Author Topic: Suze Orman hates FIRE  (Read 19181 times)

Slow2FIRE

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2018, 09:12:23 PM »
"Do something you love"  "Work in an area you love" ...etc

Yeah, there are things I love to do, and not a damn single one of them do I want to do for an employer as they have great track records of putting so much BS into something you love that you'll quickly hate going into the office to do it every day.

"College is going to cost $400K"

oddly enough, 3 of the UNC schools charge only $500 per semester for a full time student...and even NC state and UNC Charlotte aren't very expensive.  Truly a clueless person.

PizzaSteve

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #51 on: October 01, 2018, 09:44:37 PM »
I have always found her obnoxious, but she brings up some logical points to consider, even if she is over the top and condescending, as usual.

1) Dont quit your job out of spite for the unfairness of the working world, at 30, just because you can.  First consider the emotional and accomplishments benefits or working.  + money, + accomplishments

2) Sandbag a bit, because life does have uncertainty.  However, I would say there are many ways to achieve this, not just shitloads of money.  Friends, family, life skills.  Having a plan for " bad shit happens " is a good idea. Doesnt have to be money though, it can be life skills.

Dont buy her books....better free info out there.  :-)

Slow2FIRE

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #52 on: October 01, 2018, 09:59:38 PM »
When she says, "after 4 or 5 years, what are you going to do when you've done everything"...a recent thread on Bogleheads had overwhelmingly positive feedback on people enjoying their time in retirement and not having run out of things to do save for one or two out of 100 that stated they wished they had kept working longer because they were bored.

Sounds like she had a bucket list, retired - hit the list - and then ran out of things to do once the list was completed.  AKA - she retired the wrong way, IMO (yeah, the hubris to claim that a multi decamillionaire doesn't know how to retire properly).

K-ice

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Location: Canada
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #53 on: October 01, 2018, 11:25:10 PM »
Listening to this tonight...

rough quotes
"A safe FIRE amount would be in the millions.  $350,000 a year after taxes. So you need ten million."


Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3367
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2018, 02:45:18 AM »
I agree with Suze on that AI and robots are coming and that we can expect a large part of the population to be out of work. I also think that at that time some universal basic income will need to be introduced. That would only be beneficial for us who are FIRED by then.

Our backup system for if FIRE doesn't work out financially: do some form of paid work as much as we need to.

Maenad

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2018, 05:30:31 AM »
While I understand the temptation to roll one's eyes at the irrational exuberance of those in their 20s*, and preaching some caution and sand-bagging is wise, her whole "2 million dollars is chump change and no one can live off 80K a year" is really insulting to vast swaths of her listeners. That's far more than most people will ever save and far more than a lot of people live on today. She's basically telling people that they're doomed to work in poverty until death.

What I've found, and I'm way younger than her, is that telling people they're being stupid and overly optimistic never works. Either they're right and you look like an idiot, or you're right and they'll find out on their own and have to deal with it.

The "do what you love" thing is a joke, and she's so obviously a baby-boomer - that's the generation that started that poisonous myth**. I love sitting around drinking lemonade or tea (depending on the season) and reading a good book. Who the hell is going to pay me for that??


*I don't do it, though, because I can clearly remember people doing it to me, and they ended up being wrong.
**Not the whole generation, just enough to make it stick.

Malkynn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1212
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2018, 05:36:53 AM »
Who are these people retiring in their 30s with absolutely razor thin margins and no plan for contingencies that everyone seems worried about???

From what Iíve seen, there are far more people here agonizing over risk and details than people being wildly over optimistic. Um...should someone tell Suze that a lot of the super young FIREes are actually making more money doing what they love???

Yíknow, there is actually a HUGE population of 30 somethings running around with too little money, no real career options, and no plan. Theyíre not part of the FIRE community though, so maybe Suze can go talk to them instead.

People in the FIRE community are on average retiring with MORE money than traditional age retirees. They are also losing less in investment fees, and not buying ridiculous annuities. Theyíve also given way more thought to AI/automation/possible need for part time jobs in the future/etc.

Oh, I know! Letís find the most informed, industrious, frugal, and financially conservative people on the fucking planet and yell at them that they have no idea what they are doing because they donít want to die at their desks out of fear of running out of money.

Hey Suze!
Thereís a debt crisis! Thereís a retirement crisis!
Go talk to the millions and MILLIONS of people who could actually benefit from your scare tactics.

Hey Suze!
When it comes to the FIRE community, you could probably sit down, shut up, and learn a thing or two about being a consumer sucka and how to be happier with less, since your private island doesnít even seem to feel like enough for you.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2018, 06:55:07 AM »
Reflecting a bit on that podcast, I wonder if Suze hasn't intentionally adopted a few of the 'shock/insult' techniques used so frequently by reality TV and bloggers to drive clicks. Hard for me to judge since she's only come across my radar in the last few years and I can't compare her now with who she was 15 or 20 years ago. 

If so it's a shame - extreme statements do little to further knowledge and development.   I like this community because, while the concept may seem extreme the methods are routed in math and historical simulations with a great deal of self-reliance and flexibility. It's optimism is that anyone can benefit and live a happier, healthier life, regardless of their current age or net worth.  Telling people "you're going to be miserable if you *only* have $80k to live on, you need $200-300k a year to truly be happy and not worry" contradicts the overwhelming majority of retirees who would descibe their own retirement as 'comfortable'.  Worse, it paints a false dichotomy over a frankly dystopian future.

Maybe that's all intentional on her part - describe everything in only the most extreme way imaginable and drive clicks that way. 
Eitehr way - too bad.  Certainly more people are going to take advice from this entertainer than probably should.

