The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Seadog on January 10, 2019, 09:33:00 AM
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
-
Russian trolls bought and paid to keep the masses focused on consumerism is my guess.
Aka I know nothing
aka people suck sometimes
Don't read the comments!
-
Jealousy.
-
Stop caring about what other people think? Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one.
-
I know it's true that I shouldn't waste time arguing with people over the internet who I'll never meet, and may even intentionally be trying to wind me up, yet part of me simply cannot allow ignorance and misinformation to flourish like that.
No different than when you see people proclaiming from the roof tops about the flat earth, Saudi gov't people proclaiming women only have 1/4 of a brain, African tribal leaders saying that polio vaccines are giving people AIDS, or varying degrees of religious nut jobs who's customs require them to manhandle the corpse of someone who just died from Ebola. If you're acting like a retarded chimp, there are direct consequences to people around you, society, and ultimately in a marginal sense myself and others I care about.
-
I hear you on the negativity. It does seem to be pervasive.
I try and empathize with people before anything else; I like to look at things from their perspectives. It is possible that these people are Russian Trolls or any other popular conspiracy theory floating about, but using Occam's Razor, I choose to believe that it is something simpler.
Let's take a look at where these people are most likely coming from.
Most people see FIRE as something unattainable in their current situation. FIRE seems like something that would take $1-3 million depending on the sacrifices people are willing to get. Hell, this isn't even THAT far off base. My number for instance is between $1-1.5 million. Many people have trouble paying for an extra few hundred dollars in an emergency. This is a huge discrepancy in expectations.
Enter MMM who we all know and love. He is coming out and saying that everyone can do this while having made a pretty good amount (breeding resentment from much of the population). Further, he challenges us to cut some basic luxuries like the cost of commuting, cable, A/C, etc. It makes it seem like FIRE is only for those of us that are willing to deprive ourselves in an impressively extreme, spartan style.
Now this popular figure goes through a life change that many people categorize as a failure and it is obvious why there is such vitriol. This person who has been telling others how to live their lives is having struggles that MUST be because of the deprivation that he is putting his family through. It is obvious that if THEY had forced THEIR significant other to no longer enjoy the mobility of a vehicle or the benefits of A/C or the decompression that TV brings, THEY too would be divorced. It shows that this lifestyle is unsustainable. It gives people a reason why they haven't achieved the $1-3 million pipedream that has been preached. They simply value their family too much to risk it just to be "lazy" and retire.
Our lifestyle goals on this sub run counter to the very fabric of this nation's working and middle classes. Don't be surprised when people lash out after we have challenged the status quo.
That being said, I do think that this is completely uncalled for as no one's personal life should be attacked by people who don't even know the situation. It shows a lack of class/tact and is completely ridiculous. Pete has my warmest sympathies (Pete, if you read this and are ever in Seattle, let me know and you will get free beer and food. You have helped me tremendously, please reach out if I can help in any way).
I am sure this has been unthinkably difficult to go through and I sincerely hope that they both come out of this unscathed. I just want to help shed light as to why this may be happening.
Cheers,
-
I see this a lot with any blogger/youtuber/writer who presents self-improvement content. Even innocuous things, like "how a busy parent of 5 cuts grocery expenses" are subject to scathing, personal attacks.
It's because inherent to this sort of advice is that what the person (i.e. the consumer of the self-improvement content) is currently doing is wrong. So of course MMM gets blow back because he's saying that the average Western person is a sucker for doing what almost all Western people do- drive a lot, buy a bunch of shit they don't need, excessively outsource things, and otherwise try to keep up superficial appearances. The average Western person, therefore, gets angry and makes up excuses to justify keeping the status quo.
-
I see this a lot with any blogger/youtuber/writer who presents self-improvement content. Even innocuous things, like "how a busy parent of 5 cuts grocery expenses" are subject to scathing, personal attacks.
It's because inherent to this sort of advice is that what the person (i.e. the consumer of the self-improvement content) is currently doing is wrong. So of course MMM gets blow back because he's saying that the average Western person is a sucker for doing what almost all Western people do- drive a lot, buy a bunch of shit they don't need, excessively outsource things, and otherwise try to keep up superficial appearances. The average Western person, therefore, gets angry and makes up excuses to justify keeping the status quo.
People are often VERY resistant to any ideas that don't agree with their world view. It's human nature I guess.
-
The comment sections in many corners of the internet can be a cesspool or humanity's worst traits. Anonymity allows people to say whatever vile thing they want, and informed, researched opinions get the same weight as wild speculation or outright lies (i.e. both will get published).
The FIRE community has always faced a great deal of skepticism. I suspect many want the kind of lifstyle that MMM has enjoyed, and so they take delight in pointing out how he has unfair advantages (the blog income!!) or take joy in any of his misfortunes (schadenfreude). Since many have very litttle in savings and lots of debt they'd rather poke holes in MMM's story to explain why they, too, are not FI than actually undertake the steps necessary to become wealthy (namely spend less that they earn and stop doing stupid shit with money).
I see parallels with how people view physical health. Most are either overweight or obese, and there's a lot of shade thrown at people who are much healthier. Most of it is just masked excuses for why they arent' doing what they know they should ("I have a naturally low metabolism" - "I work too hard to have any time to exercise" - "he/she's clearly has an eating disorder" - "working out everyday, hello vanity!"). It gets even more pathetic and vitriolic when you listen to how many talk about professional athletes ("I could make that shot" - "s/he isn't trying" - "I could be that good if someone paid me to train all year long" - "s/he's just naturally talented"). Vile.
Swinging back to MMM few of these negative commenters even both to learn more than the headlines in the many articles written about him (one such title was "live like a cheapskate and you can quit your job in your 30s!"). Many have attributed their divorce to his 'extreme frugalness' - even though she has her own frugal nature - and has written about it in guest-posts. Others assume that he was the sole bread-winner (he wasn't) and will have to cash out his savings and go back to his 'real' job (unlikely, given their fortunes and spend-rates). I occasionally try to correct some of the misperceptions, but when the writers of the comments are making these posts as excuses to why they aren't masters of their own finances it's like farting into a hurricane.
-
I imagine some of it comes from the fact that it's a hard pill to swallow - to recognize that if you'd done things differently you could be rich and retired already, but instead you'll be working until you die. I think that's one of the biggest advantages those of us who started this thing young have - we don't really have to deal with that as much. Like, I could theoretically be retired now at 32 if I'd started at 18, but the reality will be more like 34-35, which I'm totally fine with. But it would suck to be starting at 35+ and have a long way to go still, while people your age are FIRE-ing around you.
-
I see this a lot with any blogger/youtuber/writer who presents self-improvement content. Even innocuous things, like "how a busy parent of 5 cuts grocery expenses" are subject to scathing, personal attacks.
It's because inherent to this sort of advice is that what the person (i.e. the consumer of the self-improvement content) is currently doing is wrong. So of course MMM gets blow back because he's saying that the average Western person is a sucker for doing what almost all Western people do- drive a lot, buy a bunch of shit they don't need, excessively outsource things, and otherwise try to keep up superficial appearances. The average Western person, therefore, gets angry and makes up excuses to justify keeping the status quo.
This^^^
-
He tells people what they don't want to hear.
What's easier? Thoughtfully considering that your own life choices are the source of your money issues or dismissing the messenger as a crackpot know-nothing and continuing to blame others for your lack of progress?
-
Just about anytime you go against the grain of society you get hate and pushback. Doesn't matter the topic. People are animals, the herd mentality is strong.
-
I think it is not that big of a deal. Anytime someone gets any sort of renown people will gossip. Yes of course it is petty and judgmental, but you’re just not going to get humans to stop doing this kind of thing. Barring extreme behaviors (stalking, threats of harm) the best you can do is ignore it and move on.
-
.
-
It's the internet where people can anonymously take out their life's frustrations on others. Challenging any social norm will trigger these types. My news feed has tons of FI stories and the comments sections are always loaded with negatity. It's mostly jealousy and ignorance about finances. Most people are set in their ways and resist change.
-
People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated.
You are simply seeing an illustration of humanity. The majority of people out there simply can't think for themselves anymore. When you really think about that, and let it marinate for a little bit, everything that you see around you suddenly makes sense. Sad, but true.
-
People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated.
You are simply seeing an illustration of humanity. The majority of people out there simply can't think for themselves anymore. When you really think about that, and let it marinate for a little bit, everything that you see around you suddenly makes sense. Sad, but true.
That's for sure. I see that a lot.
-
I think it is just envy. They want to do what he does, but they don`t have the patience and/or determination to do it. They are more concerned about showing off what they can have NOW. I don`t agree with everything about the guy, but I highly respect him and really appreciate his valuable info he shares with all of us. He definitely did what he set out to do, and shows that it is not as hard as the financial guys would like the public to believe.
-
I think it's important to remember that 49.99999% of the population has a below average IQ. That helps keep things in perspective.
-
When you make yourself a public figure, you will attract public attention. The public comprises all sorts of people, with wildly differing opinions about everything.
Do you really spend a great deal of effort following people around the internet trying to change opinions on everything you disagree with? It must be exhausting.
-
I think it's important to remember that 49.99999% of the population has a below average IQ. That helps keep things in perspective.
i'm not convinced that IQ is well correlated with civility on the internet. In other words, really smart people can be jerks or kind; the same can be said about less intelligent people.
....and I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but as a teacher of stats I just can't let this go unanswered; when we speak of 'average' IQ (or home prices or salaries) that does not mean half are above and half are below (which would be the mean, when we are using the median). So it is true to say "more than half of the country lives in a below average home". Not sure which way the tails go on the IQ spectrum (are there more really smart people than mentally deficient ones?)
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
haters gonna hate, bitches gonna bitch. etc.
people just need something to talk about, plus if you run a blog or want social media followers, the best way to get clicks is to ignite the outrage. hopefully the trend will reverse at some point and thoughtful blogs/posts like MMM will be in the majority. it's getting tedious to filter out the hateful garbage, but def possible.
-
haters gonna hate, bitches gonna bitch. etc.
people just need something to talk about, plus if you run a blog or want social media followers, the best way to get clicks is to ignite the outrage. hopefully the trend will reverse at some point and thoughtful blogs/posts like MMM will be in the majority. it's getting tedious to filter out the hateful garbage, but def possible.
There's ad-blocker - I wish someone would design a hate-blocker that masked these comments. One that could instantly filter out comments which were nothing but rubbish (e.g. ad hominem attacks, derogatory name-calling, blatantly false 'facts') while still allowing thoughtful criticism through.
-
I think it's important to remember that 49.99999% of the population has a below average IQ. That helps keep things in perspective.
i'm not convinced that IQ is well correlated with civility on the internet. In other words, really smart people can be jerks or kind; the same can be said about less intelligent people.
....and I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but as a teacher of stats I just can't let this go unanswered; when we speak of 'average' IQ (or home prices or salaries) that does not mean half are above and half are below (which would be the mean, when we are using the median). So it is true to say "more than half of the country lives in a below average home". Not sure which way the tails go on the IQ spectrum (are there more really smart people than mentally deficient ones?)
I think you're right in that most people who say "average" are referring to the mean but technically the median can also be referred to as an average. Average is a broad term which can refer to anything that represents a statistical norm; mean and median are the most commonly used averages.
-
I haven't seen any hate posts, but maybe I'm not reading those blogs anyway. I have a fairly low tolerance for negativity in my life so I'd just move on if I came across it.
-
I think it's important to remember that 49.99999% of the population has a below average IQ. That helps keep things in perspective.
i'm not convinced that IQ is well correlated with civility on the internet. In other words, really smart people can be jerks or kind; the same can be said about less intelligent people.
....and I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but as a teacher of stats I just can't let this go unanswered; when we speak of 'average' IQ (or home prices or salaries) that does not mean half are above and half are below (which would be the mean, when we are using the median). So it is true to say "more than half of the country lives in a below average home". Not sure which way the tails go on the IQ spectrum (are there more really smart people than mentally deficient ones?)
I think you're right in that most people who say "average" are referring to the mean but technically the median can also be referred to as an average. Average is a broad term which can refer to anything that represents a statistical norm; mean and median are the most commonly used averages.
IQ is bell-curved by design.
The curve isn't a result of the scores, the scores are a result of the curve. So kind of a moot point.
The average IQ of people who participate in comments section though??? Likely bimodal with people in the middle staying the hell away from that dumpster fire.
-
I'm going to go a little contrary to the chorus here. Maybe I don't visit as many comments sections as you, but it seems the thoughtful complaints about the MMM persona follow along the following lines:
1) He makes money off the blog and carpentry, therefore he is not retired in the traditional sense. This is 100% true, even if MMM enjoys these tasks so much that he would do them if he didn't get paid. Having a job you enjoy is probably one of the pinnacles of happiness: you spend your hours happy and productive, and people appreciate your product enough to trade their labor (in the form of money) for that product. And its undeniably true that the income from these two jobs has allowed him increased happiness in various ways (even if he isn't wasting it on consumer crap). The general connotation of retirement (though the IRPP would disagree) is that you are not making money off earned income. So when he says you can retire at 30 like I did, some people understandably bristle. Now if MMM says you can quit your crappy corporate job at 30 like I did, that could not be viewed in any way as hypocritical at worse, or an exaggeration at best.
2) MMM throws face punches, i.e. he attacks the lifestyle of spendypants as a class. Everyone here seems to be perfectly ok with that. But when spendypants want to return the favor by attacking Mustachianism or our leader, we get all offended? Who cares? They have some good points, they have a lot of very bad points, its our job to take the good ones and dump the rest (and not visit sites with shitty content). Despite the tongue in cheek, we are not a cult and are therefore allowed to criticize certain things and open-mindedly listen to criticism without losing sense of the beauty of frugality and optimism.
-
I have also seen some hateful comments on other blogs. People divorce for many reasons. Sometimes money is a issue. I think this blog has helped many people. I call myself semi-retired because I choose to work part time teaching a online college class. It’s fun. At 64 I have no plans to quit. I never wanted to retire early because I didn’t start my career until 39. It was awesome to be able to retire from my full time job at 58. Like many of my generation we have always lived below our means.
-
I don’t think it’s hate for MMM as much as resistance to change, which is natural. Change is a threat to most people and threats produce deeply ingrained responses: flight, fight or freeze. For many people the message they are hearing, which is an uncommon message, is to lower your standard of living so that you eventually you are unemployed prematurely. Thst for many people is terrifying. It’s harder for many people to relate to the concept of sacrificing now for a perpetual flow of cash that gives you freedom. Where are the role models for that? Where is that in the movies or tv? Hell, billionaires still work when none of them have to, so what makes us think this message resonates so easily? I’ve got people I know and trust who love me who, either don’t believe me, don’t want to hear about or I feel uncomfortable discussing with because of what it reveals about their choices and what it would mean for them to change. It’s daunting to put together FIRE plans and stick with them and embarrassing to confront all your bad financial decisions. How many of us were educated on how to manage our finances properly? Few. It’s not taught in schools generally. So people are behaving naturally, the FIRE message is the outlier, which is fine, but naive of us to not understand the resistance and empathize with it. You want to change, everyone come out of the closet regarding FI, shout it to the rooftops and share with everyone. Too scary? Yeah, I get it. This is all scary stuff. Some people overcome the fear, some respond in the ways humans have since they entered the scene: flight, fight or freeze.
-
I find defending someone of something you don't know as stupid as accusing them of something you don't know. Both are conjectures.
