]

I think my number is 1.5 to 2 million, depending on inflation over the next 5-10 years.

[projekt]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

[American GenX]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

[Metalcat]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

[projekt]

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. The typical view of retirement in the press is that you need to have a crazy consumerist lifestyle in retirement otherwise you're depriving yourself.  And, of course, before retirement, too.  So people spending 95% of their income before retirement are never going to retire because there's no way to save those millions that will allow them to retire and continue spending all that money. I don't subscribe to that view.

[I'm a red panda]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

Sounds like my parents...

My Dad likes to talk about his "fixed income".  His pension + social security is more than my husband and I make combined in excellent jobs.  But he's right, it is "fixed".

[Bloop Bloop]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

Putting aside the boat (in which I have no interest) I would expect that standard of living in my retirement.

[American GenX]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

Putting aside the boat (in which I have no interest) I would expect that standard of living in my retirement.

I know some wealthy doctor retirees that aren't even living that in retirement.   And the rich working ones don't have time to travel constantly.

[joleran]

Yeah, to me this notion of working - excuse me, "earning some money" after RE - that is tossed out there by the FIRE bloggers just seems a little off.  Sample issue, most likely that they are themselves surrounded by other people who have found some way of monetizing their FIRE experience online.

Depends on your professional field I suppose, but to me the idea of staying up-to-date on technical stuff just so I can work freelance jobs to make ends meet sort of defeats the purpose of RE. I'm tired of trying to stay up-to-date on that crap now.   

Hmm, are you in software?  There are an awful lot of software jobs out there that don't require staying anywhere near up-to-date on technical stuff.  I worked in Java my entire career and mostly worked with in-house technologies without any need outside work hours to stay up-to-date and made big money.  The trick is finding those places for short term remote contract or part-time.

[rantk81]

Hmm, are you in software?  There are an awful lot of software jobs out there that don't require staying anywhere near up-to-date on technical stuff.  I worked in Java my entire career and mostly worked with in-house technologies without any need outside work hours to stay up-to-date and made big money.  The trick is finding those places for short term remote contract or part-time.

Hmmm most of the job postings I see are all asking for someone with experience with a dozen or more different frameworks. Yuck. 

I’m a CPP dev, and I recently was hired aboard at a company that didn’t expect me to know their entire tech stack before considering me.... but in my experience, that is very much the exception, and not the rule.

[joleran]

Hmm, are you in software?  There are an awful lot of software jobs out there that don't require staying anywhere near up-to-date on technical stuff.  I worked in Java my entire career and mostly worked with in-house technologies without any need outside work hours to stay up-to-date and made big money.  The trick is finding those places for short term remote contract or part-time.

Hmmm most of the job postings I see are all asking for someone with experience with a dozen or more different frameworks. Yuck. 

I’m a CPP dev, and I recently was hired aboard at a company that didn’t expect me to know their entire tech stack before considering me.... but in my experience, that is very much the exception, and not the rule.

Huh, interesting.  I see we're in the same area of the country too.  For an interview, if it's public technology listed in the posting that I'm not familiar with, I'd read up on it to be able to just show awareness of the basic function, but nothing past that.  All of my jobs past the first I actually got from company-internal recruiters though.  I wonder if CPP landscape is just that different - I'm only very recently FIRE so my knowledge/experience can't be that out of date.

Towards the thread topic, $2m is about right IMO for a family of 4 in Chicago and a 60+ year retirement horizon.  A little fat, but far from crazy.

[rantk81]

Huh, interesting.  I see we're in the same area of the country too.  For an interview, if it's public technology listed in the posting that I'm not familiar with, I'd read up on it to be able to just show awareness of the basic function, but nothing past that.  All of my jobs past the first I actually got from company-internal recruiters though.  I wonder if CPP landscape is just that different - I'm only very recently FIRE so my knowledge/experience can't be that out of date.

Yeah, for my most recent hiring -- I was referred by an internal candidate.  Actually, all 3 times I've been hired, post-college.... it's been through some connection. My first job out of college happened because the hiring manager was an alumni of the same college.  The next two were both from referrals from employees who I had previously worked with.  Just goes to show how important your "network" is!

Despite an uninterrupted and distinguished career using many different technologies -- I've never had any success with randomly applying at a company without having some prior-existing-connection to the company.  Although, admittedly, I haven't applied to an enormous amount of companies either....

[Bloop Bloop]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

Putting aside the boat (in which I have no interest) I would expect that standard of living in my retirement.

I know some wealthy doctor retirees that aren't even living that in retirement.   And the rich working ones don't have time to travel constantly.

If you're a doctor and can't live that lifestyle in retirement you've fucked up big time along the way.

[TempusFugit]

Huh, interesting.  I see we're in the same area of the country too.  For an interview, if it's public technology listed in the posting that I'm not familiar with, I'd read up on it to be able to just show awareness of the basic function, but nothing past that.  All of my jobs past the first I actually got from company-internal recruiters though.  I wonder if CPP landscape is just that different - I'm only very recently FIRE so my knowledge/experience can't be that out of date.

