Spouse FI Convincing

[REatc]

I have tried to show my wife (in a month) FI convincing statistics and math, she just glazes over it. I’ve tried to show and tell her that saving as much as possible now and over the next 5-10 years will provide us a lifetime of options and opportunities, she just doesn’t seem as fired up about FIRE as me. How did you convince/tell/show your  spouse/partner that FI should be the number 1 priority? I think for her, and slight myself, she finds it hard to balance investing and spending.

[bacchi]

You, my friend, are in luck. There's a whole thread on this.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-to-convert-your-so-to-mmm-in-50-awesome-steps/



tl;dr It takes time.

[ixtap]

Maybe instead of convincing, open a conversation and compromise. The "save as much as humanly possible" approach isn't appealing to everyone. Or even most, if we look at the critiques of FIRE.

We were both pretty frugal from the get go. But what put us on the path to FIRE was having something to retire to. We were actually planning a very long sabbatical when we found FIRE and the 4% rule. Turned out for us there wasn't a particularly big difference between 10x in taxable and 25x across the whole portfolio.

[patchyfacialhair]

My wife is basically disconnected from our finances. I've tried showing her my intricate spreadsheet, and she just doesn't care at all. Her words: "I just don't want to care about money." Totally fine.

So, I've asked her, "when do you want to retire?" She responded "when the girls are done with high school." That puts us around the late 2030s. So basically I tell her, I'll get us there, and I'll keep the budget in check, and we'll discuss big purchases together, and we'll see how things shake out year over year. Around tax time, she gets a little curious, we align to where we stand at that point in all financial matters, and that's pretty much it for the year. It works for us because we make more than enough money to cover saving for retirement, childcare/private school, and travel. The balance is invested.

We're likely to be FI in about 10-12 years, faster if we make more money, and I've decided that I'm not going to stress her out about each line item in our budget. I just keep her in check at times...no we don't need a couch from Pottery Barn, our current cheapo one is fine because the girls will inevitably color on it or something. Or, no, we don't need to gut remodel our kitchen, we can paint cabinets and throw up new backsplash for a fraction of the price. And in the background, I'm optimizing our bills where possible.

Obviously if OP's wife is one of those "if I have money it's getting spent types" then you have bigger problems that you need to align to, and the posted link would be very helpful.

[roomtempmayo]

How did you convince/tell/show your  spouse/partner that FI should be the number 1 priority?

I don't think you should.  You don't get to pick your wife's values or priorities.  All sorts of people make choices to spend such that they need to work until 65 or beyond, and those can be perfectly reasonable choices.  Maybe your wife is one of those people.

I'd suggest having an extended conversation (over weeks/months/years) about your shared values, goals, and priorities.  Once you agree there, you can take steps to align your spending with what you've decided together you want to achieve.  If you aren't on the same page about what you want to accomplish, there's no amount of personal finance strategy that will fix that problem.

[RainyDay]

Agree with @caleb.  FI and retiring early is YOUR priority.  That doesn't mean it's hers.  And for some people, looking at numbers, spreadsheets, percentages, etc is mind-numbing and makes them shut down.

My DH is very much a live-in-the-moment type person.  He does not think much about the future, and certainly doesn't spend time worrying about or planning for it.  But what DID resonate with him is whether something he was considering purchasing would bring him a commensurate amount of happiness.  Once I got him thinking in those terms, he was much more careful and thoughtful about buying things.  If it takes him X amount of time to earn the money to buy something, is that something worth it?  Will he actually use and enjoy it?  This eventually turned into him searching for alternate (lower priced) items in some cases, not buying things in other cases, and in general being thoughtful about most purchases.

You didn't say whether your spouse is currently working, but if she is, she might be more receptive to ideas about working fewer hours, and thus having more free time, if you both can cut certain costs. 

[Hall11235]

I second all that has been said.

For my own DW, it was about helping her see what she really valued (time with loved ones, hiking, etc.), and understanding how money folds into that. So, when we go for a lovely hike on a Saturday morning with our dog, I'll gently let her know that it could be a Tuesday and we could have the whole park to ourselves, if only we try a little harder to save. Or that we can spend so much more time with our aging parents if we save a little bit more now.

Also, I volunteered to handle all finances. I let her know what she has when she wants to know, and ask that she chat with me before any purchase more than $100. YMMV on this one though. ;)

[CodingHare]

Yeah, I don't see it as my job to convince my SO to FIRE.  Our situation is dual income no kids, and we maintain separate finances with a shared account for joint expenses like the mortgage and utilities.

For my SO, he really likes his job and is mostly interested in FI.  He's honestly at a point in his career where he doesn't need FU money to say no to work BS, since he can get another job really easily if needed.  So for him, he wants the balance to be more weighted towards gratification today.  I'm fine with this because he maxes his 401k and is debt free save for our mortgage.  He's financially responsible and I have no worries about him retiring when he wishes.

