Wife & Family Don't Get FIRE...

[FarmerPete]

So I'm a long ways away from FIRE.  I've got a net worth of $250k between house equity and whatnot.  I was talking to a few family members over lunch.  They mentioned that a friend of ours who had retired within the last year, was just diagnosed with cancer.  They started talking about how it seemed to be common for people to work their entire life, retire, and then get major illness almost immediately.  I used that as a segway to mention that my plan is to retire early, so that I can spend more time with my family and doing what I want.  They seemed very confused.  The conversation went something like:

Them: "So, what are you going to do with all of your free time?"
Me: "Uh, whatever I want.  That's kind of the point.  I'd like to spend more time with my kids, and I'd like to do things that are enjoyable to me and provide value to me and others."
Them: "So, you want to be a bum?"
Me: "If spending time with my family and doing meaningful things makes me a bum, then yes."
Them: "Won't you be bored?"
Me: "Are you two bored?" (They are both SAHMs)
Them: "That's totally different."
Me: "Look, I'm not saying that it's a done deal, there is a long time between now and 13 years, but if we live a semi-frugal life, we should have enough that the money will be self-sustaining by then and never run out."
Them: "So you're going to live in a box?"
Me: "No.  I'm going to live in my current house (or a comparable one).  We might cut down to driving a single car or something else like that."
Them: "You can't just have 1 car!  You and your wife will be fighting for it constantly!"
Me: "Well, our second car costs us $3k a year.  Using the 25x rule, that means that to finance a second car, we will need to save $75k additional dollars in our retirement.  I don't know about you, but I don't want to work an extra year or two at my job, just so that I don't have to share with my wife."
Them: "Oh, that would totally be worth it."
Me: "You're telling me that you would trade two 4000 hours of your life, just so that you wouldn't have to share a car?"
Them: "Yes, that is exactly what I'm telling you."

Anyways, I eventually conceded that I may or may not continue to work, but that once I hit my FIRE date/time, I would most likely start a job consulting.  The idea being that as my own business, I can work as much or as little as I want.  If I make a profit, great.  If I don't, well I had enough to live off anyways, so oops."  I don't know if that is really my plan or not, but I figure at 13 years out, I can claim that as my plan for now. 

I just don't get what's so hard to understand about it.  I know that these are the same types of conversations others have had, but I guess I figured my family would be a little more open to it than others.  I know that most of them are on good financial ground, so calling enough is enough seems like it would be on peoples minds.

[Meggslynn]

I have had similar conversations that are oh so annoying.

I think people react that way partly as a defense mechanism. They know that early retirement is not a possibility for them so they act like its the worst thing in the world and therefore they shouldn't change their consumer-driven lifestyle to be able to partake in it. Deep down they know it would rock ....

I think the other part is "others" just really enjoy consumerism and don't mind working to be able to participate in it.

[Rollin]

I get much the same from distant family (my dad, mom, bro, and sisters all dig it - most retired early).  Funny that your forst question from them is what I usually get "what are you going to do with your time?"  I see it as their fear, not mine.

I read a little shifting of your goals based on what they are saying (maybe reading into your words too far - sorry), but don't give up on that oal.  In fact, the more you do this the better you get at it.  You may also find that 13 years turning into 12, or 11, or...

Good luck.

[Prairie Stash]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

[FarmerPete]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

Yes.  I fully agree.  I'm getting real close to switching to a 3 day telecommute schedule.  I've already hinted to my wife that I'm interested in piloting going down to 1 car.  I know that I'll probably get some resistance from her, but she's a SAHM.  I figure that having a car available for 3 days a week should be enough for her.  If it isn't, she can find a way to make $3k a year.  At $10 an hour (roughly what she would make watching kids for friends), that would take her 300 hours a year, or average of 5.77  hours a week.  I have a feeling that if she has to work 5-6hrs a week, she'll probably just decide it's not worth it.  And those numbers are pre-tax.  Uncle Sam would turn that into an 8hr day a week easily.  Heck, if she works one of the days I'm in the office, she'd only get 1 extra day of driving the car anyways.  :-)

[Bob W]

The cars.  My car motor blew up a few years ago.  Wife and I started ride sharing.  Did it for something like 2-3 years.   Really can't remember.   I was a SAHM for 2.5 years.   Never missed a car.   In fact for much of that time I didn't have a phone or internet.   

