Why is it so important that MMM be "really" retired? A serious question.

[tomsang]

Again, I think it was a huge mistake for him to state his income.  I am pretty sure anyone who has been following him knew it was in the 6 figures, but to those that are looking for ammunition this is what they have found.  He makes money.  Just like a person who manages her rentals, or the guy that manages his dividend stocks, or the guy who teaches tennis or surf lessons for some change. 

The other huge mistake that Jacob and MMM is defining it at retirement vs. Financially Independent.  Maybe they felt they needed the word to attract a mass audience, but a lot of this "controversy" would be gone if it was called FI vs. retired.  Everything that MMM writes is describing FI, including the parts about doing work that is enjoyable for dollars.  No conflict on what he says and does.  Just people are pulling out Webster's and finding that definition 4 does not agree with what MMM is doing.  Missing the whole point of his message, blog, articles, etc. 

[tomsang]

The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Right...but he is working...therefore not retired.  "have to" is irrelevant.

By your definition few people would meet the definition of retired.  People looking over their portfolio = work, people = doing their taxes = work, people = taking care of grandkids = work, people = taking on a week consulting gig for fun = work, etc.

Does retired or not change the message? 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

He does not have to turn it into a vanity blog for people to be satisfied that he is retired. If he does not need the $ to live then he is retired or semi-retired or whatever you want to call it. The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Do you (or anyone) have evidence that he unequivocally does not have to work for money?  Or are we all just assuming this? 

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but for all we know, he could have had continual losses in his real estate dealings (or just likes to plow money into his gentrification hobby).  Maybe a worker got injured on a job site and sued him.  I know very little about his current actual finances, to be honest.

The irony is that people stick around because of his successful 30-something y.o. being FI-ER.  If something unfortunate happened (even if it is completely outside his circle of influence) and he needed the income, people would definitely not call him retired even though everything was basically the same.

[mak1277]

The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Right...but he is working...therefore not retired.  "have to" is irrelevant.

By your definition few people would meet the definition of retired.  People looking over their portfolio = work, people = doing their taxes = work, people = taking care of grandkids = work, people = taking on a week consulting gig for fun = work, etc.

Does retired or not change the message?

It doesn't change the message at all, and I've said in this thread that I don't care whether he's retired or not.  All I have said is that the lifestyle he leads doesn't not fit *my* personal definition of retirement.  But it doesn't matter one little bit.

As for the things you mention...those DO all sound like work to me, and I hope to do none of those things in my retirement (except possibly taking care of currently non-existent grandkids).

[Cassie]

Who cares ?  I only care about my friends and family. Why would I concern myself about someone I don't even know? I am choosing to believe what he says unless there is proof to the contrary. Maybe he has a gambling problem and gambles all the money, what if he has a expensive mistress on the side, what if, what if what if????  Who really gives a shit???????????????????????

[MasterStache]

The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Right...but he is working...therefore not retired.  "have to" is irrelevant.

Sigh* I guess true retirement is only achieved when you die and are no longer capable of performing work. Gotta love the retirement police! Their logic is impeccable.

[Eric]

The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Right...but he is working...therefore not retired.  "have to" is irrelevant.

Sigh* I guess true retirement is only achieved when you die and are no longer capable of performing work. Gotta love the retirement police! Their logic is impeccable.

Stop using logic.  That's really close to work and you could no longer be retired if you keep it up!

[Cassie]

Thanks Eric-you are so right:))

[Daisy]

I propose we take the R out of FIRE to remove any controversy.

Then the new motto is to FIE before you DIE.

[NoraLenderbee]

Words have meanings. I can call myself a mountain-climbing elephant, but that doesn't make me one.

I think you are confused about how firm the meaning of any given word is. As you know, words can have many possible meanings. Depending on the context, a given word might emphasize one thing or another. For example, a retired baseball player may still work on his clothing line. A retired model may coach younger aspiring models.

The Merriam Webster defines being retired as having "withdrawn from one's position or occupation." Another meaning says "to no longer work." MMM has, of course, withdrawn from his occupation, so he is perfectly justified in calling himself retired under that first meaning.

Yes, he has retired from computer programming. He has taken up another occupation, and is self-employed.

Whether you'd prefer he use a different meaning of the word is up to you. But you are acting like he's using the word wrongly, which is not the case.

"to no longer work"--you just quoted the dictionary definition, and now you are arguing that it means something else? We can play dictionary wars all day. He is using the word in a misleading way.

So why is one of those definitions more valid than the other?  Because it fits with your preconceived notions?  Is your retirement going to only involve sitting on a towel on the beach?  (don't take a chair or umbrella with you, that would take work)  If so, great!  But as mentioned before, you don't get to define how other people retire.

It's not like this is some novel criticism.  It's already been discussed (and dismissed) many times.  Yet it still comes up over and over.  The Internet Retirement Police is the new strongest force in the universe.

Enjoy your phonebook of words.  I'm sure it will keep you warm at night an make you happy to know that nothing will ever change.

As I've said, I don't mind what he calls himself, or what you call yourself. You, not I, are the one hung up on the word "retired." You (and a lot of people here) can't stand it when someone else says they don't consider him retired. Your pissy reply to me is proof.