Car Jack

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2018, 07:26:44 AM »
I really think that there's misunderstanding everywhere.  Suze represents those who look at the acronym "FIRE" and focus too much on the "RE" part while not believing the "FI" part.  She's not wrong, but it's because the acronym is not very accurate.

A typical FIRE person around here hasn't retired at all.  They have some income coming in outside of investments.  Whether it's well managed tradelines or a part time job as a park ranger instead of a big 4 accountant or buying and selling crap on eBay.  That's not the traditional "retired" which means your investments, pension, social security is it and you have no other income.  My father in law who retired from working for the city is traditionally retired.  He has not done a minute of paid work since retiring.  That's retired.

So what do *I* call what most here do?  I call it backpedaling.  I also think that a lot who "FIRE" aren't really financially independent either.  And I think that when health insurance premiums inch up enough or you find that tuition at a state school in YOUR state is not even close to the $10k a year you budgeted and some other expenses creep up more than you expected, then guess what?  You're going back to work and were never really financially independent.

Exceptions:  Ok, so if your kids just graduated from college and your gubermint job includes a pension and 100% health care for life and your house is paid and you have $3MM in your 403b and you live on $50k a year........ok.  You certainly are able to FIRE.  But you're not the poster child 28 year old who is "burned out from working the cube farm for megacorp" who we hear from all to often.  Cry me a river with your 6 years of actual work experience post college.

So is it bad to save a ton and to work towards early backpedaling?  Of course not.  But don't be stupid and assume things will just work out somehow.  Figure it out.  Every college in the country has a cost of attendance.  That cost will continue to rise at something like double the rate of inflation.  Plan for it.  Health care ain't going to get cheaper.  Expect those costs to rise as quickly as education.  If you do a good plan and then throw in a fudge factor, just in case, you'll be fine.  Not fine at 28, but maybe some older number (that you won't want to hear from me).  My fudge factor is 2.  Suze would probably approve of my plan although there's no F'ing way I'm working till 70.

Perhaps a "good" plan is in between a MMM FIRE monkey and Suze's preaching from the top of private island mountain. 

david_shin

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • Instagram
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #59 on: October 02, 2018, 07:33:05 AM »
Ugh.

she keeps escalating into crazy-land.
"let's say you need $200k, $250k to live comfortably, then you have a sudden expense and now you need $350k.  Now you need $10MM just to make that in interest."

"80k per year is just not enough.  I personally think this is the biggest mistake you will ever make in your lifetime.  I think it is just ridiculous.  $80k may sound like a lot of money, but it's not.  When you are 60 or 70 or 80 you will not want to live on $80k a year."

This is brutal. A little reminder about how great we have it here in the developed world -- global household median income is around $10k a year (https://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx ) . And median household income around where I live in Michigan is around $52k a year and people seem to be doing just fine.

There's some cognitive dissonance here between the approach of what is "enough" compared to living a life full of luxury and toys. Suze O. and Dave Ramsey both embrace the philosophy that if you have enough money you can buy happiness, compared to trying to find it without an exhorbitant amount of money. Or perhaps she's just hardcore fatFIRE.

LiveLean

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Central Florida
    • ToLiveLean
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #60 on: October 02, 2018, 07:44:03 AM »
She's long been on record for saying she only has 10 percent of her net worth invested in mutual funds/stocks.

She's never raised children. Nothing wrong with that or any choice of lifestyle. But she has no firsthand experience of what it's like to plan/balance your time, career, and finances with kiddos.

She's always been the Denise Austin of Finance. Just as Denise has made a career of jumping from one fitness fad to another -- Denise's Step Aerobics, Pilates, Yoga, Core Training, etc. -- Suze has jumped from one financial trend to another. There's no core teachings to her philosophies. It's just selling Suze, just like it's Denise selling Denise. You might not like Dave Ramsey, but he's been preaching the same message for 25 years.

She said her net worth was $10 million in 2008 and $30 million today. Not disputing those numbers, but given her platform, likely income, and the fact she's never had dependents and claims Florida residency, it should be a helluva lot higher. Maybe if she had more than 10 percent in mutual funds.

In short, Suze has no credibility. I love Costco but wish they'd kick her tired snake oil act out of their magazine.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 07:49:09 AM by LiveLean »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #61 on: October 02, 2018, 07:53:45 AM »
I also think that a lot who "FIRE" aren't really financially independent either.  .. Exceptions:  Ok, so if your kids just graduated from college and your gubermint job includes a pension and 100% health care for life and your house is paid and you have $3MM in your 403b and you live on $50k a year........ok.  You certainly are able to FIRE.

So to be clear, you're saying you think being truly financially independent requires a withdrawal rate of 1.67% (and this is in a situation where you have zero tuition obligations, and no risk of increased healthcare costs at any point in your life)?

Quote
If you do a good plan and then throw in a fudge factor, just in case, you'll be fine.  Not fine at 28, but maybe some older number (that you won't want to hear from me).  My fudge factor is 2.  Suze would probably approve of my plan although there's no F'ing way I'm working till 70.

Perhaps a "good" plan is in between a MMM FIRE monkey and Suze's preaching from the top of private island mountain.

The problem with "fudge factors" is each time you add one, it rapidly becomes the conventional wisdon, and some then before you know it someone else comes along and says, "okay, that's the default, but let's double it (the already doubled number) just to be safe." Rinse and repeat as needed. I've seen it with business plans, grant budgets, and FIRE plans/budgets. Thats how you eventually end up with advice like "sure $3M is fine until a black swan event, so you better save a lot more just in case."

The typical FIREee has multiple sources of safety margin, starting with an incredibly conservative 4% withdrawal rate that leads to them accumulating dramatically more money than they could possibly need in the vast majority of possible outcomes, followed by significant potential for lifestyle flexibility in the face of adverse personal or national events, and then non-trivial chance that social security may still exist in some form by the time they reach traditional retirement age even though most of us (including me) are assuming it'll be gone completely "just to be safe."