For myself, I want out at 40.  My job is fine, but I'd rather spend my day puttering on my hobbies.  My SO doesn't 100% understand my insistence on getting to a point of not needing to work, but he supports me.  My FIRE number includes being able to contribute to my half of household expenses indefinitely, so I won't need to work to continue to finance my half of our lifestyle.

I don't think both spouses need to FIRE at the same time, as long as you are on the same page about lifestyle creep and debt.  And as long as there is respect on both sides for what the other partner values.

[startingsmall]

My husband has zero interest in finances, the FIRE movement, or even necessarily retiring early. In the beginning, I just focused on framing the conversation in a way that emphasized security and options. I pointed out that we weren't saving much, and then worked to make changes in the areas that he wouldn't notice much, without asking him to make any changes.

After a few years, as our investments began to pick up steam, I started pointing out how quickly our accounts were growing. I also pointed out that, with a bit more effort, we could potentially build enough savings that work would be optional. I emphasized that he could still work as long as he'd like, but I wasn't okay with working until 65 and reaching FIRE would give him the freedom to select jobs based on personal goals instead of just pay. Once he understood that, I was able to tighten up the budget a bit more.

We're still nowhere near where I'd like to be on reducing our spending, but we've finally reached a compromise that should let us FIRE by the time I'm 52ish (he'll be 47). So, I guess I really can't complain too much. For the most part, I don't tell him much about our finances because he doesn't care. Every now and then, though, I'll have to have a "DUDE, rein in your spending!" talk... and then he'll rein it in, for a little while, until I have to bring it up again.

[clarkfan1979]

I have tried to show my wife (in a month) FI convincing statistics and math, she just glazes over it. I’ve tried to show and tell her that saving as much as possible now and over the next 5-10 years will provide us a lifetime of options and opportunities, she just doesn’t seem as fired up about FIRE as me. How did you convince/tell/show your  spouse/partner that FI should be the number 1 priority? I think for her, and slight myself, she finds it hard to balance investing and spending.

I was always frugal because I was a grad student until 2011. Then I found MMM in 2014. I shared it with my wife and I didn't get much of a response. However, over the next 12 months, she really started to dislike her job. She wanted to quit her 50 hours/week manager job for a part-time job of 20 hours/week. I explained to her that because she spends most of her paycheck, she needs to continue to work at a job that she doesn't like to support her lifestyle. If she could reduce her spending she could quit her job she didn't like. Because saving was now connected to something that she valued, she was mostly on board. She had to change her habits, which takes time, but she was at least motivated.

We had a child in 2017 and she became even more motivated to save so she could spend more time with our son.

Now in 2022, we are in Hawaii for 2 months for mostly vacation. Our rental went vacant last month and we are using for two months while we are in between tenants. We are furnishing the unit, which is a little bit of work. Trips to Costco and Target. I will also be doing some landscaping.   

[wageslave23]

I've let my spouse know from the beginning that I don't want to waste money and I don't want to work any longer than I have to and have put myself in a position to be able to retire early. Then she has the option to do the same, spend less and retire early or spend more and work more.  If she wants to buy a new car, I sat thats fine, are you willing to work another year to pay for it?  That way it's entirely up to her.

[wageslave23]

I have tried to show my wife (in a month) FI convincing statistics and math, she just glazes over it. I’ve tried to show and tell her that saving as much as possible now and over the next 5-10 years will provide us a lifetime of options and opportunities, she just doesn’t seem as fired up about FIRE as me. How did you convince/tell/show your  spouse/partner that FI should be the number 1 priority? I think for her, and slight myself, she finds it hard to balance investing and spending.

I was always frugal because I was a grad student until 2011. Then I found MMM in 2014. I shared it with my wife and I didn't get much of a response. However, over the next 12 months, she really started to dislike her job. She wanted to quit her 50 hours/week manager job for a part-time job of 20 hours/week. I explained to her that because she spends most of her paycheck, she needs to continue to work at a job that she doesn't like to support her lifestyle. If she could reduce her spending she could quit her job she didn't like. Because saving was now connected to something that she valued, she was mostly on board. She had to change her habits, which takes time, but she was at least motivated.

We had a child in 2017 and she became even more motivated to save so she could spend more time with our son.

Now in 2022, we are in Hawaii for 2 months for mostly vacation. Our rental went vacant last month and we are using for two months while we are in between tenants. We are furnishing the unit, which is a little bit of work. Trips to Costco and Target. I will also be doing some landscaping.