The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Right...but he is working...therefore not retired.  "have to" is irrelevant.

By your definition few people would meet the definition of retired.  People looking over their portfolio = work, people = doing their taxes = work, people = taking care of grandkids = work, people = taking on a week consulting gig for fun = work, etc.

Does retired or not change the message? 

By *your* definition, wealthy people who work would be defined as retired. The CEOs of all the Fortune 500 companies all have more money than they could spend in three lifetimes (with perhaps a few exceptions). They don't need more. Therefore, they are retired and what they do is not work? Right.

As I have said already, his message, ideas, etc. are valid and important regardless of whether he personally does or doesn't work at this point in his life.  Those who insist the word RETIRED must be applied are acting like if that word isn't true, the rest of the message isn't real. *I'm* not the one missing the point.

/drops rope

[Eric]

As I've said, I don't mind what he calls himself, or what you call yourself.

So other than your constant objections to him being retired, you don't care?  LOL

The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Right...but he is working...therefore not retired.  "have to" is irrelevant.

By your definition few people would meet the definition of retired.  People looking over their portfolio = work, people = doing their taxes = work, people = taking care of grandkids = work, people = taking on a week consulting gig for fun = work, etc.

Does retired or not change the message? 

By *your* definition, wealthy people who work would be defined as retired. The CEOs of all the Fortune 500 companies all have more money than they could spend in three lifetimes (with perhaps a few exceptions). They don't need more. Therefore, they are retired and what they do is not work? Right.

Do any of those people consider themselves retired?  You can't just apply the "retired" label to someone, in the exact same way that you can't just take it away.

[thepokercab]

He does not have to turn it into a vanity blog for people to be satisfied that he is retired. If he does not need the $ to live then he is retired or semi-retired or whatever you want to call it. The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

The irony is that people stick around because of his successful 30-something y.o. being FI-ER.  If something unfortunate happened (even if it is completely outside his circle of influence) and he needed the income, people would definitely not call him retired even though everything was basically the same.

I don't even know what this means.  Can one never be retired as long as the threat of an unfortunate occurrence could in theory come along and force you to earn income?  By that definition i suppose we really can't be retired unless we're dead. 

[tobitonic]

He does not have to turn it into a vanity blog for people to be satisfied that he is retired. If he does not need the $ to live then he is retired or semi-retired or whatever you want to call it. The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

The irony is that people stick around because of his successful 30-something y.o. being FI-ER.  If something unfortunate happened (even if it is completely outside his circle of influence) and he needed the income, people would definitely not call him retired even though everything was basically the same.

I don't even know what this means.  Can one never be retired as long as the threat of an unfortunate occurrence could in theory come along and force you to earn income?  By that definition i suppose we really can't be retired unless we're dead.

You can go from being retired to not being retired at any time. You just have to start working for money (regardless of reason). When Jakob from ERE went from living in an RV in California to working full time as a math banker in Illinois, he went from being retired to...working. Retirement isn't like turning from a caterpillar into a butterfly.

[Tyson]

He does not have to turn it into a vanity blog for people to be satisfied that he is retired. If he does not need the $ to live then he is retired or semi-retired or whatever you want to call it. The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Do you (or anyone) have evidence that he unequivocally does not have to work for money?  Or are we all just assuming this? 

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but for all we know, he could have had continual losses in his real estate dealings (or just likes to plow money into his gentrification hobby).  Maybe a worker got injured on a job site and sued him.  I know very little about his current actual finances, to be honest.

The irony is that people stick around because of his successful 30-something y.o. being FI-ER.  If something unfortunate happened (even if it is completely outside his circle of influence) and he needed the income, people would definitely not call him retired even though everything was basically the same.

It seems you don't actually agree with the main ideas of MMM, so I'm wondering why you are actually here?  That's not a criticism, I'm genuinely curious.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

He does not have to turn it into a vanity blog for people to be satisfied that he is retired. If he does not need the $ to live then he is retired or semi-retired or whatever you want to call it. The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

Do you (or anyone) have evidence that he unequivocally does not have to work for money?  Or are we all just assuming this? 

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but for all we know, he could have had continual losses in his real estate dealings (or just likes to plow money into his gentrification hobby).  Maybe a worker got injured on a job site and sued him.  I know very little about his current actual finances, to be honest.

The irony is that people stick around because of his successful 30-something y.o. being FI-ER.  If something unfortunate happened (even if it is completely outside his circle of influence) and he needed the income, people would definitely not call him retired even though everything was basically the same.

It seems you don't actually agree with the main ideas of MMM, so I'm wondering why you are actually here?  That's not a criticism, I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I don't agree with the core principles of Mustachianism.  To the contrary, I have gained a lot from his reminders that one should NOT use money to achieve an easy life.  Of course, my story is convoluted and I'm not as 'exhibitionist' about my finances as other folks, but some of the changes my family has made as a direct result of reading this blog are - camping more often, firing the house cleaner, getting the kids to do more chores, buying a Honda Fit (as opposed to luxury car), etc.