There's a guy on the internet that writes helpful advice about money and retiring with seemingly good intentions. That's where it ends for me. I'm not going to sit here and defend someone I don't really know any more than I'm going to accuse them of anything.
-
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
It's actually been like this since he started the blog. There are always new people becoming aware of the concept and they have a number of standard rejection techniques to protect themselves from having to evaluate their lives and consider they may have been wasting time or money.
"He's fake. He's not really retired. Trust fund baby. Hi tech salary. Blog click bait." etc. etc.
Toque.
-
“As to the abuses I have met with, I number them among my honors. One cannot behave so as to obtain the esteem of the wise and good without drawing on one's self at the same time the envy and malice of the foolish and wicked, and the latter is testimony of the former. The best men have always had their share of this treatment.... A man has therefore some reason to be ashamed when he meets with none of it.”
-Mr. $100 Mustache
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
-
To offer a slightly different take, I think some people were surprised and felt "let down" because they thought FIRE/Mustachianism was the official magic pill that meant life could be stereotypically perfect. Hit FIRE and you ride off into the sunset with your money! Not at all. FIRE does not insulate a person from every possible "bad" life circumstance. It just means you have more financial flexibility when good or "bad" life happens, because it will. "Bad" is always in quotes since in many circumstances, divorce generally carries connotations of "bad" and "failure" and is looked down on. I personally don't share the opinion that divorce is always inherently "bad", and I'm also happy to read and apply common-sense financial information from those willing to distribute it.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
So you think it's a lie because you haven't figured out how to do it yet?
If you believe this I would suggest spending some time on these forums, perhaps take a look at some of the case studies or the "share your badassity" section. Many people on this forum live on far less than 25k/year. Personally, we live on just under that amount.*
As for whether or not he is retired, I consider that mostly irrelevant. The real question is whether his current budget would have been covered by assets owned the day they declared FI. That's a hard question to answer with precision, but it seems pretty likely given the performance of the stock market since he started this blog..
*Household of 2, no kids. Also, I track the expenses that are luxuries and could be cut if necessary such as dining out, gym memberships, and subscriptions. There's an easy $3,000 in fat that could be trimmed, another $1,000-2,000 would be more difficult.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
I wouldn't characterize it as dishonesty, but I agree that a common (somewhat) valid complaint is not including items that he uses for personal reasons on his budget just because he could expense them to his business (which retired people wouldn't have the option of doing). Several more examples come to mind, but MMM really jumped the shark when he didn't include the new Nissan Leaf in his spending; some of this I could swallow with his disclaimer that this is what he would have spent without having the blog (despite the imputed value of a new car versus an older one), but then he says, "The biggest lesson that I try to emphasize is that spending does not have to scale with income." In this case, the words didn't match the actions.
This isn't to say the general message is off. It is to say that a lot of people (myself included) think his spending level is higher than advertised for his quality of living.*
*But that's ok, for two reasons: 1) He delivers the message better than just about anyone else, which is why I proudly follow. 2) Everyone needs to determine spending levels for themselves, and shouldn't be comparing their lifestyle or spending levels with the Joneses.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
What?? You think he's dishonest, you don't read anything he writes, but you are convinced that what he writes isn't true? Based on what?
If you think $25k/year with a paid off house has to be a lie simply because you spend personally spend more, I'd have to ask - how do 40% of households spend less than you? I will testify that we have never spent anywhere close to $25k after subtracting out the PI of our mortgage. We can't - we've never made that much.
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
So you think it's a lie because you haven't figured out how to do it yet?
no, i think it is a lie because he speaks about things yet those things aren't in his expense report. homes don't go without maintenance yet he allocated very little to it (no where near enough over multiple years). not being able to do it wasn't my primary reason, but it is one given other things i've noticed. but good on you for mastering the lifestyle.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
What?? You think he's dishonest, you don't read anything he writes, but you are convinced that what he writes isn't true? Based on what?
If you think $25k/year with a paid off house has to be a lie simply because you spend personally spend more, I'd have to ask - how do 40% of households spend less than you? I will testify that we have never spent anywhere close to $25k after subtracting out the PI of our mortgage. We can't - we've never made that much.
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
in the beginning i was a huge supporter so i read a lot but then came things i couldn't believe so i stopped reading. i stopped believing based on my reading not because i tried living on 25 and couldn't. my needs probably cost me around 30k but for entertainment which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
-
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
I don't disagree with the logic for ditching the insurance, but let's flip the script. Say MMM's house burnt to the ground. Would he have shown on the year's expenses that he had a $300k expense? If not, then he should have at least shown what he would have spent had he not had his blog income; he uses this reasoning to not include expenses when they are even tangentially related to the blog (or to carpentry), but then doesn't include what should have been an expense by this same logic.
-
As for whether or not he is retired, I consider that mostly irrelevant. The real question is whether his current budget would have been covered by assets owned the day they declared FI. That's a hard question to answer with precision, but it seems pretty likely given the performance of the stock market since he started this blog.
Let's first acknowledge that there are plenty of toxic people out there, who make comments just to bring other people down, and some of them make comments on the Internet. I won't argue that point.
But about retirement being irrelevant....That's kind of unfair to someone who is hearing about early retirement for the first time. It's fine to repurpose and redefine the word on this forum, but outside this little tiny corner of the internet, the word retirement means no longer working for money.
"What do you do for work?"
"I'm retired."
"Great! What your side hustle fun job that you still do because you love it so much?"
That exchange doesn't happen in the real world, because out there "retired" means you're no longer working and bringing in income via business.
So yes, people are skeptical when they see Pete still making money on affiliate links. And they are also skeptical when Pete says that when you are FI, you no longer have to work for money. He doesn't even eat his own cooking. (metaphor for following the advice you give to others)
We all know what amount Pete retired with. If Pete hadn't been making money in "retirement", if he'd only been doing stuff for fun, but not adding to his pile of dollars, the divorce *may* well have put him back in the workforce.
So I get that comments sections can be terrible... but I think Pete has some role to play here.
P.S. Under the Mr. Money Mustache persona, Pete basically took on the persona of Ted DiBiase (the Million Dollar Man). Of course people hate him. That persona is part of why the blog was and is so popular. All over the Internet there are blogs about how nothing is your fault, and how we are all just victims. Pete basically flipped the script. I love that he did it. But I also understand that not everyone is going to react well to that approach.
I guess I don't see why it matters what Pete does with his life after hitting FI, which he defined as investments equal to 25x annual expenses. As long as the original formula holds up, I think his claims are accurate. If he won the lottery would it be dishonest to continue writing about achieving FI through a high savings rate?
As for the divorce taking him out of FI range, I doubt it given performance of the stock market since he left full time employment and the way he described his divorce costs. The divorce may not have been so amicable if there wasn't plenty of money to go around, but that's pure speculation AND I think he would concede that certain major life events can take away your financial independence - you can't protect against everything.
-
P.S. Under the Mr. Money Mustache persona, Pete basically took on the persona of Ted DiBiase (the Million Dollar Man). Of course people hate him. That persona is part of why the blog was and is so popular.
That's a really good analogy!
-
in the beginning i was a huge supporter so i read a lot but then came things i couldn't believe so i stopped reading. i stopped believing based on my reading not because i tried living on 25 and couldn't. my needs probably cost me around 30k but for entertainment which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
This why I'm convinced no one has ever run a sub-4 minute mile, and anyone who says so is lying, since I've never been able to do it.
-
... which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
Are you sure you're on the right forum? You *need* 15k in entertainment per year? I think we're getting pretty side tracked from my original point, but that's sort of one of the tenants of this site. Do away with the expensive bullshit. Lots of people survive full stop on 15k a year, and you're here saying you simply couldn't cope without spending that on plane tickets, fancy dinners and concerts.
And you're not offending, you're just showing yourself to have a poor grasp of stats. *Risk* losing 300k? What does risk mean? You're just going to completely ignore likelihood? What if insurance cost $2k? $5k? Is there a number where it doesn't make sense to buy it for you? There is a number that reflects the likelihood of the home burning down, the insurance company knows it, and it's sure as shit a lot less than $1200. The lottery and insurance are different sides of the same coin. You'd lose 300k on the 5,000:1 shot your home burns down, but it's really really really unlikely to happen. Just like you'll lose $10m if your lotto numbers get called and you didn't buy a ticket. You got to be in it to win it!
It's sort of like the withdrawal rate question. If you want to protect yourself from every peril, no matter how remote you will never stop working because that demands a withdrawal rate of 0% as something completely unforeseen could wipe out the entire economy.
-
Anyone who reaches a certain level of noteriety is subject to potshots. It is that simple.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
What?? You think he's dishonest, you don't read anything he writes, but you are convinced that what he writes isn't true? Based on what?
If you think $25k/year with a paid off house has to be a lie simply because you spend personally spend more, I'd have to ask - how do 40% of households spend less than you? I will testify that we have never spent anywhere close to $25k after subtracting out the PI of our mortgage. We can't - we've never made that much.
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
in the beginning i was a huge supporter so i read a lot but then came things i couldn't believe so i stopped reading. i stopped believing based on my reading not because i tried living on 25 and couldn't. my needs probably cost me around 30k but for entertainment which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
I hear this sentiment a lot, "risk [big number] to save [small number] - that's just stupid". But when you make that statement, are you considering the actual probability of losing the full value of the house? What if the odds are 1:1000 on an annual basis? In that case the statistically correct amount to pay for insurance would be $300/year right?
The only unknown variable is what the odds really are. Do you think they are better or worse than 1:1000?
-
... which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
Are you sure you're on the right forum? You *need* 15k in entertainment per year? I think we're getting pretty side tracked from my original point, but that's sort of one of the tenants of this site. Do away with the expensive bullshit. Lots of people survive full stop on 15k a year, and you're here saying you simply couldn't cope without spending that on plane tickets, fancy dinners and concerts.
And you're not offending, you're just showing yourself to have a poor grasp of stats. *Risk* losing 300k? What does risk mean? You're just going to completely ignore likelihood? What if insurance cost $2k? $5k? Is there a number where it doesn't make sense to buy it for you? There is a number that reflects the likelihood of the home burning down, the insurance company knows it, and it's sure as shit a lot less than $1200. The lottery and insurance are different sides of the same coin. You'd lose 300k on the 5,000:1 shot your home burns down, but it's really really really unlikely to happen. Just like you'll lose $10m if your lotto numbers get called and you didn't buy a ticket. You got to be in it to win it!
It's sort of like the withdrawal rate question. If you want to protect yourself from every peril, no matter how remote you will never stop working because that demands a withdrawal rate of 0% as something completely unforeseen could wipe out the entire economy.
That's a good way to frame it. At what odds would you be willing to buy a $1,200 lottery ticket with a $300,000 payout? The statistically even answer is 1:250. Does FenderBender think there is a 1:250 chance of total loss of a home every year?
Now of course this ignores all the other bad things that can happen to your home that would result in less than a total loss, but rest assured the insurance companies have accounted for them so we don't really need to find the odds ourselves, the works been done.
-
People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated.
You are simply seeing an illustration of humanity. The majority of people out there simply can't think for themselves anymore. When you really think about that, and let it marinate for a little bit, everything that you see around you suddenly makes sense. Sad, but true.
That's for sure. I see that a lot.
What do you mean anymore? I would say that recorded history is full of examples of people not being able to think for themselves.
-
I think it's important to remember that 49.99999% of the population has a below average IQ. That helps keep things in perspective.
i'm not convinced that IQ is well correlated with civility on the internet. In other words, really smart people can be jerks or kind; the same can be said about less intelligent people.
....and I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but as a teacher of stats I just can't let this go unanswered; when we speak of 'average' IQ (or home prices or salaries) that does not mean half are above and half are below (which would be the mean, when we are using the median). So it is true to say "more than half of the country lives in a below average home". Not sure which way the tails go on the IQ spectrum (are there more really smart people than mentally deficient ones?)
I think you're right in that most people who say "average" are referring to the mean but technically the median can also be referred to as an average. Average is a broad term which can refer to anything that represents a statistical norm; mean and median are the most commonly used averages.
IQ is bell-curved by design.
The curve isn't a result of the scores, the scores are a result of the curve. So kind of a moot point.
The average IQ of people who participate in comments section though??? Likely bimodal with people in the middle staying the hell away from that dumpster fire.
...and once again, a hilarious comment by WTC gets overanalyzed and beaten to death by folks who would probably be at home in an Umberto Eco book club. To that, I have this to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU)
-
...and once again, a hilarious comment by WTC gets overanalyzed and beaten to death by folks who would probably be at home in an Umberto Eco book club. To that, I have this to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU)
Fair enough, WTC. Sometimes I just can't shake my educator impulses. Your comment was not without humor
-
...and once again, a hilarious comment by WTC gets overanalyzed and beaten to death by folks who would probably be at home in an Umberto Eco book club. To that, I have this to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU)
I really thought you were going to post this bit from the late, great George Carlin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
I'm going to go a little contrary to the chorus here. Maybe I don't visit as many comments sections as you, but it seems the thoughtful complaints about the MMM persona follow along the following lines:
1) He makes money off the blog and carpentry, therefore he is not retired in the traditional sense. This is 100% true, even if MMM enjoys these tasks so much that he would do them if he didn't get paid. Having a job you enjoy is probably one of the pinnacles of happiness: you spend your hours happy and productive, and people appreciate your product enough to trade their labor (in the form of money) for that product. And its undeniably true that the income from these two jobs has allowed him increased happiness in various ways (even if he isn't wasting it on consumer crap). The general connotation of retirement (though the IRPP would disagree) is that you are not making money off earned income. So when he says you can retire at 30 like I did, some people understandably bristle. Now if MMM says you can quit your crappy corporate job at 30 like I did, that could not be viewed in any way as hypocritical at worse, or an exaggeration at best.
2) MMM throws face punches, i.e. he attacks the lifestyle of spendypants as a class. Everyone here seems to be perfectly ok with that. But when spendypants want to return the favor by attacking Mustachianism or our leader, we get all offended? Who cares? They have some good points, they have a lot of very bad points, its our job to take the good ones and dump the rest (and not visit sites with shitty content). Despite the tongue in cheek, we are not a cult and are therefore allowed to criticize certain things and open-mindedly listen to criticism without losing sense of the beauty of frugality and optimism.
1. On the "he's not retired" front, it's a common discussion/disagreement point even on this forum. It's tough to try and convince someone that "having enough money to retire, but working for a paycheck still, is retirement" (as that doesn't match up with what the overwhelming majority of the world thinks retirement means) which is the effective argument for calling yourself retired if you work after being FI (as many, like MMM do or aspire to do). But a blog about a guy who "got rich and now just works for fun" wouldn't generate the same following as a blog about a guy who "lived life differently so he could retire super young".... so we get the internet retirement police pointing out the former and blog posts trying to counter their arguments about what is or isn't retirement.... and sometimes comments pointing out that argument on internet articles.
2. As for the extreme criticisms of "what it takes" in lifestyle sacrifices etc, well I think that comes more from the more extreme followers and possibly confusing MMM with other, even more "far from normal" early retirement advocates. Add in a bit of exaggeration or cherry-picked examples and you can get a "reasonable" person to start thinking that retiring in your 30's with just lifestyle changes means you need to live in a tent and eat only rice.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
I'm going to go a little contrary to the chorus here. Maybe I don't visit as many comments sections as you, but it seems the thoughtful complaints about the MMM persona follow along the following lines:
1) He makes money off the blog and carpentry, therefore he is not retired in the traditional sense. This is 100% true, even if MMM enjoys these tasks so much that he would do them if he didn't get paid. Having a job you enjoy is probably one of the pinnacles of happiness: you spend your hours happy and productive, and people appreciate your product enough to trade their labor (in the form of money) for that product. And its undeniably true that the income from these two jobs has allowed him increased happiness in various ways (even if he isn't wasting it on consumer crap). The general connotation of retirement (though the IRPP would disagree) is that you are not making money off earned income. So when he says you can retire at 30 like I did, some people understandably bristle. Now if MMM says you can quit your crappy corporate job at 30 like I did, that could not be viewed in any way as hypocritical at worse, or an exaggeration at best.
