People are saving too much before retiring because unknowns. I got lucky

[FIREin2018]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/opinions/retirement-planning-savings-perkins/index.html#:~:text=But%20many%20Americans%20save%20too,kids%E2%80%9D%20are%20in%20their%2050s.

That’s the big error people make in planning for retirement: They’re focusing on the money, without nearly enough thought to the activities that they will actually be doing.

You don’t retire on your money — you retire on your memories.

Planning your activities with timing in mind is essential for making the most of your money and your life now and into your retirement years. If you don’t think about your future activities, how can you possibly know how much money to save?

Federal Reserve Board data shows that US households’ median net worth peaks when the head of the household is between the age of 65 and 74. That tells me that many people will die before they get to spend all the money they’ve given their life energy to acquire.
These big savers will be rich in dollars, but poor in what the dollars are actually there for: acquiring positive life experiences.


I FiRED at age 47 in 2018 because i was laid off and realized that if i kept my low expenses at the current rate, i can retire.
1) I assumed my expenses will be the same
2) Like the article, i had no idea what i wanted to do for the years/decades in retirement

Now i travel around once a month (except during covid).
So far, based on the rate of my bank acct dwindling, i'm at a little higher than my expenditures pre-FiRE but still manageable.
And that's purely by accident. i just look for cheap travel but I don't figure out the total cost of the trip. (flights/gas+ hotel+ food+ stuff i'm going to do there). Is the flight cheap (or no flight at all)? is the per day hotel cost cheap? Lets go.
I just record monthly the amount of $ left in my bank/brokerage accts.

Just by dumb luck my no planning method has panned out (so far).

if it wasnt for being laid off, i'd still be working and not enjoying new experiences these past 3 (5-2 from covid) years.

[reeshau]

Of course, the author of Die With Zero has a point to prove.  In some ways, it's two sides of the same coin.  But more than saving, the reason for many people having a lot is their investment performance.  If your wealth doesn't go to zero, it's quite likely to go parabolic.  Look at the full results of a Monte Carlo simulation, and look beyond the "failure" numbers into average or maximum values.  Those kind of results happen, too.

I think he addresses this better just below the phrase you highlighted:

"What prompts people to save more than they can spend in their lifetimes? I believe it’s that they try to cover every worst-case scenario, which is what insurance is for. Unless you’re a billionaire, you won’t have enough to cover every worst-case scenario on your own anyway, so trying to save more for that is a losing game. Sure, insurance won’t cover everything, either, just like a seatbelt won’t always save your life in a car crash — but it’s still better to drive with a seatbelt than to never get in a car."

The worst-case scenario is what the 4 percent rule is all about.  Look at Bengen's original research, and see the range of potential withdrawal rates.  The only problem is, you don't know what level your particular year gets until after it's all done.  But retire in the early 80's, and you could have had an 8% withdrawal rate.  That is some level of variability!  A prudent planner at the time, having just existed the stagflation of the 70's, was probably rollin' in it!

I think it's fine to focus on achievement rather than risk avoidance.  Whatever floats your boat.  But attributing that primarily to factors in your control, without acknowledging the role of external factors, is selling snake oil to someone, and will end up with a lot of disappointed people who will only know it when it's too late to do anything about.

I do agree that retirement planning needs to be about more than just money.  Whatever lifestyle you have or plan to have, it can be very hollow and disappointing if you don't take some action to steer it in some direction.

[Metalcat]

The problem isn't saving too much. I'm an over saver and perfectly happy with that.

The problem is black and white dichotomous thinking of "I need to stay in a life that I'm not happy with and reach absolutely perfect financial security before I can make any substantial quality of life changes."

That shit is insane.

We've had countless people here with 7 figure NW talking about how they're miserable, unhealthy, and getting more miserable and more unhealthy by the day, but feeling like they cannot leave their horrible jobs because they haven't reached a number that in their head feels "safe."

No one with a pile of money in the bank should feel obligated to maintain an unhealthy life that they don't enjoy. That makes zero sense.

If a plan is making the person miserable and damaging their health, does that savings goal actually represent safety??

[slappy]

Maybe for some people, having a lot of dollars is a positive life experience.

Honestly, I would worry more about people who don't consider the dollars when they retire. I used to work in retirement planning in a bank, and I can't tell you the number of people who retired just because they wanted to. Looking at their numbers, there was no way it work, but they didn't care. They just turned x age and wanted to retire, so they did. My own MIL did this as well.

[GuitarStv]

By 85 more than 35% of people will have dementia, and more than 71% will require assistance with mobility.  There are a huge host of other problems that start to kick in too - everything from hearing loss to eye problems to depression and cancer . . . and it's typical for more than one thing to present simultaneously.  These aren't worst case scenarios - they're the most likely outcome you end up with if you don't die.  Some of these can be handled without much cost, and some of them can be extremely costly.

While there's certainly risk of missing out on things you want to do by waiting for too long, there's also a decent risk of fucking yourself and loved ones because you cut things too close.  One of the reasons I want to have a comfortable buffer before retiring is to avoid foisting that cost on my family and loved ones.

This is because I'm reasonably happy at the moment.  I look at current vs planned retired life . . . there's really not a huge difference.  I will have more time to devote each day to things that are important to me because I'm not at work, but all of the most important stuff to me I'm already doing right now.  I just want to increase the time available to do these things.

[BeanCounter]

I couldn’t agree more, and the book “Die with Zero” addresses it well.
It can be difficult to pull the plug on the paycheck. It can also be very difficult to allow yourself to spend the savings once you RE.
I’m trying to balance spending now so we can create lasting memories with our children but not overspend so that we can’t fund our future needs. I’d like to leave the kids some money someday but not too much.

[Dreamer40]

Totally disagree. The vast majority of people are not saving enough for unknowns. Even among the fire community, I worry about the lean fire people who are perfectly happy living on a tight budget when they’re young and healthy, but don’t have any extra for their senior years when they might need assisted living, memory care, home health aids, motorized scooters and accessibility work done to their home, medications that aren’t fully covered by insurance, etc. Or what if one spouse needs something like nursing or palliative care to extend their life and now they need to pay for two separate households for a long period of time? Old age can be incredibly expensive, at least if you want to be comfortable and safe.