I do hope that challenging assumptions does not result in me having to live like a consumer sukka :)  But seriously, what I'm trying to understand is - what is the next level of Mustachianism once the snowball throws off an exploding abundance of financial independence?  MMM's situation was a perfect springboard to have some of that discussion.  I have my own thoughts, but I'd love to know what MMM and the forum members here think, so maybe I pressed the point a little too much.  I do think that it's a useful exercise (other than tedious arguments about dictionaries and semantics) to consider what 'early retirement' means, hopefully at least some of that took place.  I had always thought I was eager to 'retire' when I hit FI, but I hadn't really thought about it enough.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

He does not have to turn it into a vanity blog for people to be satisfied that he is retired. If he does not need the $ to live then he is retired or semi-retired or whatever you want to call it. The point is he does not HAVE to work for $.

The irony is that people stick around because of his successful 30-something y.o. being FI-ER.  If something unfortunate happened (even if it is completely outside his circle of influence) and he needed the income, people would definitely not call him retired even though everything was basically the same.

I don't even know what this means.  Can one never be retired as long as the threat of an unfortunate occurrence could in theory come along and force you to earn income?  By that definition i suppose we really can't be retired unless we're dead.

Take this response for example.  Although I didn't reply, it did get me thinking.  For one, we know that 'retirement' exists because there are 65+ folks on Medicare and Social Security that are 'mainstream retired'.  So obviously we don't have to die to retire, but then is it just an age thing?  And take Paris Hilton, she's never called herself 'retired' although you could easily argue that she doesn't 'work'.  Like other folks concluded, 'financially independent' is a better moniker for what we are striving for, but that leaves us with Pete and much of the community still uses FI and ER, so we do need a way to define ER.  But we have what Nords and Spartana are (government COLA'ed pensions covering core expenses), G-Dog, Doom, GoCurryCracker, RootofGood, Spoonman, etc. (investment income), Arebelspy (real estate)...  apparently not all ER's are created equal.  And then you have the one of a kind situation that is MMM, ER and still accumulating, which puts him in a gray area.  Maybe his is the future of retirement!  'Retiring' to a different profession, but then is it right to call this thing by the same word as people who have absolutely no intention of 'working' ever again (i.e. pensioners)?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

So yeah, that's why I'm still around.  Because I enjoy being here more often than not.  Plenty of things to challenge my complacency and every once in a while I make some comments in hopes to get feedback.  Most of the time I keep my thoughts to myself, and an awful lot of the time I'm in agreement, just don't feel the need to say so....

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...and I'm also trying to break 1000 post count and regain my Handlebar Stache.  I was quite pissed when they changed the requisite posting levels....

[SailorGirl]

You can go from being retired to not being retired at any time. You just have to start working for money (regardless of reason).

This doesn't even make sense. When I clean my house I'm retired but the person that gets paid to do it isn't?  Both are the same amount of work but one is done because I choose to do it and one is done out of necessity.

Being retired is not about obtaining money; it's about being in full control of your day and choosing how to spend your time whether it involves money or not.

[Lmoot]

I don't know much about MMM's personal life, but does he have a new career? It seems so. He might be retired from one career, but is apparently quite active in another. If someone changes their career, are they "retired" just because they retired from their first career and don't HAVE to work anymore? I don't think so. He may diverse focuses, but I don't think that it can be argued that he is self-employed in the business of blogging and speaking about personal finance. He has a main career. He's not retired. Carry on.

If he truly does not need any money, then perhaps he can donate that $400k every year, or do jobs for free. The fact is, he will be directing that money somewhere, or to someone...money he wouldn't be able to use if he wasn't WORKING for it. Sure he'd have plenty of other money likely...but not that money. Someone who makes enough active income each year to support their current lifestyle IMO is not retired.

If Trump becomes president (and after we have a collective heart attack), does this mean he's retired? He's richer than MMM. He's doing something he's always wanted to do (rule over us all).
MMM may have retired...but he's not retired.

[Metric Mouse]

If he truly does not need any money, then perhaps he can donate that $400k every year, or do jobs for free. The fact is, he will be directing that money somewhere, or to someone...money he wouldn't be able to use if he wasn't WORKING for it. Sure he'd have plenty of other money likely...but not that money. Someone who makes enough active income each year to support their current lifestyle IMO is not retired.

So if he earned money and then gave it away...he'd be retired? But earning money and not using it is working... but using it to help others is retirement?

[Lmoot]

If he truly does not need any money, then perhaps he can donate that $400k every year, or do jobs for free. The fact is, he will be directing that money somewhere, or to someone...money he wouldn't be able to use if he wasn't WORKING for it. Sure he'd have plenty of other money likely...but not that money. Someone who makes enough active income each year to support their current lifestyle IMO is not retired.

So if he earned money and then gave it away...he'd be retired? But earning money and not using it is working... but using it to help others is retirement?

No that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether he NEEDS the money or not....it's income earned that will be used one day, whether by himself or someone else. If he didn't work for it, it would not be there to be spent or given away.

I don't agree with blanketing someone with the term "retired" just like I don't like it when people set one standard for the term "successful". I guess I see them more like verbs, than adjectives. You retire FROM something (but you can start in at something else, so even though you RETIRED...YOU are not retired). You can be successful at something specific, but fail at many other things. You are not successful except in that which you succeed in....you are not retired except from that which you are retired from.