2) MMM throws face punches, i.e. he attacks the lifestyle of spendypants as a class. Everyone here seems to be perfectly ok with that. But when spendypants want to return the favor by attacking Mustachianism or our leader, we get all offended? Who cares? They have some good points, they have a lot of very bad points, its our job to take the good ones and dump the rest (and not visit sites with shitty content). Despite the tongue in cheek, we are not a cult and are therefore allowed to criticize certain things and open-mindedly listen to criticism without losing sense of the beauty of frugality and optimism.
1. On the "he's not retired" front, it's a common discussion/disagreement point even on this forum. It's tough to try and convince someone that "having enough money to retire, but working for a paycheck still, is retirement" (as that doesn't match up with what the overwhelming majority of the world thinks retirement means) which is the effective argument for calling yourself retired if you work after being FI (as many, like MMM do or aspire to do). But a blog about a guy who "got rich and now just works for fun" wouldn't generate the same following as a blog about a guy who "lived life differently so he could retire super young".... so we get the internet retirement police pointing out the former and blog posts trying to counter their arguments about what is or isn't retirement.... and sometimes comments pointing out that argument on internet articles.
2. As for the extreme criticisms of "what it takes" in lifestyle sacrifices etc, well I think that comes more from the more extreme followers and possibly confusing MMM with other, even more "far from normal" early retirement advocates. Add in a bit of exaggeration or cherry-picked examples and you can get a "reasonable" person to start thinking that retiring in your 30's with just lifestyle changes means you need to live in a tent and eat only rice.
1. Note my reference to the Internet Retirement Police Police (IRPP). These are the people that turn on their sirens as soon as somebody points out the obvious, that someone who is earning income is not retired. As I mentioned, "get rich and quit your crappy job" has a pretty nice ring to it. Or, "get rich and do your thang all day". Neither one of these would be contrary to people's expectations. Note that I'm ok with him saying he's retired, just don't be shocked and outraged when others aren't.
2. MMM does a huge service to those that choose to listen. A lot of people don't listen, and that's ok, but there's no need to care what they have to say either. You know, sour grapes and all.
By the way, I was one day from commissioning as a subnuc (OCS 06-05), so a little wistful of your profession.
-
Well, this looks like it'll be an interesting thread until it's shut down (cue the popcorn gif). But hey, to give my own 2 cents to the pile, MMM is a strong personality that doled out face punches to clown car mommies burning gas dropping off their kids at school. He thought the drive-though was the MAD of humankind being fulfilled. Maybe I'm paraphrasing, but oftentimes He used hyperbole as fact (biking is safer than driving) so ultimately it is just another version of authority figures playing fast and loose with science and history. Then suddenly his own life can't be glossed over with any amount of concealer - of course the knives come out.
I strongly suspect that Mrs.MM knew she had FI and could not exercise it as she preferred, and that is what many take issue with the blog in the first place. MMM extols a humble, nothing to see here lifestyle yet excites at riding in his friend's self-driving Tesla, zipping along with e-bike assistance (not an expense since it was a blog experiment), going to Canada for summer and putting a roof on his Mom's house, etc. as being a natural part of his frugal, minimalist life.
There is a conundrum here - MMM either prefers his former life had he not started the blog and just retired fully to the simple life he ascribes to, outcome be damned (and in 2007 starting a construction company, he probably would've needed to seek paid employment since the construction company failed). Or he owns the successful independent businessman life that he now has, warts and all.
-
It's tough to try and convince someone that "having enough money to retire, but working for a paycheck still, is retirement" (as that doesn't match up with what the overwhelming majority of the world thinks retirement means) which is the effective argument for calling yourself retired if you work after being FI (as many, like MMM do or aspire to do).
By that metric, I've been retired for years. But I just call that FI as I continue to work my full time job, not retirement.
-
Hate clicks are good for business. What's the conversion rate from trolls to malaria nets?
-
re·tire·ment
noun
1.
the action or fact of leaving one's job and ceasing to work.
"a man nearing retirement"
synonyms: giving up work, stopping working, stopping work; retiral
"they are just coming up to retirement"
Words have actual meanings. The word "retirement" has an actual meaning. We can wield phrases like Internet Retirement Police to shame outsiders to expand the definition of the word to our liking, but outside this little corner of the internet, the word "retired" has an agreed upon meaning, and it's actually us who are in the wrong here. I'm not defending the legion of people who clearly have sour grapes and are drinking the Haterade. I am saying that not everyone who disagrees with our revised definition of retirement has sour grapes. So kind of a minor point, but whatever this is a message board.
Beyond the trigger word of "retirement," MMM also provokes (inspires?) hate because his blog persona is extraordinarily judgy. That's why there is hate. Right? Like, My idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of a life well lived is the correct one, and yours is wrong. Your clown car habit is wrong. Choosing a house because of the school district means you're afflicted with Tiny Differences Exaggeration syndrome... Now excuse me while I jet off to an exotic international location to lecture 20 doting admirers, drink craft beer and coffee, and donate at least 4 hours towards advancing the welfare of a local villager.
When a judgy person slips on a banana peel, people are going to laugh. When he gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe, people aren't going to tell him.
I don't really buy this argument that society has established that a retired person is a person who ceases to work. The AARP (the 'R' stands for "retired") revealed that ~40% of their members took up some sort of formal position - either paid or volunteer - after they had left permanently left their life-long career. Motivations varied, but social connections, staying intellectually stimulated and giving to the community were high on the list. Society looks those people and says 'yeah, they're retired, and now they coach a swim-team/ work with the church / mentor students / serve on a board. The distinction I see isn't about whether they never earn another dime, but on whether they are older. In contrast, a 30-something who struck it rich early on is rarely described as 'retired' but 'independently wealthy'. Calling a sub-40 person 'retired' is for whatever reason provocative regardless of what they do, while we have no problem calling a 65 year old attorney who leaves his law practice but still consults a few days per month 'retired'.
In the end it is based on whatever definition you give, but to his credit MMM never hid his post-'retirement' income.
-
... which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
Are you sure you're on the right forum? You *need* 15k in entertainment per year? I think we're getting pretty side tracked from my original point, but that's sort of one of the tenants of this site. Do away with the expensive bullshit. Lots of people survive full stop on 15k a year, and you're here saying you simply couldn't cope without spending that on plane tickets, fancy dinners and concerts.
And you're not offending, you're just showing yourself to have a poor grasp of stats. *Risk* losing 300k? What does risk mean? You're just going to completely ignore likelihood? What if insurance cost $2k? $5k? Is there a number where it doesn't make sense to buy it for you? There is a number that reflects the likelihood of the home burning down, the insurance company knows it, and it's sure as shit a lot less than $1200. The lottery and insurance are different sides of the same coin. You'd lose 300k on the 5,000:1 shot your home burns down, but it's really really really unlikely to happen. Just like you'll lose $10m if your lotto numbers get called and you didn't buy a ticket. You got to be in it to win it!
It's sort of like the withdrawal rate question. If you want to protect yourself from every peril, no matter how remote you will never stop working because that demands a withdrawal rate of 0% as something completely unforeseen could wipe out the entire economy.
yes, i'm sure, we have 7 figure savings so we enjoy life.
insurance, we're talking about MMM, his neighborhood isn't that rich so insurance can't be very much.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
What?? You think he's dishonest, you don't read anything he writes, but you are convinced that what he writes isn't true? Based on what?
If you think $25k/year with a paid off house has to be a lie simply because you spend personally spend more, I'd have to ask - how do 40% of households spend less than you? I will testify that we have never spent anywhere close to $25k after subtracting out the PI of our mortgage. We can't - we've never made that much.
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
in the beginning i was a huge supporter so i read a lot but then came things i couldn't believe so i stopped reading. i stopped believing based on my reading not because i tried living on 25 and couldn't. my needs probably cost me around 30k but for entertainment which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
I hear this sentiment a lot, "risk [big number] to save [small number] - that's just stupid". But when you make that statement, are you considering the actual probability of losing the full value of the house? What if the odds are 1:1000 on an annual basis? In that case the statistically correct amount to pay for insurance would be $300/year right?
The only unknown variable is what the odds really are. Do you think they are better or worse than 1:1000?
it happened to my cousin 1 year out of many, you can't pick the year your house will burn to the ground.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
You should have a look at the Low Income Group Journal. Everyone there has an income lower than 45k and many of them have impressive savings rates.
I have absolutely no idea whether MMM really lives on 25k and whether it's fair that he labels some expenses as business expenses and I don't care much either, but I know it's absolutely possible to live well on 25k and even less. Many people do it. Keep in mind most people in the world will never make the extremely high salaries that many people on MMM seem to make.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
What?? You think he's dishonest, you don't read anything he writes, but you are convinced that what he writes isn't true? Based on what?
If you think $25k/year with a paid off house has to be a lie simply because you spend personally spend more, I'd have to ask - how do 40% of households spend less than you? I will testify that we have never spent anywhere close to $25k after subtracting out the PI of our mortgage. We can't - we've never made that much.
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
in the beginning i was a huge supporter so i read a lot but then came things i couldn't believe so i stopped reading. i stopped believing based on my reading not because i tried living on 25 and couldn't. my needs probably cost me around 30k but for entertainment which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
I hear this sentiment a lot, "risk [big number] to save [small number] - that's just stupid". But when you make that statement, are you considering the actual probability of losing the full value of the house? What if the odds are 1:1000 on an annual basis? In that case the statistically correct amount to pay for insurance would be $300/year right?
The only unknown variable is what the odds really are. Do you think they are better or worse than 1:1000?
it happened to my cousin 1 year out of many, you can't pick the year your house will burn to the ground.
This has absolutely nothing to do with it. All insurance policies are calculated to generate profits for the insurance company, and it's a pretty fat margin.
If you have $3MM and a house worth $300k and you can live on $45k as you suggested upthread you are in a perfectly legitimate place to self-insure. The most probably scenario (no payouts) will save you five figures each decade, while the extremely unlikely 'total loss' could still be paid for out of pocket without altering your FI status.
In Pete's case their numbers were far more rosier, as they had more, lived on less and continued to bring in considerable income.
-
The comment sections in many corners of the internet can be a cesspool or humanity's worst traits. Anonymity allows people to say whatever vile thing they want, and informed, researched opinions get the same weight as wild speculation or outright lies (i.e. both will get published).
^This!!
I've made it a personal goal of mine to give less fucks about other's opinions. The best way to do this is to refrain from reading the comments. Also, it's outside my circle of control.
-
re·tire·ment
noun
1.
the action or fact of leaving one's job and ceasing to work.
"a man nearing retirement"
synonyms: giving up work, stopping working, stopping work; retiral
"they are just coming up to retirement"
Words have actual meanings. The word "retirement" has an actual meaning. We can wield phrases like Internet Retirement Police to shame outsiders to expand the definition of the word to our liking, but outside this little corner of the internet, the word "retired" has an agreed upon meaning, and it's actually us who are in the wrong here. I'm not defending the legion of people who clearly have sour grapes and are drinking the Haterade. I am saying that not everyone who disagrees with our revised definition of retirement has sour grapes. So kind of a minor point, but whatever this is a message board.
Beyond the trigger word of "retirement," MMM also provokes (inspires?) hate because his blog persona is extraordinarily judgy. That's why there is hate. Right? Like, My idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of a life well lived is the correct one, and yours is wrong. Your clown car habit is wrong. Choosing a house because of the school district means you're afflicted with Tiny Differences Exaggeration syndrome... Now excuse me while I jet off to an exotic international location to lecture 20 doting admirers, drink craft beer and coffee, and donate at least 4 hours towards advancing the welfare of a local villager.
When a judgy person slips on a banana peel, people are going to laugh. When he gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe, people aren't going to tell him.
I don't really buy this argument that society has established that a retired person is a person who ceases to work. The AARP (the 'R' stands for "retired") revealed that ~40% of their members took up some sort of formal position - either paid or volunteer - after they had left permanently left their life-long career. Motivations varied, but social connections, staying intellectually stimulated and giving to the community were high on the list. Society looks those people and says 'yeah, they're retired, and now they coach a swim-team/ work with the church / mentor students / serve on a board. The distinction I see isn't about whether they never earn another dime, but on whether they are older. In contrast, a 30-something who struck it rich early on is rarely described as 'retired' but 'independently wealthy'. Calling a sub-40 person 'retired' is for whatever reason provocative regardless of what they do, while we have no problem calling a 65 year old attorney who leaves his law practice but still consults a few days per month 'retired'.
In the end it is based on whatever definition you give, but to his credit MMM never hid his post-'retirement' income.
another common definition of 'retired' means that you served your 20 years in the military or other public service and retired with your pension. it means 'end of first career, beginning of pension' to many people. so FIRE fits that definition of retired.
-
I think MMM was honest at the onset of his story, but as the money grew, he became very dishonest so I don't like him and I've not read a word he has said for years. i don't trust that what he writes is true.
I'm very frugal, have no kids, live in 750 sqft and I have a difficult time in the subs of baltimore spending less than 45k/yr. so I found 25/yr to be a lie. I felt he classified personal expenses as business. I remember he posted a budget once where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr? Looking at multi-year budgets, he spent little to nothing on his house, but I guess that's a personal expense for me and a business expense for him.
and yes, he quit his job, but he basically started a construction company and a company around this blog, but somehow he is retired i guess because he is able to quit his JOBS again at anytime. Jamie Dimon is retired too i guess and so is Buffett and Bezos.
What?? You think he's dishonest, you don't read anything he writes, but you are convinced that what he writes isn't true? Based on what?
If you think $25k/year with a paid off house has to be a lie simply because you spend personally spend more, I'd have to ask - how do 40% of households spend less than you? I will testify that we have never spent anywhere close to $25k after subtracting out the PI of our mortgage. We can't - we've never made that much.
Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
in the beginning i was a huge supporter so i read a lot but then came things i couldn't believe so i stopped reading. i stopped believing based on my reading not because i tried living on 25 and couldn't. my needs probably cost me around 30k but for entertainment which includes travel my wife and i need 15000, but it varies each year which is another sign MMM is a liar, his was always super stable.
sorry to offend, even if i'm worth 3 million and live in a home that's worth 300000 i think it is stupid to risk losing 300000 to save 1200/yr.
In my own non-mustachian budget, I live on ~57,500/yr.
If I were mortgage-free (still paid insurance), didn't drive, didn't have dogs, didn't eat out, used a cheaper phone plan, didn't use internet at home, and cut discretionary spending in half, my cost of living would be ~29,700 while still living in my monster 2,216 square foot house.
So I can see how it's possible to live on 25,000/yr.
-
re·tire·ment
noun
1.
the action or fact of leaving one's job and ceasing to work.
"a man nearing retirement"
synonyms: giving up work, stopping working, stopping work; retiral
"they are just coming up to retirement"
Words have actual meanings. The word "retirement" has an actual meaning. We can wield phrases like Internet Retirement Police to shame outsiders to expand the definition of the word to our liking, but outside this little corner of the internet, the word "retired" has an agreed upon meaning, and it's actually us who are in the wrong here. I'm not defending the legion of people who clearly have sour grapes and are drinking the Haterade. I am saying that not everyone who disagrees with our revised definition of retirement has sour grapes. So kind of a minor point, but whatever this is a message board.