Same thing happened with my wife. Once she got pregnant she started to want to reduce her hours. So that she could spend more time at home. I said thats no problem, reduce your hours or quit if you want, we can get buy without it. That was a huge eye opener to the benefit of spending less. That and pointing out the money problems of other family members and friends because everyone is fine until something unexpected comes along and it always does. Now she'll criticize someone spending beyond their means and say they are going to regret that house/car purchase if they lose their job or have a health issue

[elysianfields]

My DW makes me very proud because she tells people, "When I first started working in America (she didn't grow up in the US), DH told me that in the US you have to plan for your own retirement, not spend your whole paycheck, but instead put money aside and start investing in the stock market.  That has paid off in a big way for us, I'm very grateful DH gave me this advice, you should follow it too."  It has taken me years to get her onboard, but the benefits are accumulating, and she definitely values our FU money.

Maybe there are some easy wins or cheap victories you can share first before expounding on the whole FIRE idea.  Or perhaps you have friends you can point to who cut back their work hours because they have FU money, or maybe some tragedy befell someone that caused them or others to shift their priorities, as in the following anecdote.

I encountered someone who is a leader in his field, had no desire to retire at the top of his game, until one of his adult children developed cancer.  He quit as soon as he could hand things off, realizing that time with his child was worth much more than his career.  He had the mustache to pull it off and the contacts to support a transition to part-time consulting; he works when he likes and only if the project is interesting.  His child recovered and is cancer-free, so it all worked out, but I learned a valuable lesson as I count down to pawning off my own golden handcuffs.

Can you draw your father out to spend more time with his grandchildren and less working? 

You might talk about your core values with your spouse as well - whatever they are - and then talk about how FU money can lead to less work and the ability to live out those values.

Poking through the archives of Brave New Life, I found this great article about convincing your spouse to become Mustachian: https://web.archive.org/web/20191226183211/http://www.bravenewlife.com/02/how-to-get-your-significant-to-embrace-a-brave-new-life/

[six-car-habit]

Like CodingHare, my wife and i keep separate finances, with a joint account for mortgage / utilities / groceries.   We put in a ratio of 62% me / 38% her , into the joint account, since this is reflective of our incomes.  The leftover money we each have after meeting the combined bills, is ours to spend or save individually as we please.  If there is a big purchase, we compromise on who will pay what amount towards it.

  I plan on retiring at my minimum pension age, as that will get our family subsidized health insurance, and me a small pension.  She has no date or goal for retiring.  I have worked at the same place for almost 3 decades and am tired of it. She has been with several different companies, plus has her own self employment clients.

 After years of encouraging her to save more, or suggesting better ways to have her IRA money invested instead of 'cash' - I've kind-of given up. She hardly puts anything into her IRA, and at times we've 'assigned'  some of our tax refund to go into her IRA to bolster it, with the idea she will invest in a certain fund. And then she doesn't put that $$ into a fund but leaves it in the account as 'cash'.  It's crazy, and the kicker is she's a bookkeeper, so she should 'know better'.

   - I am aiming for the object of replacing my working income, thru the pension and disbursements from my 401K. We won't retire anywhere near the same time, and i foresee me taking some solo trips / vacations because she will still be working.

  The one thing i have been sucessfull at is tracking her/my personal expenses on a monthly sheet we tack onto the refrigerator. If you buy something, you write it on the sheet.  At least this way we know where the "extra" money is going.

  Anyhow, good luck to you, i offer my situation as an example where the convincing hasn't happened after years of trying.
 

[JupiterGreen]

I’m the one that does all the finances. DH is fine being on a budget, but IDK if he will ever FIRE. He likes to work ( I do too but not as much as him). So you may need to take baby steps too.  The best I can do is budget with him and make him look at our net worth once a month (over 1mill +paid off house). He has childhood money trauma and I’ve realized it doesn’t matter how much money we have, he’s probably never going to feel comfortable. I’m compromising my FIRE plan for my partner because it will require that he quits his current job so we can move out of this godforsaken state. Even though we could FIRE now, he’s agreed to resign in about 4-5 years from now. So like some people here have already mentioned, it may be best to make your own plan. As long as your SO can go along and isn’t actively ruining your plan you should be good to go. It’s okay to FIRE without your partner.

[CodingHare]

I should note that my SO and I discussed finances and our goals before marriage, and set up the joint account before marriage.  For me, disagreement about finances was a dealbreaker like disagreeing about not having kids.  I didn't need a partner who was 100% committed to FIRE, but I did need one that had being debt free and living within his means as a priority.

Money habits are one of those things that rarely get better after marriage, so it's better to filter out at the dating stage if you can, IMO.  Otherwise you may be stuck with compromising more than you envisioned.

[charis]

Is your spouse frugal? Do you have joint savings goals already? My spouse isn't interested in finances but values the prospect of financial independence due some stressful job experiences.  We set up a lifestyle that we could afford if the higher earning spouse lost their job. We still operate that way and never stress about $. So all income above our spending gets saved automatically.  Most goes to our 401ks/deferred comp/IRAs/HSA. But the excess, about 2k/months goes to a savings account. Normally we'd plan to invest that, but we are saving for a new roof right now :(

I guess my point is that your spouse doesn't necessarily have to buy into FIRE if they are already on board with a savings plan that will get you there.