It's funny,  when I went back to work,  even though I'm working full time,  we are actually saving less money.   Go figure. 

[misschedda]

I think it's hard in general to immediately grasp a life-changing idea that you've never thought about. Seems like you shook their world a little and with time they may come back with some eager questions instead of these questions just to poke holes in your plan.

[MrsPete]

Me: "You're telling me that you would trade two 4000 hours of your life, just so that you wouldn't have to share a car?"
Them: "Yes, that is exactly what I'm telling you."

Clarification:  They're saying they're willing to trade two 4000-units of YOUR LIFE so THEY can have a second car. 

My husband and I shared a car for the first three years of our marriage, and -- in spite of living far out in the country with no public transportation and no possibility of walking anywhere -- it was easy 95% of the time.  When circumstances forced us to buy a second car, we were astounded at how much it added to the budget, and we're in complete agreement that it's sensible to be a one-car family again in the future. 

I agree with those who say that sometimes when people hear something they consider radically different from the norm, they have trouble accepting it at first.  I'd suggest you completely blow off the family, but use math to convince your wife.  She's the only one who really matters in this situation. 

[HopefulMustache]

I live in an urban environment, so it's possibly quite different than you, but my partner and I had no car for a while and we were ok. Having one car now feels luxurious. I doubt we'll get a second unless outside forces necessitate it.

I think the car thing, as a small example of the entire FIRE mindset, is - like the last two people have said - just an example of a foreign idea meeting a knee-jerk defensiveness from other people. It's very natural to fear change and dismiss the need for it when you haven't really thought about it yet. I'm not sure I'd blow off the family, but I'd avoid taking it personally, and continue to focus on what's best for you and your family. Hopefully, as misschedda said, they (or some of them at least) will feel sparked by your ideas once it sinks in a little more too.

[MrsPete]

I live in an urban environment, so it's possibly quite different than you, but my partner and I had no car for a while and we were ok. Having one car now feels luxurious. I doubt we'll get a second unless outside forces necessitate it.

Yeah, where I live, NO car would be pretty much impossible.  With more people working from home (at least part time) and shopping online a possibility, I think more and more people can cut down their car ownership -- but it doesn't seem to be a common thought.  I think it's mostly a matter of, "Middle class adults have cars.  It's just one of the things we do."

[ac]

A problem our society has is that we don't talk about finances.  So when we talk about finances at any detailed level, people act really weird. 

I'm part of the problem.  The only person who knows my net worth is my wife.

You are less of the problem - you told those 2 people.

2 months ago I told a good friend about my FI plans, and he flipped out too telling me he'd never do that and what a waste of a brain it'd be.  Then a month later he told me he realized he could get FI earlier than he imagined also, and he's excited.  So people come around sometimes. 

[jmusic]

Me: "You're telling me that you would trade two 4000 hours of your life, just so that you wouldn't have to share a car?"
Them: "Yes, that is exactly what I'm telling you."

Clarification:  They're saying they're willing to trade two 4000-units of YOUR LIFE so THEY can have a second car. 

Their husbands' lives, but yes, that was my thought immediately when reading it as well! 

[jmusic]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

Yes.  I fully agree.  I'm getting real close to switching to a 3 day telecommute schedule.  I've already hinted to my wife that I'm interested in piloting going down to 1 car.  I know that I'll probably get some resistance from her, but she's a SAHM.  I figure that having a car available for 3 days a week should be enough for her.  If it isn't, she can find a way to make $3k a year.  At $10 an hour (roughly what she would make watching kids for friends), that would take her 300 hours a year, or average of 5.77  hours a week.  I have a feeling that if she has to work 5-6hrs a week, she'll probably just decide it's not worth it.  And those numbers are pre-tax.  Uncle Sam would turn that into an 8hr day a week easily.  Heck, if she works one of the days I'm in the office, she'd only get 1 extra day of driving the car anyways.  :-)

Be careful with that.  Buying her a car is a lot cheaper than divorce.  I can practically hear the court dialog right now...
Attorney:  "Pete was SO CHEAP..." 
Jury:  "How cheap was he?!"


Perhaps YOU could make changes as well by biking/bussing to work a few days/week (teleworking or not)?

