What’s the perfect age to FIRE?

[tooqk4u22]

I guess I am still trying to figure out the best time....now, it depends, later...I guess earlier is out of the equation at this point.

Could you try a sabbatical?

Sabbatical is not really an option, not that I couldn't come back to it after some time off but if I being truthful about it the sabbatical would really be more about transitioning to my next pursuit (and that could be anything but I don't have any idea). It wasn't meant to be a call for sympathy if that's how it came off...its not a bad problem to have.  Off topic but what need help in more than anything else is finding myself - everything I have always done has been for everyone else for the most part - innate to my personality/character make up but somewhat augmented by ego or need for purpose (provider, protector, mentor, problem solver etc.)

But my FIRE number at that time probably wouldn't have factored in a number of things (for me) that might have changed over time for things I was too naïve (health care, house)  to think about or things I simply wasn't thinking about (kids).

People can go back to work if they want money for changing priorities. If they're motivated enough to retire early, they will most likely learn valuable skills and build a network that can get them a job later on. Or they may end up making money by accident, in which case they will still be financially prepared for health care costs, kids, etc.

I agree fully, but then FIRE would be over at least for some time period.  That's ok, but its not a choice at that point if your choosing between keeping FIRE or something you now very much want or need. What I can tell you is that had I FIRE'd in my 20's the amount would have been drastically less than what my FIRE # is now - admittedly there is a lot of fluff and wants in my current # but even if I took that out it would be far higher.  ie having roommates and acting like a beach-/ski-bum had a significantly different capital requirement.

[tooqk4u22]

Or I could be doing a poor job making my point.

In essence, I often read in the forum of people splurging on a few luxuries, etc. 

All I'm suggesting is that these luxuries are doing much more harm than simply lowering a savings rate.  If we take some time to understand this point, our imperative to stop spending in excess may take on new, more significant meaning than a FIRE date.

I think you are making your point pretty clearly, its just that nobody seems to share your view of evil, at least to your extreme.   I would argue you being on this site and your pursuit of FIRE, by your definition, is evil.  Shame on you for having a computer all to yourself and hoarding all your hard, or not, earned money as opposed to sharing it with the world.  And don't give me the I can do more good with it later on after it grows crap like Warren Buffet. Evil, evil, evil......

I apologize for this interruption....I now have the craving for a large steak and bottle of wine, which I believe is good because by me eating and drinking those it is saving all those other people from heart disease and alcoholism....I very altruistic.

I think CL straight up said his own lifestyle is evil, in his eyes, because of this.

I don't know if I would call it evil, but I agree with the basic idea that SR and RE date is less important philosophically than the stuff we spend money on. People often respond to luxury purchases with "as long as you can afford it/have the money/aligns with your values!" But that's not really the point. Does it contribute to our global waste stream? Does it make you more resilient? Was there another option, like borrowing from a friend? Could the money have been better put to use buying malaria nets, or portable water filters, or environmental cleanups?

I am certainly not perfect. Nobody is. But I spend much less than I could, because I don't like waste, and I want to maximize how much I can spend on helping others. Both time and money, because by living off of so little, I don't need a job, and my time is freed up to work on causes I care about.

I think CL actually said they were more guilty than most (not sure but I think meant in the global and not the US sense) but never actually admitted to being evil....but if extrapolated it could be viewed as an admission I suppose.  That's fine, but if you cast stones then be transparent and more importantly lead by example and don't be a heretic or hypocrite.  I will not suggest that someone do something if I myself am not willing to do the same thing. 

Here is a subtle example of what I mean....I will suggest people live below their means so that they can accumulate savings and work to have an emergency fund, FI, retire, etc.  But I will not suggest to people that they should save more of their money and not spend on stupid stuff....(1) because I can certainly spend less and save more than I am, (2) because me and my family certainly spend on some stupid stuff and (3) what is stupid to me may not be stupid to someone else.   Now I can work to be better at all of these if I choose but I can't preach to people about it.  But I do live well below my means but not so low that there isn't fat to be trimmed (of course that makes me the devil I know). 

[MonkeyJenga]

I guess I am still trying to figure out the best time....now, it depends, later...I guess earlier is out of the equation at this point.

Could you try a sabbatical?

