Author Topic: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version  (Read 3458 times)

Alchemisst

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« on: November 23, 2021, 09:12:43 AM »
Came across this reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fiaustralia/comments/r04inf/how_money_moustache_retired_in_10_years/

"In this post I convert the history of MMM's savings and investments into 2021 Australian dollars, using US inflation rate data and the current AU to USD exchange rate of 0.72 USD to 1 AUD. I assume all figures exclude Super, since this is not very relevant."

End takeaway is MMM had a really high salary right from the start which was the biggest factor

Cool Friend

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2021, 11:22:27 AM »
Pretty much, yeah.

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2021, 07:39:19 PM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.  If so, it's definitely a nice salary especially the first few years, but nothing astronomical.  Seems the Australian guys are a little butt hurt.  A college degree in STEM in the US puts you really close. If you choose not to do that because you are more interested in something else, then it will take you a little longer to FIRE.  It's a tradeoff, like everything else in life.

Alchemisst

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2021, 03:09:26 AM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.  If so, it's definitely a nice salary especially the first few years, but nothing astronomical.  Seems the Australian guys are a little butt hurt.  A college degree in STEM in the US puts you really close. If you choose not to do that because you are more interested in something else, then it will take you a little longer to FIRE.  It's a tradeoff, like everything else in life.

How common is it to graduate into a 100k role?

2Birds1Stone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7963
  • Age: 1
  • Location: Earth
  • K Thnx Bye
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2021, 03:14:46 AM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.

To convert the numbers in the reddit post back to USD you would just divide them by .72

2sk22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1508
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2021, 03:17:33 AM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.  If so, it's definitely a nice salary especially the first few years, but nothing astronomical.  Seems the Australian guys are a little butt hurt.  A college degree in STEM in the US puts you really close. If you choose not to do that because you are more interested in something else, then it will take you a little longer to FIRE.  It's a tradeoff, like everything else in life.

How common is it to graduate into a 100k role?

A few years ago when I was working in a big software company, our starting salary for fresh college hires was over $100k in New York City.

Model96

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2021, 03:37:49 AM »
The comparison is irrelevant, no matter which first world country or the exchange rate, no matter what the wage.
At the end of the day it is about how much you save and invest effectively, not about how much you earn.

uniwelder

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Appalachian Virginia
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2021, 03:58:17 AM »
The comparison is irrelevant, no matter which first world country or the exchange rate, no matter what the wage.
At the end of the day it is about how much you save and invest effectively, not about how much you earn.

How much you earn dictates how much you can save.

edited to add--- I'm not trying to suggest that FIRE can only be done by high earners, but it certainly helps, and there is a certain salary threshold necessary to go from a base standard of living (30k per year or so) to start saving significantly more. 

30k salary = 0% savings
33k salary = 10% savings
60k salary = 50% savings
« Last Edit: November 27, 2021, 06:10:51 AM by uniwelder »

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17612
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2021, 05:01:04 AM »
Yep, he's been very upfront about making a lot of money very young. He's also addressed the criticism many, many times explaining that people who make less need frugality even more, not less than high earners.

JoePublic3.14

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2021, 05:27:32 AM »
Yep, he's been very upfront about making a lot of money very young. He's also addressed the criticism many, many times explaining that people who make less need frugality even more, not less than high earners.

What? You are saying they shouldn’t just throw up their arms and give up? So strange, so strange.

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Location: Midwest
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2021, 03:10:59 PM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.  If so, it's definitely a nice salary especially the first few years, but nothing astronomical.  Seems the Australian guys are a little butt hurt.  A college degree in STEM in the US puts you really close. If you choose not to do that because you are more interested in something else, then it will take you a little longer to FIRE.  It's a tradeoff, like everything else in life.

How common is it to graduate into a 100k role?