[Eric]

If he truly does not need any money, then perhaps he can donate that $400k every year, or do jobs for free. The fact is, he will be directing that money somewhere, or to someone...money he wouldn't be able to use if he wasn't WORKING for it. Sure he'd have plenty of other money likely...but not that money. Someone who makes enough active income each year to support their current lifestyle IMO is not retired.

So if he earned money and then gave it away...he'd be retired? But earning money and not using it is working... but using it to help others is retirement?

No that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether he NEEDS the money or not....it's income earned that will be used one day, whether by himself or someone else. If he didn't work for it, it would not be there to be spent or given away.

I don't agree with blanketing someone with the term "retired" just like I don't like it when people set one standard for the term "successful". I guess I see them more like verbs, than adjectives. You retire FROM something (but you can start in at something else, so even though you RETIRED...YOU are not retired). You can be successful at something specific, but fail at many other things. You are not successful except in that which you succeed in....you are not retired except from that which you are retired from.

So you're never going to be retired?  That sucks!  I feel for you.

[mak1277]

If he truly does not need any money, then perhaps he can donate that $400k every year, or do jobs for free. The fact is, he will be directing that money somewhere, or to someone...money he wouldn't be able to use if he wasn't WORKING for it. Sure he'd have plenty of other money likely...but not that money. Someone who makes enough active income each year to support their current lifestyle IMO is not retired.

So if he earned money and then gave it away...he'd be retired? But earning money and not using it is working... but using it to help others is retirement?

No that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether he NEEDS the money or not....it's income earned that will be used one day, whether by himself or someone else. If he didn't work for it, it would not be there to be spent or given away.

I don't agree with blanketing someone with the term "retired" just like I don't like it when people set one standard for the term "successful". I guess I see them more like verbs, than adjectives. You retire FROM something (but you can start in at something else, so even though you RETIRED...YOU are not retired). You can be successful at something specific, but fail at many other things. You are not successful except in that which you succeed in....you are not retired except from that which you are retired from.

So you're never going to be retired?  That sucks!  I feel for you.

Why do you say that based on what Lmoot said?  If you quit your job and don't work after that, you're retired.  Earning money passively from investments obviously doesn't count as "work" under anyone's definition.  I sure as heck plan to be retired ASAP and don't plan on doing any work for money ever again once I pull the ripcord. 

[Lmoot]

If he truly does not need any money, then perhaps he can donate that $400k every year, or do jobs for free. The fact is, he will be directing that money somewhere, or to someone...money he wouldn't be able to use if he wasn't WORKING for it. Sure he'd have plenty of other money likely...but not that money. Someone who makes enough active income each year to support their current lifestyle IMO is not retired.

So if he earned money and then gave it away...he'd be retired? But earning money and not using it is working... but using it to help others is retirement?

No that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether he NEEDS the money or not....it's income earned that will be used one day, whether by himself or someone else. If he didn't work for it, it would not be there to be spent or given away.

I don't agree with blanketing someone with the term "retired" just like I don't like it when people set one standard for the term "successful". I guess I see them more like verbs, than adjectives. You retire FROM something (but you can start in at something else, so even though you RETIRED...YOU are not retired). You can be successful at something specific, but fail at many other things. You are not successful except in that which you succeed in....you are not retired except from that which you are retired from.

So you're never going to be retired?  That sucks!  I feel for you.

I could only hope. Don't feel sorry for me. I love my field so much that I can't imagine a life not participating in it.

According to you anyone who if FI is automatically retired. Why then is it FIRE and not just RE? Because there is a distinction...we may argue where that is, but it's there. If you are earning as much active income (whether you like the work or not, whether you need the money or not....is irrelevant) as MMM is, IMO that is not retired. Plenty of people die working so it's not so inconceivable of one never retiring. Also one can retire, and come out of retirement, so it's reversible.

It's easy to argue against someone else's interpretation, but can I ask what your definition of retirement is?

I feel like the rally of the masses comes from an incorrect assumption that those who do not agree he's retired are attempting to reduce the value of the WORK he's done. I'm not and I'm sure many others are not. But I'm not a fan of people calling the sky green and telling me any other answer is wrong.

[Eric]

According to you anyone who if FI is automatically retired.

If they consider themselves retired, then sure.

Why then is it FIRE and not just RE? Because there is a distinction...we may argue where that is, but it's there.

I'm fine with taking the FI out of FIRE if you'd like.  Just call it RE.  Cool with me.

If you are earning as much active income (whether you like the work or not, whether you need the money or not....is irrelevant) as MMM is, IMO that is not retired.

You've mentioned.  What's the earning cutoff between retired and not retired?  How much can I earn before I'm no longer retired?

It's easy to argue against someone else's interpretation, but can I ask what your definition of retirement is?

Mine is the same as MMM's.  If you have enough money to live comfortably without making another cent and you consider yourself retired, then congrats, you're retired!