Beyond the trigger word of "retirement," MMM also provokes (inspires?) hate because his blog persona is extraordinarily judgy. That's why there is hate. Right? Like, My idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of a life well lived is the correct one, and yours is wrong. Your clown car habit is wrong. Choosing a house because of the school district means you're afflicted with Tiny Differences Exaggeration syndrome... Now excuse me while I jet off to an exotic international location to lecture 20 doting admirers, drink craft beer and coffee, and donate at least 4 hours towards advancing the welfare of a local villager.
When a judgy person slips on a banana peel, people are going to laugh. When he gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe, people aren't going to tell him.
I don't really buy this argument that society has established that a retired person is a person who ceases to work. The AARP (the 'R' stands for "retired") revealed that ~40% of their members took up some sort of formal position - either paid or volunteer - after they had left permanently left their life-long career. Motivations varied, but social connections, staying intellectually stimulated and giving to the community were high on the list. Society looks those people and says 'yeah, they're retired, and now they coach a swim-team/ work with the church / mentor students / serve on a board. The distinction I see isn't about whether they never earn another dime, but on whether they are older. In contrast, a 30-something who struck it rich early on is rarely described as 'retired' but 'independently wealthy'. Calling a sub-40 person 'retired' is for whatever reason provocative regardless of what they do, while we have no problem calling a 65 year old attorney who leaves his law practice but still consults a few days per month 'retired'.
In the end it is based on whatever definition you give, but to his credit MMM never hid his post-'retirement' income.
another common definition of 'retired' means that you served your 20 years in the military or other public service and retired with your pension. it means 'end of first career, beginning of pension' to many people. so FIRE fits that definition of retired.
These are some good points. I've never had a strong opinion as to whether it was right or wrong for MMM to call himself retired but I probably would have said that he is technically not retired. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure there's a definition solid enough to argue one way or the other.
What about someone who quits their full time job at 35 and does 40 hours/week of volunteer work for no pay? What if they do a few hours of consulting each week and earn as much as a minimum wage job? What if they are part owners of a business but don't do any of the work, they just cash checks?
Is their a defined number of hours you're allowed to work and/or a defined income you must be below in order to call yourself retired?
-
People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated.
You are simply seeing an illustration of humanity. The majority of people out there simply can't think for themselves anymore. When you really think about that, and let it marinate for a little bit, everything that you see around you suddenly makes sense. Sad, but true.
That's for sure. I see that a lot.
The advertising and entertainment industry has done wonders over the past 100 years. They have provided a far better education than the schools. Of course its not the average person who benefits from this situation...
-
re·tire·ment
noun
1.
the action or fact of leaving one's job and ceasing to work.
"a man nearing retirement"
synonyms: giving up work, stopping working, stopping work; retiral
"they are just coming up to retirement"
Words have actual meanings. The word "retirement" has an actual meaning. We can wield phrases like Internet Retirement Police to shame outsiders to expand the definition of the word to our liking, but outside this little corner of the internet, the word "retired" has an agreed upon meaning, and it's actually us who are in the wrong here. I'm not defending the legion of people who clearly have sour grapes and are drinking the Haterade. I am saying that not everyone who disagrees with our revised definition of retirement has sour grapes. So kind of a minor point, but whatever this is a message board.
Beyond the trigger word of "retirement," MMM also provokes (inspires?) hate because his blog persona is extraordinarily judgy. That's why there is hate. Right? Like, My idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of a life well lived is the correct one, and yours is wrong. Your clown car habit is wrong. Choosing a house because of the school district means you're afflicted with Tiny Differences Exaggeration syndrome... Now excuse me while I jet off to an exotic international location to lecture 20 doting admirers, drink craft beer and coffee, and donate at least 4 hours towards advancing the welfare of a local villager.
When a judgy person slips on a banana peel, people are going to laugh. When he gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe, people aren't going to tell him.
I don't really buy this argument that society has established that a retired person is a person who ceases to work. The AARP (the 'R' stands for "retired") revealed that ~40% of their members took up some sort of formal position - either paid or volunteer - after they had left permanently left their life-long career. Motivations varied, but social connections, staying intellectually stimulated and giving to the community were high on the list. Society looks those people and says 'yeah, they're retired, and now they coach a swim-team/ work with the church / mentor students / serve on a board. The distinction I see isn't about whether they never earn another dime, but on whether they are older. In contrast, a 30-something who struck it rich early on is rarely described as 'retired' but 'independently wealthy'. Calling a sub-40 person 'retired' is for whatever reason provocative regardless of what they do, while we have no problem calling a 65 year old attorney who leaves his law practice but still consults a few days per month 'retired'.
In the end it is based on whatever definition you give, but to his credit MMM never hid his post-'retirement' income.
another common definition of 'retired' means that you served your 20 years in the military or other public service and retired with your pension. it means 'end of first career, beginning of pension' to many people. so FIRE fits that definition of retired.
These are some good points. I've never had a strong opinion as to whether it was right or wrong for MMM to call himself retired but I probably would have said that he is technically not retired. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure there's a definition solid enough to argue one way or the other.
What about someone who quits their full time job at 35 and does 40 hours/week of volunteer work for no pay? What if they do a few hours of consulting each week and earn as much as a minimum wage job? What if they are part owners of a business but don't do any of the work, they just cash checks?
Is their a defined number of hours you're allowed to work and/or a defined income you must be below in order to call yourself retired?
Everyone seems to have forgotten the definition of "retired" was resolved on 2/13/2013:
"Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion."
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/
-
People (including those defending MMM) are way too hung up over the definition of retirement.
In both definitions, the person has enough passive income where working is not a requirement, so I don't see why it matters.
-
"He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
Tell 'em not to knock cat food until they've tried it. A little hot sauce can do wonders for the stuff.
-
Everyone seems to have forgotten the definition of "retired" was resolved on 2/13/2013:
"Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion."
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/
I hope nobody actually takes that quote seriously. If so, I can begin to understand why Trump was elected president.
-
So I can see how it's possible to live on 25,000/yr.
I'll say. That's over $10,000 more than I spent last year while maintaining an 82% savings rate.
I'm FI, but I don't call it retired - I still work full time at the same job I've had for years.
-
re·tire·ment
noun
1.
the action or fact of leaving one's job and ceasing to work.
"a man nearing retirement"
synonyms: giving up work, stopping working, stopping work; retiral
"they are just coming up to retirement"
Words have actual meanings. The word "retirement" has an actual meaning. We can wield phrases like Internet Retirement Police to shame outsiders to expand the definition of the word to our liking, but outside this little corner of the internet, the word "retired" has an agreed upon meaning, and it's actually us who are in the wrong here. I'm not defending the legion of people who clearly have sour grapes and are drinking the Haterade. I am saying that not everyone who disagrees with our revised definition of retirement has sour grapes. So kind of a minor point, but whatever this is a message board.
Beyond the trigger word of "retirement," MMM also provokes (inspires?) hate because his blog persona is extraordinarily judgy. That's why there is hate. Right? Like, My idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of a life well lived is the correct one, and yours is wrong. Your clown car habit is wrong. Choosing a house because of the school district means you're afflicted with Tiny Differences Exaggeration syndrome... Now excuse me while I jet off to an exotic international location to lecture 20 doting admirers, drink craft beer and coffee, and donate at least 4 hours towards advancing the welfare of a local villager.
When a judgy person slips on a banana peel, people are going to laugh. When he gets toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe, people aren't going to tell him.
I don't really buy this argument that society has established that a retired person is a person who ceases to work. The AARP (the 'R' stands for "retired") revealed that ~40% of their members took up some sort of formal position - either paid or volunteer - after they had left permanently left their life-long career. Motivations varied, but social connections, staying intellectually stimulated and giving to the community were high on the list. Society looks those people and says 'yeah, they're retired, and now they coach a swim-team/ work with the church / mentor students / serve on a board. The distinction I see isn't about whether they never earn another dime, but on whether they are older. In contrast, a 30-something who struck it rich early on is rarely described as 'retired' but 'independently wealthy'. Calling a sub-40 person 'retired' is for whatever reason provocative regardless of what they do, while we have no problem calling a 65 year old attorney who leaves his law practice but still consults a few days per month 'retired'.
In the end it is based on whatever definition you give, but to his credit MMM never hid his post-'retirement' income.
another common definition of 'retired' means that you served your 20 years in the military or other public service and retired with your pension. it means 'end of first career, beginning of pension' to many people. so FIRE fits that definition of retired.
So words have meanings but not necessarily the meanings people like Fanta think. MMM certainly retired from his original career, so the whole premise of the blog is sound. You can argue about whether he stayed retired but that’s a bit like arguing whether someone who went to sleep stayed asleep. Either way they still slept.
-
So words have meanings but not necessarily the meanings people like Fanta think.
People like Fanta? You mean people who can access a dictionary, and who believe words have actual meanings?
The definition of the word "retirement" propounded on this forum is not a mainstream definition of that word. There shouldn't be any controversy around that assertion. That should be obvious.
Face it, Pete uses the word "retirement" not because its the most appropriate word, but because it's provocative. And it was probably a wise decision as he needed clicks to grow the movement; "30 year old semi-retires" just doesn't have the same ring, does it?
Pete is not a military veteran who spent 20 years in the service, or some retired school teacher, who now makes a few bucks each week working at the concession stand at the HS football games. If you add up all the activities that support his business, he may work more than many full-time employees: he writes a blog, does a significant amount of media to promote the blog, does social media to promote his brand, goes to meet-ups, and makes appearances at the headquarters that support the MMM brand and persona. For someone who's retired, he sure spends a lot of time growing his business.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the discussion.
I agree to nothing. I'm usually the guy who says "words have meanings" because they do, but have you ever noticed that there are multiple definitions for words?
For example, Macmillan (https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/retired) gives these possibilities:
"no longer working because you have reached the age where you are officially too old to work" - hmm, do you agree with this definition? This would mean the majority of "retired" people in the world would not be retired because most places don't have an official age after which you are too old to work.
"no longer working in a job or career, especially after having worked in it for most of your life" - Pete would satisfy this definition since he is no longer working in the career he held for most of his life.
It's very common for people to retire from specific professions or jobs and continue to earn money at some point in time. I don't even know the specifics, but say Pete quit his job and started blogging as a hobby that made no money. Would you consider him retired? Say the blogging started to generate insignificant revenue after 5 years. Is he still retired? Say after 10 years he starts spending 40 hours a week on the blog. Well he might not be retired anymore, but does that mean he didn't retire for 10 years?
Consider in the the UK the more common term is pensioner (which the almighty dictionary says is a synonym of retiree). In New Zealand they are called superannuitants. But what if they don't actually receive a pension? What if they receive a pension but still work? Are they no longer a pensioner?
-
@Fanta - I'm a retired athlete, but I still engage in sport. My aunt was mayor of her town but has now retired from politics. My uncle retired after 30 years as a pilot and now he delivers flowers to hospitals because 'it keeps me busy'. My HS physics teacher was a retired Navy captain with a pension who taught because he liked mentoring students. Bob Mueller, now special council, is the retired FBI director appointed under 'W' Bush.
Words have meaning and in this case 'retired' has many in common use. The idea that a retired person earns no income nor avoids all structured jobs (e.g. 'volunteerism') doesn't fit with the data displayed by AARP and others. Pete has said he retired from his full time job as a software engineer, and I see nothing wrong with that - he's been remarkably open about what he's done since then, and why. Other than trying to confine the definition to "one who never works for pay again" I'm not sure why this issue rankles you so much.
-
No one disputes that MMM is retired from software engineering. The dispute is that he is retired. There is a strong difference in connotation. Being retired, for most people, implies no steady source of earned income. So when he says you can retire like me, there is a little bit of skepticism involved, as there should be. I have seen what I believe to be some extremely rose-colored glasses among some in the FIRE community, who feel that living bare-bones to the magic 25x expenses and then retiring (with perhaps the expectation of future blog income) is the secret to happiness. This is not what MMM did, as he 1) had the construction business, 2) worked carpentry on the side, and 3) down the road hit the goldmine selling the dream. I'm happy for him, but in the common sense of the word, he is not retired. (Otherwise, a vast majority of people in developed countries are already retired, so what's the point?)
-
Everyone seems to have forgotten the definition of "retired" was resolved on 2/13/2013:
"Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion."
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/
I hope nobody actually takes that quote seriously. If so, I can begin to understand why Trump was elected president.
If you're uncomfortable with a bit of facetious arrogance in the pursuit of changing the world and saving the environment from our misery and over-consumption, you might have come to the wrong place.
Toque.
-
Everyone seems to have forgotten the definition of "retired" was resolved on 2/13/2013:
"Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion."
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/
I hope nobody actually takes that quote seriously. If so, I can begin to understand why Trump was elected president.
If you're uncomfortable with a bit of facetious arrogance in the pursuit of changing the world and saving the environment from our misery and over-consumption, you might have come to the wrong place.
Toque.
Apologies, my chain of reasoning was slightly lacking. MMM says "this is a fact because I have the biggest blog"; I took this as tongue-in-cheek (I remember constantly cracking up when reading through the blog for the first time years ago). But, if you just read the words in that passage, they sound an awful lot like words Trump constantly uses, and which are not tongue-in-cheek: "I'm right because I'm the richest, you're a loser, etc." My original comment should have more artfully portrayed the connection.
-
Around the time of the divorce, Pete even said something like, Time to ramp up the revenue from the blog. Well, why would he want to do that? Put two and two together: he's relying on income from the blog to fund his lifestyle, to get free Uber's, free AirBnb's, to continue to recruit more people to pay for his flight and lodging to the Chautauqua. Why else would he want to generate more money? It's quite possible that, post-divorce, he needs the money now, too. So I guess it's a good thing he hasn't been working at some local concession stand at the high school football games because otherwise he may have had to get back into engineering.
Do you have a source for the above?
Overall your analysis of Pete's finances lacks any real context and seems contrary to what is known. By all accounts (including your own) he's earned quite a bit in "retirement" (I used air-quotes for you), far more than they have spent, as has his former spouse. At the same time we've had a huge bull market. As they had far more than 25x expenses during the depths of the recession, even a 50/50 split today would leave him with far more money than he started with.
AS for his whole involvement with the blog - you haven't been around much, but his involvement since 2015 has been just a step above nil. In the beginning he posted an article about every week. Lately he's been doing about 3-4 per year. He comments on the forums about as often. The revenue now comes from previous effort and was rather serendipitous. There's little need for him to do anything with the blog unless he wants to, as the forum is pretty much self-sustaining. If they decided not to donate the blog income to charity it would more than sustain their entire family without touching their original (as yet still untouched) retirement nest-egg.
ETA: I see that he may have used the blog income to buy out the second half of the MMM headquarters. Curiously this hasn't resulted in mor frequent postings, but (as near as I can tell) a banner ad about CCs at the bottom. See discussion about this with Sol.
-
Around the time of the divorce, Pete even said something like, Time to ramp up the revenue from the blog. Well, why would he want to do that? Put two and two together: he's relying on income from the blog to fund his lifestyle, to get free Uber's, free AirBnb's, to continue to recruit more people to pay for his flight and lodging to the Chautauqua. Why else would he want to generate more money? It's quite possible that, post-divorce, he needs the money now, too. So I guess it's a good thing he hasn't been working at some local concession stand at the high school football games because otherwise he may have had to get back into engineering.