[Villanelle]

I don't think the bast majority are saving too much, but I think the vast majority who retire early (or perhaps even "on time" at 65ish) are.  If most people's wealth peaks in those 65-74 years, we don't know how many of them are still working and saving, making that the case.  We also don't know how many still run out of money because, for example, they retire at 65 and their wealth continues to grow because of some investment returns and real estate appreciation, but they end up unable to pay their bills because most or their wealth is in RE.  Or because at 73, their expenses dramatically increase due to declining health. 

It may well be that their wealth increases in that time because they are still working, because their house appreciates, or because they haven't yet hit higher spending that will come for them as they age. 

I think this is still a great conversation to have, but framing it like this is kind dangerous and makes the risks quite easy to ignore because they are so overstated. 

On more thing to mention. My dad retired 4 times: once from the military, once from his second career.  Then he got a call from an old coworker offering him an job that excited him and with great terms (including an office about 7 minutes from home).  Then he quit that one when he and mom decided to move out of state.  But they rehired him as a consultant, which he did for a number of years.  He did it because he enjoyed the work and the challenge and it was pretty non-obtrusive in his life.  (Very part time, very flexible hours.)  As a result, he and my mom have almost certainly "oversaved", likely by 7 figures+.  But it wasn't because they were too afraid to R. It was because did enjoyed continuing to work.  I'm certain that if you ask either of them, they won't say they are "poorer in life experiences" for dad having worked that extra time.  He still talks about and misses that work, especially the consulting because it was interesting and challenging.  It was a hobby for him--just one for which he happened to be well paid. 

[Metalcat]

I don't think the bast majority are saving too much, but I think the vast majority who retire early (or perhaps even "on time" at 65ish) are.  If most people's wealth peaks in those 65-74 years, we don't know how many of them are still working and saving, making that the case.  We also don't know how many still run out of money because, for example, they retire at 65 and their wealth continues to grow because of some investment returns and real estate appreciation, but they end up unable to pay their bills because most or their wealth is in RE.  Or because at 73, their expenses dramatically increase due to declining health. 

It may well be that their wealth increases in that time because they are still working, because their house appreciates, or because they haven't yet hit higher spending that will come for them as they age. 

I think this is still a great conversation to have, but framing it like this is kind dangerous and makes the risks quite easy to ignore because they are so overstated. 

On more thing to mention. My dad retired 4 times: once from the military, once from his second career.  Then he got a call from an old coworker offering him an job that excited him and with great terms (including an office about 7 minutes from home).  Then he quit that one when he and mom decided to move out of state.  But they rehired him as a consultant, which he did for a number of years.  He did it because he enjoyed the work and the challenge and it was pretty non-obtrusive in his life.  (Very part time, very flexible hours.)  As a result, he and my mom have almost certainly "oversaved", likely by 7 figures+.  But it wasn't because they were too afraid to R. It was because did enjoyed continuing to work.  I'm certain that if you ask either of them, they won't say they are "poorer in life experiences" for dad having worked that extra time.  He still talks about and misses that work, especially the consulting because it was interesting and challenging.  It was a hobby for him--just one for which he happened to be well paid.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Pete is one of the most guilty among us for over saving and I don't see anyone wringing their hands worrying that he's too scared to stop working.

If generating profits happens to be a byproduct of living your best life, then have at it.

It all comes down to quality of life.

[wageslave23]

Saving for retirement is like making sure you have enough gas in your car to reach your destination.  Running out of gas is a much bigger issue than having excess gas when you reach your destination.  Especially those of us early retirees who are contemplating retiring in our 30s or 40s. If you have a 50 year potential retirement and a probably better than average job, why not work a couple extra years and have extra to spend along the way instead of wringing your hands worrying if you'll have enough the whole time?  Same thing with studying for an exam, did you study until you learned exactly enough to have a 90% chance of passing? Or did you say, hmm I've spent 10 hrs learning this stuff already, I might as well study one more hour so I know for sure I will pass. I always studied the extra hour or two. But that's just me. Don't come crying to me when you are 80 yrs old and your health costs are more than you expected or the market does worse than average and you've run out of money because you retired at 38 instead of 40. I'll tell you that you're a moron and should have worked a little longer.

[AMandM]

Saving for retirement is like making sure you have enough gas in your car to reach your destination.  Running out of gas is a much bigger issue than having excess gas when you reach your destination.

Fair enough, though I think the article is arguing against working so you carry extra cans of gas with you, delaying your departure so much that once you reach your destination the places you wanted to visit are closed. But as others have said, it's not either/or.

[Morning Glory]

Saving for retirement is like making sure you have enough gas in your car to reach your destination.  Running out of gas is a much bigger issue than having excess gas when you reach your destination.

Fair enough, though I think the article is arguing against working so you carry extra cans of gas with you, delaying your departure so much that once you reach your destination the places you wanted to visit are closed. But as others have said, it's not either/or.

Why not be a little flexible with the route and stop at a gas station or two along the way?

[Villanelle]

Saving for retirement is like making sure you have enough gas in your car to reach your destination.  Running out of gas is a much bigger issue than having excess gas when you reach your destination.

Fair enough, though I think the article is arguing against working so you carry extra cans of gas with you, delaying your departure so much that once you reach your destination the places you wanted to visit are closed. But as others have said, it's not either/or.

Why not be a little flexible with the route and stop at a gas station or two along the way?

To extend the metaphor, I think the concern is that you'll have to add 1000 extra miles to your journey, chasing gas and paying a premium for it, when you can just buy an extra gas can full today, at fairly cheap prices.

That said, I'm of the "since we mostly likely wont need more gas, and if we do start running low, we can coast down all the hills and decrease our speed from 70 to 55, and maybe skip the side trip to the world's largest ball of yarn", and maybe I'll ride my bike on some side trips instead of driving.  So I'll stuff my tank full and maybe have one spare gas can, but I'm going going to spend my time and money buying multiple gas containers and filling them up.  IOW, I believe gas (or gas station) shortages are possible and worth considering.  But I also believe in my ingenuity and flexibility, and I recognize that even after that, if I do have to venture out to find gas, I'll be able to find enough to limp through until I pass another station on my route and the shortages have eased. 

That balance will be different for everyone.  And the number of side trips that can be skipped make a huge difference in how much flex there is in someone's plan, as do other factors. 

[Ron Scott]

I honestly don’t understand why people who would really love to spend their last buck on undertaker don’t simple annuitize a major portion of their assets, work out, eat well, and enjoy the extra money.

Isn’t an annuity like the perfect way to die with nothing?