None of those sources of safety individually provide complete assurance against unexpected personal or economic challenges, but with these and other individual specific margins of safety, the chance that something gets past all of them to the point where it causes the person in question significant financial distress is quite small.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2018, 08:47:35 AM »
I really think that there's misunderstanding everywhere.  Suze represents those who look at the acronym "FIRE" and focus too much on the "RE" part while not believing the "FI" part.  She's not wrong, but it's because the acronym is not very accurate.

I think the only misunderstanding here is by Suze.  Starting with her completely bonkers statements about how much one needs to be Financially Independent (FI) and never work again (Retired, potentially "Early").  The message she hammered over and over in this podcase is that $80k/year is not enough, in her opinion, to live a comfortable lifestyle.  That's the first slop of hogwash.  Then she tosses out $250k/year in spending as being 'reasonable' - only then to suggest that "unexpected events" might make it $350k/year. Now we've entered crazy-town.  She ultimately suggests that $10MM is the minimum one could retire 'early' on if that person also had a paid off house and carried all sorts of insurance and preferably had yet more assets to draw from in the even of 'really bad things'.  She went all hostile on young people who have rental income as a large source of their income.

A discussion about whether people who consider themselves FIREd can bring in additional income is besides the point.  She is wrong because, at $2MM and a paid off house most people could never earn a single penny ('retired'), live an extremely comfortable life and die with far more money decades later.  She's completely detached from most people's financial reality.  As maizeman indicated, 4% already has a great deal of safety.  At 3.5% no historical period has run out of money, and in the high 2.x% every scenario results in more money. At $2MM and a paid off house I'm financially better off than 80% of households.  At $5MM (a figure she still balks at being far too little for people under 50) I can outspend most households earning $200k/year and only see my stache grow.

There's a fundamental disconnect here between what's needed for a comfortable lifestyle, the math required to sustain that in perpetuity, and Suze Orman. We don't need to consider side-gigs or consult with the IRP here; $2MM-5MM is sufficient for the vast majority of people to retire if they follow an incredibly basic plan.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8455
  • Age: 60
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2018, 09:00:38 AM »
Ugh, Suze. Anything to get her name back in people's faces. I'd guess her Q Rating was plummeting and her ego couldn't handle fading into obscurity, so she chose this route to re-surface. Go away and stay gone please, Suze.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2018, 09:03:45 AM »
How do you all survive without a private island?  She is completely out of touch with reality.

mathlete

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #65 on: October 02, 2018, 09:30:39 AM »
I love the chance to hear dissenting opinions. She brings up a lot of compelling points that I've heard other people make in less hyperbolic terms. Namely, that you spend more money as you age. And not just out of necessity, but out of comfort. It's easy to call myself a "badass" when I'm in my physical prime. I'm young and strong and I can deal with a lot of bullshit right now. I can volunteer to get bumped from a flight and hang out in an airport for six hours in order to get a crazy flight credit. I can climb six flights of stairs to an AirBnB and sleep basically on a glorified air mattress.

I don't know how I'll feel when I get older, though. My parents were good savers and frugal people when I was growing up, but they've become quite a bit "softer" and spendier with age. Personally, I think I'm even more frugal than they were, but maybe the same could happen to me. I have a very enduring memory of traveling to New York in my early 20s and meeting up with my parents at Penn Station. They had just come in from Newark and were going to check into their hotel in Manhattan. While going up the stairs at the station, I noticed my parents lagging behind, struggling to get their two heavy suitcases up the long flight of stairs. With boundless energy, I ran down the stairs, grabbed my mom's suitcase, and ran it up to the top. Then I ran back down, grabbed by dads, and did the same. Being one to travel out of a backpack, I wondered what they could possibly need from those suitcases.

But people get old. Sometimes they want and need comfort, or help. And you need to expend resources to get that comfort and help. Will I be the same guy at 50 that I am at 30? Almost certainly not. Something to think about.

Suze's doomsday comments can be rebutted with a pretty simple line of logic though. If people who live on middle income spending by drawing conservatively on a pile of money are screwed, what does that say about people who live on middle income spending by laboring? People who are FIRE are dramatically better off than most, and it takes an extremely "rich person" mindset not to fully appreciate that.

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #66 on: October 02, 2018, 09:51:47 AM »
Suze's doomsday comments can be rebutted with a pretty simple line of logic though. If people who live on middle income spending by drawing conservatively on a pile of money are screwed, what does that say about people who live on middle income spending by laboring? People who are FIRE are dramatically better off than most, and it takes an extremely "rich person" mindset not to fully appreciate that.

It's clear to her that those people do not get to retire early. They have to work until 70 until, even with ss, they hit financial ruin and die early, I presume?

mizzourah2006

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
  • Location: NWA
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #67 on: October 02, 2018, 09:59:06 AM »
I think there are two things at play here.

1. Suze has made all of her money by selling financial advice and doom and gloom to people. Telling everybody it's possible to save 50% of your income from 20-35 and then retire doesn't fit into her sales pitch.
2. She keeps referencing all the people that reach out to her with insane life events that threw everything off. I'm sure that has happened, but people are way more likely to reach out to her for help when that happens than than to tell her...hey we were just fine. It's really just a form of confirmation bias.

Who really cares if she doesn't agree with it? Dave Ramsey doesn't agree with it either. Also keep in mind that just from hearing her talk, her version of retirement is a traditional version of retirement. Sitting on her private island, learning to sail, and traveling.