Do you have a source for the above?
I am usually staying away from such conversations, but I remembered reading it somewhere as well. Turns out it was a tweet.
-
Everyone seems to have forgotten the definition of "retired" was resolved on 2/13/2013:
"Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion."
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/
I hope nobody actually takes that quote seriously. If so, I can begin to understand why Trump was elected president.
If you're uncomfortable with a bit of facetious arrogance in the pursuit of changing the world and saving the environment from our misery and over-consumption, you might have come to the wrong place.
Toque.
Apologies, my chain of reasoning was slightly lacking. MMM says "this is a fact because I have the biggest blog"; I took this as tongue-in-cheek (I remember constantly cracking up when reading through the blog for the first time years ago). But, if you just read the words in that passage, they sound an awful lot like words Trump constantly uses, and which are not tongue-in-cheek: "I'm right because I'm the richest, you're a loser, etc." My original comment should have more artfully portrayed the connection.
Yeah, except you have seen his interviews in person right? So you know that's not what he's doing.
Anyway.
The goal is to teach people that "retirement" isn't something for old people who are only allowed to do things that consume resources. It's for young people, too, who want to unleash their creative souls and continue doing exciting, productive things.
So, yes, it's important for MMM to conquer the definition of retirement and show people a different way.
The rest of what I see in this thread is only the thousandth or so iteration of the retirement police, doing their thing.
Toque.
-
The rest of what I see in this thread is only the thousandth or so iteration of the retirement police, doing their thing.
Does being in the retirement police pay well? I haven't done well as a member of the grammar police lately.
-
Yeah, except you have seen his interviews in person right? So you know that's not what he's doing.
Anyway.
The goal is to teach people that "retirement" isn't something for old people who are only allowed to do things that consume resources. It's for young people, too, who want to unleash their creative souls and continue doing exciting, productive things.
So, yes, it's important for MMM to conquer the definition of retirement and show people a different way.
The rest of what I see in this thread is only the thousandth or so iteration of the retirement police, doing their thing.
Toque.
I agree wholeheartedly, except for the part I bolded. Who wants to retire when you can be FI and do whatever the fuck you please (including in MMM's case, become filthy rich)? And as MMM says, once one becomes FI, they have usually matured enough that the lure of consumerism has lessened, and they will spend their vast fortune on less ethereal and/or destructive pursuits. In other words, consumerism is the enemy, not industriousness.
As for your last statement, it's ironic that the IRPP need to come out of the woodwork every time the IRP do, is it not? Ad hominem for the win?
-
Around the time of the divorce, Pete even said something like, Time to ramp up the revenue from the blog. Well, why would he want to do that? Put two and two together: he's relying on income from the blog to fund his lifestyle, to get free Uber's, free AirBnb's, to continue to recruit more people to pay for his flight and lodging to the Chautauqua. Why else would he want to generate more money? It's quite possible that, post-divorce, he needs the money now, too. So I guess it's a good thing he hasn't been working at some local concession stand at the high school football games because otherwise he may have had to get back into engineering.
Do you have a source for the above?
Overall your analysis of Pete's finances lacks any real context and seems contrary to what is known. By all accounts (including your own) he's earned quite a bit in "retirement" (I used air-quotes for you), far more than they have spent, as has his former spouse. At the same time we've had a huge bull market. As they had far more than 25x expenses during the depths of the recession, even a 50/50 split today would leave him with far more money than he started with.
AS for his whole involvement with the blog - you haven't been around much, but his involvement since 2015 has been just a step above nil. In the beginning he posted an article about every week. Lately he's been doing about 3-4 per year. He comments on the forums about as often. The revenue now comes from previous effort and was rather serendipitous. There's little need for him to do anything with the blog unless he wants to, as the forum is pretty much self-sustaining. If they decided not to donate the blog income to charity it would more than sustain their entire family without touching their original (as yet still untouched) retirement nest-egg.
Ya, if anything it almost seems like he cut back shortly after the blog started making big money. I thought it was pretty clear he did most of his writing because he wanted to and when he got bored/ran out of ideas he just stopped.
And I still don't get why earning money reduces his message that he could be living the same life with just the original stache. Maybe the $25,000 spend has a bunch of asterisks but given what the market has done in that time he could spend far more than 25k and still be fine.
Oh, and "air-quotes" refers to the hand gesture. In written text you can just call them quotes. Words have meaning and we will not allow them to be used incorrectly. apparently.
-
Oh, and "air-quotes" refers to the hand gesture. In written text you can just call them quotes. Words have meaning and we will not allow them to be used incorrectly.
Duly noted and corrected
-
I think the hate comes from not believing a person or family, even with a paid off home and low expenses, could live on $25k/year. So the haters assume MMM can't and is lying about his whole lifestyle...which of course earns him income blogging about it which they feel adds insult to injury. Some people (even some on this forum) just don't believe its possible to live a good life on $25k so no one can. As a FIREee in the $25k or under passive income camp I know it can be done but I can't seem to convince others I know that I'm not doing something else to earn a higher income. Thus comes the hate...or at least disbelief...that it's a doable thing.
I'm routinely shocked that so many people believe living on sub $25k/year is either impossible or involves living like a pauper. We have one child and have never come close to spending this amount, yet we still live an amazingly cushy lifestyle filled with travel, too much stuff and plenty of food and friends. There also seems to be a number of people who assume that the root cause of their divorce was his 'miserly' ways, while offering no evidence that this was the case.
-
I think the hate comes from not believing a person or family, even with a paid off home and low expenses, could live on $25k/year. So the haters assume MMM can't and is lying about his whole lifestyle...which of course earns him income blogging about it which they feel adds insult to injury. Some people (even some on this forum) just don't believe its possible to live a good life on $25k so no one can. As a FIREee in the $25k or under passive income camp I know it can be done but I can't seem to convince others I know that I'm not doing something else to earn a higher income. Thus comes the hate...or at least disbelief...that it's a doable thing.
I'm routinely shocked that so many people believe living on sub $25k/year is either impossible or involves living like a pauper. We have one child and have never come close to spending this amount, yet we still live an amazingly cushy lifestyle filled with travel, too much stuff and plenty of food and friends. There also seems to be a number of people who assume that the root cause of their divorce was his 'miserly' ways, while offering no evidence that this was the case.
On a related note: I am shocked, dismayed, disappointed at how much hate this forum throws the Frugalwoods way. OMG, you can't learn anything from them because their income is too big? I'm not a superfan but wow, they do not deserve this, nor does MMM. If you don't agree, move on. Your outrage isn't going to change anything.
-
The rest of what I see in this thread is only the thousandth or so iteration of the retirement police, doing their thing.
Does being in the retirement police pay well? I haven't done well as a member of the grammar police lately.
It pays in tiny violins that play sad tunes while you whine on the internet. You can't put a price on that.
-
The rest of what I see in this thread is only the thousandth or so iteration of the retirement police, doing their thing.
Does being in the retirement police pay well? I haven't done well as a member of the grammar police lately.
It pays in tiny violins that play sad tunes while you whine on the internet. You can't put a price on that.
But if you join the IRP you are no longer considered retired (-:
-
I find the use of the word "hate" here as silly as using the word "retired" to refer to MMM. I think MMM is a little disingenuous with the word retired. I've changed careers several times in my life, as most people do. I don't see how what MMM did is any different than career changing. I also do think his divorce is relevant information, as he has chosen to be a public persona and advertise his brand. I don't think that noting either of these things makes me a hater. For goodness sake, most readers have never met the man.
I guess I hear my mother's voice in the back of my mind saying, "Pigeon, hate is a very strong word."
-
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
I also changed careers: military to civilian to a pro sport to long sabbatical (is that even a career?) to FIRE. But I wasn't FI until hitting FIRE so didn't call myself retired. I think the FI part is why MMM considers himself retired rather than just changing careers no matter if he works or not. While I'm more on the IRP's side of this I understand where the MMM RE idea stems from.
Nice link! They even hate him for promoting cycling culture.
Although I don't think he ever promoted spraying yourself with a water bottle instead of using AC. That was a reader comment on his article about how he bought a fuel usage gauge and tried hypermiling a long road trip. I mentioned it later in one the Canadian RRSP articles, but I don't know that he ever did.
I just see a lot of people who don't want bad-ass up their lives, though.
Toque.
-
And I still don't get why earning money reduces his message that he could be living the same life with just the original stache
Isn't it obvious? Because he's been telling his followers that once they reach 25X annual expenses, they no longer have to work for money. But he's not eating his own cooking: if he actually believed that deep down, then he wouldn't be adding so aggressively to his stash. He's like a priest on his death bed, unsure of what's next, and afraid to die. Does he actually believe what he preaches? It makes me think that, deep down, Pete's unsure whether the 4% rule actually holds water. His words are not consistent with his actions. He tells people they don't need any more money, but then he monetizes the blog, and keeps most of the profits for himself. He's not adding affiliate links to keep the lights on; he's doing it to get richer. What % of blog profits have actually been donated to charity? Wouldn't that money have helped to change the world?
From my admittedly cynical perspective, his actions make me wonder whether he cares more about cultivating his own minor celebrity, and adding to his pile of money, than he does about changing the world.*
*And yet, I have benefitted greatly from his advice. He has made my own world better. I admire Pete and I'm thankful for what he's done, but at the same time, yeah, I think he's a little FOS.
Why not?
Personally, I don't think I would turn down free money regardless of how much I had. Especially after a lifetime of cultivating this idea in my brain that more money = more freedom, it's hard not to want more. And as petty as it is, I do like seeing big numbers when I log in to my accounts :)
On top of that, the 4% rule as stated by MMM does not guarantee 100% success. So even if his confidence in the 4% rule is exactly as he claims, more money still increase his chance of success.
As for the charity question, who knows? he may being giving lots to charity, he may plan to give it all in his will, he may have plans to start his own charitable organization, or he may do any other thing you can possibly think of with it. You seem to have a very narrow view of what might be going on in the life and mind of someone you've never met.
-
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
I also changed careers: military to civilian to a pro sport to long sabbatical (is that even a career?) to FIRE. But I wasn't FI until hitting FIRE so didn't call myself retired. I think the FI part is why MMM considers himself retired rather than just changing careers no matter if he works or not. While I'm more on the IRP's side of this I understand where the MMM RE idea stems from.
Nice link! They even hate him for promoting cycling culture.
Although I don't think he ever promoted spraying yourself with a water bottle instead of using AC. That was a reader comment on his article about how he bought a fuel usage gauge and tried hypermiling a long road trip. I mentioned it later in one the Canadian RRSP articles, but I don't know that he ever did.
I just see a lot of people who don't want bad-ass up their lives, though.
Toque.
It started as a reader comment, but he fully endorsed by including it here. It's the first of 3 ways to reduce road trip costs on this post:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/08/20/three-fuel-saving-hacks-for-long-roadtrips/
But of course, you're not really retired if you don't use A/C. ;)
-
Although I don't think he ever promoted spraying yourself with a water bottle instead of using AC. That was a reader comment on his article about how he bought a fuel usage gauge and tried hypermiling a long road trip. I mentioned it later in one the Canadian RRSP articles, but I don't know that he ever did.
He did actually (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/08/20/three-fuel-saving-hacks-for-long-roadtrips/), but you're half right -- sounds like he got the idea from a commenter.
-
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
I also changed careers: military to civilian to a pro sport to long sabbatical (is that even a career?) to FIRE. But I wasn't FI until hitting FIRE so didn't call myself retired. I think the FI part is why MMM considers himself retired rather than just changing careers no matter if he works or not. While I'm more on the IRP's side of this I understand where the MMM RE idea stems from.
Wowza, these people need a sense of humor. It was a rare occasion that I thought an MMM article was actually a little smug, most of it came across as very comical to me.
I wonder how much of the "hate" comes from MMM's actual smugness vs. being told that there are areas of your life that could be improved. I guess it's impossible to tell the source of someone's animus and quantify it, but once you dislike someone it's not uncommon to be annoyed at everything they do. So even though they think they're annoyed by smugness, human emotions are more complicated than that.
I suppose if I had a long commute and my introduction to MMM was him telling me I was a sucker, I might have some less than friendly feelings too. Lucky for me I was walking to work, cooking all my own food, and leaning towards minimalism when I found MMM. Half the reason I started reading his stuff was because I didn't know what to do with the pile of money accumulating in my bank account. I was open to the idea that I was clueless about investing so the face punches felt like a refreshing deep tissue massage.
-
And I still don't get why earning money reduces his message that he could be living the same life with just the original stache
Isn't it obvious? Because he's been telling his followers that once they reach 25X annual expenses, they no longer have to work for money. But he's not eating his own cooking: if he actually believed that deep down, then he wouldn't be adding so aggressively to his stash. He's like a priest on his death bed, unsure of what's next, and afraid to die. Does he actually believe what he preaches? It makes me think that, deep down, Pete's unsure whether the 4% rule actually holds water. His words are not consistent with his actions. He tells people they don't need any more money, but then he monetizes the blog, and keeps most of the profits for himself. He's not adding affiliate links to keep the lights on; he's doing it to get richer. What % of blog profits have actually been donated to charity? Wouldn't that money have helped to change the world?
From my admittedly cynical perspective, his actions make me wonder whether he cares more about cultivating his own minor celebrity, and adding to his pile of money, than he does about changing the world.*
*And yet, I have benefitted greatly from his advice. He has made my own world better. I admire Pete and I'm thankful for what he's done, but at the same time, yeah, I think he's a little FOS.
I disagree entirely here, and you are either unaware or completely disregard what MMM has consistently said from the beginning. There's no more reason to suspect that a 4% WR is more likely to fail now than when the first Trinity study came out. As for additional income after one leaves their core occupation and is FI - a hallmark of this forum has been that people can continue to earn money, even when they quit the supposedly 'secure' career job. Pete's written dozens of blog posts and thousands or words on how one continues to be active even after they have more money than they will ever need, that one isn't regulated to playing shuffleboard and sitting on a beach and that more often than not people will insist on paying you for something you would do for free anyway. A premise of this forum is that challenging yourself mentally and physically is a good thing. These messages seem to have escaped you, as you insist somehow that he is FOS or is a liar or somehow secretly working because he doesn't have enough money. If anything he's been overly forthcoming about the income he's earned on his renovation projects, on the unexpected revenue from his blog, from his former spouse's Etsy shop and on MMM headquarters. You look at those things and say "aha! He's earning money, so he's not really retired, and therefore he doesn't eat his own cooking!" Instead you could view it more optimistically, and say "aha! Quitting my job doesn't have to be super scary, and it's possible to find new revenue streams doing things I enjoy! " Which is what he's really been saying all along.
ETA: typos.
-
I never cared much for the goofy swaggering persona or the naïve presumption that anyone could leverage the vast, highly-desirable skill set he has, but so what? I ignored all that, learned a lot, and am in a much better place financially thanks to his advice. I didn't have to be entertained by the schtick to get something out of it. But then, I was an easy sell because I had already figured out that buying shit didn't make me happy, and I don't expect my results to match MMM's because I didn't get a huge leg up like he did. But that doesn't mean the advice isn't good.
Re: that Reddit link: I'd probably be upset too if I thought MMM was claiming everyone could have his awesome life if they were smart enough to just stop buying lattes. But as I think we all know, that's not the whole story.
-
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
Love the hate link!