$72k USD. And that's very common with legit degrees.

innkeeper77

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2021, 03:36:42 PM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.  If so, it's definitely a nice salary especially the first few years, but nothing astronomical.  Seems the Australian guys are a little butt hurt.  A college degree in STEM in the US puts you really close. If you choose not to do that because you are more interested in something else, then it will take you a little longer to FIRE.  It's a tradeoff, like everything else in life.

How common is it to graduate into a 100k role?

I recently went back to school and got a “real” degree, yes this set is back on our timeline but we thought it was worth it. Starting salary DURING COVID, fully remote, and flexible hours- $72k USD exactly, which is the US equivalent of $100k AUS. And I’m getting paid less than many others I met while getting the degree but I’m also at a more flexible employer, so it’s worth it (we have a family, dual income, and a decent pile of FU money already because we were trying to follow the FI path prior to me going back to school)

So, it’s doable!

afox

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2021, 11:53:15 PM »
I wrote this back in 2019:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3379
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2021, 12:04:28 AM »
Can someone do this in USD?  Adjusted for today's inflation?  I think you basically take 75% of all the numbers listed.  If so, it's definitely a nice salary especially the first few years, but nothing astronomical.  Seems the Australian guys are a little butt hurt.  A college degree in STEM in the US puts you really close. If you choose not to do that because you are more interested in something else, then it will take you a little longer to FIRE.  It's a tradeoff, like everything else in life.

How common is it to graduate into a 100k role?

In Australia, very unlikely. There would be a few roles in mining and fossil fuels where you could start at about $100k.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17612
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2021, 06:04:18 AM »
I wrote this back in 2019:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

Weren't they in Canada until they retired?

Anon-E-Mouze

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 192
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2021, 10:43:26 AM »
I wrote this back in 2019:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

Weren't they in Canada until they retired?

Nope, according to this post, he moved to the US in "Year 3" after graduating from university in Ottawa.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17612
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2021, 11:21:30 AM »
I wrote this back in 2019:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

Weren't they in Canada until they retired?

Nope, according to this post, he moved to the US in "Year 3" after graduating from university in Ottawa.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/

Huh, I remembered wrong.

MrThatsDifferent

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2021, 01:31:14 PM »
I wrote this back in 2019:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

That’s true but he did quit his job the next year, so it wasn’t like they earned that money for 10 years. There’s no doubt that they made good money, but they also focused on keeping expenses under $25k for 2 people (I don’t know what that is adjusted but there’s a whole other thread exploring that right now). If you’re not managing expenses and everything is on credit, having more money is a trap and a hole. Keep expenses low, save and invest and keep committed for 7-15 years and you should hit your target.

GodlessCommie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Location: NoVA
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2021, 01:51:18 PM »
Multiple things can be true at the same time:
- Mr. and Mrs. MMM had a really high income for a young family
- while not exactly common, this level of income is not out of reach of many, many people in the US. Not all by a long stretch - but many.
- out of the people making comparable money, most match that income by spending, and never achieve FI. There's even the term coined, HENRY - High Earner Not Rich Yet. That "yet" may last a long, long time.
- there are many, many people right here on this forum who achieved FIRE on much, much smaller income. Some were featured in MMM blog posts. I don't know why the path that MMM took is all that relevant, when there are so many other examples.

afox

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2021, 10:02:56 AM »


- while not exactly common, this level of income is not out of reach of many, many people in the US. Not all by a long stretch - but many.


By "many" you mean 2% of americans? Not "many" people would consider the top 2% to be in the "many, many" category.

Theoretically ability to FIRE is governed primarily by savings rate, in practice its a combination of savings rate, income, investment performance, and more.

GodlessCommie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Location: NoVA
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2021, 10:42:58 AM »


- while not exactly common, this level of income is not out of reach of many, many people in the US. Not all by a long stretch - but many.


By "many" you mean 2% of americans? Not "many" people would consider the top 2% to be in the "many, many" category.

Theoretically ability to FIRE is governed primarily by savings rate, in practice its a combination of savings rate, income, investment performance, and more.