That's honestly my biggest issue with the term FIRE in the first place. Most people don't stop their careers in their mid 30s and literally never do anything else capable of returning them an income from then on. I think it's closer to a career change than a retirement. Whether that's switching from being a software developer to a blogger and/or speaker, or a lawyer to someone that offers their services for financial planning and budgeting for "FIRE". It's a career change in my opinion, not an actual retirement, like your 75 year old grandfather that does some gardening, goes to bingo, and watches his beloved Red Sox every evening.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 10:02:46 AM by mizzourah2006 »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2751
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #68 on: October 02, 2018, 10:11:10 AM »
I love the chance to hear dissenting opinions. She brings up a lot of compelling points that I've heard other people make in less hyperbolic terms. Namely, that you spend more money as you age. And not just out of necessity, but out of comfort.
There are certainly many aspects of traditional retirement planning that don't apply as well to ER.  For example, early retirement can vary dramatically based on the retiree's age and the presence or absence of children.  Traditional retirement assumes that any children have already grown up and left home, and that a certain amount of work-related spending will go away.  For those of us fortunate to live within a bikeable/walkable distance to work, and have a casual dress code, those savings wouldn't apply.  It's really a tug of war between keeping things simple (and applicable to the widest audience) vs accounting for every individual circumstance (and the complexity that introduces).

dustinst22

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #69 on: October 02, 2018, 10:16:45 AM »
Most studies show that retirees spend considerably less than those who work.  Less transportation costs, less food costs (due to not eating out as much for lunch), less clothing costs.  The one cost that could obviously go up is healthcare.

merula

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2018, 10:34:18 AM »
I love the chance to hear dissenting opinions. She brings up a lot of compelling points that I've heard other people make in less hyperbolic terms. Namely, that you spend more money as you age. And not just out of necessity, but out of comfort. It's easy to call myself a "badass" when I'm in my physical prime. I'm young and strong and I can deal with a lot of bullshit right now. I can volunteer to get bumped from a flight and hang out in an airport for six hours in order to get a crazy flight credit. I can climb six flights of stairs to an AirBnB and sleep basically on a glorified air mattress.

I don't know how I'll feel when I get older, though. My parents were good savers and frugal people when I was growing up, but they've become quite a bit "softer" and spendier with age. Personally, I think I'm even more frugal than they were, but maybe the same could happen to me. I have a very enduring memory of traveling to New York in my early 20s and meeting up with my parents at Penn Station. They had just come in from Newark and were going to check into their hotel in Manhattan. While going up the stairs at the station, I noticed my parents lagging behind, struggling to get their two heavy suitcases up the long flight of stairs. With boundless energy, I ran down the stairs, grabbed my mom's suitcase, and ran it up to the top. Then I ran back down, grabbed by dads, and did the same. Being one to travel out of a backpack, I wondered what they could possibly need from those suitcases.

But people get old. Sometimes they want and need comfort, or help. And you need to expend resources to get that comfort and help. Will I be the same guy at 50 that I am at 30? Almost certainly not. Something to think about.

You make a good point, and one way to see that is to look at the habits of younger mustachians with disabilities, who would have the physical issues more typical of the elderly, but with a mindset more typical of their generation.

For example, my husband has limited mobility due to a degenerative condition. On one hand, that means that we drive more than we'd like because he's not physically able to walk/bike as far as most can. We have to hire out DIY jobs that take more than one person, or rely on help from family/friends, where other couples can work together. We pay through the nose for medical care even with good insurance. We vacation in places with real beds because camping is simply not an activity he's physically capable of. We sometimes throw money at problems because dealing with disability is really draining, and we're lucky enough to be in a position to do so.

BUT, it's not all "anti-mustachian" behavior. (I'm using quotes because I don't think any of those things are outside of the spirit of mustachianism given the circumstances, but I will grant that for purists, they may be.) When both driving and sitting in a chair for an hour are intensely painful, but cooking is something you find relaxing, it's really easy to stay in and cook. When shopping is difficult, it's that much easier to make do with what you have. When cleaning is difficult, it's easier to make housing decisions for smaller spaces. (And if you think you'll eventually become incapable of climbing stairs, might as well get a small one-story house.)

I'm not saying that the second piece comes anywhere close to outweighing the first, but it does have an impact. And it may be different for others with different kinds of disabilities or lifestyles.

mathlete

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2018, 10:36:12 AM »
The podcast is hard to listen to because like a lot of older people with big personalities, she tends to turn conversations into lectures that simply reinforce her own life experience. Criticisms that she is just selling what has made her rich also apply to most of the prominent FIRE gurus too though.

Suze was my first money guru. Her advice got me geeked on investing at 17 and 18 years old. And learning about FICO helped me get a house when I was 24. I've long stopped worshiping at the FICO altar, but I'll always be thankful for her. Suze, Dave Ramsey, MMM, they're all trying to sell you on something. But the good news is that even if it isn't 100% for you, there's enough broad advice in there that nearly anyone can benefit from listening to any of them. The key is to discount the advice you get by the profit motive of the person giving it. For that reason, I've tried to soften my criticism of Dave Ramsey over the years, despite never being a Ramsey Acolyte.

In this case, I discount most of the doom and gloom, but I'll gladly take the notion that bad and expensive things are on the horizon. And I'll especially take that FIRE short-circuits compounding, because it absolutely does.

mathlete

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2018, 10:37:21 AM »
You make a good point, and one way to see that is to look at the habits of younger mustachians with disabilities, who would have the physical issues more typical of the elderly, but with a mindset more typical of their generation.

For example, my husband has limited mobility due to a degenerative condition. On one hand, that means that we drive more than we'd like because he's not physically able to walk/bike as far as most can. We have to hire out DIY jobs that take more than one person, or rely on help from family/friends, where other couples can work together. We pay through the nose for medical care even with good insurance. We vacation in places with real beds because camping is simply not an activity he's physically capable of. We sometimes throw money at problems because dealing with disability is really draining, and we're lucky enough to be in a position to do so.