[Tigerpine]

Nothing speaks louder than results.  I helped a friend get his wife on board with investing by helping him get his financial house in order.  She loves seeing the money grow.

How important is FIRE to you?  I'm more of a FE FI FO man, myself (Financially Educated, Financially Independent, Financially Organized).  I don't mind working per se.  My thought is that work is inherently good for people.  If you're FI, you have the power to move on when it's appropriate.  My wife likes that outlook.

Maybe you and your wife can come up with a philosophy you can mutually agree on.  It doesn't *have* to be FIRE.  She's an equal part of the relationship, after all.

[lutorm]

While I was definitely the one to start talking about FIRE, we've both sort of eased into it. Once we had kids, and now COVID, and then us talking about moving out of the country, it's been a feeling of tremendous freedom to be able to do this if we want. My wife's not been super motivated to FIRE, but she definitely appreciates what this freedom means to us.

[pdxvandal]

My spouse knows my FIRE plans in the next 1-2 years, but she will continue to work. She doesn't fully understand the concept, nor has much interest right now, but maybe after peace out of the FT workforce, the fire will spread.

[DoneFSO]

I am fascinated by how many people on this forum appear to be very committed to FIRE, but are in serious relationships or marriages with people who do not believe in FIRE.  On the one hand, I understand the frustration, but on the other hand, I am somewhat on the side of the non-FIRE significant other/child.  Why?  Because in many cases, the non-FIRE spouse/kid was always honest with the FIRE spouse/parent from the beginning, but the FIRE spouse/parent in essence pulled a bait-and-switch on them.

Why shouldn’t the significant other (or kids, for that matter) be upset when they are promised (or strongly implied) a life of comfort and upward mobility -- and even allowed to get used to it -- and then the rug is pulled and they are told, “Actually, I loathe your values, and I want us to live like paupers forever because I no longer like working for bosses.”  In my view, the significant others and kids have the moral high ground in such a scenario.  I imagine that they cling to the moral high ground and do not cede it to the FIRE spouse/parent.  As well they shouldn’t because they are locked in a battle of wills, after all… and they have the moral high ground.  It would be tactically and strategically foolish of them to cede it.  The FIRE spouse/parent is the one who has changed, after all, not them.  The FIRE spouse/parent is the one who is being weird, not them.

In fact, the FIRE spouse/parent should be proud of the non-FIRE spouses/kids for resisting so fiercely.  They have the moral high-ground, after all.  Wouldn’t it be a display of incredible weakness if they were to cede based on an abstract FIRE notion that the FIRE spouse/parent A) learned on a website, B) has no experience with, and C) personally knows ZERO people who are successfully implementing?

Any non-FIRE spouses and kids who may have stumbled onto this forum seeking clarity regarding your spouse/parent’s new beliefs… take heart.  You know you have the moral high ground!  Resist.  Your FIRE spouse/parent will eventually lose the battle if you just resist.  Believe in yourself and never cede an inch.

[charis]

Wow, imo you really misread this thread, @DoneFSO.  Who said anything about a bait and switch or a battle of wills?

[DoneFSO]

Wow, imo you really misread this thread, @DoneFSO.  Who said anything about a bait and switch or a battle of wills?

You must be trolling me... most of these spouse/kids-related posts are essentially matters of battles of wills... with the bait and switch being the leitmotif...

[charis]

None of the posts on this thread reflect that, except possibly the OP. All the response essentially range from an uninterested spouse to a fully on board spouse after learning about FIRE. No battles. And most posters discussed their approach to finances before marriage, which is their continued approach.

[JupiterGreen]

@DoneFSO that is a very weird take. Of course I can't speak for everyone, but my relationship is not a battle. My partner is my friend I am not at war with him. Having a perspective on how to live (and even changes to perspectives) is not a moral question. It's what adults in relationships do over a period of time while we are navigating life together. We don't go into a relationship knowing everything that will come up, so we adjust to one another and we communicate our hopes, dreams, and desires. This is what healthy relationships do. My significant other is amazing and we co-exists in a place of mutual respect.

As for the the unnecessary dig about MMM's website and the FIRE movement, I'm surprised you are here if you feel that way. Most of us have spent years becoming financially literate, saving, tracking our spending, and cutting costs where necessary. It was unfair of you to characterize MMM and us as you did. You should apologize.

[DoneFSO]

You protest too much.  I am here because I plan to FIRE.  My point is that you have to really look at it from the non-FIRE spouse/kid's point of view.  Once you do, you will realize you don't have the moral high ground, and you might approach the conversation differently.

[CodingHare]

You protest too much.  I am here because I plan to FIRE.  My point is that you have to really look at it from the non-FIRE spouse/kid's point of view.  Once you do, you will realize you don't have the moral high ground, and you might approach the conversation differently.