I do not mean that more than 2% of Americans do earn that much. I mean that more than 2% of Americans can earn that much.

Not all by any stretch, but significantly more than do so now.

Yes, I'm aware that many face barriers that Pete and Mrs.MMM did not face. But among those who don't face those barriers, few reach their earnings potential.

The reason I'm saying this: I have a view into how first generation immigrants with degrees approach things, and how "American Americans" with degrees approach things. Very few of the former bother with "what do I want to do with my life", "college experience", "I want to be close to my family" (duh!), and the such. They figure out where the money is, both in terms of industries and locations, and go for it. Hard. They climb the income ladder much faster. Those of "American Americans" who approach life similarly, climb even faster - they know the system and have better networks. Basically, if you want money, you have to go for money - anything you add to the equation that is not money will subtract from money.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the only or the best way to live your life. If your life's calling is in marine biology - by all means, do pursue marine biology. It is an important area of study. But there's no going around the fact that it limits your income potential.

(Now, this was supposed to be an Australian version, and now the conversation is fully Americanized)
« Last Edit: December 01, 2021, 10:55:22 AM by GodlessCommie »

FIRE Artist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Location: YEG
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2021, 11:03:09 AM »


- while not exactly common, this level of income is not out of reach of many, many people in the US. Not all by a long stretch - but many.


By "many" you mean 2% of americans? Not "many" people would consider the top 2% to be in the "many, many" category.

Theoretically ability to FIRE is governed primarily by savings rate, in practice its a combination of savings rate, income, investment performance, and more.

I do not mean that more than 2% of Americans do earn that much. I mean that more than 2% of Americans can earn that much.

Not all by any stretch, but significantly more than do so now.

Yes, I'm aware that many face barriers that Pete and Mrs.MMM did not face. But among those who don't face those barriers, few reach their earnings potential.

The reason I'm saying this: I have a view into how first generation immigrants with degrees approach things, and how "American Americans" with degrees approach things. Very few of the former bother with "what do I want to do with my life", "college experience", "I want to be close to my family" (duh!), and the such. They figure out where the money is, both in terms of industries and locations, and go for it. Hard. They climb the income ladder much faster. Those of "American Americans" who approach life similarly, climb even faster - they know the system and have better networks. Basically, if you want money, you have to go for money - anything you add to the equation that is not money will subtract from money.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the only or the best way to live your life. If your life's calling is in marine biology - by all means, do pursue marine biology. Just do it in full knowledge that you limit your income potential.

And the excuses people make - I'm sorry, I want to be empathetic, but I can't. I often want to puke. No joke, I read several articles about how difficult it is to adjust to a life in another city. For fuck's sake, everyone speaks your language, the culture is 99% the same, it's all the same chains,  you know how the system works. Or how people stay in dying towns with no opportunity, being angry at the world for not bringing dead industries back. If that's too difficult for you, a person who walked the length of Mexico to give his or her children a better life will outcompete you. If they won't, their children for sure will outcompete your children (and they do, which is another source of resentment).

(Now, this was supposed to be an Australian version, and now the conversation is fully Americanized)

There is so much truth to this.  Even MMM is an immigrant to the US because he followed the money. 

I used to be an oil patch expat, and did a short 1 year posting in my home country, (but across the country from where I was born and family lives.  I had already moved internationally two times before that posting), when I was in the process of moving for my next promotion to the middle of Sumatra, a woman who worked in the warehouse commented that she could never do that, because "like, how will you get your favourite toilet paper?".  Seriously, of all the shit that people use to justify being rooted in place, toilet paper brand has to be the dumbest, but pretty telling of how resistant people are to even the tiniest bit of discomfort that change might bring. 

GodlessCommie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Location: NoVA
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2021, 11:33:57 AM »
@FIRE Artist caught an angrier version of my reply :) I toned it down later thinking that it didn't contribute much positive to the conversation, and no one cared about my pet peeves.