That said, there are many ways to live a rewarding life. FIRE is only one of them and it’s not necessarily better than some others. It’s just different.

[Villanelle]

I honestly don’t understand why people who would really love to spend their last buck on undertaker don’t simple annuitize a major portion of their assets, work out, eat well, and enjoy the extra money.

Isn’t an annuity like the perfect way to die with nothing?

That said, there are many ways to live a rewarding life. FIRE is only one of them and it’s not necessarily better than some others. It’s just different.

In this sense, I think the FI is far more important than RE or R.  FI means you are mostly making choices because they are something you want, not because your finances require or suggest it.  If that's continuing to work. SWAMI-style, so be it.  But it also means that it you get a new boss tomorrow and he's a raging asshole, you can quit the next day. 

[wageslave23]

Ok, read the article now. My first instinct that it was going to be garbage was correct.  Of course net worth peaks around 65 or 70 because that's when people stop working and start drawing down. That's not evidence that people are saving too much. That's evidence that this jackass is trying to sell his book. Evidence that people are saving too much would be to show that the majority of people are dying with millions of dollars still in the bank, and to show that this is the case generation after generation regardless of how well the stock market happened to do late in their life. 
Everyone on this website tries to balance the risk of running out of money vs working too much. Who ends up being right? Only time will tell. I'll stick with my plan of retiring with plenty of cushion well before 45. So the old age scare tactic is irrelevant.  And if I happened to have worked an extra year or two, then I'll go on two vacations a year instead of one. And go out to eat twice a week instead of once. And give my grandkids some money towards their college. Oh the horror.

[TreeLeaf]

I honestly don’t understand why people who would really love to spend their last buck on undertaker don’t simple annuitize a major portion of their assets, work out, eat well, and enjoy the extra money.

Isn’t an annuity like the perfect way to die with nothing?

That said, there are many ways to live a rewarding life. FIRE is only one of them and it’s not necessarily better than some others. It’s just different.

In this sense, I think the FI is far more important than RE or R.  FI means you are mostly making choices because they are something you want, not because your finances require or suggest it.  If that's continuing to work. SWAMI-style, so be it.  But it also means that it you get a new boss tomorrow and he's a raging asshole, you can quit the next day.

Yep.

For me it's not even about retirement. It's about living my best life - which includes setting boundaries and being able to walk away from toxic situations or otherwise avoid doing things I don't want to do, and only doing things I want to do.

This has involved both walking away from some toxic work environments in my life, toxic people, but also not doing things I don't feel like doing even if it isn't financially optimal. For example - I no longer do much car work or house maintenance work and quit being a landlord. I just got tired of doing this sort of stuff and money let's me do more rewarding things with my life like spending more time with my wife and kids and family and friends.

For me it isn't even about money or retirement. It's just about having freedom to do what I want to do in life.

[Tasse]

I'll stick with my plan of retiring with plenty of cushion well before 45. So the old age scare tactic is irrelevant.  And if I happened to have worked an extra year or two, then I'll go on two vacations a year instead of one. And go out to eat twice a week instead of once. And give my grandkids some money towards their college. Oh the horror.

I dunno, I think I've needed to hear this pushback to get me out of permanent-delayed-gratification mode and into the mindset of prioritizing the quality of my life NOW. I'm happy that I've read some encouragement (mostly on this forum--never read this guy's book) to remember that my time is a more precious resource than my money.

We're interested in coasting, but both still working full time for now. Certainly we will be sure to keep a door open to continued work unless/until we have a very healthy cushion. But the flipside to "what if the market tanks and I don't have enough money when I'm old" is "what if the market lifts me enough that I already have enough money--and working myself to the bone has no benefit?" I'm not going to COUNT on the second scenario, but I'm happy to build myself a nice easygoing life while I wait and find out. Getting to FIRE fastest is no longer an interesting proposition to me.

[GilesMM]

Steve Jobs had enough to retire by age 24. Would you have advised him to do so?

[FIREin2018]

Honestly, I would worry more about people who don't consider the dollars when they retire. I used to work in retirement planning in a bank, and I can't tell you the number of people who retired just because they wanted to. Looking at their numbers, there was no way it work, but they didn't care.
They just turned x age and wanted to retire, so they did. My own MIL did this as well.

Holy what? $ or no $ will retire at Age X???
That's the 1st i heard of people actually doing that.

How's your MIL doing now financially? What will she do when she runs out of $?

[FIREin2018]

Totally disagree. The vast majority of people are not saving enough for unknowns. Even among the fire community, I worry about the lean fire people who are perfectly happy living on a tight budget when they’re young and healthy, but don’t have any extra for their senior years when they might need assisted living, memory care, home health aids, motorized scooters and accessibility work done to their home, medications that aren’t fully covered by insurance, etc. Or what if one spouse needs something like nursing or palliative care to extend their life and now they need to pay for two separate households for a long period of time? Old age can be incredibly expensive, at least if you want to be comfortable and safe.

Form a trust. Hide assets in trust.
When it's time for assisted living/nursing home, the State's 5yr look back will see you dirt poor (if the lawyer did it right) and will pay for it.
Pick a site that also does private payments so you get the same quality medical personal. it's just that if state paid, it's 2 to a room vs solo room if you're paying full cost.

[FIREin2018]

On more thing to mention. My dad retired 4 times: once from the military, once from his second career.  Then he got a call from an old coworker offering him an job that excited him and with great terms (including an office about 7 minutes from home).  Then he quit that one when he and mom decided to move out of state.  But they rehired him as a consultant, which he did for a number of years.  He did it because he enjoyed the work and the challenge and it was pretty non-obtrusive in his life.  (Very part time, very flexible hours.)  As a result, he and my mom have almost certainly "oversaved", likely by 7 figures+.  But it wasn't because they were too afraid to R. It was because did enjoyed continuing to work.  I'm certain that if you ask either of them, they won't say they are "poorer in life experiences" for dad having worked that extra time.  He still talks about and misses that work, especially the consulting because it was interesting and challenging.  It was a hobby for him--just one for which he happened to be well paid.

Sounds like my Dad. he loved his job. He could have easily early retired but Worked there 10+ yrs past normal retirement because he wanted to.
He had to retire because of health and died 2 yrs later. :(
But he never regretted working that long.

I wanted to be like that... find a job i love.
Unfortunately, the $ was too good to leave a job that i had no passion for.
But now i'm on my journey for a lifetime of positive experiences.