I don't really understand why you are interpreting these comments as so adversarial to poster's non-FIRE spouses.  To make it personal, I was clear about my goal to FIRE before we got married.  I am planning to work extra years in order to finance the lifestyle my SO and I agreed to, including home ownership in a high cost of living area, vacations, and lots of money spent on hobbies.  I am financing my FIRE by myself and do not expect my SO to subsidize me (and I contribute to my half of household expenses).  In what way do you think he is being taken advantage of?

[DoneFSO]

To make it personal...

It wasn't.

EDIT:  But okay.  Why isn't he convinced?  Same question to everyone here who is so taken aback by my post.

[CodingHare]

To make it personal...

It wasn't.

EDIT:  But okay.  Why isn't he convinced?  Same question to everyone here who is so taken aback by my post.

He agrees FI makes sense but isn't interested in RE because he likes his job.  Nothing wrong with that.

[DoneFSO]

To make it personal...

It wasn't.

EDIT:  But okay.  Why isn't he convinced?  Same question to everyone here who is so taken aback by my post.

He agrees FI makes sense but isn't interested in RE because he likes his job.  Nothing wrong with that.

LOL, i just realized you are not the OP.  You sure did take the responsibility, though.  Well, friend, as you can see from this very thread in which we are posting, your experience is not everyone's experience.

[JupiterGreen]

@CodingHare I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm guessing DoneFSO is just very young/immature and doesn't really understand relationships.

As for you and I, we both broke the 1st rule of the internet:
Don't feed the trolls :) haha

The rest of us understand your perspective @CodingHare and we're here for that. Hopefully, this thread can get back on track.

[charis]

Lol, trolls gonna troll.  Sometimes reading comprehension is tricky.

[wageslave23]

I am fascinated by how many people on this forum appear to be very committed to FIRE, but are in serious relationships or marriages with people who do not believe in FIRE.  On the one hand, I understand the frustration, but on the other hand, I am somewhat on the side of the non-FIRE significant other/child.  Why?  Because in many cases, the non-FIRE spouse/kid was always honest with the FIRE spouse/parent from the beginning, but the FIRE spouse/parent in essence pulled a bait-and-switch on them.

Why shouldn’t the significant other (or kids, for that matter) be upset when they are promised (or strongly implied) a life of comfort and upward mobility -- and even allowed to get used to it -- and then the rug is pulled and they are told, “Actually, I loathe your values, and I want us to live like paupers forever because I no longer like working for bosses.”  In my view, the significant others and kids have the moral high ground in such a scenario.  I imagine that they cling to the moral high ground and do not cede it to the FIRE spouse/parent.  As well they shouldn’t because they are locked in a battle of wills, after all… and they have the moral high ground.  It would be tactically and strategically foolish of them to cede it.  The FIRE spouse/parent is the one who has changed, after all, not them.  The FIRE spouse/parent is the one who is being weird, not them.

In fact, the FIRE spouse/parent should be proud of the non-FIRE spouses/kids for resisting so fiercely.  They have the moral high-ground, after all.  Wouldn’t it be a display of incredible weakness if they were to cede based on an abstract FIRE notion that the FIRE spouse/parent A) learned on a website, B) has no experience with, and C) personally knows ZERO people who are successfully implementing?

Any non-FIRE spouses and kids who may have stumbled onto this forum seeking clarity regarding your spouse/parent’s new beliefs… take heart.  You know you have the moral high ground!  Resist.  Your FIRE spouse/parent will eventually lose the battle if you just resist.  Believe in yourself and never cede an inch.

This is one of the most funny posts I've read on here in awhile.  Thanks for that!  Needed a good laugh.  Ukraine could use your enthusiasm! 

[Villanelle]

How long have you been married?  What was your lifestyle when you married and in the early years?  Have you been on a FIRE track/of a FIRE mindset the entire time?

When you want to essentially change the culture of your relationship (if that's what is happening with the OP), you have to expect pushback, and recognize that it's not fair to shift your priorities and expect your partner to come along for the ride, much less to do so enthusiastically.  So I'm not sure I'd try very hard to "convince" them of anything.

Show why it is important to you.  That's not a speadsheet or a graph.  If she's not a numbers person, that does't work.  Talk about the lifestyle that saving more and retiring earlier will get you.  And also include things that are important to her.  If you have kids, for example, talk about how great it would be to be able to move to where the grandkids are and spend lots of time with them (if that is attractive and important to her).

And if she ins't on board, start making all the changes you can without changing her life much at all.  Cut all your personal expenses to the bone.  Lead by quiet example.  At worse, you get to FIRE a bit more quickly, but hopefully she sees these things and how much you are willing to do to make this happen.  And maybe also that your life isn't meaningfully worse when you buy thrift store clothes and eat inexpensive, meatless lunches and give up your gym membership and start biking to work.

At that point, maybe you ask if she's willing to meet you part way, and make a few cuts on her side of the expenses.  Even if it isn't full-on Mustachianism, maybe there are a few things she can cut that don't feel like huge sacrifices.