Sabbatical is not really an option, not that I couldn't come back to it after some time off but if I being truthful about it the sabbatical would really be more about transitioning to my next pursuit (and that could be anything but I don't have any idea). It wasn't meant to be a call for sympathy if that's how it came off...its not a bad problem to have.  Off topic but what need help in more than anything else is finding myself - everything I have always done has been for everyone else for the most part - innate to my personality/character make up but somewhat augmented by ego or need for purpose (provider, protector, mentor, problem solver etc.)

I wasn't being sympathetic, I was being pushy. :P

Some people can't find themselves or what their next passion will be while they're working full time. If you haven't so far, you may need a kick in the pants to take time to find yourself. That would mean taking a sabbatical without knowing what's next. It sounds like that's financially feasible for you, and the ego and purpose aspects would need to be resolved.

This is a common pitfall that people talk about when warning of working too long. If your entire purpose and social life is tied into a job, it makes it really hard to deal with retirement, ever. You will need to retire some time, right? That problem of not knowing who you are will only be exacerbated the longer you put off finding out.

Have you considered therapy?

But my FIRE number at that time probably wouldn't have factored in a number of things (for me) that might have changed over time for things I was too naïve (health care, house)  to think about or things I simply wasn't thinking about (kids).

People can go back to work if they want money for changing priorities. If they're motivated enough to retire early, they will most likely learn valuable skills and build a network that can get them a job later on. Or they may end up making money by accident, in which case they will still be financially prepared for health care costs, kids, etc.

I agree fully, but then FIRE would be over at least for some time period.  That's ok, but its not a choice at that point if your choosing between keeping FIRE or something you now very much want or need. What I can tell you is that had I FIRE'd in my 20's the amount would have been drastically less than what my FIRE # is now - admittedly there is a lot of fluff and wants in my current # but even if I took that out it would be far higher.  ie having roommates and acting like a beach-/ski-bum had a significantly different capital requirement.

Okay, so FIRE is temporarily put on hold. So? If the worst case scenario is going back to work, why would I voluntarily work longer if I may not need it? (This is assuming someone is only working to increase their financial buffer for potential future needs, not because they love their job.)

If someone's got less than a 50% chance of ever needing to work again, even assuming increased spending needs in the future, why not get out now and take their chances? It will also keep the fluff from creeping in. They would only go back to work for a true financial need, not the fluff and wants you mentioned. Or for a passion project or something.

I think CL actually said they were more guilty than most (not sure but I think meant in the global and not the US sense) but never actually admitted to being evil....but if extrapolated it could be viewed as an admission I suppose.  That's fine, but if you cast stones then be transparent and more importantly lead by example and don't be a heretic or hypocrite.  I will not suggest that someone do something if I myself am not willing to do the same thing. 

Here is a subtle example of what I mean....I will suggest people live below their means so that they can accumulate savings and work to have an emergency fund, FI, retire, etc.  But I will not suggest to people that they should save more of their money and not spend on stupid stuff....(1) because I can certainly spend less and save more than I am, (2) because me and my family certainly spend on some stupid stuff and (3) what is stupid to me may not be stupid to someone else.   Now I can work to be better at all of these if I choose but I can't preach to people about it.  But I do live well below my means but not so low that there isn't fat to be trimmed (of course that makes me the devil I know). 

Do you have an issue with his argument at all, or just the fact that he's not living by his own rules? Would you have an issue with the preaching about evil if it came from someone living on a few hundred a month and donating much more to charity?

[PizzaSteve]

All good points. It is emotionally hard to pull the trigger, especially the longer the track of your life has been consistent.  Consider whether that track is a rut keeping your mental wheels headed one way, and whether a new path would open new opportunities.

I found the FIRE talk is cheap, RE action tough.  Those who havent actually pulled the trigger wont understand until they do...

Just my 2 cents. It isnt as easy as some conceptually discuss. When you are emotionally and financially ready, seems to be the consensus.

[Classical_Liberal]

My point was not to "preach".  I'd have to look upthread, but I'm pretty sure I included myself as an offender. If I didn't, I do now, virtually everyone in the rich West consumes to a level of "evil".  I was simply trying to point out, those of us with high levels of wealth can considerably alter demand on resources and we should consider how our actions impact others. IOW consuming for the sake of "I deserve it", or not, impacts more than personal FIRE dates. 