[FIREin2018]

Saving for retirement is like making sure you have enough gas in your car to reach your destination.  Running out of gas is a much bigger issue than having excess gas when you reach your destination.  Especially those of us early retirees who are contemplating retiring in our 30s or 40s. If you have a 50 year potential retirement and a probably better than average job, why not work a couple extra years and have extra to spend along the way instead of wringing your hands worrying if you'll have enough the whole time?  Same thing with studying for an exam, did you study until you learned exactly enough to have a 90% chance of passing? Or did you say, hmm I've spent 10 hrs learning this stuff already, I might as well study one more hour so I know for sure I will pass. I always studied the extra hour or two. But that's just me. Don't come crying to me when you are 80 yrs old and your health costs are more than you expected or the market does worse than average and you've run out of money because you retired at 38 instead of 40. I'll tell you that you're a moron and should have worked a little longer.

Well, for me, i didn't factor in my house or social security when i decided to FiRE at age 47.
so $500k house and whatever SS is my safety net.
As for health in my 80s, as i wrote above, i'm going to form a trust and let the state pay for it.
if laws change in the next couple decades to stop that then hopefully i adjust and not be a dinosaur.

[ringer707]

Honestly, I would worry more about people who don't consider the dollars when they retire. I used to work in retirement planning in a bank, and I can't tell you the number of people who retired just because they wanted to. Looking at their numbers, there was no way it work, but they didn't care.
They just turned x age and wanted to retire, so they did. My own MIL did this as well.

Holy what? $ or no $ will retire at Age X???
That's the 1st i heard of people actually doing that.

How's your MIL doing now financially? What will she do when she runs out of $?

Not the OP, but this is incredibly common. My husband's grandparents did this. Retired at 65 because that's when you're supposed to retire. Very, very small nest egg that grandpa blew through within about 3 years due to poor planning and moderate untreated mental illness that resulted in manic spending episodes. Went back to work as a Wal-mart greeter and they survived off that and social security with mother-in-law now controlling the flow of all of their money until grandpa died a few years later.

[Metalcat]

Honestly, I would worry more about people who don't consider the dollars when they retire. I used to work in retirement planning in a bank, and I can't tell you the number of people who retired just because they wanted to. Looking at their numbers, there was no way it work, but they didn't care.
They just turned x age and wanted to retire, so they did. My own MIL did this as well.

Holy what? $ or no $ will retire at Age X???
That's the 1st i heard of people actually doing that.

How's your MIL doing now financially? What will she do when she runs out of $?

Not the OP, but this is incredibly common. My husband's grandparents did this. Retired at 65 because that's when you're supposed to retire. Very, very small nest egg that grandpa blew through within about 3 years due to poor planning and moderate untreated mental illness that resulted in manic spending episodes. Went back to work as a Wal-mart greeter and they survived off that and social security with mother-in-law now controlling the flow of all of their money until grandpa died a few years later.

For sure. Having worked in finance, I would say it's more the norm than not for folks to have no clear understanding of their retirement finances or goals.

Most people don't have budgets, they have whatever money they have and they spend that and that's it. If they retire at 65 and haven't saved enough to sustain their lifestyle, they have to downgrade their lifestyle and they consider this a normal byproduct of no longer having an income.

[ender]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

[GuitarStv]

Steve Jobs had enough to retire by age 24. Would you have advised him to do so?

Yes.  The world would have been a much better place had this occurred.

[wageslave23]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

[Tasse]

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

If you hate the job, I would hope the downside is obvious. If you love the job and it's the best thing you can imagine doing anyway, then you should obviously keep doing it. The question is really where you fall in the middle. Are you delaying living your best life? And if so, are you getting enough security in exchange to make that trade worth it?

The tipping point is different for each person, but we should acknowledge its existence.

[Metalcat]

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

If you hate the job, I would hope the downside is obvious. If you love the job and it's the best thing you can imagine doing anyway, then you should obviously keep doing it. The question is really where you fall in the middle. Are you delaying living your best life? And if so, are you getting enough security in exchange to make that trade worth it?

The tipping point is different for each person, but we should acknowledge its existence.

This, also one or two years more than what??

Some people's savings goals are more modest, others are massive with astronomical security baked in. At what point are we talking about working an extra year or two?

As you said, if making money is part of your best life, have at it, enjoy being compensated for doing what you would do for free, it's a great situation to be in.

But if you're just working for more money and okay working longer because you don't mind your job, where is the line that you stop working an extra year or two? There has to be a clear line where choosing not to live your best life for more money is a bad trade.

[wageslave23]

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

If you hate the job, I would hope the downside is obvious. If you love the job and it's the best thing you can imagine doing anyway, then you should obviously keep doing it. The question is really where you fall in the middle. Are you delaying living your best life? And if so, are you getting enough security in exchange to make that trade worth it?

The tipping point is different for each person, but we should acknowledge its existence.

I get that. But I'd counter with, if your job is that intolerable than you should probably have looked for a different one long before.  If my only option was staying in a job I didn't like then sure, take a chance and if it doesn't work out then find one you like.

[markbike528CBX]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

A) it is a year or two of your youth that you never can get back.  You are not destined to live until you are old.
B) OMY never ends, it is "just One More Year, honest" ad infinitum.

[wageslave23]

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

If you hate the job, I would hope the downside is obvious. If you love the job and it's the best thing you can imagine doing anyway, then you should obviously keep doing it. The question is really where you fall in the middle. Are you delaying living your best life? And if so, are you getting enough security in exchange to make that trade worth it?

The tipping point is different for each person, but we should acknowledge its existence.

This, also one or two years more than what??

Some people's savings goals are more modest, others are massive with astronomical security baked in. At what point are we talking about working an extra year or two?

As you said, if making money is part of your best life, have at it, enjoy being compensated for doing what you would do for free, it's a great situation to be in.

But if you're just working for more money and okay working longer because you don't mind your job, where is the line that you stop working an extra year or two? There has to be a clear line where choosing not to live your best life for more money is a bad trade.

I guess I'm coming from a different baseline.  To me the baseline is 4% swr and lean budget, working an extra year or two gives you either more security or extra fun money.  If you are beyond that then sure working a job you don't like just to be able to afford a $100k car and mcmansion is dumb.  If you need a whole book to tell you that, then I guess that's why he's so popular.