BUT, it's not all "anti-mustachian" behavior. (I'm using quotes because I don't think any of those things are outside of the spirit of mustachianism given the circumstances, but I will grant that for purists, they may be.) When both driving and sitting in a chair for an hour are intensely painful, but cooking is something you find relaxing, it's really easy to stay in and cook. When shopping is difficult, it's that much easier to make do with what you have. When cleaning is difficult, it's easier to make housing decisions for smaller spaces. (And if you think you'll eventually become incapable of climbing stairs, might as well get a small one-story house.)

I'm not saying that the second piece comes anywhere close to outweighing the first, but it does have an impact. And it may be different for others with different kinds of disabilities or lifestyles.

Thanks for your very valuable perspective!!

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2018, 10:37:48 AM »
Most studies show that retirees spend considerably less than those who work.  Less transportation costs, less food costs (due to not eating out as much for lunch), less clothing costs.  The one cost that could obviously go up is healthcare.

Indeed. There is also good evidence that retirees total annual spending tends to decrease rather than increase in old age. Here is a good discussion of some of these studies over at kitches. https://www.kitces.com/blog/age-banding-by-basu-to-model-retirement-spending-needs-by-category/

This represents another one of those "margins of safety" already built in conventional FIRE calculations, as I don't know anyone who is figuring out how they need to save based on the assumption that their spending will decline over time, but the statistical evidence suggests that for many of us that will, in fact, ultimately be the case.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2018, 10:38:00 AM »
Most studies show that retirees spend considerably less than those who work.  Less transportation costs, less food costs (due to not eating out as much for lunch), less clothing costs.  The one cost that could obviously go up is healthcare.

AARP has done a lot of research on this. In broad generalizations, people spend about as much for the first few years, and then their expenses drop by 20-25% and stay there until end-of-life care causes expenses to rocket back up. Increases in health care offset decreases in virtually every other category. It's actually the basis for the flawed advice "plan on spending about 80% of what you earn".  From what limited information there is about early retirees the trends in spending seem to hold.

The caveat is of course that everyone's situation is different.

ETA:  Looks like maizeman beat me to it ;-)

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #75 on: October 02, 2018, 10:40:20 AM »
Now that I think about it, it is kind of funny that her 'You can't possibly happy on $x" is so close to the amount that researchers say is indeed the cutoff for income/happiness correlation.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5815
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #76 on: October 02, 2018, 10:42:32 AM »
"Do something you love"  "Work in an area you love" ...etc

Yeah, there are things I love to do, and not a damn single one of them do I want to do for an employer as they have great track records of putting so much BS into something you love that you'll quickly hate going into the office to do it every day.

"College is going to cost $400K"

oddly enough, 3 of the UNC schools charge only $500 per semester for a full time student...and even NC state and UNC Charlotte aren't very expensive.  Truly a clueless person.
Well, she's not necessarily wrong.

Pricing out the local state school and a pricey private school -
I started with cost for this year.
I added 5% each year to my starting years for my 2 kids.

State university, live at home: $152k kid 1, $200k kid 2.
State university, live on campus: $197k kid 1, $264k kid 2.

Pricey private school (Cal Tech, if you are curious):
Kid 1: $386k, Kid 2: $518k


spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #77 on: October 02, 2018, 10:47:20 AM »
I love the chance to hear dissenting opinions. She brings up a lot of compelling points that I've heard other people make in less hyperbolic terms. Namely, that you spend more money as you age. And not just out of necessity, but out of comfort. It's easy to call myself a "badass" when I'm in my physical prime. I'm young and strong and I can deal with a lot of bullshit right now. I can volunteer to get bumped from a flight and hang out in an airport for six hours in order to get a crazy flight credit. I can climb six flights of stairs to an AirBnB and sleep basically on a glorified air mattress.

I don't know how I'll feel when I get older, though. My parents were good savers and frugal people when I was growing up, but they've become quite a bit "softer" and spendier with age. Personally, I think I'm even more frugal than they were, but maybe the same could happen to me. I have a very enduring memory of traveling to New York in my early 20s and meeting up with my parents at Penn Station. They had just come in from Newark and were going to check into their hotel in Manhattan. While going up the stairs at the station, I noticed my parents lagging behind, struggling to get their two heavy suitcases up the long flight of stairs. With boundless energy, I ran down the stairs, grabbed my mom's suitcase, and ran it up to the top. Then I ran back down, grabbed by dads, and did the same. Being one to travel out of a backpack, I wondered what they could possibly need from those suitcases.

But people get old. Sometimes they want and need comfort, or help. And you need to expend resources to get that comfort and help. Will I be the same guy at 50 that I am at 30? Almost certainly not. Something to think about.

Sounds like good reasons to retire early while young and fit. By the time I hit traditional retirement age I will have had 25 years in ER. 25 years to hike, climb, kayak, tent camp, bike, sleep in grungy backpacker hostels, eat sketchy roadside vendor food, drink strange foreign water, ride an over crowded train or bus for days on end...with chickens and goats, and carry my own bags up a flight of stairs. For 25 years! Or 30 years if you go by Suze "retire at 70" plan. That is a long long time to do all the things. And even then I'll be mid 60s and probably still able to do most everything - especially after a quarter century or more of living an active life instead of sitting in a cube and car commuting. After 25 or 30 years of a highly physically active life and active travel, staying home and gardening sounds pretty damn nice.

ETA for @Car Jack some of us ERees (me) don't plan to ever work again or earn anything beyond what our passive incomes provide.  So not everyone here plans to FIRE and have a paying gig afterwards.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 11:07:09 AM by spartana »

Seadog

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #78 on: October 02, 2018, 10:58:05 AM »
If $2-3M isn't enough, doesn't that bode incredibly poorly for something like 90% of the population? If you can't retire on that, retirement as a concept is dead.