Also, a point of clarification: two engineer's salaries don't put you into 2% by income, more like into 10%. When Mr. and Mrs. MMM FIREd, they didn't have blog income.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/

GodlessCommie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Location: NoVA
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2021, 11:40:24 AM »
Also, immigrants outhustling native population... I saw it in two places: US and also where I'm from. Same exact dynamics. Which, if you think of it, isn't all that surprising: immigrants are a self-selected group. People who are willing and able to drastically change their lives. All things equal, the self-selected group of people willing and able to undergo drastic change will win. Things are, of course, not equal - there's prejudice (again, seen in both places), cultural differences, language, and so on - but you get the point.

afox

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2021, 11:45:38 AM »
@FIRE Artist caught an angrier version of my reply :) I toned it down later thinking that it didn't contribute much positive to the conversation, and no one cared about my pet peeves.

Also, a point of clarification: two engineer's salaries don't put you into 2% by income, more like into 10%. When Mr. and Mrs. MMM FIREd, they didn't have blog income.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/

thats because you're comparing 2020 incomes distributions to MMM's 2001 salaries. As I posted my analysis in 2019 above:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/15/a-brief-history-of-the-stash-how-we-saved-from-zero-to-retirement-in-ten-years/
https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=195000&year1=200101&year2=201802

GodlessCommie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Location: NoVA
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2021, 11:50:55 AM »
thats because you're comparing 2020 incomes distributions to MMM's 2001 salaries. As I posted my analysis in 2019 above:

According to the blog around 2001 MMM was earning $125k per year and mrs mmm  was earning $70k per year. That's $195,000 per year household income in 2001 which equals about $300,000 per year in todays dollars.  That put them in the 97.5 percentile of household incomes at the time.  In other words only 2% of U.S. households made more money than they did.  And this does not account for investment income only W2 income.

That's fair. The rest still stands, though. Also, investment income is a function of W2 income and savings rate. It's the lack of the latter that produces the lack of investment income in families with similar W2 income.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16072
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2021, 01:42:20 AM »
As this is the Australianised version, it's worth while noting that there are a number of Australians who have actually FIREd. I have organised and attended mustashian meetups in Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney. I have met about a dozen Australians who have achieved this, who I met on this forum, as well as knowing several people who retired early without reading any FIRE authors. There are also a number of Australians who haven't retired, but have met their number. Almost none of these people have ever worked in jobs that earned the sort of money that MMM earned, but they have done it.

Australia has a few challenges compared to the USA. Food tends to cost a bit more here, as do services, and petrol. We have a much more thinly scattered population, and we tend to pay people a living wage. The big challenge is, of course, housing. To just about any person from the USA, our housing costs are eye watering.

However, although the media make a lot of hype about our housing costs, and often run articles that say that no current 20-something can afford a house, I know a lot of young people in this age group who have managed to do so - without resorting to the bank of mum and dad. The young people I know who actually own property tend to be tradies, or people who have not done expensive degrees. But I do know several young people who started while they were in university, buying investment properties in smaller cities with diverse employment, and gradually working up.

These are options that FIREd people have also used. Everyone I can think of who I know who's FIREd chose an option for making their property investment easier. These include buying small investment units, furnishing them, and renting them furnished; getting a lease for a share house (while at university) and charging the other people in the share house enough that they weren't paying anything themselves; letting rooms in their house; buying a fixer-upper that was a lot cheaper than other homes in the area and gradually doing it up. The people who initially leased share houses, then went on to buy houses to be share houses (one had about seven before she finished her degree).

Because many items in an Australian budget are more expensive, a group of mustashians worked out several years ago that the $25kUS budget was probably equivalent to about $40kAUD. While this reduces the gap (available for saving) between an average Australian wage and the average US wage, FIRE in about 10 years (from them working out that it could be done) has been achieved by each of the FIREd people I'm talking about, and only a couple of them had high income. As it takes some of us a number of years to find out about FIRE, the actual age of FIRE has ranged from late 20s to about 60. It's also never too late to put together your own FIRE plan, and to put it into action.