[Metalcat]

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

If you hate the job, I would hope the downside is obvious. If you love the job and it's the best thing you can imagine doing anyway, then you should obviously keep doing it. The question is really where you fall in the middle. Are you delaying living your best life? And if so, are you getting enough security in exchange to make that trade worth it?

The tipping point is different for each person, but we should acknowledge its existence.

This, also one or two years more than what??

Some people's savings goals are more modest, others are massive with astronomical security baked in. At what point are we talking about working an extra year or two?

As you said, if making money is part of your best life, have at it, enjoy being compensated for doing what you would do for free, it's a great situation to be in.

But if you're just working for more money and okay working longer because you don't mind your job, where is the line that you stop working an extra year or two? There has to be a clear line where choosing not to live your best life for more money is a bad trade.

I guess I'm coming from a different baseline.  To me the baseline is 4% swr and lean budget, working an extra year or two gives you either more security or extra fun money.  If you are beyond that then sure working a job you don't like just to be able to afford a $100k car and mcmansion is dumb.  If you need a whole book to tell you that, then I guess that's why he's so popular.

There are A LOT of people around here who have saved WAY more than that and still don't feel comfortable leaving jobs that they don't enjoy.

Maybe *you* don't need the message, but a hell of a lot of folks in this community do.

[Tasse]

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

If you hate the job, I would hope the downside is obvious. If you love the job and it's the best thing you can imagine doing anyway, then you should obviously keep doing it. The question is really where you fall in the middle. Are you delaying living your best life? And if so, are you getting enough security in exchange to make that trade worth it?

The tipping point is different for each person, but we should acknowledge its existence.

I get that. But I'd counter with, if your job is that intolerable than you should probably have looked for a different one long before.  If my only option was staying in a job I didn't like then sure, take a chance and if it doesn't work out then find one you like.

I agree. But the balance of how much you mind the job vs how much security is worth doing it changes based how much security you already have.

We would be at a ~7% WR right now. It's not worth doing any job we dislike for money, because we have plenty of flexibility to look for better jobs. But it is worth doing jobs that are merely good enough, because we aren't permanently secure yet. As we get more secure, the job will have to be better and better to justify its continued place in our lives.

Luckily, I like my job very much, but my partner isn't as big a fan of his. It's fine for now, but if it makes him unhappy at all, I'd rather he quit than pad our stash. This is a mindset shift I've only been making for the past 1-2 years. Our jobs have to work for us right now, not just set us up for the future.

[Ron Scott]

We would be at a ~7% WR right now. It's not worth doing any job we dislike for money, because we have plenty of flexibility to look for better jobs.

Here’s where I have a disconnect.

I certainly understand that being FI with enough money to spend 7% of your invested assets a year gives you comfort. In order to do that I am assuming you and the partner have good paying jobs and valuable work experience. People like you seem to be able to find alternate employment regardless of whether they’ve saved much.

Money usually makes you feel better but it’s the skill sets and experience you have that gives you the flexibility to find a better job—-not the money per se.

I have know LOTS of people without more than a year or 2 of emergency money who switch jobs, and careers. It’s done all the time

No?

[Tasse]

It's certainly true that you don't need to be FI to leave a job that makes you miserable, although I have erred in that direction previously. (Grad school fosters a culture that misery now will produce benefits later, and I don't tolerate that perspective anymore.) But if I had no savings, I wouldn't leave a miserable job until I had my next one lined up. Now, I would feel really comfortable quitting without a plan, because the amount we need to bring in per year is so achievable.

To be clear, I don't consider us FI yet. I was just providing the WR number to give a frame of reference for my perspective. We still need to cover our annual expenses, but saving more is basically optional; the investments will grow by themselves. We ARE saving more right now, because our jobs are decent, but it's not a higher priority than day-to-day happiness.

[ender]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

You can ask this question every year - once you have 25x your expenses, it's just a few more years till 33x.

Then it's only a few more until you can live a more luxurious retirement too.

There's always a reason to justify OMY.

[wageslave23]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

You can ask this question every year - once you have 25x your expenses, it's just a few more years till 33x.

Then it's only a few more until you can live a more luxurious retirement too.

There's always a reason to justify OMY.

Maybe, but if it's justified then it's justified. Right?  No matter how much money you have, the question is always is what I'm giving up to earn money worth what I can use the money for. For some people the answer to that question will always be yes, for others it will always be no. Most have a point somewhere in between where the extra money isn't worth it. And so they quit working. I just don't think very many people on this forum fall in the working too long category.  The type of people on an early retirement forum aren't exactly the type to have tens of millions of dollars and continue to work a job that will put them into an early grave. I am certainly not one of them. Every day I work is a calculated decision about if x pay per hour is worth what I can buy with x. Once the scale tips towards quitting, I will be gone.

My biggest complaint, besides this being common sense, is his use of the fact that networth peaks in one's 60s. To say that proves that people are over saving is either ignorant or deceitful to the ignorant.  I have no patience for either.

[BeanCounter]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

You can ask this question every year - once you have 25x your expenses, it's just a few more years till 33x.

Then it's only a few more until you can live a more luxurious retirement too.

There's always a reason to justify OMY.

Maybe, but if it's justified then it's justified. Right?  No matter how much money you have, the question is always is what I'm giving up to earn money worth what I can use the money for. For some people the answer to that question will always be yes, for others it will always be no. Most have a point somewhere in between where the extra money isn't worth it. And so they quit working. I just don't think very many people on this forum fall in the working too long category. The type of people on an early retirement forum aren't exactly the type to have tens of millions of dollars and continue to work a job that will put them into an early grave. I am certainly not one of them. Every day I work is a calculated decision about if x pay per hour is worth what I can buy with x. Once the scale tips towards quitting, I will be gone.

My biggest complaint, besides this being common sense, is his use of the fact that networth peaks in one's 60s. To say that proves that people are over saving is either ignorant or deceitful to the ignorant.  I have no patience for either.

I guess you haven’t spent much time reading the $2 - $4 million and beyond thread?
While not the majority, there are lots of people in this forum that are way past enough. Of course that’s difficult to quantify because enough is difficult to quantify. Many would say working a day past the 25x mark is just OMY syndrome and crazy. But then you have plenty of people who turn around and argue that the 4% rule isn’t valid, or the past doesn’t guarantee the future etc, etc, etc. If you believe those things then it isn’t actually over saving is it? It’s just being prudent.