[Annamal]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

Yes.  I fully agree.  I'm getting real close to switching to a 3 day telecommute schedule.  I've already hinted to my wife that I'm interested in piloting going down to 1 car.  I know that I'll probably get some resistance from her, but she's a SAHM.  I figure that having a car available for 3 days a week should be enough for her.  If it isn't, she can find a way to make $3k a year.  At $10 an hour (roughly what she would make watching kids for friends), that would take her 300 hours a year, or average of 5.77  hours a week.  I have a feeling that if she has to work 5-6hrs a week, she'll probably just decide it's not worth it.  And those numbers are pre-tax.  Uncle Sam would turn that into an 8hr day a week easily.  Heck, if she works one of the days I'm in the office, she'd only get 1 extra day of driving the car anyways.  :-)

Depending on the age of your kid(s?) and the availability of public transport/taxis it could be a very difficult thing to go down to one car, ( I love living without a car but I also see the kind of errands that having kids generates and I do not believe that those are easy to accomplish unless you are in a bike or walk friendly city).

If you are walking distance to doctors/pharmacies/playgrounds/supermarkets/libraries  then of course you are fine.

[Miss Prim]

My husband and I have talked about going down to 2 cars.  Right now we have 3 because we have a truck to pull our camper, but we don't use it that often.  I pulled up the amount we are spending on car insurance and it was $2100/year!  Since we are retiring in a few weeks, I suggested we go down to one car and the truck.  We should be able to juggle the car between us and use the truck when we absolutely need 2 vehicles. 

My husband is in agreement, so that's what we will do.

                                                                                     Miss Prim

[Luckyvik]

When I met my husband he lived in the middle of the city and didn't have a car as he walked everywhere, when we moved in we kept my car and manage fine. We both catch a bus to work and on the weekends we share the car, mostly we go places together anyway. We don't have kids tough but I don't think we will ever get a second car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pigeon]

I don't think it is particularly difficult to understand that the MMM approach might not appeal to many people. You don't have to convince people whose finances aren't your concern.

If I were a SAHM and my husband decided I could live without a car or watch a bunch of other people's kids, he would be my ex husband.

[Retire-Canada]

So I'm a long ways away from FIRE.  I've got a net worth of $250k between house equity and whatnot. 

I just don't get what's so hard to understand about it.

You are working with a conceptual model of the world that they don't have so your inputs to their models don't compute.

Look at it this way if you go over to the ERE Blog/Forum you could have a chat with someone who would look at your $250K NW and say you are done time to FIRE. $250K will throw off $7.5K-$10K/yr safely which is more than enough to live off of for 1 person.

Instead of the car chat they'll tell you a bicycle and a few bus tokens is all you need to get around and it costs next to nothing. You might respond, but we need at least 1 car and they'll say is it really worth working an extra year or two of your life for a car?

They might go on to say you only need 5 pairs of socks, 2 pairs of pants, 1 pair of shorts, etc... Basically 1 load of washing then repeat wearing the clothes and you can make your own laundry detergent for 1/10th the cost of store bought product.

Etc....

I'm not saying one approach is better or worse than the other...just pointing out that it wouldn't be hard to go far enough in the more frugal direction before you'd be the spendy-pants-long-working person in the story saying "Say whhhhhaaaatttt?" to the more frugal even earlier retiree.

It's all about perspective.

-- Vik

[PawPrint3520]

We've been married 34 years and have had 1 car for 2/3 of that time. It can be done. During the first years, I took the bus and he used the car, taking the kids to daycare on the way. Or we had daycare right in the neighborhood. When we moved, I walked to work or, when I got a job that required a car, he biked to work. When we moved again, we had a second car, but he usually biked to work anyway. We've always made it a point to live in a house that was close to either his or my work. Now we live in an urban area so we seldom use the car. He has a free bus pass from work, and I walk everywhere. The bonus is that, although within my BMI, I lost 17 lbs. by walking so much. In addition to being frugal, cutting down on car use is certainly better for the environment.

[Guses]

If I were a SAHM and my husband decided I could live without a car or watch a bunch of other people's kids, he would be my ex husband.

What would be the deciding factor, the car or the asking that you contribute financially to the car?

[NoraLenderbee]

If I were a SAHM and my husband decided I could live without a car or watch a bunch of other people's kids, he would be my ex husband.

What would be the deciding factor, the car or the asking that you contribute financially to the car?

Perhaps the unilateral decision and the presentation as a done deal? "Honey, let's brainstorm about ways to reduce our expenses so we can meet our financial goals faster" is very different from "I'VE decided that YOU need to experience major inconvenience so we can save money."