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
I also changed careers: military to civilian to a pro sport to long sabbatical (is that even a career?) to FIRE. But I wasn't FI until hitting FIRE so didn't call myself retired. I think the FI part is why MMM considers himself retired rather than just changing careers no matter if he works or not. While I'm more on the IRP's side of this I understand where the MMM RE idea stems from.
Nice link! They even hate him for promoting cycling culture.
Although I don't think he ever promoted spraying yourself with a water bottle instead of using AC. That was a reader comment on his article about how he bought a fuel usage gauge and tried hypermiling a long road trip. I mentioned it later in one the Canadian RRSP articles, but I don't know that he ever did.
I just see a lot of people who don't want bad-ass up their lives, though.
Toque.
It started as a reader comment, but he fully endorsed by including it here. It's the first of 3 ways to reduce road trip costs on this post:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/08/20/three-fuel-saving-hacks-for-long-roadtrips/
But of course, you're not really retired if you don't use A/C. ;)
Tangential to this thread, I've been using the spray bottle technique for close to ten years in the second hottest location in the U.S. I initially intended to repair my AC, but after expending some effort trying to find the refrigerant leak (without success, indicating it was likely in the evaporator), and not wanting to replace my whole system nor pay more for repairs than the vehicle was worth, I decided I could live with it. The only time I'd say it is anything more than uncomfortable is in the blazing sun of midday summer. (I also grew up in central Florida driving cars without AC, and I will testify that the Sonoran Desert is worse.)
-
When he gives money to charity he noted it in the blog. I remember that he gave away 50k one year.
-
When he gives money to charity he noted it in the blog. I remember that he gave away 50k one year.
$50k here, $100k there (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/10/26/notes-on-giving-away-100000/)...
-
It started as a reader comment, but he fully endorsed by including it here. It's the first of 3 ways to reduce road trip costs on this post:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/08/20/three-fuel-saving-hacks-for-long-roadtrips/
But of course, you're not really retired if you don't use A/C. ;)
Tangential to this thread, I've been using the spray bottle technique for close to ten years in the second hottest location in the U.S. I initially intended to repair my AC, but after expending some effort trying to find the refrigerant leak (without success, indicating it was likely in the evaporator), and not wanting to replace my whole system nor pay more for repairs than the vehicle was worth, I decided I could live with it. The only time I'd say it is anything more than uncomfortable is in the blazing sun of midday summer. (I also grew up in central Florida driving cars without AC, and I will testify that the Sonoran Desert is worse.)
Nice. I viewed this one as going in the voluntary discomfort column more than the savings hacks, but if you're talking about avoiding costly repairs this could be real savings.
Unfortunatly I suspect little suggestions like this gave some readers an excuse to say "this guy is crazy, I should ignore all the other nonsense too".
-
It is, afterall, the blogsnark reddit, so one might expect snark.
I think they have some valid points, some of which seem pretty standard for personal finance sites. The preponderance of posters are male STEM types, most with stereotypical engineering personalities. The misogyny often runs deep. Bogleheads amuses me because there are often posts that blast women for things like wanting engagement rings, with the same posters in strong support of men who want luxury watch collections or Teslas.
-
...where he didn't pay for home insurance and said he was self-insured so I found that pretty stupid, who risks having to spend 100s of thousands to save about 1200/yr just to advertise staying under 25/yr?
Insurance needs depend on your exposure and tolerance for risk, so you cannot say in the absolute that risking a large loss is not worth a certain premium.
In general, insurance never saves you money, and certainly doesn't make money. It is only for managing risk. "Self-insured" does not mean that your house won't burn down and set you back hundreds of thousands of dollars. It means that you can manage this risk more cheaply than through insurance.
Basically, if you have millions of dollars, then losing your house will not ruin you, so there's not as much value in the insurance.
-
The misogyny often runs deep.
No offense to anyone, but let's please not go there. Or, let's start a new thread that questions how deep misogyny runs in MMM and not derail this one.
-
No offense to anyone, but let's please not go there. Or, let's start a new thread that questions how deep misogyny runs in MMM and not derail this one.
Agreed.
I find it telling that a thread topic of "MMM Hate" comes up with the OP asking: Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have? - and there's two kinds of responses.
The first seeks to explain why some people go out of their way to remain ignorant, discount what he saids and twist his posts to fit their own biases.
Another group joins in, as if to say: Great, a thread for us to Hate on MMM!
-
ETA: typos.
Not to pile on after the air quote debacle, but you just wrote that you "edited to add typos". What kind of maniac adds typos?! lol
-
ETA: typos.
Not to pile on after the air quote debacle, but you just wrote that you "edited to add typos". What kind of maniac adds typos?! lol
Is that what ETA means? I always thought it meant: 'Edited To Address:' but now Google tells me it means "the seventh star in a constellation. I'm more confused than ever!!
-
ETA: typos.
Not to pile on after the air quote debacle, but you just wrote that you "edited to add typos". What kind of maniac adds typos?! lol
Is that what ETA means? I always thought it meant: 'Edited To Address:' but now Google tells me it means "the seventh star in a constellation. I'm more confused than ever!!
I guess it could depend on what dictionary you're choosing to use. Maybe we should wait for Fanta to chime in on the matter, since he's the resident expert now. Hahaha
-
^^^ ETA - estimated time of arrival is what I think of:). ^^^
-
ETA: typos.
Not to pile on after the air quote debacle, but you just wrote that you "edited to add typos". What kind of maniac adds typos?! lol
Is that what ETA means? I always thought it meant: 'Edited To Address:' but now Google tells me it means "the seventh star in a constellation. I'm more confused than ever!!
I guess it could depend on what dictionary you're choosing to use. Maybe we should wait for Fanta to chime in on the matter, since he's the resident expert now. Hahaha
Why start relying on dictionaries now? You've got a great thing going ;)
The word "Fanta" also has a meaning. So unless you are literally "a brand of fruit-flavored carbonated drinks created by The Coca-Cola Company and marketed globally," GTFO
-
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
I also changed careers: military to civilian to a pro sport to long sabbatical (is that even a career?) to FIRE. But I wasn't FI until hitting FIRE so didn't call myself retired. I think the FI part is why MMM considers himself retired rather than just changing careers no matter if he works or not. While I'm more on the IRP's side of this I understand where the MMM RE idea stems from.
Ha! That was hilarious. I've noticed there a few general categories of MMM hate:
1. He's not really retired! 'nuff said on that one.
2. The 4% rule is bogus!
3. MMM and FIRE only apply to people with good paying jobs!
4. I don't like his lifestyle choices, therefore I hate him! A good example was the comments about how MMM drinks olive oil. That killed several posters ability to read MMM.
5. I'll never be able to retire, so I hate MMM!
Most of those comments seem to boil down to not understanding what MMM is saying combined with an inability to think for yourself. Not everybody has the skills or inclination to build a studio on the backyard. But saving, investing, not being a consumer suckah, and generally controlling your finances instead of your finances controlling you is pretty good lifestyle advice for anybody. If you don't feel like biking, you can reject that part. No need to get mad about it.
-
I guess it could depend on what dictionary you're choosing to use. Maybe we should wait for Fanta to chime in on the matter, since he's the resident expert now. Hahaha
Why start relying on dictionaries now? You've got a great thing going ;)
The word "Fanta" also has a meaning. So unless you are literally "a brand of fruit-flavored carbonated drinks created by The Coca-Cola Company and marketed globally," GTFO
It made me laugh, fwiw
-
Dragoncar,
"Fanta": Short, easy to remember, and delicious. Doesn't really go deeper than that.
If you're basically trying to shame me and suggest some alternative meaning, that wouldn't be too surprising. Definitely shame the guy who doesn't worship everything Pete does. Make me the other. Suppose that's the playbook. Well done.
You're the second person to encourage me to leave now (you and Dicey). This forum really doesn't like it when I critique Dear Leader (Pete). Love it or leave it man, yada yada.
I suppose I could suggest that your own handle (Dragoncar) has some unattractive meaning, but I won't do that. :)
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/04/dragons-sex-cars-reddit
Take a look at dragoncar's avatar. :)
I don't think dragoncar was trying to shame you, either; it was a joke (but I could be wrong).
-
^ The hate is real: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/blogsnark/comments/9iifjg/mr_money_mustache/#ampf=undefined.
I also changed careers: military to civilian to a pro sport to long sabbatical (is that even a career?) to FIRE. But I wasn't FI until hitting FIRE so didn't call myself retired. I think the FI part is why MMM considers himself retired rather than just changing careers no matter if he works or not. While I'm more on the IRP's side of this I understand where the MMM RE idea stems from.
Ha! That was hilarious. I've noticed there a few general categories of MMM hate:
1. He's not really retired! 'nuff said on that one.
2. The 4% rule is bogus!
3. MMM and FIRE only apply to people with good paying jobs!
4. I don't like his lifestyle choices, therefore I hate him! A good example was the comments about how MMM drinks olive oil. That killed several posters ability to read MMM.
5. I'll never be able to retire, so I hate MMM!
Most of those comments seem to boil down to not understanding what MMM is saying combined with an inability to think for yourself. Not everybody has the skills or inclination to build a studio on the backyard. But saving, investing, not being a consumer suckah, and generally controlling your finances instead of your finances controlling you is pretty good lifestyle advice for anybody. If you don't feel like biking, you can reject that part. No need to get mad about it.
Thanks for taking the time to break it down. I'd add that these views seem to be expressed from a few different perspectives:
1. The ignorant.
2. The envious.
3. The apprehensive.
4. The consumer-sukka.
The last I find somewhat inspiring. They state that they don't have a problem with Mustachianism, but they feel we're all a bunch of frugalism sukkas not living in the present. Frankly, they have a point, as long as it isn't stated in a spiteful manner.
-
Dragoncar,
"Fanta": Short, easy to remember, and delicious. Doesn't really go deeper than that.
If you're basically trying to shame me and suggest some alternative meaning, that wouldn't be too surprising. Definitely shame the guy who doesn't worship everything Pete does. Make me the other. Suppose that's the playbook. Well done.
You're the second person to encourage me to leave now (you and Dicey). This forum really doesn't like it when I critique Dear Leader (Pete). Love it or leave it man, yada yada.
I suppose I could suggest that your own handle (Dragoncar) has some unattractive meaning, but I won't do that. :)
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/04/dragons-sex-cars-reddit
Take a look at dragoncar's avatar. :)
I don't think dragoncar was trying to shame you, either; it was a joke (but I could be wrong).
bacchi, at some point I must have chosen the "Don't show avatars" option. Dragoncar's avatar (and name) makes sense now.
Regardless, he insinuated I'm some kind of nazi (google "Fanta") and then told me to Get The Fuck Out. Doesn't seem like much of a joke.
I think I will get the fuck out.
FWIW, the GTFO part was a joke. I'm sorry, it isn't my intent to scare anyone off, and I was not aware of the nazi meaning.... although you are the one who chose the name having a fanatical sense of linguistics.
I don't care if anyone worships MMM or not. I do take issue with your staunch "words have meaning" approach that doesn't recognize that words have various meanings in different contexts. It's not intellectually honest when you refuse to accept any meaning other than one particular dictionary entry you find, when it's clear in your own personal life you are much more flexible about the meanings of words. For that, I do shame you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrDSqODtEFM
-
Dragoncar,
"Fanta": Short, easy to remember, and delicious. Doesn't really go deeper than that.
If you're basically trying to shame me and suggest some alternative meaning, that wouldn't be too surprising. Definitely shame the guy who doesn't worship everything Pete does. Make me the other. Suppose that's the playbook. Well done.
You're the second person to encourage me to leave now (you and Dicey). This forum really doesn't like it when I critique Dear Leader (Pete). Love it or leave it man, yada yada.
I suppose I could suggest that your own handle (Dragoncar) has some unattractive meaning, but I won't do that. :)
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/04/dragons-sex-cars-reddit
Ha! Since words are so fluid, I'm not surprised you went there. If you think arguing your point in this particular place is a good way to spend your time, have at it. But in the words of Jim Croce...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQrTGE4wwwA
Side Note: I had never seen this version. Looka that fine mustache! RIP, Jim Croce.
-
Why not?
Personally, I don't think I would turn down free money regardless of how much I had. Especially after a lifetime of cultivating this idea in my brain that more money = more freedom, it's hard not to want more. And as petty as it is, I do like seeing big numbers when I log in to my accounts :)
On top of that, the 4% rule as stated by MMM does not guarantee 100% success. So even if his confidence in the 4% rule is exactly as he claims, more money still increase his chance of success.
As for the charity question, who knows? he may being giving lots to charity, he may plan to give it all in his will, he may have plans to start his own charitable organization, or he may do any other thing you can possibly think of with it. You seem to have a very narrow view of what might be going on in the life and mind of someone you've never met.
I agree, even if I am FIRE'd in the truest most conservative ridiculous definition (2% WR on Fat Fat Fat FIRE with pensions and HC covered) and somebody wants to pay me for something I am already doing for fun/hobby/whatever....I am definitely not saying no.
And the 4% rule is not guaranteed, so why not for that reason too. And shit happens (like divorce) that can f things up, so why not take the money for that reason too.
As for the charity, I think I recall that he said he would put most of the money toward charitable pursuits but I think he has only evidenced about $100k. And because of the more recent twitter comment that said he would be ramping up the blog to buy a house suggest that minimally his intended purpose has changed.....not too mention some or a lot of the money has also going to building up his assets in other ways too. So the $100k was nice, but the indicated saving of the world was not completely followed through.
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
B) it they can't, then you are not.
C) possible exception is one time expense...like maybe you want to take your family on a bitching month long safari trip to Africa that all in is $20k so you decide to go to work to cover the expense (this only applies if its a one time desire and not recurring expectation of this kind of travel every year. But if you budget $5k for travel and decide to forgo other travel for the next 3 years - then still FIRE'd.
* I think it also possible to move between the three scenarios as your Desired Lifestyle evolves that can result in inflation or deflation - after all peoples interests/desires can change.
-
Personally, I don't think I would turn down free money regardless of how much I had.
Don't you know? Once you retire, you can't do any market research or do any trades. That's effort in exchange for money. Not allowed in FIRE. Nope.
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
B) it they can't, then you are not.
C) possible exception is one time expense...like maybe you want to take your family on a bitching month long safari trip to Africa that all in is $20k so you decide to go to work to cover the expense (this only applies if its a one time desire and not recurring expectation of this kind of travel every year. But if you budget $5k for travel and decide to forgo other travel for the next 3 years - then still FIRE'd.
I'm curious, do you draw a distinction between FI and FIRE? In my mind they are two different statuses, delineated by the "RE" portion of the acronym.
-
Personally, I don't think I would turn down free money regardless of how much I had.
Don't you know? Once you retire, you can't do any market research or do any trades. That's effort in exchange for money. Not allowed in FIRE. Nope.
Does market research create earned income? (Other than for folks whose job it is to manage money.)
-
For heavens sake, the Snark blogs like reddit subs have a place in the world. It keeps a lot of the Snark out of this website for one thing. Would you rather have it in here? I think not.
I thought that a sub Reddit about Mr. Orange’s journal would’ve been a lot of fun.
-
Personally, I don't think I would turn down free money regardless of how much I had.
Don't you know? Once you retire, you can't do any market research or do any trades. That's effort in exchange for money. Not allowed in FIRE. Nope.
Does market research create earned income? (Other than for folks whose job it is to manage money.)
Does the blog create earned income? Depends on which dictionary you are using.
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
By that definition, I'm already FIREd, yet my FIRE target is 5 to 15 months off as I continue to work the same full time job that I've had for 18 years.
To me, simply having the funds to FIRE makes me FI, not FIRE, since I've never retired for the RE part.