Regarding “just getting another job”, often changing jobs isn’t going to help because it’s not anything specific about the job you hate, it’s the demands on your time that is the problem. Before I FIRED I would have said “i hate my job”, but I didn’t really. I liked the work I did. I liked the people. The office environment was nice and I could work from home. I was well compensated. What I hated was waking up on any given day and having to get work done when I’d actually rather go hiking, or visit a friend or read my book or paint or whatever. Switching to a different job wouldn’t take away those time constraints.

I FIRED in 2020. The last 2.5 years were a real slog. I debated about continuing because our expenses are so high because of kids. I wanted to be sure before I walked away from what was a really good job. Lots of people would say we have too much tuition and insurance to pay to safely FIRE. Eventually I realized we could never be sure. There is always some level of risk in life. Currently our investments are up $850,000 since my FIRE date. So while some of that may erode again in the next market downturn, it seems pretty safe to have quit and have ownership of my time.

[Metalcat]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

You can ask this question every year - once you have 25x your expenses, it's just a few more years till 33x.

Then it's only a few more until you can live a more luxurious retirement too.

There's always a reason to justify OMY.

Maybe, but if it's justified then it's justified. Right?  No matter how much money you have, the question is always is what I'm giving up to earn money worth what I can use the money for. For some people the answer to that question will always be yes, for others it will always be no. Most have a point somewhere in between where the extra money isn't worth it. And so they quit working. I just don't think very many people on this forum fall in the working too long category.  The type of people on an early retirement forum aren't exactly the type to have tens of millions of dollars and continue to work a job that will put them into an early grave. I am certainly not one of them. Every day I work is a calculated decision about if x pay per hour is worth what I can buy with x. Once the scale tips towards quitting, I will be gone.

My biggest complaint, besides this being common sense, is his use of the fact that networth peaks in one's 60s. To say that proves that people are over saving is either ignorant or deceitful to the ignorant.  I have no patience for either.

Really??

I see way more stories of people here working too long than anything else.

We have so many people who over the years have told us that they've saved to a point that is beyond conservative and still don't feel comfortable pulling the plug on their careers even though they're miserable.

Now granted, that trend has slowed down, but I think that's largely due to the whole forum slowing down. But for a good stretch of years it was batshit insane here with people having saved to WRs below 3%, having paid off houses, and extra buffers in place like large cash reserves, and STILL struggling to walk away from a paycheque because they didn't feel "safe" enough.

Pretty much every week I was telling someone "no one is holding a gun to your head and making you work." It got to the point that it was comical. That's why nereo has my quote in his signature that you can't Boglehead your way to total financial security.

Perhaps it's not as much of an issue here as it was for a good stretch of time, but it was absolutely a trend for a good long time when all of the super high earners took over the forums.

At one point I think I was participating in a half dozen threads about burnout and thinking that I hadn't seen a thread about actual frugality in quite some time.

[mistymoney]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

You can ask this question every year - once you have 25x your expenses, it's just a few more years till 33x.

Then it's only a few more until you can live a more luxurious retirement too.

There's always a reason to justify OMY.

Maybe, but if it's justified then it's justified. Right?  No matter how much money you have, the question is always is what I'm giving up to earn money worth what I can use the money for. For some people the answer to that question will always be yes, for others it will always be no. Most have a point somewhere in between where the extra money isn't worth it. And so they quit working. I just don't think very many people on this forum fall in the working too long category.  The type of people on an early retirement forum aren't exactly the type to have tens of millions of dollars and continue to work a job that will put them into an early grave. I am certainly not one of them. Every day I work is a calculated decision about if x pay per hour is worth what I can buy with x. Once the scale tips towards quitting, I will be gone.

My biggest complaint, besides this being common sense, is his use of the fact that networth peaks in one's 60s. To say that proves that people are over saving is either ignorant or deceitful to the ignorant.  I have no patience for either.

Doesn't networth peaking at 60 show the opposite? if the 4% was applied, networth should continuing increaing.

[ixtap]

Doesn't networth peaking at 60 show the opposite? if the 4% was applied, networth should continuing increaing.

The 4% rule makes no such promise.

[GuitarStv]

Regarding “just getting another job”, often changing jobs isn’t going to help because it’s not anything specific about the job you hate, it’s the demands on your time that is the problem. Before I FIRED I would have said “i hate my job”, but I didn’t really. I liked the work I did. I liked the people. The office environment was nice and I could work from home. I was well compensated. What I hated was waking up on any given day and having to get work done when I’d actually rather go hiking, or visit a friend or read my book or paint or whatever. Switching to a different job wouldn’t take away those time constraints.

I FIRED in 2020. The last 2.5 years were a real slog. I debated about continuing because our expenses are so high because of kids. I wanted to be sure before I walked away from what was a really good job. Lots of people would say we have too much tuition and insurance to pay to safely FIRE. Eventually I realized we could never be sure. There is always some level of risk in life. Currently our investments are up $850,000 since my FIRE date. So while some of that may erode again in the next market downturn, it seems pretty safe to have quit and have ownership of my time.

This is a great and heartening post to read.

[Villanelle]

If you read the actual book (which I think is beyond fantastic and should be required reading for folks pursuing FIRE) you will realize he isn't targeting people who don't save anything in their lives or save minimally.

It's target audience is people who are sacrificing their life for the sake of accumulating wealth, which they almost assuredly won't spend.

Considering the threshold of safety most who FIRE aim for, it's an important counter perspective to the "I need to be 100.0000% positive my investments will be sufficient."

For example if you have a 95%+ chance of FIRE success - it means you have meaningfully oversaved in 19/20 scenarios (and this is ignoring all the safeties built into the 4% rule, which would increase that chance from 95% to be higher for nearly everyone). People talk a lot about avoiding the 1/20 situation but ignore the cost and impact of the 19/20.

If you are thinking "yes ender but what if you run out of money! better to be safe than sorry!" your approach to money is basically the target audience of his book.

I'll check out the book if someone can answer my question of what is the downside of working an extra year or two besides possibly having some extra fun money if everything goes well?

You can ask this question every year - once you have 25x your expenses, it's just a few more years till 33x.

Then it's only a few more until you can live a more luxurious retirement too.

There's always a reason to justify OMY.