IOW, you treat this like you treat most differences in a marriage, and that doesn't mean laying out your perfect vision and trying to convince someone.  It means compromise. 

[mm1970]

Uh, there's no "moral high ground" here.

Marriage is a partnership, and you cannot call it a bait and switch - people change.  Sometimes, irreversibly (that's why they call it "irreconcilable differences"), but often not.

[DoneFSO]

Uh, there's no "moral high ground" here.

Marriage is a partnership, and you cannot call it a bait and switch - people change.  Sometimes, irreversibly (that's why they call it "irreconcilable differences"), but often not.

Who can't call it a bait and switch?  The non-FIRE spouse/kids?  Seems to me they sometimes do...

[Villanelle]

Uh, there's no "moral high ground" here.

Marriage is a partnership, and you cannot call it a bait and switch - people change.  Sometimes, irreversibly (that's why they call it "irreconcilable differences"), but often not.

Who can't call it a bait and switch?  The non-FIRE spouse/kids?  Seems to me they sometimes do...

People grow and evolve.  It's not "bait and switch" to say, "Hey, when we got married 15 years ago, I said I wanted to live in CA, but lots of life has happened in that time and now I think maybe I'd like to retire somewhere else".  Evolving or changing your priorities isn't "bait and switch", which strongly connotes an *intent* to lure someone in under false pretenses. 

[DoneFSO]

Uh, there's no "moral high ground" here.

Marriage is a partnership, and you cannot call it a bait and switch - people change.  Sometimes, irreversibly (that's why they call it "irreconcilable differences"), but often not.

Who can't call it a bait and switch?  The non-FIRE spouse/kids?  Seems to me they sometimes do...

People grow and evolve.  It's not "bait and switch" to say, "Hey, when we got married 15 years ago, I said I wanted to live in CA, but lots of life has happened in that time and now I think maybe I'd like to retire somewhere else".  Evolving or changing your priorities isn't "bait and switch", which strongly connotes an *intent* to lure someone in under false pretenses.

But I did not ask whether or not it is fair to call it a bait and switch.  The question I asked was "Who can't call it a bait and switch?  The non-FIRE spouse/kids?"  I am illustrating that it is a matter of perception, and my point is that the matter should be handled with extreme humility and sensitivity on the part of the FIRE spouse/parent because there is a real risk that the non-FIRE spouse/kids will perceive a bait and switch and attempt to seize a moral high-ground.  There are plenty of threads on this forum that illustrate this.  In other words, I completely agree with what you wrote in your above post:

When you want to essentially change the culture of your relationship (if that's what is happening with the OP), you have to expect pushback, and recognize that it's not fair to shift your priorities and expect your partner to come along for the ride, much less to do so enthusiastically.  So I'm not sure I'd try very hard to "convince" them of anything.

Not a bad blueprint at all for dealing with someone perceiving a moral high-ground (and thus resisting) who might be feeling like there was a bait and switch.  What exactly are we arguing about?

[NorthernIkigai]

FI is just what happens when naturally frugal people have decent jobs and invest their savings for a number of years. The fact that there is a FiRE movement pointing out that you can RE at a certain point  of this process (if you want to) is hardly bait and switch or any other kind of conflict.

If one of us had turned into a crazy consumer just because we are earning more nowadays, then that would probably have been a source of conflict.

[Villanelle]

Uh, there's no "moral high ground" here.

Marriage is a partnership, and you cannot call it a bait and switch - people change.  Sometimes, irreversibly (that's why they call it "irreconcilable differences"), but often not.

Who can't call it a bait and switch?  The non-FIRE spouse/kids?  Seems to me they sometimes do...

People grow and evolve.  It's not "bait and switch" to say, "Hey, when we got married 15 years ago, I said I wanted to live in CA, but lots of life has happened in that time and now I think maybe I'd like to retire somewhere else".  Evolving or changing your priorities isn't "bait and switch", which strongly connotes an *intent* to lure someone in under false pretenses.

But I did not ask whether or not it is fair to call it a bait and switch.  The question I asked was "Who can't call it a bait and switch?  The non-FIRE spouse/kids?"  I am illustrating that it is a matter of perception, and my point is that the matter should be handled with extreme humility and sensitivity on the part of the FIRE spouse/parent because there is a real risk that the non-FIRE spouse/kids will perceive a bait and switch and attempt to seize a moral high-ground.  There are plenty of threads on this forum that illustrate this.  In other words, I completely agree with what you wrote in your above post:

When you want to essentially change the culture of your relationship (if that's what is happening with the OP), you have to expect pushback, and recognize that it's not fair to shift your priorities and expect your partner to come along for the ride, much less to do so enthusiastically.  So I'm not sure I'd try very hard to "convince" them of anything.

Not a bad blueprint at all for dealing with someone perceiving a moral high-ground (and thus resisting) who might be feeling like there was a bait and switch.  What exactly are we arguing about?