I don't think most people think this way. I consider people on this forum "better than average" in this respect (both in thinking beyond the basics and in unneeded consuming). As such, this is a good place to have conversations about how to take it to the next level.  If average Joe/Jane only considers monthly payment or credit limit when making a consumptive purchases (ie me now), Folks on this forum consider pareto optimized consumption based on happiness for personal gain (me now and me later), or even society as a whole as far as wasteful energy use, ect.  The next step up is all the former PLUS other individuals. How does my consumption impact others; particularly those much worse off than me?  How can I optimize it to do less harm? 

I realize this is a personal finance forum, but I think once we've got our shit together from that standpoint it's natural to look to the moral uses of the power wealth has bestowed upon us.  I expected blowback, this is good, if proposed changes in thinking don't ruffle feathers it doesn't go far enough. 

[tooqk4u22]

I wasn't being sympathetic, I was being pushy. :P

Some people can't find themselves or what their next passion will be while they're working full time. If you haven't so far, you may need a kick in the pants to take time to find yourself. That would mean taking a sabbatical without knowing what's next. It sounds like that's financially feasible for you, and the ego and purpose aspects would need to be resolved.

This is a common pitfall that people talk about when warning of working too long. If your entire purpose and social life is tied into a job, it makes it really hard to deal with retirement, ever. You will need to retire some time, right? That problem of not knowing who you are will only be exacerbated the longer you put off finding out.

You are not wrong - those are the issues, among others too such as fear of f'ing it all up. A push (or kick in the ass) is probably what I need....I know its bizarre but it would make it so much easier if I just got let go.  I wouldn't even think or stress about it....I know that makes no sense at all.

Have you considered therapy?

Isn't that what we are doing here ;)

I think CL actually said they were more guilty than most (not sure but I think meant in the global and not the US sense) but never actually admitted to being evil....but if extrapolated it could be viewed as an admission I suppose.  That's fine, but if you cast stones then be transparent and more importantly lead by example and don't be a heretic or hypocrite.  I will not suggest that someone do something if I myself am not willing to do the same thing. 

Here is a subtle example of what I mean....I will suggest people live below their means so that they can accumulate savings and work to have an emergency fund, FI, retire, etc.  But I will not suggest to people that they should save more of their money and not spend on stupid stuff....(1) because I can certainly spend less and save more than I am, (2) because me and my family certainly spend on some stupid stuff and (3) what is stupid to me may not be stupid to someone else.   Now I can work to be better at all of these if I choose but I can't preach to people about it.  But I do live well below my means but not so low that there isn't fat to be trimmed (of course that makes me the devil I know). 

Do you have an issue with his argument at all, or just the fact that he's not living by his own rules? Would you have an issue with the preaching about evil if it came from someone living on a few hundred a month and donating much more to charity?

First, I disagree with his argument/view completely.  But if it wasn't that, then him not living by his own rules invalidates his view. For someone living on bare minimum to survive that gives all excess to charity because they view it as evil, then while I might not agree with their view I will at least respect them for their view based on their actions.  Lead by example if you want to preach...maybe I will hear and SEE the message and follow...who knows, but it will never happen without the example.

[tooqk4u22]

My point was not to "preach".  I'd have to look upthread, but I'm pretty sure I included myself as an offender. If I didn't, I do now, virtually everyone in the rich West consumes to a level of "evil".  I was simply trying to point out, those of us with high levels of wealth can considerably alter demand on resources and we should consider how our actions impact others. IOW consuming for the sake of "I deserve it", or not, impacts more than personal FIRE dates. 

I don't think most people think this way. I consider people on this forum "better than average" in this respect (both in thinking beyond the basics and in unneeded consuming). As such, this is a good place to have conversations about how to take it to the next level.  If average Joe/Jane only considers monthly payment or credit limit when making a consumptive purchases (ie me now), Folks on this forum consider pareto optimized consumption based on happiness for personal gain (me now and me later), or even society as a whole as far as wasteful energy use, ect.  The next step up is all the former PLUS other individuals. How does my consumption impact others; particularly those much worse off than me?  How can I optimize it to do less harm? 

I realize this is a personal finance forum, but I think once we've got our shit together from that standpoint it's natural to look to the moral uses of the power wealth has bestowed upon us.  I expected blowback, this is good, if proposed changes in thinking don't ruffle feathers it doesn't go far enough.