Maybe, but if it's justified then it's justified. Right?  No matter how much money you have, the question is always is what I'm giving up to earn money worth what I can use the money for. For some people the answer to that question will always be yes, for others it will always be no. Most have a point somewhere in between where the extra money isn't worth it. And so they quit working. I just don't think very many people on this forum fall in the working too long category. The type of people on an early retirement forum aren't exactly the type to have tens of millions of dollars and continue to work a job that will put them into an early grave. I am certainly not one of them. Every day I work is a calculated decision about if x pay per hour is worth what I can buy with x. Once the scale tips towards quitting, I will be gone.

My biggest complaint, besides this being common sense, is his use of the fact that networth peaks in one's 60s. To say that proves that people are over saving is either ignorant or deceitful to the ignorant.  I have no patience for either.

I guess you haven’t spent much time reading the $2 - $4 million and beyond thread?
While not the majority, there are lots of people in this forum that are way past enough. Of course that’s difficult to quantify because enough is difficult to quantify. Many would say working a day past the 25x mark is just OMY syndrome and crazy. But then you have plenty of people who turn around and argue that the 4% rule isn’t valid, or the past doesn’t guarantee the future etc, etc, etc. If you believe those things then it isn’t actually over saving is it? It’s just being prudent.

Regarding “just getting another job”, often changing jobs isn’t going to help because it’s not anything specific about the job you hate, it’s the demands on your time that is the problem. Before I FIRED I would have said “i hate my job”, but I didn’t really. I liked the work I did. I liked the people. The office environment was nice and I could work from home. I was well compensated. What I hated was waking up on any given day and having to get work done when I’d actually rather go hiking, or visit a friend or read my book or paint or whatever. Switching to a different job wouldn’t take away those time constraints.

I FIRED in 2020. The last 2.5 years were a real slog. I debated about continuing because our expenses are so high because of kids. I wanted to be sure before I walked away from what was a really good job. Lots of people would say we have too much tuition and insurance to pay to safely FIRE. Eventually I realized we could never be sure. There is always some level of risk in life. Currently our investments are up $850,000 since my FIRE date. So while some of that may erode again in the next market downturn, it seems pretty safe to have quit and have ownership of my time.

This is why I think more people should seriously consider coast/Barista FIRE.  They can't see past "I'm giving up a job making $300k/yr, for one making $25k/yr [or$150/hr to $17-40/hr].  Illogical."  If they could, them might see, "I'm giving up almost no flexibility and a requirement to work 40-50+ hours a week, plus drive to the office 5x/week, for one where I only work 2-3 days a week, I can take more time off as long as I give sufficient notice, and I can visit my friend and read my book and hike and paint with all the rest of my time.  Plus decompress, run errands and make phone calls during the times places are less busy because everyone else is at work.  And I won't resent those 16-24 hours a week I do spend at work nearly as much because I will have some many other additional hours." 

[Gardencat]

I’m doing what Villanelle is suggesting and recommend it!

I stopped working at my high stress full time job in 2021 and took a year off. It went by so quickly! But the market wasn’t doing much and I had lots of time on my hands so now I work about 16-20 hours a week.

I have one job I do that is very useful in my community (does not pay well) and a freelance gig that pays nearly 5X as much. Both are flexible. They don’t cover all my expenses but I wasn’t planning to work at all so it makes the math a lot better.

The community job has me contributing to my state’s pension scheme which I find a little funny. Being flexible and doing just a little work is much easier than I expected. The freelance gig just showed up in my email one day (referred but a former colleague).

[nereo]

This is why I think more people should seriously consider coast/Barista FIRE.  They can't see past "I'm giving up a job making $300k/yr, for one making $25k/yr [or$150/hr to $17-40/hr].  Illogical."  If they could, them might see, "I'm giving up almost no flexibility and a requirement to work 40-50+ hours a week, plus drive to the office 5x/week, for one where I only work 2-3 days a week, I can take more time off as long as I give sufficient notice, and I can visit my friend and read my book and hike and paint with all the rest of my time.  Plus decompress, run errands and make phone calls during the times places are less busy because everyone else is at work.  And I won't resent those 16-24 hours a week I do spend at work nearly as much because I will have some many other additional hours."

When I worked at a kids camp and vacation destination for several years I was intrigued both at there were always several older (typically late 40s thru 50s) who had left high powered jobs and now just worked there part time, along with the small battalion of early 20 something’s like me working there as an early career job. 

I got to know many of them over the years and their reasons were similar to what Villanelle said above: they experienced zero stress here compared to their last job as a nurse/military officer/corporate manager. Th difference between working 5 days per week with perpetual projects and on-call hours vs 3 days with zero off-duty responsibilities was profound. At that level they actually looked forward to coming in each day. The modest income meant they never had to consider how their investments were doing or had deferred their pension a few more years, “earning” them far more each month than their current paycheck.

[BeanCounter]

This is why I think more people should seriously consider coast/Barista FIRE.  They can't see past "I'm giving up a job making $300k/yr, for one making $25k/yr [or$150/hr to $17-40/hr].  Illogical."  If they could, them might see, "I'm giving up almost no flexibility and a requirement to work 40-50+ hours a week, plus drive to the office 5x/week, for one where I only work 2-3 days a week, I can take more time off as long as I give sufficient notice, and I can visit my friend and read my book and hike and paint with all the rest of my time.  Plus decompress, run errands and make phone calls during the times places are less busy because everyone else is at work.  And I won't resent those 16-24 hours a week I do spend at work nearly as much because I will have some many other additional hours."

When I worked at a kids camp and vacation destination for several years I was intrigued both at there were always several older (typically late 40s thru 50s) who had left high powered jobs and now just worked there part time, along with the small battalion of early 20 something’s like me working there as an early career job. 

I got to know many of them over the years and their reasons were similar to what Villanelle said above: they experienced zero stress here compared to their last job as a nurse/military officer/corporate manager. Th difference between working 5 days per week with perpetual projects and on-call hours vs 3 days with zero off-duty responsibilities was profound. At that level they actually looked forward to coming in each day. The modest income meant they never had to consider how their investments were doing or had deferred their pension a few more years, “earning” them far more each month than their current paycheck.

I totally agree and I wish more employers would be open to part time workers. I think they are missing out on talent by only offering full time employment.
I've done some consulting work since I FIRED which I found engaging but not rewarding and sometimes annoying. I'm currently scaling that back to nearly zero because I have a lot of kid transportation responsibilities. DH is still working mostly because he likes it and likes the employer's insurance. But he is feeling ready to leave or go freelance. We just got an insurance quote and if we are careful with taxable income it's pretty reasonable.
We are only 46 so I think we will continue to do some PT work on and off for many years just to have extra blow money and because for at least the next 8 years we have kids at home and are tied to the school calendar. It's the best of both worlds for sure! I would really love to find some part time work that is also rewarding, but it might just need to be volunteer work.