Okay, and my answer is that no one can correctly call it a bait and switch.  I mean, sure someone can call it that.  They can call it rocket science or "late to dinner", or whatever else they want to call it.  They can call the sky's color red and can say their dog is a cat. But anyone calling it bait and switch is just inaccurate and wrong.  It is not a "matter of perception".  "Bait and switch" denotes--not just connotes, but denotes--an intention to make a substitution which is known to be lesser in some way. 

So yes, someone can--meaning is able to perform the action--call it bait and switch.  But it is not.  When you they do so they are inaccurate and incorrect.

Jesus.  This is ridiculous.

And going into marital disagreements claiming "moral high ground" is a great way to end up single and not have to deal with differing views on FIRE compared to your partner, so maybe you are on to something.  Be a sanctimonious ass and claim the "moral high ground" when there is a major disagreement on the path forward, wind up divorced, and never have to make another compromise with your partner/former partner on finances or anything else.  I suppose someone can "call that" winning the argument!

[lutorm]

That's some hilarious stuff here.

I mean, people must have some very different relationships than what I'm used to if they consider one party realizing that it's good to be financially secure to be a "bait and switch". I don't think we made any promises, implied or explicit, about anything more than loving and respecting each other when we got married. (Actually, I guess we did promise that we were both willing to have at least one child.) It would be a pretty bizarre prenuptial.. And if you don't realize and accept that everyone is going to change over decades as you spend your life together, I'd wager the marriage is not going to last, FIRE or not.

[Zikoris]

That's some hilarious stuff here.

I mean, people must have some very different relationships than what I'm used to if they consider one party realizing that it's good to be financially secure to be a "bait and switch". I don't think we made any promises, implied or explicit, about anything more than loving and respecting each other when we got married. (Actually, I guess we did promise that we were both willing to have at least one child.) It would be a pretty bizarre prenuptial.. And if you don't realize and accept that everyone is going to change over decades as you spend your life together, I'd wager the marriage is not going to last, FIRE or not.

Maybe not an explicit promise, but surely you had discussions (implied promises?) about what sort of lifetsyle you wanted to lead, your values, and what you were shooting for long term as far as goals/plans? For a lot of people, FI involves HUGE lifestyle changes, and I could definitely understand how someone who agreed to a certain life plan would feel like they were getting the rug yanked out from under them if all of a sudden their partner wants to burn it all down and go live on a sailboat or whatever.

Obviously if your FIRE plan involves something like saving 15% and retiring at 60 rather than 65, that's not going to be a big lifestyle hit, but most people who want to actually retire early (30s/40s) are looking at needing to save more like 50, 60, 70%, which is total life upheaval territory.

[wageslave23]

That's some hilarious stuff here.

I mean, people must have some very different relationships than what I'm used to if they consider one party realizing that it's good to be financially secure to be a "bait and switch". I don't think we made any promises, implied or explicit, about anything more than loving and respecting each other when we got married. (Actually, I guess we did promise that we were both willing to have at least one child.) It would be a pretty bizarre prenuptial.. And if you don't realize and accept that everyone is going to change over decades as you spend your life together, I'd wager the marriage is not going to last, FIRE or not.

Maybe not an explicit promise, but surely you had discussions (implied promises?) about what sort of lifetsyle you wanted to lead, your values, and what you were shooting for long term as far as goals/plans? For a lot of people, FI involves HUGE lifestyle changes, and I could definitely understand how someone who agreed to a certain life plan would feel like they were getting the rug yanked out from under them if all of a sudden their partner wants to burn it all down and go live on a sailboat or whatever.

Obviously if your FIRE plan involves something like saving 15% and retiring at 60 rather than 65, that's not going to be a big lifestyle hit, but most people who want to actually retire early (30s/40s) are looking at needing to save more like 50, 60, 70%, which is total life upheaval territory.

I think you hit the nail on the head with degree of frugality.  We live in an 1800 sq ft single family home in a very good school district with a nice yard and lots of parks and forest preserves nearby.  We have one baby and plan to have another.  My wife drives a Chevy Equinox and I have a Hyundai Sonata.  We go out to eat about once a week.  We go on a couple of vacations each year.  She just bought a $1200 Samsung Galaxy phone because she likes the camera and buys gluten free groceries.  I wouldn't say we are struggling under the burden of frugality by any means.  We are living a normal middle class life on a lower middle class budget.  We will both be retired by 40.  It's all about making smart choices and not living in excess.

[REatc]

I appreciate all the different opinions and input. I’m trying to find the balancing point of saving and spending to make both me and my wife happy and content. I’m sure that is what most people are trying to do.

[ixtap]

The big dramatic "let's sell all of our status symbols and live like students and ride our bikes everywhere" transformations that make the news would qualify as bait and switch.