MrThatsDifferent

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2021, 07:09:47 AM »
Thank you for that @deborah. As an American living in Australia, I’ve found that achieving FIRE is absolutely possible. Australia has all the ingredients for success:
1. major cities with great quality of life;
2. low violent crime and virtually no gun killings;
3. universal health care and affordable private health insurance if you want it
4. Access to Vanguard and index funds
5. Mandatory superannuation (retirement program) that locks away at least 10% every year
6. Paid paternity leave
7. High minimum wages
8.Affordable higher education fees and a government scheme for low interest loans to afford university

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4583
  • Age: 51
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2021, 07:14:46 AM »
I read the title as Honey Mustache...


KarefulKactus15

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
  • Location: Southeast
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2021, 07:26:42 AM »
Thank you for that @deborah. As an American living in Australia, I’ve found that achieving FIRE is absolutely possible. Australia has all the ingredients for success:
1. major cities with great quality of life;
2. low violent crime and virtually no gun killings;
3. universal health care and affordable private health insurance if you want it
4. Access to Vanguard and index funds
5. Mandatory superannuation (retirement program) that locks away at least 10% every year
6. Paid paternity leave
7. High minimum wages
8.Affordable higher education fees and a government scheme for low interest loans to afford university

It seems anywhere with a public health system would be an advantage even if gross earnings are lower.    I worked with a few folks who had everything figured out but health care, so they stayed.

MrThatsDifferent

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2021, 03:30:10 PM »
Thank you for that @deborah. As an American living in Australia, I’ve found that achieving FIRE is absolutely possible. Australia has all the ingredients for success:
1. major cities with great quality of life;
2. low violent crime and virtually no gun killings;
3. universal health care and affordable private health insurance if you want it
4. Access to Vanguard and index funds
5. Mandatory superannuation (retirement program) that locks away at least 10% every year
6. Paid paternity leave
7. High minimum wages
8.Affordable higher education fees and a government scheme for low interest loans to afford university

It seems anywhere with a public health system would be an advantage even if gross earnings are lower.    I worked with a few folks who had everything figured out but health care, so they stayed.

It’s funny you say that because it’s the biggest thing I see here, people OMY (one more year) and stay working when they’re far over it solely because of health care concerns. Businesses in the US use health care as the trap, while in Australia you have access to health care no matter where you work or if you’re working or not. Health isn’t a perk, it’s a given.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9375
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2021, 05:03:35 PM »
Great posts @deborah and @MrThatsDifferent! Its absolutely possible to FIRE in 10 years in Australia BUT as Paula Pant would say, you can have anything but you can't have everything. There are sacrifices choices to be made.

In the early days of the forum circa 2012-2014 there were a few Aussies on the forum and most of us noticed that couldn't get our food costs down to MMM levels even when corrected for exchange rates, no matter how hard we tried, and petrol and housing costs were also higher. Jacob of ERE always said the 3 major costs were housing, transport and food, so it seemed that it was likely to be a bit more difficult for us.

I do agree with the Americans who say that healthcare in the US has become some sort of employment handcuff. But healthcare in Australia only appears free at the consumer endpoint: its actually not free, just structured differently. Australian taxation rates are higher than the US, which contribute towards the healthcare system. Secondly alongside the taxation system is the Medicare levy which is a compulsory 2% of your income, taken out of your salary just like tax. There are some reductions for low income earners and additional surcharges for high income earners. Thirdly its quite common for doctors to charge patients above the rebate provided by the govt for a particular service. You can find practices that don't charge extra, but they tend to rely on high through-put  of patients in their business model (which is fine if you just need a prescription repeat or a medical certificate, but much less satisfactory if you have a more complex health requirement) .  Physicians in Australia make about the same amount as Physicians in US, taking into account the exchange rate.  The additional cost of healthcare in US seems to be in the extortionate raft of admin/insurance schemes and business making profits for shareholders. It seems odd to me that in the US this acceptable, although Americans commonly complain about the cost and social inequities of such a system, but any suggestion of modification of the model sparks great fear of being overtaken by socialism or communism. It is one of the points of differences in our respective cultures..."freedom", even if it hurts you, is paramount in US, whereas "a fair go", even if it hurts you, is deeply entrenched in Aussie values.