[Pigeon]

If I were a SAHM and my husband decided I could live without a car or watch a bunch of other people's kids, he would be my ex husband.

What would be the deciding factor, the car or the asking that you contribute financially to the car?

The deciding factor would be the husband thinking he gets to make the decisions about our finances and the circumstances under which I would be trapped at home. 

I think being a SAHM is generally an all around raw deal for women and there is no way I would ever do it.  If it floats your boat OK, but if the finances aren't pooled and administered jointly, with shared decision making, oh hell no.

[Guses]

The deciding factor would be the husband thinking he gets to make the decisions about our finances and the circumstances under which I would be trapped at home. 

I think being a SAHM is generally an all around raw deal for women and there is no way I would ever do it.  If it floats your boat OK, but if the finances aren't pooled and administered jointly, with shared decision making, oh hell no.

Fair enough, I interpreted the post as saying that one of the two situations was liable to make you divorce your husband and I was curious which. It makes sense that your husband would involve you in those decisions of course!

I don't agree that SAHMs are raw deals for women same as I don't think that SAHDs are raw deals for men.

[retired?]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

Exactly!  Many "parties" are happy for YOU to keep working to cover the cost of xyz.

You want _________, then work to cover the cost of ____________.

[retired?]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

Yes.  I fully agree.  I'm getting real close to switching to a 3 day telecommute schedule.  I've already hinted to my wife that I'm interested in piloting going down to 1 car.  I know that I'll probably get some resistance from her, but she's a SAHM.  I figure that having a car available for 3 days a week should be enough for her.  If it isn't, she can find a way to make $3k a year.  At $10 an hour (roughly what she would make watching kids for friends), that would take her 300 hours a year, or average of 5.77  hours a week.  I have a feeling that if she has to work 5-6hrs a week, she'll probably just decide it's not worth it.  And those numbers are pre-tax.  Uncle Sam would turn that into an 8hr day a week easily.  Heck, if she works one of the days I'm in the office, she'd only get 1 extra day of driving the car anyways.  :-)

Be careful with that.  Buying her a car is a lot cheaper than divorce.  I can practically hear the court dialog right now...
Attorney:  "Pete was SO CHEAP..." 
Jury:  "How cheap was he?!"


Perhaps YOU could make changes as well by biking/bussing to work a few days/week (teleworking or not)?

At some point you have to stand your ground and make a solid argument.  i.e. if something of this sort would lead to divorce, you are probably already with the wrong person. 

The thinking is "I expect YOU to sacrifice for ME by doing the following" .....work longer than needed, work at a job you don't like but that pays better than one you would like, etc. so I can have _____ rather than ME sacrificing/working to have what I (not you) want.

Beyond basic needs, it's up to each in a marriage to cover the excess.  e.g. should I work longer so my wife can have more pedicures when she is working part-time at an "easy job" making much less than her earning potential?

[Annamal]

Love it. I would  paraphrase though, I disagree with how you typed it. They would trade 4000 hours of your life to not share a car, they wouldn't be working. As you said, they are SAHM's. Would you agree?

Exactly!  Many "parties" are happy for YOU to keep working to cover the cost of xyz.

You want _________, then work to cover the cost of ____________.

It could equally be said that you should be covering the wages of a full-time caregiver/chef/housekeeper. bearing in mind that being a SAHM can be an incredible amount of work (and frequently gets dismissed as "easy" or not work at all).

A lot of the mothers I work with are grateful to get a break once they start work again.

[darkadams00]

If I were a SAHM and my husband decided I could live without a car or watch a bunch of other people's kids, he would be my ex husband.

What would be the deciding factor, the car or the asking that you contribute financially to the car?

The deciding factor would be the husband thinking he gets to make the decisions about our finances and the circumstances under which I would be trapped at home. 

I think being a SAHM is generally an all around raw deal for women and there is no way I would ever do it.  If it floats your boat OK, but if the finances aren't pooled and administered jointly, with shared decision making, oh hell no.

In 2015 it seems that opinion is more common. My mom and grandma loved everything about being SAHMs--flexible schedules, home for the kids after school, home when kids were sick, being completely available to spend time with family after dinner instead of doing laundry/cleaning house/running errands, helping kids with hw, having time to take long walk/talks with dad/grandad, and the list goes on.