A similar comment was made earlier in this thread that I responded to the same way...
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mmm-hate/msg2258284/#msg2258284
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
B) it they can't, then you are not.
C) possible exception is one time expense...like maybe you want to take your family on a bitching month long safari trip to Africa that all in is $20k so you decide to go to work to cover the expense (this only applies if its a one time desire and not recurring expectation of this kind of travel every year. But if you budget $5k for travel and decide to forgo other travel for the next 3 years - then still FIRE'd.
I'm curious, do you draw a distinction between FI and FIRE? In my mind they are two different statuses, delineated by the "RE" portion of the acronym.
I think certain people just started calling it FI instead of FIRE just to avoid the internet retirement police. As far as I can tell, it’s the same movement and the same type of people.
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
B) it they can't, then you are not.
C) possible exception is one time expense...like maybe you want to take your family on a bitching month long safari trip to Africa that all in is $20k so you decide to go to work to cover the expense (this only applies if its a one time desire and not recurring expectation of this kind of travel every year. But if you budget $5k for travel and decide to forgo other travel for the next 3 years - then still FIRE'd.
I'm curious, do you draw a distinction between FI and FIRE? In my mind they are two different statuses, delineated by the "RE" portion of the acronym.
I think certain people just started calling it FI instead of FIRE just to avoid the internet retirement police. As far as I can tell, it’s the same movement and the same type of people.
Have to call a giant Nah on this one. The ER part of FIRE is important. FI is one thing, very sustainable and most likely full of life getting increasingly easier (since FI and not ER). FIRE is more a step off the cliff to saying this is it.
What causes the hate, in general, is when the FI person then starts a blog, emphasizes the ER, and collects paychecks by selling some 'perfect version' of their life. For the rest of us FI and not ER folk, or at least me personally, I wonder why they need ads and CC offers and sponsored income streams (Betterment, First Capital, SoFi...). Once you're FI, talk about it clean and clear of who is incentivizing what (for example, Vanguard does not offer sponsored or affiliate offers, so people really do just love their funds), or just get on with life and hang out less on the internet.
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
B) it they can't, then you are not.
C) possible exception is one time expense...like maybe you want to take your family on a bitching month long safari trip to Africa that all in is $20k so you decide to go to work to cover the expense (this only applies if its a one time desire and not recurring expectation of this kind of travel every year. But if you budget $5k for travel and decide to forgo other travel for the next 3 years - then still FIRE'd.
I'm curious, do you draw a distinction between FI and FIRE? In my mind they are two different statuses, delineated by the "RE" portion of the acronym.
Not really, because to me FI is all that matters - I am not a member of the IRP. The RE part I think of more I can do whatever I want now....work, sit on the couch and eat Cheetos, volunteer, whatever suits my mind. The key being A above, like I said I do think its possible to move through the levels.
If you apply above to MMM I do feel that he started at A (he had enough cash flow to live their desired life at the time) then went to C (think working in Hawaii in trade for family vacation) then with all of his side pursuits morphed into B (whether through the blog or on his personal statement those things cost money that were outside of what his investments likely would have covered if not for the blog). And I wonder if because of the divorce he is currently in either B or C due to his twitter post about having to raise revenue to buy the house. But he could be back to A in a month for all we know once the house is bought and paid for.
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
By that definition, I'm already FIREd, yet my FIRE target is 5 to 15 months off as I continue to work the same full time job that I've had for 18 years.
To me, simply having the funds to FIRE makes me FI, not FIRE, since I've never retired for the RE part.
A similar comment was made earlier in this thread that I responded to the same way...
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mmm-hate/msg2258284/#msg2258284
Have to call a giant Nah on this one. The ER part of FIRE is important. FI is one thing, very sustainable and most likely full of life getting increasingly easier (since FI and not ER). FIRE is more a step off the cliff to saying this is it.
I will disagree to your disagreements....I may or may not be retiring from working who knows, but I am absolutely retiring from doing things I don't want to do - that to me is the ER part. So if one decides that they hit FI and decide to stay in your job for another year then its a choice and my guess its driven by some pension or other bronze/golden handcuffs that one doesn't want to forego, but if its needed to work the next year for your desired lifestyle then no you haven't reached FI or FIRE. FI to me is well beyond FU money.
What causes the hate, in general, is when the FI person then starts a blog, emphasizes the ER, and collects paychecks by selling some 'perfect version' of their life. For the rest of us FI and not ER folk, or at least me personally, I wonder why they need ads and CC offers and sponsored income streams (Betterment, First Capital, SoFi...). Once you're FI, talk about it clean and clear of who is incentivizing what (for example, Vanguard does not offer sponsored or affiliate offers, so people really do just love their funds), or just get on with life and hang out less on the internet.
I don't think its the monetization itself that is the problem and is more the inconsistencies of messaging between expenses of personal vs. blog and the rhetoric of I only do this for fun and don't need money or monetization but then do the sales pitch for various products to drive revenue (albeit much less than other websites). Not to mention the masses hate a winner....I am sure the hate increased exponentially when it came out that he pulled in $400k. People like crabs have a tendency to pull others down.
-
Maybe we don’t disagree as much as we think. It’s interesting that you use ER to say ‘retire from doing the parts of work that you don’t like’. To me then, making money, especially at the 400k level involves crap like paying estimated taxes, curating comments and spam, handling big spikes in traffic, and lots of behind the scenes work. You don’t just type up something fun (like on this forum) hit post and cash a cheque. When I ER, my only job will be managing my investments and tracking spending. Even those tasks will be minimized as much as possible so I can focus my remaining time and energy on other pursuits, none of which will produce income (unless I discover some unknown talent). Even then, I’d prefer expressing that skill without money being involved.
-
never seemed like MMM started this blog with the intent to make money. Back in the early days it was just him banging out his frustration of consumeristic society as a sort of cathartic release. It only became a cash cow years down the road when his early blog posts started getting picked up on national news stories and the forum membership exploded. Ironically by this time his personal involvement had already gone into steep decline; int he first few years he was posting weekly, then monthly. now it's 3-4 articles per year and essentially zero forum presence.
-
HATE HATERS
serious words, lots of impact, i get it, cools words these days, but no one really hates MMM, people might hate that he seems not to live what he preaches but they don't hate him. i said on page 1 that i didn't "like" him but i meant i didn't like that he seems to not live what he preaches and so i eventually stopped reading what he wrote.
for those living on 25k or less each year, i don't hate you either. very happy for you if you are living on so little and are happy. high five to you!
tidbits of what pete has wrote indicate he's hell bent on banking income to grow his net worth. his frugal living message has changed some people's financial ways, but other than this, i haven't heard that he's giving in any major way beyond his messaging. some might say he's given but he keeps it a secret, but for someone who is supposedly out to change the world, one would think he'd be very public about his giving .... the typical i made it story, i give back but i haven't heard that about him. he seems more of a banker than a giver, but maybe i've missed some articles related to his giving so please correct me if i'm wrong.
-
Maybe we don’t disagree as much as we think. It’s interesting that you use ER to say ‘retire from doing the parts of work that you don’t like’. To me then, making money, especially at the 400k level involves crap like paying estimated taxes, curating comments and spam, handling big spikes in traffic, and lots of behind the scenes work. You don’t just type up something fun (like on this forum) hit post and cash a cheque. When I ER, my only job will be managing my investments and tracking spending. Even those tasks will be minimized as much as possible so I can focus my remaining time and energy on other pursuits, none of which will produce income (unless I discover some unknown talent). Even then, I’d prefer expressing that skill without money being involved.
I agree, all that stuff sounds awful and still like work. The hobby became a business and living beast that needed to be fed and also led to other things like MMM HQ. That said being completely without work still comes with BS.....even as you say tracking your spending and investments (still requires some thought and effort on the mundane). Heck, just living requires a lot of that...laundry, dishes, taking out the trash, etc. So there will always be some BS stuff.
never seemed like MMM started this blog with the intent to make money. Back in the early days it was just him banging out his frustration of consumeristic society as a sort of cathartic release. It only became a cash cow years down the road when his early blog posts started getting picked up on national news stories and the forum membership exploded. Ironically by this time his personal involvement had already gone into steep decline; int he first few years he was posting weekly, then monthly. now it's 3-4 articles per year and essentially zero forum presence.
I agree that he started it for fun and just to type shit into the computer with no further expectation, although the blog was pretty well designed from the start and he said he and his wife discussed it before starting it so I am a little bit suspect that there wasn't a touch of it being a neat low expectation side hustle/business pursuit.
Also, you keep saying only 3-4 this but he had 13 posts in 2018 and 18 in 2017 so no. And as EV said running the thing requires a bunch of behind the scenes BS. And as I said above it also may have gotten bigger
-
Also, you keep saying only 3-4 this but he had 13 posts in 2018 and 18 in 2017 so no. And as EV said running the thing requires a bunch of behind the scenes BS. And as I said above it also may have gotten bigger
Ah, it seems you are correct on the more recent posts, while I underestimated the number of posts he made back in his early days. This is why relying on memory does. He was posting roughly monthly in 2018 (13x) and slightly more than monthly in 2017, but back 'in the beggining' he was posting multiple times per week - over 100 posts in the first 60 months, and ~2x/week for most of 2012 and 2013.
point is, his posting frequency (a measure of effort) has steadily dwindled year-after-year, which is the opposite of what one wold expect if he were trying now to 'ramp up' things.
-
For heavens sake, the Snark blogs like reddit subs have a place in the world. It keeps a lot of the Snark out of this website for one thing. Would you rather have it in here? I think not.
I thought that a sub Reddit about Mr. Orange’s journal would’ve been a lot of fun.
Did he get banned? I know the journal was locked of course and he hasn't been very active since.
-
for those living on 25k or less each year, i don't hate you either. very happy for you if you are living on so little and are happy. high five to you!
You seem to think that living on $25k after housing expenses is "so little", which is a point of contention with me. That's more than 95% of humanity, and puts you pretty close to the middle of US households. Or to put it another way: If you think its extreme frugality you are missing the point (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/11/23/not-extreme-frugality/).
I thought that a sub Reddit about Mr. Orange’s journal would’ve been a lot of fun.
Did he get banned? I know the journal was locked of course and he hasn't been very active since.
That surprised me as well - first time I've seen Mods lock an individual journal (though it wasn't without cause).
-
for those living on 25k or less each year, i don't hate you either. very happy for you if you are living on so little and are happy. high five to you!
You seem to think that living on $25k after housing expenses is "so little", which is a point of contention with me. That's more than 95% of humanity, and puts you pretty close to the middle of US households. Or to put it another way: If you think its extreme frugality you are missing the point (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/11/23/not-extreme-frugality/).
I thought that a sub Reddit about Mr. Orange’s journal would’ve been a lot of fun.
Did he get banned? I know the journal was locked of course and he hasn't been very active since.
That surprised me as well - first time I've seen Mods lock an individual journal (though it wasn't without cause).
is that 25k gross or net income? i've never bothered to ask.
my wife is from the Philippines, i see first hand what it is like to live on very little. but, things are different in the US vs. the philippines for example i can hire a handyman or a gardener and pay 8 to 10 dollars for an entire day's work. i can also get an hour massage for 4 dollars on weekdays, 5 dollars on weekends. so as you say 95% are living on less, i understand but that shouldn't be compared to life in the US. btw, i also see my wife's mom and dad who are over 75 live without AC which people in the US who claim to care about global warming are largely not willing to do (not saying you aren't, this is just a side note to the hypocrisy).
-
Also, you keep saying only 3-4 this but he had 13 posts in 2018 and 18 in 2017 so no. And as EV said running the thing requires a bunch of behind the scenes BS. And as I said above it also may have gotten bigger
Ah, it seems you are correct on the more recent posts, while I underestimated the number of posts he made back in his early days. This is why relying on memory does. He was posting roughly monthly in 2018 (13x) and slightly more than monthly in 2017, but back 'in the beggining' he was posting multiple times per week - over 100 posts in the first 60 months, and ~2x/week for most of 2012 and 2013.
point is, his posting frequency (a measure of effort) has steadily dwindled year-after-year, which is the opposite of what one wold expect if he were trying now to 'ramp up' things.
Yup, but the ramp it up (revenue) was from his words not mine. And the added history above supports a number of our collective theses and mine such that he started with a bit of business plan, wrote extensively, created a bunch of revenue then either got tired/bored of all the work of writing so much and tapered off - I mean after all that is when the writing slowed down.
Separately, you probably feel like he wrote only 3-4 posts last year because most of them were crap/uninteresting/off message or whatever.
-
Living on 25k after housing is a very different experience depending on where you live. Even in the states the COL really varies. Do you pay for health insurance. Ours is 1k/month but it’s good insurance through my former employer. Also at 64 I am much less willing to go without comfort then I was when young. Plus who knows how much time I have left so we are traveling, eating out and paying for experiences. Having lived frugal my entire life this is a time to enjoy.
-
for those living on 25k or less each year, i don't hate you either. very happy for you if you are living on so little and are happy. high five to you!
You seem to think that living on $25k after housing expenses is "so little", which is a point of contention with me. That's more than 95% of humanity, and puts you pretty close to the middle of US households. Or to put it another way: If you think its extreme frugality you are missing the point (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/11/23/not-extreme-frugality/).
I thought that a sub Reddit about Mr. Orange’s journal would’ve been a lot of fun.
Did he get banned? I know the journal was locked of course and he hasn't been very active since.
That surprised me as well - first time I've seen Mods lock an individual journal (though it wasn't without cause).
is that 25k gross or net income? i've never bothered to ask.
You have an opinion but you've never bothered to ask? Even after you expressed skepticism about its feasibility because you supposedly tried it but couldn't?
It's $25k in spending with a paid off house, as has been said multiple times throughout this thread and on the blog.
Not income. Spending.
-
I am curious Nereo where you live.
-
You have an opinion but you've never bothered to ask? Even after you expressed skepticism about its feasibility because you supposedly tried it but couldn't?
i always thought it was net but wanted to be sure. thank you. i think i already commented about the feasibility thing.
-
for those living on 25k or less each year, i don't hate you either. very happy for you if you are living on so little and are happy. high five to you!
when i say so little i mean from prospective of not me but society as a whole since most if not all around me spend a lot more just based on the cars they drive and the size of their homes and where they go on vacation.
i really need to look at my own spending, because maybe i'm spending way less than i think, i look at pie chart bank website produces and just glance at it for the most part. my saving over the years has been so off the charts great that detailing spend out in detail is meaningless.
-
Skimmed the first two pages.
Doesn't anyone have any concrete examples of the hate? Seems like that would be a useful place to start.
-
Skimmed the first two pages.
Doesn't anyone have any concrete examples of the hate? Seems like that would be a useful place to start.
check out page 3. Some very wise person posted a link to one "I hate MMM" blog ;-). There are more on other FI websites I've seen.
Hahah! Thanks!
Wow... that's really... something. I get being put off by smugness and judgmental nature of the cult persona. Not my cup of tea either. But everyone turns it up to 15 on their blog. I'm sure the real dude is really chill. They should afford him the benefit of keeping that in mind.
Actually, maybe people turn it up to 15 when posting on r/blogsnark too. We should give them a little bit of that benefit too.
-
You have an opinion but you've never bothered to ask? Even after you expressed skepticism about its feasibility because you supposedly tried it but couldn't?
i always thought it was net but wanted to be sure. thank you. i think i already commented about the feasibility thing.
Net spending does not exist. You might as well ask if it's yellow or purple spending.