Otherwise, you're just picking nits.  If everyone who earned any money (or traded labor for anything of value) was no longer retired, then there would be basically no retired people except those old and infirm.  Retiring early, such as in your 30s or 40s makes it even more likely that you're not going to be old and infirm, so I reject the idea that you have to be old and infirm in order to be retired.

[mak1277]

If everyone who earned any money (or traded labor for anything of value) was no longer retired, then there would be basically no retired people except those old and infirm.  Retiring early, such as in your 30s or 40s makes it even more likely that you're not going to be old and infirm, so I reject the idea that you have to be old and infirm in order to be retired.

Why can't you be fully retired in your 40s?  I intend to be...I don't plan on doing any work for money. 

[Eric]

Why can't you be fully retired in your 40s?  I intend to be...I don't plan on doing any work for money.

Congratulations!  You're retired!

It's easy to argue against someone else's interpretation, but can I ask what your definition of retirement is?

Mine is the same as MMM's.  If you have enough money to live comfortably without making another cent and you consider yourself retired, then congrats, you're retired!

[zephyr911]

Hey! Shut up for a second, people!
It looks like this was supposed to be a meta-IRP thread exploring the psychology behind the pervasive (idiotic) obsession with arguing over definitions of retirement. If you are here, arguing over definitions of retirement (and/or who qualifies) YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. GET MORE META, OR GTFO.
/box

[Rosy]

The question was, "Why is it so important that MMM be "really" retired? A serious question".

It is neither "important" nor do I care about the "true" definition of retired. I see him as FI, and if he sees himself as FI and retired  - I'm fine with that, since he has indeed retired from the rat race since he works only for himself, on projects he enjoys.

If one retires as a lifer from the military, receives a pension, then goes on to a new career or interest, say building or rehabbing homes - wouldn't you call that person retired, even though he or she still works and earns income and is only in their early forties?

Anyway, it's all semantics, IMHO his message is FI - what you do from then on is up to you. In the end, that is really all that matters.
 

[Moustachienne]

Hey! Shut up for a second, people!
It looks like this was supposed to be a meta-IRP thread exploring the psychology behind the pervasive (idiotic) obsession with arguing over definitions of retirement. If you are here, arguing over definitions of retirement (and/or who qualifies) YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. GET MORE META, OR GTFO.
/box

Hahaha! Yes, I meant for this to be a "meta" question, i.e. why do folks get so hot under the collar about the retired/not retired question?  Some posters answered this; others proved that yep, folks get steamed up about it.  The not locked down approach to MMM forum postings is OK with that.  But I am still interested in the answers to the meta question.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

Seriously, does anyone read the blog?

From MMM himself: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/

Mr. Money Mustache vs. the Internet Retirement Police

    All_Bottles“He’s not really Retired.”

    “It says right in the blog that he does construction work. Also he manages his own rental houses. And has a blog. That doesn’t sound like retirement to me.”

    “That Brief History of the ‘Stash stuff doesn’t add up to me. I think he’s making it all up.”

    “Yes, he has a nice nest egg. But I suspect he’ll be working for a good part of the year.”

“Who the fuck”, you may ask, “are these people?”

That’s what I asked more than a year ago, when first alerted to the presence of a large number of people who I’ve never met, who were carefully and yet completely inaccurately speculating about the life and times of Mr. Money Mustache.  Lucky for me, the answer came immediately, in this brilliant poem/comment that Jacob from Early Retirement Extreme posted on this blog:
The “internet retirement police” (IRP), which you’ll meet in various online forums, have established five main directives:

In principle you can only participate in certain pre-approved retirement activities such as beach-sitting, staring out the window, and receiving visits from your grandchildren.

Traveling is also okay, as is eating “delicious food”, just make sure you don’t cook it yourself, see below. Think twice before doing anything that’s not on this list! The IRP is watching you.

The IRP does grant one exemption should you become bored with the activities above. You can work for a nonprofit organization. Make sure you’re not getting paid though even if you have to plead your case with the CEO to put in special exemptions. Accepting money obviously means you didn’t do your retirement-math and that you ran out of money a couple of years after retiring. After all, what other obvious explanation could there be? (Besides the obvious ones) If you can’t find a way to work without pay, it’s best to head back to the beach towel and sit on that.

Just to be clear: You’re most definitely NOT allowed to be a kayak-instructor in your retirement. While it may sound like a fun job that you picked yourself even if you didn’t have to, the keyword is J-O-B. You can, however, spend a Saturday morning dressed up as an elephant handing out fliers and free lemonade at the entrance. And if you really must instruct in kayaking, please avoid doing something more engaging than blogging about kayaks (and if you do blog, try not to make the blog popular… because … then the blog would be a job!).

Next, I feel like I should warn MMM readers lest they stumble into the retirement pitfall of saving money by living frugally. You can’t do that! According to the IRP saving money IS a full time job and—try to follow this—since you can’t have a job and be retired, you are not allowed to save money in retirement. You see, if you save money by doing your own cooking, you’re now WORKING as a cook, thus no longer retired.

The IRP would like you to take this to its extreme logical conclusions, e.g. you’re working as a money manager if you handle your own investments, you’re working as a gardener if you mow your own lawn, you’re working as a chauffeur if you don’t hire a driver, you’re a pro-blogger if you have a blog, and so on.