This is an attitude that's gotten me through a lot of stressful hurdles in life, starting with high school. Even at that point I realized that academically I was in the top 10 if not 5%. If I walked out of a particularly difficult test, I knew that I would be fine, because either 80% of the class would have failed and I'd scrape by with a not so great 65, or some major scaling would have to happen.

Same thing here. Anyone with 7 figures in their 30s is probably in the financial 1%, even if they just maintain that via 4% and small supplemental income (which itself is a worse than average scenario) at 65 they may fall to the top financial 20%. If that guy is fucked, what about the rest of the people.

The one thing I do fear however is the popular 'eat the rich' mentality particularly in Canada as of late. It's largely been focused on income so far, but a big worry is for them to start to attack wealth in the form of either divs/cap gains tax credits, or the tax free cap gains on primary residence.   

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #79 on: October 02, 2018, 11:15:59 AM »
If $2-3M isn't enough, doesn't that bode incredibly poorly for something like 90% of the population? If you can't retire on that, retirement as a concept is dead.

This is an attitude that's gotten me through a lot of stressful hurdles in life, starting with high school. Even at that point I realized that academically I was in the top 10 if not 5%. If I walked out of a particularly difficult test, I knew that I would be fine, because either 80% of the class would have failed and I'd scrape by with a not so great 65, or some major scaling would have to happen.
...

Every time I find myself feeling financially squeezed I think to myself: There are loads of other people who are getting by on life with less than we make and with more financial obligations.

Much Fishing to Do

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #80 on: October 02, 2018, 12:05:29 PM »
If $2-3M isn't enough, doesn't that bode incredibly poorly for something like 90% of the population? If you can't retire on that, retirement as a concept is dead.

This is an attitude that's gotten me through a lot of stressful hurdles in life, starting with high school. Even at that point I realized that academically I was in the top 10 if not 5%. If I walked out of a particularly difficult test, I knew that I would be fine, because either 80% of the class would have failed and I'd scrape by with a not so great 65, or some major scaling would have to happen.
...

Every time I find myself feeling financially squeezed I think to myself: There are loads of other people who are getting by on life with less than we make and with more financial obligations.

Yep, I always laugh at the number of times I hear/read "you can't get by on social security" when in fact a fairly large percentage do....I view all these folks as the psuedo-mustachians of the masses (i.e. people who all of the sudden learn to get by on a fraction of what they used to, its not sad they they are now living on 40% of what they used to make or I'd have to pity the folks on this site, its sad that they worked 50 years before doing so)

wheezle

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #81 on: October 02, 2018, 12:24:37 PM »
I agree with Suze on that AI and robots are coming and that we can expect a large part of the population to be out of work.
People were saying this in the 1700s. And the 1800s. And... etc.

It's not going to happen. There will literally always be work for people who want to work, and probably work that needs to be done by people who don't really want to work either.

I also find it frustrating that people criticize the FIRE crowd, saying "what are you gonna do when you retire?" Well, I guess if you decide you want to do something, then you'll do something! Is this so outlandish?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #82 on: October 02, 2018, 12:44:44 PM »
I also find it frustrating that people criticize the FIRE crowd, saying "what are you gonna do when you retire?" Well, I guess if you decide you want to do something, then you'll do something! Is this so outlandish?

This confuses me too.  I don't go to work because I need something to do. I get that many people find meaning and get valuable social interactions from work, but those are not the only places those are available. If anything, I think our western society (and the US in particular) would be better off if we decoupled a person's value and identity with the job that they perform.

wheezle

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #83 on: October 02, 2018, 12:53:41 PM »
This confuses me too.  I don't go to work because I need something to do. I get that many people find meaning and get valuable social interactions from work, but those are not the only places those are available. If anything, I think our western society (and the US in particular) would be better off if we decoupled a person's value and identity with the job that they perform.
I hate it when a conversation begins with, "So, what do you do?"

Gumption

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Location: HCOL
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #84 on: October 02, 2018, 01:09:08 PM »
Suze certainly has her own opinions that are based are her own motivations and guesses about what is, what will be, and what is important. So you just have to take that in to account while listening to her, like anyone else for that matter.

I am glad she was out there on her soapbox when I officially started out in the "adult" working world 18 years ago.

What I got from her besides a deep sense of fear in my financial future was the simple idea that the more you spend now, they less you're gonna have later. Sure you can get a loan for that $30k car, but why not just get one that runs and save your money?

Along with the advice from my dad and a few books, it was good to have someone warning me about my financial future, and telling me in stark terms that I needed to have A LOT of money if I wanted to avoid living in a cardboard box at retirement.

I am getting within a few years of FIRE right now, and am less fearful. I wont have $3M as she suggests, nor will I be planning on working much when I do cross the Rubicon; but I am content that I have a good plan in place that is based on pretty sound historical metrics.

Take what is useful for you and disregard the rest... as long as you have a good argument for doing so.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #85 on: October 02, 2018, 01:34:08 PM »
I agree with Suze on that AI and robots are coming and that we can expect a large part of the population to be out of work.
People were saying this in the 1700s. And the 1800s. And... etc.

It's not going to happen. There will literally always be work for people who want to work, and probably work that needs to be done by people who don't really want to work either.

There will probably always be work that needs to be done. That doesn't mean that the work that needs to be done and the people who need work with be able to match up.

We have shortages of a number of engineering and computer science specialties all across the country (not basic scriptling like most of us have had to learn how to do over the past decade, but serious computer science). We had those shortages right through the great recession when unemployment spiked. If you're the sort of person who is really good at artificial intelligence applications or designing or deploying industrial robots you're probably not going to have trouble finding work for some time to come. But only a subset of the population has brains that allow them to be really good at those types of work or the others that will be in high demand in coming decades. I'm certainly not one of them.