I still don't agree on the pure "evil" aspect as to me there are always and always will be less advantaged (winners/losers) and its not good or bad - it might suck from our view though.  You know there are people in the world that live in what we call despair but are downright happy provided they have clean water*, enough food and shelter.  To some extent, which certainly supports your case, western civilization is just the macro version of the hedonistic treadmill. But that can be true anywhere on micro levels.  That farmer has an ox.....so lucky, I have to push the plow myself.

We have gone back and forth a bit and its been fun.  Aside from the "evil" its nice thought discussion but I would characterize more as how can I leave the world in a better place. That can mean a lot of things.  Maybe its me giving money along the way, maybe its searching for water in the desert, maybe its ensuring my kids are appreciative and not douchebags, I don't know. 

*the endless stream of figuring out how to bring clean water to areas where there is none that is natural occurring is fools errand, especially if there are not protections in place to prevent some form of power to take control of said water. Over every age of time other modern era, if there wasn't water you moved to a place where there was.

[Classical_Liberal]

First, I disagree with his argument/view completely.  But if it wasn't that, then him not living by his own rules invalidates his view. For someone living on bare minimum to survive that gives all excess to charity because they view it as evil, then while I might not agree with their view I will at least respect them for their view based on their actions.  Lead by example if you want to preach...maybe I will hear and SEE the message and follow...who knows, but it will never happen without the example.

I couldn't disagree with this more :)  Hypocrisy is very underrated.

If I believe "x" and pursue "x", great!  If I believe "x", then get more information or a new lens through which to see information and begin to think that maybe "y" has some validity.  What's the best course of action?  Immediately abandon "x"?  Is it realistic for someone to totally change viewpoints and actions overnight? 

I would argue the best course of action is to explore both "x" and "y".  If ,in fact, "y" is more logically consistent or better subjectively, then it's best to start changing actions to "y". At this point,  someone would be hypocritical in the eyes of those who see the world as both "x" and "y". 

Hypocrisy is growth.  A person whose actions are always consistent remains stagnant.  That's a horrible role model! As a matter of fact, most of history's  worst outcomes come from such leaders.

I still don't agree on the pure "evil" aspect as to me there are always and always will be less advantaged (winners/losers) and its not good or bad - it might suck from our view though. 

Be careful using zero sum arguments!  I got called out upthread.

We have gone back and forth a bit and its been fun.  Aside from the "evil" its nice thought discussion but I would characterize more as how can I leave the world in a better place. That can mean a lot of things.  Maybe its me giving money along the way, maybe its searching for water in the desert, maybe its ensuring my kids are appreciative and not douchebags, I don't know. 

Sure, there are many ways to give back, or help others.  However, there are also optimized ways of doing so which can already fit into personal goals.  If one is seeking FI, less consumption moves the needle on that goal, as well as not contributing to resource demand for extravagances is killing two birds with one stone.

*the endless stream of figuring out how to bring clean water to areas where there is none that is natural occurring is fools errand, especially if there are not protections in place to prevent some form of power to take control of said water. Over every age of time other modern era, if there wasn't water you moved to a place where there was.

This goes back to limited resources and the potential for a zero sum outcome.  IMO, none of our current economic theories properly address infinite growth on a finite planet.

There was a day (most of human history) where you could just move.  Now there are so many of us it becomes less feasible. Cheap energy has "fixed" the problem for now.  Many hope technology will fix the problem later, and it may, but I personally doubt it will replicate the explosion we have seen in the past 2-300 years.  The best way I can think of to directly impact this problem is to minimize my personal use of cheap energy for "luxurious consumables".  Luckily this also helps me become FI sooner.  Another win-win for bare bones consumption.

[aspiringnomad]

This planet is well above its carrying capacity for humans sans cheap energy. 

My example was ludicrous because it showed demand side economics can be the same.  It doesn’t matter how much one is willing to pay for a barrel of crude oil if there is no oil left.  Resources do not appear from a vacuum. At some point someone will use the last barrel.  Will it be used to produce food, or will it be used to move a yacht five more feet?  On that day oil actually will be zero sum, unless it’s used to make a new form of cheap energy.