Disclaimer: All examples are taken from real world cases as presented to me by the IRP. They’re not kidding!

Jacob wrote that comment hastily in the discussion section of First Retire, Then Get Rich, but I immediately Tweeted out a link to it, sending a warning shot across the bow of the Early Retirement Police Boat. And now, at long last, we are going to sink it for good.

At issue right now, is the definition of “Retirement”.

“You’re not retired – you admit to doing an awful lot of carpentry”
 If I can somehow suppress my urge to build things and sit inside, THEN will I be retired? What about if I work only on my own house? Retired, or no?

“You’re not retired if you have a rental house”
  If the tenants never call me for any reason (as has been the case for the past two years), THEN am I retired?”.. or if I sell my rental house and transfer the money to a REIT which offers equal yield, can I be retired then? What if this is less fun?  What if I subsequently do a bunch of research on REIT funds and allocate my investment across several, rebalancing occasionally?

“You’re not retired if you have a blog that makes money – even if it’s about early retirement”
 If I take down the remaining ads, THEN can I be retired? Or is the work involved the issue? Would I be retired if I had a robot that wrote the blog for me, but I collected the revenue?

Or what if I still did the writing, but I did it only while sitting on the beach while being fed intravenously? Would I be more retired than if I wrote it from my couch at home as I do now?

“It’s a shame we don’t have a better name for all this stuff we’re doing as Mustachians. Retirement doesn’t sound right. Financial independence comes closer. Can we invent a new word for it? How about Removed?”

News Flash: the perfect word has already been invented. Are you ready to hear it? Here it is:
Retired.

It’s perfect just as it is. It’s just like “Financially Independent”, but it sounds more amazing and it uses 75% fewer syllables.

“Retired” means you no longer have to work for money, and you are aware of this fact. You can then proceed to do whatever you want, as long as you do it consciously and of your own accord. If you meet this condition, and you feel retired, congratulations, you are.

Retired probably does not mean you sit at home watching TV, venturing out only for medication or a motorized-cart-aided round of golf.  This is a subset of retirement, but only a very special case of it, for those with very advanced age or limited mobility.

Retired means different things to different people. But one of the rules of Mustachianism is that if someone tells you they are retired, you do not question them. You congratulate them.

Retirement may or may not include any of the following lifestyle attributes:

     the complete abandonment of alarm clocks, and a soft chuckle specially developed for anyone who tries to make you be somewhere before 9AM.
     a general lack of awareness of what day of the week it is
     a work ethic that ebbs and flows with your natural human cycle. There may be times of extreme productivity and late nights, and other times of  dormancy.
     work and areas of interest that change over the years, some of which might earn you money, and some of which might be neutral or even involve spending instead of earning money.

Or it can be completely different. The only rule is that you theoretically must have sufficient savings (or other assets) that you could live indefinitely off the passive income they provide, and these savings must give you the freedom to realize that any work you do is totally optional.  You don’t actually have to live off the income, it just has to be there.

So there it is – the official definition of Retirement, of which Early Retirement is just a special case.

Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion.

Thousands of the Mustachians who read this blog are already Retired. Most of them still do some sort of “work”. And all of them have fists brandished in case the Internet Retirement Police dare to show their faces around the Internet again.

[mak1277]

If one retires as a lifer from the military, receives a pension, then goes on to a new career or interest, say building or rehabbing homes - wouldn't you call that person retired, even though he or she still works and earns income and is only in their early forties?

I know several people who fit in a similar category as what you described (former military, now working some other job).  None of them would consider themselves retired, as they still go to work. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

On the flip side, why do people get so upset that most people in mainstream society would consider that MMM is not 'retired'?  Personally, I don't care if people want to spend the rest of their life fighting the IRP, but I'm not going to put myself on the firing line.  Even though I don't plan to make any money after I leave my job or get laid off, I will still only adopt the word retired when I am nearer my 50's or if I'm with people that know what I mean, just to avoid this whole painful discussion with the general population.  When I want to open a can of worms, I'll tell 'normal' folks I retired early, but I fully expect people will call me a SAHD or unemployed or between jobs.  I would prefer to call myself Financially Independent to distinguish my situation from this, but that sounds too much like 'rich' and kicks off more discussion than I would want to have. 

The fact that an IRP exists and continues despite Pete's best efforts is pretty convincing that his situation does not meet the general population's expectation of 'retired'.   Nothing we say on this thread is going to change that.  And I still don't understand why he wouldn't want to call himself an entrepreneur or self-employed rather than 'retired'.  It really does seem to be causing more trouble than it's worth.   

ETA- I guess he can technically say he retired at 30 though, since he did leave his employer.  But I wouldn't call his current situation retired, personally.

[Lmoot]

Seriously, does anyone read the blog?

From MMM himself: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/

Mr. Money Mustache vs. the Internet Retirement Police

    All_Bottles“He’s not really Retired.”

    “It says right in the blog that he does construction work. Also he manages his own rental houses. And has a blog. That doesn’t sound like retirement to me.”