I got a bit off track, but in spite of the big 3 being apparently more expensive, as well as taxes, there are other gains...like upfront healthcare costs. And there is still enough fat in the average punters spend that demolishing those spendypants habits makes a huge difference. As @Malcat said folks saying its not doable tend to be just trotting out the same old objections that MMM has dealt with over and over.

The only exception are folks on lower than average wages or those who decide to retire with a very frugal budget...an unplanned for financial disaster can adversely affect a small stash to a much larger extent.


FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Canada
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2021, 05:37:18 PM »
Okay, but hold on a sec, from your reddit page:

Quote
Year 0 -1 condensed (late 1997 - 98)
Pete graduates in Comp Sci and takes a grad role for $98k a year. Within his first year he receives a payrise to $135,000 a year, and saves $10,000.

I know this isn't accurate. 
When we graduated in May 1997 (with Computer Engineering degrees) and took our first jobs, new grads were getting $41k/a CDN.
Pete might have made a tiny bit more because he had co-op terms under his belt.
But according to https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/, that's about $65K in modern CDN dollars. (or $51k modern USD, or $71k modern AUS)

By the end of that first year, salaries did go up, but not all the way to $135/a.  More like a $5k-$10k rise as demand for Software Engineers went up.

Toque.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 05:56:13 PM by FrugalToque »

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9375
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2021, 06:48:37 PM »
Okay, but hold on a sec, from your reddit page:

Quote
Year 0 -1 condensed (late 1997 - 98)
Pete graduates in Comp Sci and takes a grad role for $98k a year. Within his first year he receives a payrise to $135,000 a year, and saves $10,000.

I know this isn't accurate. 
When we graduated in May 1997 (with Computer Engineering degrees) and took our first jobs, new grads were getting $41k/a CDN.
Pete might have made a tiny bit more because he had co-op terms under his belt.
But according to https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/, that's about $65K in modern CDN dollars. (or $51k modern USD, or $71k modern AUS)

By the end of that first year, salaries did go up, but not all the way to $135/a.  More like a $5k-$10k rise as demand for Software Engineers went up.

Toque.

Glad you bothered to look at this @FrugalToque . I haven't read the  reddit thread, because I guessed it would probably have some inflated inaccuracies like this, and basically couldn't be bothered  buying into that discussion.

Back in the day I did spend a lot of time benchmarking against Pete, converted into Aussie dollars, COL etc, and I also spent a lot of time running various case scenarios, based on some of the cases studies and so forth and came to the conclusion it was eminently feasible Down Under, unless you were on a low income, where the risks of needing to un-retire were a bit higher.

I did buy into an Aussie discussion elsewhere on the forum, because it bothers me that there are naysayers on Pete's forum. Questioning, critical evaluation and discussion is good because that's how we learn but I hate to see folks who've drunk the Kool-Aid and become enlightened, then be discouraged.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Pencil Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Canada
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2021, 08:11:33 PM »
Okay, but hold on a sec, from your reddit page:

Quote
Year 0 -1 condensed (late 1997 - 98)
Pete graduates in Comp Sci and takes a grad role for $98k a year. Within his first year he receives a payrise to $135,000 a year, and saves $10,000.

I know this isn't accurate. 
When we graduated in May 1997 (with Computer Engineering degrees) and took our first jobs, new grads were getting $41k/a CDN.
Pete might have made a tiny bit more because he had co-op terms under his belt.
But according to https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/, that's about $65K in modern CDN dollars. (or $51k modern USD, or $71k modern AUS)

By the end of that first year, salaries did go up, but not all the way to $135/a.  More like a $5k-$10k rise as demand for Software Engineers went up.