So if we do see the unemployment rate (and in particularly the super long unemployment rate) tick up in coming years, I predict it won't be because there are a shortage of job openings, but because there are more and more people who aren't able to find a job where their abilities and skillsets allow them to outperform a combination of automation and AI. But that's all the more reason for people to like me to pursue FI now, not a reason to shy away from it.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #86 on: October 02, 2018, 01:53:27 PM »
I agree with Suze on that AI and robots are coming and that we can expect a large part of the population to be out of work.
People were saying this in the 1700s. And the 1800s. And... etc.

It's not going to happen. There will literally always be work for people who want to work, and probably work that needs to be done by people who don't really want to work either.

There will probably always be work that needs to be done. That doesn't mean that the work that needs to be done and the people who need work with be able to match up.

We have shortages of a number of engineering and computer science specialties all across the country (not basic scriptling like most of us have had to learn how to do over the past decade, but serious computer science). We had those shortages right through the great recession when unemployment spiked. If you're the sort of person who is really good at artificial intelligence applications or designing or deploying industrial robots you're probably not going to have trouble finding work for some time to come. But only a subset of the population has brains that allow them to be really good at those types of work or the others that will be in high demand in coming decades. I'm certainly not one of them.

So if we do see the unemployment rate (and in particularly the super long unemployment rate) tick up in coming years, I predict it won't be because there are a shortage of job openings, but because there are more and more people who aren't able to find a job where their abilities and skillsets allow them to outperform a combination of automation and AI. But that's all the more reason for people to like me to pursue FI now, not a reason to shy away from it.

One thing I've tried to wrap my head around with the whole robots-replacing-most-workers apocolypse is what this would actually mean for our ability to provide goods and services to people. Presently we tend to measure things in jobs, in wages, and in taxable revenue.  But if robots became sophisticated enough to replace 80% of the current labor market, the total global productivity would increase, even as a big chunk of humans falls out of work.
The dooms-sayers point to this and say we'll have massive unemployment and untold millions starving because they earn no money.  The optimists suggest a universal income (an idea I think sohuld be explored more).  But where my brain gets stuck is that the food is still being grown, picked and distributed, roads are being built, factories are cranking out widgets - in short all that productivity is still happening, just without people.  So... would the cost of everything just crater now that labor costs are near nil for most things? If that's the case could I have a similar lifestyle on less than half as much money?
what's the real outcome of large increases in productivity concurrent sizable decreases in labor?



wheezle

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #87 on: October 02, 2018, 01:56:19 PM »
what's the real outcome of large increases in productivity concurrent sizable decreases in labor?
Look to the industrial and agricultural revolutions. People used to plant their own food, live on farms. The world urbanized in order to industrialize, and productivity skyrocketed. Phosphates, etc., made agriculture incredibly productive later on, and there's way more than enough food for everyone now. Incredible productivity gains.

People still work today. Just on different things.

rantk81

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #88 on: October 02, 2018, 02:07:07 PM »
what's the real outcome of large increases in productivity concurrent sizable decreases in labor?

Well, for the past several decades, productivity has skyrocketed... But real median wages have pretty much stayed stagnant.  The gains from increased productivity have largely been enjoyed by executive-level employees and by owners (e.g. shareholders.)


CheapScholar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Location: The Midwest
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #89 on: October 02, 2018, 02:22:23 PM »
So, basically Suze is telling me not to retire early because someday I will grow old and sick and have to pay insanely high medical bills.  God thatís such a depressing outlook on life.  Iím all for having a plan, saving a little more than enough, always being insured, etc.  But damn sheís depressing.  Hey, donít you save money, retire and spend time hiking and enjoying life!  You have to work your entire life and then spend that money so you can sit in a hospital bed!

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #90 on: October 02, 2018, 02:24:41 PM »
The dooms-sayers point to this and say we'll have massive unemployment and untold millions starving because they earn no money.  The optimists suggest a universal income (an idea I think sohuld be explored more).  But where my brain gets stuck is that the food is still being grown, picked and distributed, roads are being built, factories are cranking out widgets - in short all that productivity is still happening, just without people.  So... would the cost of everything just crater now that labor costs are near nil for most things? If that's the case could I have a similar lifestyle on less than half as much money?
what's the real outcome of large increases in productivity concurrent sizable decreases in labor?

And that, I fear, is the million dollar question.

I agree that a society that was automated to the point where many folks simply couldn't find work where they'd have a big enough advantage over AI/robotics for someone to be willing to pay them is also a society that could afford to support large numbers of people who were not gainfully employed in a lifestyle that was better than extreme poverty (if perhaps not as nice a lifestyle as is currently enjoyed by the american middle class). But it's hard to see a feasible path how we get from where we are now to there.

That's why I see being FI as such a useful hedge against a highly automated future. Either the increase in AI/robotics means more and more of the total productivity of the economy goes to capital owners rather than labor (in which case I'm covered by owning enough capital to support myself), or we push through a UBI or something similar, which may be funded by high taxes on the capital gains/dividends going to owners of capital, but I won't have to be particularly worried about the impact of high taxes on my investments since I'll have the UBI as an alternative source of support. *shrug*

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #91 on: October 02, 2018, 02:40:03 PM »
So, basically Suze is telling me not to retire early because someday I will grow old and sick and have to pay insanely high medical bills.  God thatís such a depressing outlook on life.

It's also unique to the USA. Want to retire without insane medical costs? Move to any developed country (where they have universal health care), or any developing country (where health care is still affordable), just not the US.

mathlete

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #92 on: October 02, 2018, 03:35:56 PM »
So, basically Suze is telling me not to retire early because someday I will grow old and sick and have to pay insanely high medical bills.  God thatís such a depressing outlook on life.