    “That Brief History of the ‘Stash stuff doesn’t add up to me. I think he’s making it all up.”

    “Yes, he has a nice nest egg. But I suspect he’ll be working for a good part of the year.”

“Who the fuck”, you may ask, “are these people?”

That’s what I asked more than a year ago, when first alerted to the presence of a large number of people who I’ve never met, who were carefully and yet completely inaccurately speculating about the life and times of Mr. Money Mustache.  Lucky for me, the answer came immediately, in this brilliant poem/comment that Jacob from Early Retirement Extreme posted on this blog:
The “internet retirement police” (IRP), which you’ll meet in various online forums, have established five main directives:

In principle you can only participate in certain pre-approved retirement activities such as beach-sitting, staring out the window, and receiving visits from your grandchildren.

Traveling is also okay, as is eating “delicious food”, just make sure you don’t cook it yourself, see below. Think twice before doing anything that’s not on this list! The IRP is watching you.

The IRP does grant one exemption should you become bored with the activities above. You can work for a nonprofit organization. Make sure you’re not getting paid though even if you have to plead your case with the CEO to put in special exemptions. Accepting money obviously means you didn’t do your retirement-math and that you ran out of money a couple of years after retiring. After all, what other obvious explanation could there be? (Besides the obvious ones) If you can’t find a way to work without pay, it’s best to head back to the beach towel and sit on that.

Just to be clear: You’re most definitely NOT allowed to be a kayak-instructor in your retirement. While it may sound like a fun job that you picked yourself even if you didn’t have to, the keyword is J-O-B. You can, however, spend a Saturday morning dressed up as an elephant handing out fliers and free lemonade at the entrance. And if you really must instruct in kayaking, please avoid doing something more engaging than blogging about kayaks (and if you do blog, try not to make the blog popular… because … then the blog would be a job!).

Next, I feel like I should warn MMM readers lest they stumble into the retirement pitfall of saving money by living frugally. You can’t do that! According to the IRP saving money IS a full time job and—try to follow this—since you can’t have a job and be retired, you are not allowed to save money in retirement. You see, if you save money by doing your own cooking, you’re now WORKING as a cook, thus no longer retired.

The IRP would like you to take this to its extreme logical conclusions, e.g. you’re working as a money manager if you handle your own investments, you’re working as a gardener if you mow your own lawn, you’re working as a chauffeur if you don’t hire a driver, you’re a pro-blogger if you have a blog, and so on.

Disclaimer: All examples are taken from real world cases as presented to me by the IRP. They’re not kidding!

Jacob wrote that comment hastily in the discussion section of First Retire, Then Get Rich, but I immediately Tweeted out a link to it, sending a warning shot across the bow of the Early Retirement Police Boat. And now, at long last, we are going to sink it for good.

At issue right now, is the definition of “Retirement”.

“You’re not retired – you admit to doing an awful lot of carpentry”
 If I can somehow suppress my urge to build things and sit inside, THEN will I be retired? What about if I work only on my own house? Retired, or no?

“You’re not retired if you have a rental house”
  If the tenants never call me for any reason (as has been the case for the past two years), THEN am I retired?”.. or if I sell my rental house and transfer the money to a REIT which offers equal yield, can I be retired then? What if this is less fun?  What if I subsequently do a bunch of research on REIT funds and allocate my investment across several, rebalancing occasionally?

“You’re not retired if you have a blog that makes money – even if it’s about early retirement”
 If I take down the remaining ads, THEN can I be retired? Or is the work involved the issue? Would I be retired if I had a robot that wrote the blog for me, but I collected the revenue?

Or what if I still did the writing, but I did it only while sitting on the beach while being fed intravenously? Would I be more retired than if I wrote it from my couch at home as I do now?

“It’s a shame we don’t have a better name for all this stuff we’re doing as Mustachians. Retirement doesn’t sound right. Financial independence comes closer. Can we invent a new word for it? How about Removed?”

News Flash: the perfect word has already been invented. Are you ready to hear it? Here it is:
Retired.

It’s perfect just as it is. It’s just like “Financially Independent”, but it sounds more amazing and it uses 75% fewer syllables.

“Retired” means you no longer have to work for money, and you are aware of this fact. You can then proceed to do whatever you want, as long as you do it consciously and of your own accord. If you meet this condition, and you feel retired, congratulations, you are.

Retired probably does not mean you sit at home watching TV, venturing out only for medication or a motorized-cart-aided round of golf.  This is a subset of retirement, but only a very special case of it, for those with very advanced age or limited mobility.

Retired means different things to different people. But one of the rules of Mustachianism is that if someone tells you they are retired, you do not question them. You congratulate them.

Retirement may or may not include any of the following lifestyle attributes:

     the complete abandonment of alarm clocks, and a soft chuckle specially developed for anyone who tries to make you be somewhere before 9AM.
     a general lack of awareness of what day of the week it is
     a work ethic that ebbs and flows with your natural human cycle. There may be times of extreme productivity and late nights, and other times of  dormancy.
     work and areas of interest that change over the years, some of which might earn you money, and some of which might be neutral or even involve spending instead of earning money.