Toque.

Glad you bothered to look at this @FrugalToque . I haven't read the  reddit thread, because I guessed it would probably have some inflated inaccuracies like this, and basically couldn't be bothered  buying into that discussion.

Back in the day I did spend a lot of time benchmarking against Pete, converted into Aussie dollars, COL etc, and I also spent a lot of time running various case scenarios, based on some of the cases studies and so forth and came to the conclusion it was eminently feasible Down Under, unless you were on a low income, where the risks of needing to un-retire were a bit higher.

I did buy into an Aussie discussion elsewhere on the forum, because it bothers me that there are naysayers on Pete's forum. Questioning, critical evaluation and discussion is good because that's how we learn but I hate to see folks who've drunk the Kool-Aid and become enlightened, then be discouraged.

Glad to help.  I was cleaning up some spam and thought I'd have a look around.  What really caught my eye was "Moustache" instead of "Mustache".  Like, what?

There are always complainy-pants type people exaggerating how MMM got his way.  (i.e. don't read the blog, just say "trust fund baby" and go back to your spendy-man lifestyle).

We can at least make sure they don't do that on the blog.  I mean, shit, man... I was there for the 1997 part.  I know exactly what all of us were making.

Toque.

GodlessCommie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Location: NoVA
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2021, 08:30:31 AM »
I do agree with the Americans who say that healthcare in the US has become some sort of employment handcuff. But healthcare in Australia only appears free at the consumer endpoint: its actually not free, just structured differently. Australian taxation rates are higher than the US, which contribute towards the healthcare system. Secondly alongside the taxation system is the Medicare levy which is a compulsory 2% of your income, taken out of your salary just like tax. There are some reductions for low income earners and additional surcharges for high income earners. Thirdly its quite common for doctors to charge patients above the rebate provided by the govt for a particular service. You can find practices that don't charge extra, but they tend to rely on high through-put  of patients in their business model (which is fine if you just need a prescription repeat or a medical certificate, but much less satisfactory if you have a more complex health requirement) .  Physicians in Australia make about the same amount as Physicians in US, taking into account the exchange rate.  The additional cost of healthcare in US seems to be in the extortionate raft of admin/insurance schemes and business making profits for shareholders. It seems odd to me that in the US this acceptable, although Americans commonly complain about the cost and social inequities of such a system, but any suggestion of modification of the model sparks great fear of being overtaken by socialism or communism. It is one of the points of differences in our respective cultures..."freedom", even if it hurts you, is paramount in US, whereas "a fair go", even if it hurts you, is deeply entrenched in Aussie values.

I just wanted to point out that Americans who complain about social inequities are not the same Americans as those who have fear of being overtaken by socialism or communism. I would agree that "freedom even if it hurts you" is more entrenched in the US than in other OECD countries - but mostly, people who hold these values are more efficiently distributed, which gives them an outsized power in the US political system. Or you could argue that the system was designed to give them outsized power.

Thanks for details about how the Australian system works! 2% seems like a good deal. In the US, Medicare tax is 2.9%, paid by an employee and an employer in equal shares. But it only covers 65+, with some holes. Even if we look at the employee's contributions only, 2% to get everyone covered is superior to 1.45% to get only older people covered.

Now, the big question is the amount of general fund taxes used on healthcare. This is where things get extremely messy, and difficult to compare.

bmjohnson35

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
Re: How Money Moustache retired in 10 years - Australianised version
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2021, 08:36:20 AM »
If you watch the recent interview with Pete (MMM), I believe he clearly states that he was originally targeting high earners when he started his blog.  Although he has always encouraged less is more approach, I don't think he ever claimed he started out poor and made his fortune strictly through frugality. 

Whether your personal situation allows you to FIRE in your 30's, 40's or closer to traditional retirement age, utilizing some or all of his suggestions will likely help you get there sooner.  It will also likely provide a better quality of life at a lower cost.