[Metalcat]

This is why I think more people should seriously consider coast/Barista FIRE.  They can't see past "I'm giving up a job making $300k/yr, for one making $25k/yr [or$150/hr to $17-40/hr].  Illogical."  If they could, them might see, "I'm giving up almost no flexibility and a requirement to work 40-50+ hours a week, plus drive to the office 5x/week, for one where I only work 2-3 days a week, I can take more time off as long as I give sufficient notice, and I can visit my friend and read my book and hike and paint with all the rest of my time.  Plus decompress, run errands and make phone calls during the times places are less busy because everyone else is at work.  And I won't resent those 16-24 hours a week I do spend at work nearly as much because I will have some many other additional hours."

When I worked at a kids camp and vacation destination for several years I was intrigued both at there were always several older (typically late 40s thru 50s) who had left high powered jobs and now just worked there part time, along with the small battalion of early 20 something’s like me working there as an early career job. 

I got to know many of them over the years and their reasons were similar to what Villanelle said above: they experienced zero stress here compared to their last job as a nurse/military officer/corporate manager. Th difference between working 5 days per week with perpetual projects and on-call hours vs 3 days with zero off-duty responsibilities was profound. At that level they actually looked forward to coming in each day. The modest income meant they never had to consider how their investments were doing or had deferred their pension a few more years, “earning” them far more each month than their current paycheck.

I totally agree and I wish more employers would be open to part time workers. I think they are missing out on talent by only offering full time employment.
I've done some consulting work since I FIRED which I found engaging but not rewarding and sometimes annoying. I'm currently scaling that back to nearly zero because I have a lot of kid transportation responsibilities. DH is still working mostly because he likes it and likes the employer's insurance. But he is feeling ready to leave or go freelance. We just got an insurance quote and if we are careful with taxable income it's pretty reasonable.
We are only 46 so I think we will continue to do some PT work on and off for many years just to have extra blow money and because for at least the next 8 years we have kids at home and are tied to the school calendar. It's the best of both worlds for sure! I would really love to find some part time work that is also rewarding, but it might just need to be volunteer work.

I've personally never struggled to find part time work, although it's a million times easier to do as a consultant than as an employee.

Org charts don't tend to include part time roles because they're hard to staff and have a lot of turnover, but many companies fill gaps with consultant services. Most companies have TONS of additional work where they would benefit from more staff but cannot afford to add an additional full time box to their org chart. If you can figure out which companies don't tend to hire in-house for the services you offer, but could benefit from them, it's easy to put together a proposal of how your services would offer value.

For example, my mom was an HR professional and it's hard to find part time HR roles. However, a TON of smaller companies can't afford a dedicated HR staff member, but desperately need professional HR services, so she could easily get contracted for part time serviced with a company for years.

Look at your various skills and figure out what industries don't tend to hire for them full time, but could really benefit from them. Those will be your easiest pathways to part time, well compensated work within your skill set.

It obviously helps to have knowledge of those industries, but it doesn't take a lot to get that knowledge if you have a lot of free time and aren't in a rush to find work.

The best opportunities tend to exist at the intersections of valuable skills/knowledge in combinations that tend to be rare. Because you don't need a lot of opportunities, you just need opportunities where you are specifically valuable and worth hiring on your terms.

This kind of odd skill combination is a lot less useful for full time jobs, which by design have to require skills that are more predictable, because you have to be able to fill roles and handle turnover. But as a consultant, you can really capitalize on what skill/knowledge combos companies can't normally aim to hire.

[Villanelle]

This is why I think more people should seriously consider coast/Barista FIRE.  They can't see past "I'm giving up a job making $300k/yr, for one making $25k/yr [or$150/hr to $17-40/hr].  Illogical."  If they could, them might see, "I'm giving up almost no flexibility and a requirement to work 40-50+ hours a week, plus drive to the office 5x/week, for one where I only work 2-3 days a week, I can take more time off as long as I give sufficient notice, and I can visit my friend and read my book and hike and paint with all the rest of my time.  Plus decompress, run errands and make phone calls during the times places are less busy because everyone else is at work.  And I won't resent those 16-24 hours a week I do spend at work nearly as much because I will have some many other additional hours."

When I worked at a kids camp and vacation destination for several years I was intrigued both at there were always several older (typically late 40s thru 50s) who had left high powered jobs and now just worked there part time, along with the small battalion of early 20 something’s like me working there as an early career job. 

I got to know many of them over the years and their reasons were similar to what Villanelle said above: they experienced zero stress here compared to their last job as a nurse/military officer/corporate manager. Th difference between working 5 days per week with perpetual projects and on-call hours vs 3 days with zero off-duty responsibilities was profound. At that level they actually looked forward to coming in each day. The modest income meant they never had to consider how their investments were doing or had deferred their pension a few more years, “earning” them far more each month than their current paycheck.

I totally agree and I wish more employers would be open to part time workers. I think they are missing out on talent by only offering full time employment.
I've done some consulting work since I FIRED which I found engaging but not rewarding and sometimes annoying. I'm currently scaling that back to nearly zero because I have a lot of kid transportation responsibilities. DH is still working mostly because he likes it and likes the employer's insurance. But he is feeling ready to leave or go freelance. We just got an insurance quote and if we are careful with taxable income it's pretty reasonable.
We are only 46 so I think we will continue to do some PT work on and off for many years just to have extra blow money and because for at least the next 8 years we have kids at home and are tied to the school calendar. It's the best of both worlds for sure! I would really love to find some part time work that is also rewarding, but it might just need to be volunteer work.

For many of my childhood years, my mom was a substitute teacher.  You could even limit it so you only sub at your children's school so that they can just wait around at the end of the day for you to drive them home, if that's the major sticking point.  It would mean you work less, at least initially, but you would still work some.  Districts around me are desperate for subs; yours might be as well. if you are a semi-decent, semi-responsible sub, there will likely be a demand for you after you've proven yourself a bit.  Teachers can by-name request subs, rather than have them randomly assigned by some algorithm that mostly factors in "whose turn is it to get work".  The money is okay.  (In many areas I think you don't pay into SSI, which is something to keep in mind, though that means you are contributing to a pension).  You could drive your kids to school and home and get in a workday.