It's also unique to the USA. Want to retire without insane medical costs? Move to any developed country (where they have universal health care), or any developing country (where health care is still affordable), just not the US.

Her main concern seems to be long term care. Is LTC covered by public universal healthcare in most countries? I didn't think it was in Canada.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #93 on: October 02, 2018, 03:40:31 PM »
Her main concern seems to be long term care. Is LTC covered by public universal healthcare in most countries? I didn't think it was in Canada.

I'm only familiar with the US (which has Medicaid) and the UK (which has a similar system) where you are required to spend down your own money before the government will pay for it. But even in the US if you are out of money your long term care will be covered. I assume that something like this is available in Canada? But if I run out of money for someone to physically take care of me, I'll let the state do it. I can't have much time or quality of life left at that point anyway.

effigy98

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 248
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #94 on: October 02, 2018, 04:10:04 PM »
So, basically Suze is telling me not to retire early because someday I will grow old and sick and have to pay insanely high medical bills.  God thatís such a depressing outlook on life.  Iím all for having a plan, saving a little more than enough, always being insured, etc.  But damn sheís depressing.  Hey, donít you save money, retire and spend time hiking and enjoying life!  You have to work your entire life and then spend that money so you can sit in a hospital bed!

Hmmm.. work till 70 in constant misery so I can afford 1 year of extended life, sick in a hospital bed... OR work until 45, enjoy 25 years happiness, and buy a bullet for $10 (inflation) at 70 and get it over quick?... hmmm decisions decisions...

PizzaSteve

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #95 on: October 02, 2018, 04:32:55 PM »
I agree with Suze on that AI and robots are coming and that we can expect a large part of the population to be out of work.
People were saying this in the 1700s. And the 1800s. And... etc.

It's not going to happen. There will literally always be work for people who want to work, and probably work that needs to be done by people who don't really want to work either.

There will probably always be work that needs to be done. That doesn't mean that the work that needs to be done and the people who need work with be able to match up.

We have shortages of a number of engineering and computer science specialties all across the country (not basic scriptling like most of us have had to learn how to do over the past decade, but serious computer science). We had those shortages right through the great recession when unemployment spiked. If you're the sort of person who is really good at artificial intelligence applications or designing or deploying industrial robots you're probably not going to have trouble finding work for some time to come. But only a subset of the population has brains that allow them to be really good at those types of work or the others that will be in high demand in coming decades. I'm certainly not one of them.

So if we do see the unemployment rate (and in particularly the super long unemployment rate) tick up in coming years, I predict it won't be because there are a shortage of job openings, but because there are more and more people who aren't able to find a job where their abilities and skillsets allow them to outperform a combination of automation and AI. But that's all the more reason for people to like me to pursue FI now, not a reason to shy away from it.

One thing I've tried to wrap my head around with the whole robots-replacing-most-workers apocolypse is what this would actually mean for our ability to provide goods and services to people. Presently we tend to measure things in jobs, in wages, and in taxable revenue.  But if robots became sophisticated enough to replace 80% of the current labor market, the total global productivity would increase, even as a big chunk of humans falls out of work.
The dooms-sayers point to this and say we'll have massive unemployment and untold millions starving because they earn no money.  The optimists suggest a universal income (an idea I think sohuld be explored more).  But where my brain gets stuck is that the food is still being grown, picked and distributed, roads are being built, factories are cranking out widgets - in short all that productivity is still happening, just without people.  So... would the cost of everything just crater now that labor costs are near nil for most things? If that's the case could I have a similar lifestyle on less than half as much money?
what's the real outcome of large increases in productivity concurrent sizable decreases in labor?
I'm with the group that thinks the increased productivity and available labor will just mean better services for everyone.  For example, automation will not eliminate chefs, they will just reduce drudgery of production tasks, so chefs can focus on infinitely more creative work.  Perhaps every meal will be uniquely customized to the tastes of each patron, or like McDonalds is now doing with automation, hand delivered immediately to your car, because your orderd it while driving to the restaurant via your favorites in your app, charged automatically to your credit card, with one button, not while waiting in line at the drive up window.  Even fast food employees wont need to fuss as much at the register, more time spent making quality food, more custonized food, more convenient locations with fewer staff, running it out to you at your car, and other conveniences, etc.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 04:36:55 PM by PizzaSteve »

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #96 on: October 02, 2018, 05:04:11 PM »

And she thinks $2 million is "pennies"?  Not if you live like you're earning $60K a year.

 That just shows how detached she is from Main St. America.
 She is a very wealthy women and lives that way,
she doesn't understand what it's like to live the way 80% of Americans live.

pecunia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #97 on: October 02, 2018, 05:49:25 PM »
The real question is whether those robots who automate all of the present jobs will find them as boring as the rest of us.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #98 on: October 02, 2018, 06:02:44 PM »
The real question is whether those robots who automate all of the present jobs will find them as boring as the rest of us.
Only if they are named Marvin.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 06:05:09 PM by spartana »

CheapScholar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Location: The Midwest
Re: Suze Orman hates FIRE
« Reply #99 on: October 02, 2018, 06:04:04 PM »
So, basically Suze is telling me not to retire early because someday I will grow old and sick and have to pay insanely high medical bills.  God thatís such a depressing outlook on life.  Iím all for having a plan, saving a little more than enough, always being insured, etc.  But damn sheís depressing.  Hey, donít you save money, retire and spend time hiking and enjoying life!  You have to work your entire life and then spend that money so you can sit in a hospital bed!

Hmmm.. work till 70 in constant misery so I can afford 1 year of extended life, sick in a hospital bed... OR work until 45, enjoy 25 years happiness, and buy a bullet for $10 (inflation) at 70 and get it over quick?... hmmm decisions decisions...

Fuckiní A, brother.