Or it can be completely different. The only rule is that you theoretically must have sufficient savings (or other assets) that you could live indefinitely off the passive income they provide, and these savings must give you the freedom to realize that any work you do is totally optional.  You don’t actually have to live off the income, it just has to be there.

So there it is – the official definition of Retirement, of which Early Retirement is just a special case.

Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog. If the Internet Retirement Police would like to supersede my definition, they will have to start their own blog, calling it something like www. mrmoneymustacheisnotreallyretired.com, build it up to be more widely read than this one, and then propose their own definition. Only at this point would the torch be passed and the definition of Retired be up for discussion.

Thousands of the Mustachians who read this blog are already Retired. Most of them still do some sort of “work”. And all of them have fists brandished in case the Internet Retirement Police dare to show their faces around the Internet again.

Do you agree with everything you read? What does reading have to do with agreeing? This is like quoting the bible when challenged about the existence of God.

Yeah, I read it ages ago around the time it was posted. Of course people can call themselves whatever they want to call themselves, and it's a wonderfully utopian and zennish attitude to go along with it as fact, because they say so. I'm probably neither of those things so can't do it, nope, sorry. I will say the idea of retirement is being blurred to nearly unrecognizable, and therefore I love the idea of just using a new/different word.

For some reason people prefer to think of themselves as retired and perhaps I'm projecting the distaste of the idea for myself in general, but it is just a word and my reaction to MMM calling himself that does not come in the spirit of calling him a fraud or of trying to portray himself in a different light. It doesn't change for me his message in anyway (and those who are not able to see past their disagreement and acknowledge that what he calls himself should not diminish that message, are doing themselves a disservice IMO).

It may be the "Mustachian" interpretation of retirement, but just the fact that there is a distinction of "Mustachian" as an antithesis to mainstream should already be a clue-in that a majority of folks will not agree.....so why the astounded astonishment? If the quoted info is correct based on the parameters dictated and followed in this "Mustachian" world, then you are right....that we cannot claim you are wrong. Outside of the Mustachian world though, the Mustachian definition is fair game.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

This is a fucked up hobby some of y'all have.

[Basenji]

This is a fucked up hobby some of y'all have.

そうですよ

[deborah]

It is not important that MMM is really retired. I'm really retired. I retired early. I don't do anything other than make a passive income. I don't get social security, and I will never get the government pension that our government gives you past a certain age if you don't have enough. And others can do the same thing. Others here have done the same thing.

MMM provides guidelines about how you can do the same as me and the others. It's not exactly the way I did it, nor is it exactly the way others here have done it, and it's probably not exactly the way you will do it. But we will all end up FIRE because we have thought it through and have worked out our ways of doing it. And you will do it more easily than I did because you have had the MMM guidance. I didn't.

A major part of being FIRE is to work out when you have enough. People who continue to earn more than they need after they are retired, from passive income, have failed because they failed to become FIRE as soon as they had enough. I am one of them, so, also, it appears, is MMM.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Thanks Deborah, since I probably don't say it often enough, I agree with everything you wrote.  I agree with most of what Spartana wrote, but I do think it's possible to be an employee and paid doing things you would do for free.  You would probably do them a little differently if you weren't paid (I'm thinking of professions like atheletes and writers) which is why they have to formally retire so people 'know' they're done.  But I agree with the meta topic that it's not important that MMM isn't really retired.

[zephyr911]

If one retires as a lifer from the military, receives a pension, then goes on to a new career or interest, say building or rehabbing homes - wouldn't you call that person retired, even though he or she still works and earns income and is only in their early forties?

Anyway, it's all semantics, IMHO his message is FI - what you do from then on is up to you. In the end, that is really all that matters.

Context and phrasing matter a bit, when it comes to that.

I work in a large DoD organization with many civilians and contractors who are retired military. In this environment, it is common to add a qualifying term after "retired", such as "retired colonel" or "retired sergeant major", to differentiate someone who did 20+ years and got lifetime retired status from someone who is no longer working at all. This also conveys a host of information about their background, experience, benefits, access, and so on.

If you just say "retired" here, absent further specificity, it's generally taken to mean "chilling at home / on the golf course / in an RV", etc.

I'm working toward a reserve retirement for the sake of the lifetime cost savings and facility access. That is still 6.5 years away, and we will hit FI and quit FT work long before that. Will heads explode if I start claiming I'm retired when I'm still doing my 39 days a year just to hit 20? Or should I say "civilian retired"? ;)

[TheAnonOne]

If he isn't retired, then I want that kind of "non-retiredness" too....

[Villanelle]

I guess retirement is like porn.  I know it when I see it.  And while there might be a gray area (into which MMM seems to fall), I suspect 95% of people will agree 95% of the time. 

As for whether it matters if he's truly retired, as each of us defines that, I'd say it definitely doesn't.  But to me, it does matter that his life in retirement has significant income.  I don't think that takes away from nearly all the things he says and does and preaches and teaches, but I do think it is relevant to the conversation when discussing specific plans and strategies for FIRE and setting a FIRE number and date.  Whether it makes a difference if that income (and the actions creating it) earn him the label of retired or not couldn't matter less.  To me ;)