Yeah, for my most recent hiring -- I was referred by an internal candidate.  Actually, all 3 times I've been hired, post-college.... it's been through some connection. My first job out of college happened because the hiring manager was an alumni of the same college.  The next two were both from referrals from employees who I had previously worked with.  Just goes to show how important your "network" is!

Despite an uninterrupted and distinguished career using many different technologies -- I've never had any success with randomly applying at a company without having some prior-existing-connection to the company.  Although, admittedly, I haven't applied to an enormous amount of companies either....

Ive done lots of freelance work over the years, always thanks to personal relationships with some of the principals and based on their knowledge of my talents, such as they are.  These have all been low level embedded C and some hardware design.

In my experience at megacorp where i have spent the past couple of decades, i think there are forces in play that make it much less likely for any individual to be hired on a contract basis.  The move to wholesale outsourcing to the big offshore companies means that for any combination of skilset you ask for, they will tell you they have it.  I mean, most of the time they are lying, but then they just play musical chairs with people to try to get away with it.  Even a highly skilled and experienced individual has no chance of being contracted because all of the corporate policies are focused on the big contract outfits. 

[flyingaway]

Someone wrote an article claiming that the homeless men are retired early. I actually agree.

https://thefinancebuff.com/the-homeless-retired-early.html

It is the choice of lifestyle. If you claim that $2MM is not needed, other people can claim nothing is actually needed to retire early.

[Metalcat]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

Putting aside the boat (in which I have no interest) I would expect that standard of living in my retirement.

I know some wealthy doctor retirees that aren't even living that in retirement.   And the rich working ones don't have time to travel constantly.

If you're a doctor and can't live that lifestyle in retirement you've fucked up big time along the way.

To be fair, I know quite a few doctors and dentists who aren't that wealthy, but yeah, I would agree that most of them feel they messed up with their finances somewhere along the way.

Granted, owning a second house, luxury cars, a boat, and doing a lot of luxury travel is a pretty vague description, which could cover an astronomical range of spending.

[talltexan]

If someone thinks that homeless people are choosing that lifestyle, and is somehow conflating that with the FIRE lifestyle, I don't even know what to say...

[BlueHouse]

I suppose, depending on rate of return, it wouldn't take thaaaaaat long to go from $1 million to $2 million. 

Took us 7 yrs 9 months. Jan, 2012 to Sept, 2019.

The first million took me a looooooong time.  20+ years. But I didn't know what I was doing and messed up A LOT. 
I found MMM in late 2013.  Liquid net worth was under $500K.  I got to $1M 2.5 years later.   

I went from $1M to $2M in under 4 years AND built up over $800K equity in my home.

My expenses are kind of high (supporting family members and HCOL), but I'll sell this house, move to a lower COLA and hopefully be able to live on under $80K.  But the truth is, I don't really worry about my spending anymore. 

[DadJokes]

If someone thinks that homeless people are choosing that lifestyle, and is somehow conflating that with the FIRE lifestyle, I don't even know what to say...

I took it as tongue-in-cheek.

There's one homeless person in the small town my wife works in. The neighborhood gave her a house, and she ended up breaking all of the windows before leaving it to resume being homeless. Mental illness is something.

[American GenX]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

Putting aside the boat (in which I have no interest) I would expect that standard of living in my retirement.

I know some wealthy doctor retirees that aren't even living that in retirement.   And the rich working ones don't have time to travel constantly.

If you're a doctor and can't live that lifestyle in retirement you've fucked up big time along the way.

Who said they can't?  I never said "can't" from any perspective that would mean they "fucked" up.   I specifically stated that they are "wealthy".  So, I'm not sure how you consider that to be "fucked up".   If they aren't able to travel constantly, it's because they still have a job they have to take care of, not because they can't afford it.  And I made that clear as well when I said "don't have time".  So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make relevant to what I had stated.

[Metalcat]

Yes, $80k spend seems quite extravagant - even if you didn't have a paid off house.  Our family of 3 is under $50k, including a mortgage, $6k+ in property tax and some fairly spendy habits, like high-end phones every couple of years.

Everyone knows you're not really retired unless you have 2 houses, a boat, new luxury cars every 3-5 years, constant world travel staying at 4 star hotels, etc. etc. etc /s

I can't think of anyone that meets your definition.

That's the norm among my colleagues.

Putting aside the boat (in which I have no interest) I would expect that standard of living in my retirement.

I know some wealthy doctor retirees that aren't even living that in retirement.   And the rich working ones don't have time to travel constantly.

If you're a doctor and can't live that lifestyle in retirement you've fucked up big time along the way.

Who said they can't?  I never said "can't" from any perspective that would mean they "fucked" up.   I specifically stated that they are "wealthy".  So, I'm not sure how you consider that to be "fucked up".   If they aren't able to travel constantly, it's because they still have a job they have to take care of, not because they can't afford it.  And I made that clear as well when I said "don't have time".  So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make relevant to what I had stated.

To be fair, in the context of the string of quotes, it really, really did sound like you were saying that even some wealthy doctors you know can't afford that lifestyle. Not that you happen to know wealthy doctors who don't choose that lifestyle.