I don't think it works that way for most people. Even in the news 90% of those dramatic transformations also quit their jobs as part of the transformation, rather than after saving to a number.

That's also the thing about characterizing FIRE as living miserly for a few years. Uh, no, it is building a lifestyle that might look miserly to some but is satisfying to the individual, because you are only FIRE if you can maintain that spending level and if you are being miserable while doing it, what even is the point?!

[JupiterGreen]

The big dramatic "let's sell all of our status symbols and live like students and ride our bikes everywhere" transformations that make the news would qualify as bait and switch.

I don't think it works that way for most people. Even in the news 90% of those dramatic transformations also quit their jobs as part of the transformation, rather than after saving to a number.

That's also the thing about characterizing FIRE as living miserly for a few years. Uh, no, it is building a lifestyle that might look miserly to some but is satisfying to the individual, because you are only FIRE if you can maintain that spending level and if you are being miserable while doing it, what even is the point?!

This right here. Other people have also made great points about navigating relationships and how it’s a back and forth not a dictatorship. The best thing you can do in a relationship is communicate and allow (you and) your partner to change and grow. This applies to bigger things than FIRE, like having children. It is okay to change your mind even on something as significant as that. Divorce is also perfectly fine when you run up against irreconcilable differences. Trust your partner (you are not their parent) to know what they can live with. As long as you are effectively communicating you should be up to date on the relationship. And for everything else, compromise because that is simply part of being in a relationship.

If you came from extreme “private jet” wealth and decided the family is now going to live like a middle class family with an eye towards environmentalism then maybe having a budget would feel extreme. But for most of us it’s more simple, like not allowing lifestyle creep. My partner and I find working towards goals are fun. We both like trying to best our budget from last year, it’s an entertaining game when you aren’t worried. After all, we have the money to cover everything because we’re spending money wisely and saving thanks to FIRE strategies.

[glacio09]

My husband and I came to a compromise while we were still dating. I will bring my much larger nest egg into the relationship. He will not have lifestyle creep after paying off his loans and the extra will go into savings, but I won't begrudge his more extravagant purchases. When I'm ready to retire, he'll move into a part time/freelance IT position to cover our fun money and health insurance while we're still able to go wherever and do whatever we want. It'll be another 5-10 years before that last step, but so far it's working really well. It also takes a lot of the concerns I had about RE off my shoulders, while opening up all the possibilities for him. Total win-win.

[EarlyInJourney]

When it comes to navigating differences in spending/saving preferences, I think that if both partners are pretty closely aligned on "the biggies" (kids, housing, cars, trips/travel, etc.) then you're getting into forest/trees territory when drilling down to the details.  If the 2 of you are on the same page about how much you should spend on rent/mortgage, that's worth literally dozens of "disagreements" over eating out, for example.

If there are significant differences between partners re: spending/saving (that were there when they met, at least), I think the more frugal one should probably be satisfied with agreement on a few of the biggies, as long as consistent, significant progress is being made toward the big, longer term goals.  Obviously, there are exceptions to this, and YMMV... But if it truly is a partnership, it doesn't matter how "right" you are - time to compromise (assuming you want to maintain the relationship). 

If 1 partner wants to save 25% of their income, and the other wants to save 40%, that's hardly an irreconcilable difference, IMO. 

5% and 50%?  Yeah, that might be...

(FYI, I just posted about "converting" my wife to investing, so more details on compromising there: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-to-convert-your-so-to-mmm-in-50-awesome-steps/msg3019362/#msg3019362 )

[Captain Cactus]

My wife glazes over it too.  Has absolutely no interest.  She's a stay-at-home mom and doesn't pay any of the bills so she's essentially already FIRED via my labor.  So she has no interest in me retiring early, as long as she and our kids get taken care of. 

I was in OP's shoes a few years ago.  Frustrated that she simply didn't see what I saw.  But then some chronic health issues popped up with our kids...and we need medical insurance.  But for the need for insurance we would be FIRED now.  But I will continue to work because my kids need me.  That's life and I'm happy to do it. 

[EarlyInJourney]

@Captain Cactus - If your wife is a SAHM with young kids, you really can't say that she "doesn't pay any of the bills" - she's paying for child care (and likely other services as well), by virtue of providing it herself. 

"she's essentially already FIRED via my labor" - somebody's attitude needs to change.  Might be your wife, but I suspect it's you.

Of course, if your wife is staying at home to watch TV and eat bonbons all day while the kids are doing their own thing or are actually being watched by someone else, then yeah, it's her... But that's unlikely.  It sounds like you don't respect -her labor-.  Whatever the situation, I'm hearing a lot of resentment from you...

EDIT/ADD:  This is a personal issue to me, because my wife stays at home with our 2 year old, and I know how hard she works.  She didn't quit her job to stay at home; she changed jobs and now works from/at home.  It's a very personal decision, and there's not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" way to handle child care... But assuming you give a rodent's heinie, being a SAHP is a job, full stop.