Here's the big difference---they didn't feel trapped, and they didn't spend most of their day outside the home running 10,000 errands a day, spending money by the fistfuls, driving Audi SUVs, eating out weekly, balancing 4 sports teams per season, and meeting the neighborhood moms for $5 lattes. They contributed little income and they spent their time saving the family dollars, not draining the family dollars. Needs were met, and many wants were fulfilled. They learned how to cook for two or twenty. They learned how to mend clothes, not just buy new ones. They learned how to starch a shirt. They knew the names of everyone in the neighborhood, when a kid was sick, when a husband was laid off, when someone was in jail or getting married. They took food to folks who were sick and made baby blankets for newborns (grandma was an award-winning quilter). They gave homemade jam to their grandkids and canned green beans to their kids. They never needed to retire. That was something that my dad and granddad did. Why a woman would want to go to work, work as much as possible, save like a crazy person to retire as quickly as possible just so they could do what my mom and grandma did from Day 1--I don't see the logic. If anyone is getting a raw deal, wouldn't it be the husband and not the SAHM?  :)

[Pigeon]

I love my kids. I cannot imagine anything more mind numbingly boring than being trapped in a house with kids cooking and cleaning all day. My mom did it as did grandma. They had no choice.

The divorce rates in grandma's day were much lower. I don't necessarily thing that was good because I think lots of women were stuck in abusive situations with no alternative. But I have known too many SAHMs whose husbands have left them for a newer model and damned if he didn't stop paying his child support once they younger model started breeding to think being a SAHM isn't hugely risky.

It is a raw deal to be 40+ years old with no earning history or marketable skills because you have spent decades helping Mr Midlife Crisis maximize his career while you were ironing his shirts and sweeping the floor.

I've been married for 30+ years to a great guy. Love him to death. But money is power. I could not live in an inherently unbalanced relationship and he can iron his own damned shirts.

[Guses]

I love my kids. I cannot imagine anything more mind numbingly boring than being trapped in a house with kids cooking and cleaning all day. My mom did it as did grandma. They had no choice.

The divorce rates in grandma's day were much lower. I don't necessarily thing that was good because I think lots of women were stuck in abusive situations with no alternative. But I have known too many SAHMs whose husbands have left them for a newer model and damned if he didn't stop paying his child support once they younger model started breeding to think being a SAHM isn't hugely risky.

It is a raw deal to be 40+ years old with no earning history or marketable skills because you have spent decades helping Mr Midlife Crisis maximize his career while you were ironing his shirts and sweeping the floor.

I've been married for 30+ years to a great guy. Love him to death. But money is power. I could not live in an inherently unbalanced relationship and he can iron his own damned shirts.

I don't necessarily agree with all your points but you are entitled to your opinion.

Where I take issue is that you mentionned that being a SAHP is a raw deal for women. My point is that if you think it is a raw deal, it applies equaly to both men and women.

[Sibley]

SAHP is not for everyone. Some want it, some don't. And that's ok.

Regarding making decisions - don't do it unilaterally. That will only cause problems.

[Exhale]

I was talking to a few family members over lunch...I used that as a segway to mention that my plan is to retire early, so that I can spend more time with my family and doing what I want.  They seemed very confused...I just don't get what's so hard to understand about it.  I know that these are the same types of conversations others have had, but I guess I figured my family would be a little more open to it than others.  I know that most of them are on good financial ground, so calling enough is enough seems like it would be on peoples minds.

Those around me really can't wrap their minds around FIRE. Heck, they can't even grok FI much less RE. They see what I'm doing right now as a drab deprived existence (you're spending what on groceries?! you're not buying books?! you want to go for a walk instead of eating out?! etc.) leading to a future drab deprived RE existence. Interestingly, they're the same people who are otherwise openminded, less-consumeristic-than-the-norm, think-outside-the-box kind of folks.

After a few such discussions, I decided that I'd simple let it all that energy flow past me - not try to change them and not let it enter into me. Kind of a martial arts thing with all of that energy that often arises when people hear about FIRE. I wish they were open to hearing what I'm doing (vs. reacting/judging), but I can't change them. That said, I won't let them pull me away from my goals.

Thank goodness for this Forum for giving us the company of others on the FIRE path!

[Moonwaves]

In answer to the question "but what would you do all day if you're not working" I simply tell people I have a list as long as my arm and that it's constantly being added to. I'll give them a few examples if they insist, which usually ends up with them shaking their heads and/or thinking what a joker I am.