-
...Regarding the insurance - that's basically what self-insurance is all about. Insurance companies make money off of you. If you can afford to cover the worst case scenario it's typically better to self insure, or at most carry catastrophic insurance with a very high deductible (which is our basic strategy).
...
...
...
This has absolutely nothing to do with it. All insurance policies are calculated to generate profits for the insurance company, and it's a pretty fat margin.
...
FWIW. I do not recommend self insuring the home unless you purchase additional liability coverage that HO insurance typically includes (which is specifically excluded from auto liability policies). While property risks are known, liability risks are not, and they are messy, and liability policies also cover defense costs.
As to insurance company profits, typically 5-10% of Homeowners premium is targeted for profit. 25-35% of premium goes to cover the expenses of the insurance company, so really, 30-45% of your premium is going to something other than covering your risk of loss. If you can afford to self-insure, you will be financially better in terms of expectation. The issue is the process risk faced by the large loss of the home that most cannot absorb, so again, self insurance is not recommended unless you can truly absorb the loss.
-
...
...
...
...
...
...
-
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
-
...
you ignorant bastard!!!
-
And for the definition of FIRE - for me it falls under the following:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd
By that definition, I'm already FIREd, yet my FIRE target is 5 to 15 months off as I continue to work the same full time job that I've had for 18 years.
To me, simply having the funds to FIRE makes me FI, not FIRE, since I've never retired for the RE part.
A similar comment was made earlier in this thread that I responded to the same way...
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mmm-hate/msg2258284/#msg2258284
Have to call a giant Nah on this one. The ER part of FIRE is important. FI is one thing, very sustainable and most likely full of life getting increasingly easier (since FI and not ER). FIRE is more a step off the cliff to saying this is it.
I will disagree to your disagreements....I may or may not be retiring from working who knows, but I am absolutely retiring from doing things I don't want to do - that to me is the ER part. So if one decides that they hit FI and decide to stay in your job for another year then its a choice and my guess its driven by some pension or other bronze/golden handcuffs that one doesn't want to forego, but if its needed to work the next year for your desired lifestyle then no you haven't reached FI or FIRE. FI to me is well beyond FU money.
Your definition that I responded to wasn't you talking about FI or FU money. You specifically stated:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd".
Based on that definition, I am already FIREd, because I already have enough stash for FAT FIRE to support my DESIRED lifestyle, more than double my required expenses, even though I'm still working over 40 hours per week at the same full time job I've had for 18 years. No pension, necessity to work, nor golden handcuffs in the mix - all irrelevant. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that I'm already FIREd to anyone. So what, my stash passed a threshold one day, but nothing else in my life changed. The job continues as it has for years. I'm merely FI, not FIREd.
I don't call that FIREd, and I don't call it retired. I call it working my full time job while being FI. But that's fine for anyone that disagrees and wants to called me FIREd. Either way, I'm on the cohort list to FIRE at a future date, when I will stop working at my job and be truly FIREd.
arebelspy explained the difference between FI and RE on this forum about 5 years back:
Dummy question but what is really the difference?
FI/Financially independent = You no longer have to work for money, your investments provide enough to cover your annual living expenses.
RE (or ER) = You retired from your job. Usually after FI.
Semi-ER = You switched to part-time work.
MMM equates the two terms as identical, even if you haven't yet left your job he calls you "retired." Many of us here disagree. But the above are the most common definitions.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
Maybe it comes from anger toward themselves over not being able to restrain themselves from buying this or that. Over the years, I just assumed we weren't doing as well as others. We weren't taking the fancy vacations, driving beautiful cars. Our clothing is okay but not the best. The furlough has happened and I see people saying they will stop their Target runs. "Target run" as thought that is a noun. Wow! People are doing things like "Target runs" and using up their money for it. This is scary for many reasons.
Well, people realize they don't have much saved. They see they spent too much on stupid things and they feel bad, so they lash out at strangers.
-
Your definition that I responded to wasn't you talking about FI or FU money. You specifically stated:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd".
Based on that definition, I am already FIREd, because I already have enough stash for FAT FIRE to support my DESIRED lifestyle, more than double my required expenses, even though I'm still working over 40 hours per week at the same full time job I've had for 18 years. No pension, necessity to work, nor golden handcuffs in the mix - all irrelevant. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that I'm already FIREd to anyone. So what, my stash passed a threshold one day, but nothing else in my life changed. The job continues as it has for years. I'm merely FI, not FIREd.
I don't call that FIREd, and I don't call it retired. I call it working my full time job while being FI. But that's fine for anyone that disagrees and wants to called me FIREd. Either way, I'm on the cohort list to FIRE at a future date, when I will stop working at my job and be truly FIREd.
arebelspy explained the difference between FI and RE on this forum about 5 years back:
Dummy question but what is really the difference?
FI/Financially independent = You no longer have to work for money, your investments provide enough to cover your annual living expenses.
RE (or ER) = You retired from your job. Usually after FI.
Semi-ER = You switched to part-time work.
MMM equates the two terms as identical, even if you haven't yet left your job he calls you "retired." Many of us here disagree. But the above are the most common definitions.
That's all well and good, I guess I see it more like MMM in that regard. While you may still be working the job you have been doing for the last year it could be viewed as you retired from the BS and HAVING to work that job and started to work the job by choice or for fun or to keep busy or whatever. I also get that if you said to people that you FIRE'd and are still in the same job typical people would look at you like you're crazy, so in that aspect is more of an internal mindset. But then again most of us aren't typical if we are here.
I am curious though, if you don't have any kind of handcuffs and are truly FI (ie don't need anymore money to fund your desired lifestyle and are fully confident in whatever WR that translates to) then why are you choosing to continue?
Not be sarcastic or anything, is not having anything to retire to or wondering how to fill the days....I ask because I think about that as well, there is more to this than just the financial aspect, the psychology does play a role.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
Maybe it comes from anger toward themselves over not being able to restrain themselves from buying this or that. Over the years, I just assumed we weren't doing as well as others. We weren't taking the fancy vacations, driving beautiful cars. Our clothing is okay but not the best. The furlough has happened and I see people saying they will stop their Target runs. "Target run" as thought that is a noun. Wow! People are doing things like "Target runs" and using up their money for it. This is scary for many reasons.
Well, people realize they don't have much saved. They see they spent too much on stupid things and they feel bad, so they lash out at strangers.
Target run could mean anything, though. Some people get household essentials at Target.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
Maybe it comes from anger toward themselves over not being able to restrain themselves from buying this or that. Over the years, I just assumed we weren't doing as well as others. We weren't taking the fancy vacations, driving beautiful cars. Our clothing is okay but not the best. The furlough has happened and I see people saying they will stop their Target runs. "Target run" as thought that is a noun. Wow! People are doing things like "Target runs" and using up their money for it. This is scary for many reasons.
Well, people realize they don't have much saved. They see they spent too much on stupid things and they feel bad, so they lash out at strangers.
Target run could mean anything, though. Some people get household essentials at Target.
Of course. However, the people I'm speaking of are going for fun. Spending money is fun for them. Some indicated that they didn't miss a thing by not going on their "Target run." If they are not missing a thing, then they weren't getting essentials at least some of the time.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
Maybe it comes from anger toward themselves over not being able to restrain themselves from buying this or that. Over the years, I just assumed we weren't doing as well as others. We weren't taking the fancy vacations, driving beautiful cars. Our clothing is okay but not the best. The furlough has happened and I see people saying they will stop their Target runs. "Target run" as thought that is a noun. Wow! People are doing things like "Target runs" and using up their money for it. This is scary for many reasons.
Well, people realize they don't have much saved. They see they spent too much on stupid things and they feel bad, so they lash out at strangers.
Target run could mean anything, though. Some people get household essentials at Target.
We make a 'Target Run' every ~6 weeks or so - for us it's a pretty significant trip since it's about 40 minutes away and its the only place we can get many household items other than 'online' (we live in a very rural area). It's often coupled with a trip to the big-box home improvement store across the street. OTOH, I have heard many suburban people talk about making "Target Run"s as a frequent source of consumer entertainment. I dont really understand the appeal for that sort of thing.
-
Your definition that I responded to wasn't you talking about FI or FU money. You specifically stated:
A) if your investments can support your "DESIRED" lifestyle then you are FIRE'd".
Based on that definition, I am already FIREd, because I already have enough stash for FAT FIRE to support my DESIRED lifestyle, more than double my required expenses, even though I'm still working over 40 hours per week at the same full time job I've had for 18 years. No pension, necessity to work, nor golden handcuffs in the mix - all irrelevant. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that I'm already FIREd to anyone. So what, my stash passed a threshold one day, but nothing else in my life changed. The job continues as it has for years. I'm merely FI, not FIREd.
I don't call that FIREd, and I don't call it retired. I call it working my full time job while being FI. But that's fine for anyone that disagrees and wants to called me FIREd. Either way, I'm on the cohort list to FIRE at a future date, when I will stop working at my job and be truly FIREd.
arebelspy explained the difference between FI and RE on this forum about 5 years back:
Dummy question but what is really the difference?
FI/Financially independent = You no longer have to work for money, your investments provide enough to cover your annual living expenses.
RE (or ER) = You retired from your job. Usually after FI.
Semi-ER = You switched to part-time work.
MMM equates the two terms as identical, even if you haven't yet left your job he calls you "retired." Many of us here disagree. But the above are the most common definitions.
That's all well and good, I guess I see it more like MMM in that regard. While you may still be working the job you have been doing for the last year it could be viewed as you retired from the BS and HAVING to work that job and started to work the job by choice or for fun or to keep busy or whatever. I also get that if you said to people that you FIRE'd and are still in the same job typical people would look at you like you're crazy, so in that aspect is more of an internal mindset. But then again most of us aren't typical if we are here.
I am curious though, if you don't have any kind of handcuffs and are truly FI (ie don't need anymore money to fund your desired lifestyle and are fully confident in whatever WR that translates to) then why are you choosing to continue?
Not be sarcastic or anything, is not having anything to retire to or wondering how to fill the days....I ask because I think about that as well, there is more to this than just the financial aspect, the psychology does play a role.
Really, it's because I like my job right now, more than ever. And even though cFireSim gives me 100% with a conservative AA for a semi-FAT FIRE (more than double my required expenses), I still get satisifaction of bringing home a paycheck. For about 16 years, until a couple years back, I worked in a shared office space and was really looking forward to escaping that. But a 20 million dollar expansion and new office space led to me getting my own private office in the last two years. I can still get out and about to mingle with friends/coworkers whenever I want, and I can focus more on my work without the distractions from others while in the office. I have a greater sense of freedom and flexiblity than ever, and my workload has shifted to more interesting projects and assignments in recent years also.
If I could have this same arrangement while working 3 days per week, that would be perfect, but that's not an option. Even suggesting such a thing would likely prompt my CIO to bring in someone to cross-train with me, losing the privacy I waited so long for to receive, so I continue full time a while longer. I'm not ready to give up the job when it's the best it's been over 18 years. I'm planning to move on no later than 2020. I have various thoughts and ideas written down regarding what I want to do after I FIRE, and I feel pretty confident I'll be able to keep myself occupied, but there's not anything in particular that's driving me to FIRE sooner with any urgency.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
Maybe it comes from anger toward themselves over not being able to restrain themselves from buying this or that. Over the years, I just assumed we weren't doing as well as others. We weren't taking the fancy vacations, driving beautiful cars. Our clothing is okay but not the best. The furlough has happened and I see people saying they will stop their Target runs. "Target run" as thought that is a noun. Wow! People are doing things like "Target runs" and using up their money for it. This is scary for many reasons.
Well, people realize they don't have much saved. They see they spent too much on stupid things and they feel bad, so they lash out at strangers.
Target run could mean anything, though. Some people get household essentials at Target.
We make a 'Target Run' every ~6 weeks or so - for us it's a pretty significant trip since it's about 40 minutes away and its the only place we can get many household items other than 'online' (we live in a very rural area). It's often coupled with a trip to the big-box home improvement store across the street. OTOH, I have heard many suburban people talk about making "Target Run"s as a frequent source of consumer entertainment. I dont really understand the appeal for that sort of thing.
There's very little I would consider "fun" at target. Except maybe the games section, which is pretty small.
-
Oh yall mean Tarjay? We used to go to look at bags or clothes or shit. Cute and cheap, just how I like my men.
-
There's very little I would consider "fun" at target. Except maybe the games section, which is pretty small.
The games section at our target just depresses me. 90% of the games offered are the boring 'classic' games, many of which (IMO) aren't all that great and/or I've owned for years. Very few of the games listed in "What are you playing (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/board-games-what-are-you-playing/150/)" thread.
-
Since the divorce, MMM has popped up on a few of the other blogs I frequent with varying degrees of awareness. Much like many MSM articles that allow comments, the misinformation, assumptions, and straight up lies about what he is or is not is shocking. People aren't educated, and don't want to be educated. Several pages of people arguing whether he's retired or not. "He run a blog. It makes money. Not retired. QED". "He eats catfood, never travels or does anything fun, just sits in his home alone counting dollars"
What causes this? Why is this subject so bloody controversial and bringing out the worst in so many people? Why do people go out of their way to remain ignorant, and discount what he says, by straight up twisting it to fit whatever biases they have?
Maybe it comes from anger toward themselves over not being able to restrain themselves from buying this or that. Over the years, I just assumed we weren't doing as well as others. We weren't taking the fancy vacations, driving beautiful cars. Our clothing is okay but not the best. The furlough has happened and I see people saying they will stop their Target runs. "Target run" as thought that is a noun. Wow! People are doing things like "Target runs" and using up their money for it. This is scary for many reasons.
Well, people realize they don't have much saved. They see they spent too much on stupid things and they feel bad, so they lash out at strangers.
Target run could mean anything, though. Some people get household essentials at Target.
We make a 'Target Run' every ~6 weeks or so - for us it's a pretty significant trip since it's about 40 minutes away and its the only place we can get many household items other than 'online' (we live in a very rural area). It's often coupled with a trip to the big-box home improvement store across the street. OTOH, I have heard many suburban people talk about making "Target Run"s as a frequent source of consumer entertainment. I dont really understand the appeal for that sort of thing.
There's very little I would consider "fun" at target. Except maybe the games section, which is pretty small.
Huh. I'm sick and used up the last cold medicine three hours ago. There's a Walgreen's, RiteAid, and something something else closer, but I'm going to go to Target for best selection/price ratio. It won't be a run by any means. More like a slog. The medicine I just used up was Theraflu ExpressMax, which was pretty good. I bought it at the 99 Cents Only Store last year. I am already dreading what the replacement is going to cost. Wish me luck.
-
Hope you feel better @Dicey
-
Thanks, nereo, I think it worked. They had the same stuff for "only" $6.49, so I resupplied.
We were supposed to go to a regular monthly thing tonight, but I'm going to stay home and keep my germs to myself. DH is going to go. I wanted to buy something for an appetizer that DH could just heat up and I didn't have to worry about "contaminating". OMG, I was shocked at Target's grocery prices. Crazy higher than what I usually pay at my cheap-o places. At checkout, I listened to the cashier extol the utility of a Target Red Card to the people ahead of me in line. When she got to me, I politely said, "I know you have to ask, but I do not want a Red Card, thank you." She was wise enough not to push the point. But OMG, the prices!! Oh, and they had a display of Method soap next to the checkstand with a sign promoting them at 5% off! Way to mete out the discounts, Target. My takeaway is I'm grateful that I live in a place that has lots of lower-price options if you just know where to look and aren't too proud to shop there.