Is this a climate change argument or a scarcity argument or both? I agree on the climate change issue - we need renewable, noncarbon emitting energy before we bake ourselves. But I do think classical economic theory handles the energy market pretty well from a scarcity standpoint. I don't think we'll ever get to a point where someone will use the last barrel of oil because there already exist all sorts of substitute goods that will replace oil long before it becomes economical to use that last barrel or anything close to it. But yeah, I agree from a climate change perspective that we should incentivize the market to accelerate the transition to those noncarbon emitting substitutes.

Anyway, what was this thread about? :)

[Classical_Liberal]

Is this a climate change argument or a scarcity argument or both?

Both.  From a climate change standpoint, I don't think our models are accurate enough to predict how bad (or very slight possibility of good) it will get.  Also, much depends on our collective actions over the next decade or two.  That being said, even an optimist has to assume that curtailing the impacts of climate change is going to take a pretty big piece of the economic pie over the next 50 years.  Whether that's through fighting for resources (like arable land) or through multinational cooperative efforts.  Again, optimist, I like our chances on the later once Gen X and millennials take their places in power (no offense to individual Boomers). 

Maybe a miracle power source will come along and science will save us all into a Star Trek utopia.  For now, with current tech, we will have to do with much less energy consumption.  This means no more cheap transportation of goods across the globe.  Currently our economy's are so very specialized, that in itself would be devastating.  Not to mention increased manufacturing costs and the upfront costs of transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

IMO, scarcity will take care of itself... eventually.  The problem is the amount of human suffering along the way.  My disclaimer is that I'm not an expert in all of the potential problems.  I only know enough to properly analyze arguments and determine which experts actually do understand these things; none of those folks have good predictions.

[tooqk4u22]

I couldn't disagree with this more :)  Hypocrisy is very underrated.

If I believe "x" and pursue "x", great!  If I believe "x", then get more information or a new lens through which to see information and begin to think that maybe "y" has some validity.  What's the best course of action?  Immediately abandon "x"?  Is it realistic for someone to totally change viewpoints and actions overnight? 

I would argue the best course of action is to explore both "x" and "y".  If ,in fact, "y" is more logically consistent or better subjectively, then it's best to start changing actions to "y". At this point,  someone would be hypocritical in the eyes of those who see the world as both "x" and "y". 

This is the logical approach....just don't preach and judge others until you have fully transitioned. 

*the endless stream of figuring out how to bring clean water to areas where there is none that is natural occurring is fools errand, especially if there are not protections in place to prevent some form of power to take control of said water. Over every age of time other modern era, if there wasn't water you moved to a place where there was.

This goes back to limited resources and the potential for a zero sum outcome.  IMO, none of our current economic theories properly address infinite growth on a finite planet.

There was a day (most of human history) where you could just move.  Now there are so many of us it becomes less feasible. Cheap energy has "fixed" the problem for now.  Many hope technology will fix the problem later, and it may, but I personally doubt it will replicate the explosion we have seen in the past 2-300 years.  The best way I can think of to directly impact this problem is to minimize my personal use of cheap energy for "luxurious consumables".  Luckily this also helps me become FI sooner.  Another win-win for bare bones consumption.
[/quote]

Technology is more than adequate to solve many of these problems let alone any advancements that are to come.  The problem is there is not an economic incentive to do so or the costs are so prohibitive.  Water is the single most abundant resource we have, its just not accessible everywhere.  Desalination (costly) would solve most of this but either costs have to come down or we need to be willing to pay more for it.  Southwest US will deal with this at some point due to desert and population convergence along with too much usage overall.  This true for most things - technology has increased yields, production, and accessibility of resources (transportation)...which is why the earth can support a much larger population than it did historically. Will there be a tipping point - maybe, but I don't know when.

[tooqk4u22]

Is this a climate change argument or a scarcity argument or both? I agree on the climate change issue - we need renewable, noncarbon emitting energy before we bake ourselves. But I do think classical economic theory handles the energy market pretty well from a scarcity standpoint. I don't think we'll ever get to a point where someone will use the last barrel of oil because there already exist all sorts of substitute goods that will replace oil long before it becomes economical to use that last barrel or anything close to it. But yeah, I agree from a climate change perspective that we should incentivize the market to accelerate the transition to those noncarbon emitting substitutes.

Anyway, what was this thread about? :)

Keep in mind that the emissions could just as easily cloud the skies and we could freeze ourselves too.  Volcanoes have been natures climate moderators serving to cooling off the planet at times.