Author Topic: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?  (Read 2505 times)

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • FIREd at 36
IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« on: August 11, 2019, 09:09:31 AM »
Deleted
« Last Edit: July 02, 2023, 12:01:36 PM by spartana »

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8930
  • Age: 2020
  • Location: Bay Area at heart living in the PNW
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2019, 09:30:42 AM »
If you had done all that at 56 vs. 36 would it be viewed differently? I sort of think so. All the people I know who retired from a long career in X, started collecting pension, and then started up a co singing gig in Y are usually still considered retired. I can see how people would take better to the “sabbatical followed by 4 years work and then retire for good” line.

I personally think you can refer to yourself as whatever you want. ;)

mistymoney

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2019, 09:36:40 AM »
If you had done all that at 56 vs. 36 would it be viewed differently? I sort of think so. All the people I know who retired from a long career in X, started collecting pension, and then started up a co singing gig in Y are usually still considered retired. I can see how people would take better to the “sabbatical followed by 4 years work and then retire for good” line.

I personally think you can refer to yourself as whatever you want. ;)


+1!

retired means what, exactly?

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2019, 09:53:10 AM »
If they were FI in the first place, then yes, I would consider them 20 years retired. What is the term SWAMI for if not for the situation you describe?

:)

PS. In real life, I'm not militant about how people describe these things. I secretly like the term "gainfully unemployed".

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8930
  • Age: 2020
  • Location: Bay Area at heart living in the PNW
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2019, 02:35:57 PM »
If you had done all that at 56 vs. 36 would it be viewed differently? I sort of think so. All the people I know who retired from a long career in X, started collecting pension, and then started up a co singing gig in Y are usually still considered retired. I can see how people would take better to the “sabbatical followed by 4 years work and then retire for good” line.

I personally think you can refer to yourself as whatever you want. ;)


+1!

retired means what, exactly?
True around here but we've all seen the negative articles (oh so many) that trash an early retiree who doesn't follow the traditional retirement rules of never working again. That's even true of anyone who has a traditional retirement of 65 or later.
Yeah, but come on, dude. Who cares what those people on the internet think? You are never going to make everyone happy.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2019, 02:49:37 PM »
If someone was working FT for 4 years in the same career they left behind, I'd say they were FIRE for 16 years. I went back to work for a year, and I didn't consider myself FIRE during that time. But I don't care that much. You could also say you FIRE'd 20 years ago, which is true.

I might start calling myself funemployed since I could go back to work next year, and it's easier to explain to people my age.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2019, 03:15:03 PM »
If someone was working FT for 4 years in the same career they left behind, I'd say they were FIRE for 16 years. I went back to work for a year, and I didn't consider myself FIRE during that time. But I don't care that much. You could also say you FIRE'd 20 years ago, which is true.

I might start calling myself funemployed since I could go back to work next year, and it's easier to explain to people my age.
Not only the same career but the same employer! I (since yes I'm talking about me) was off living the FIRE life in Spain and they called me asking me to come back. Does that make a difference?

Not to me. Seems like you FIRE'd, unretired, then re-retired.

Freedomin5

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6486
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2019, 04:08:50 PM »
Doesn’t make a difference to me either, because you totally could have just lived off savings during those entire four years, so your FIRE status was maintained. Now, if you went back to work after two years of retirement because you ran out of money, that would be a different story.

But really, at the end of the day, who cares if others think you’re retired or not? You are what you are, whatever label you or anyone else chooses to place on it. You’re definitely FI; what you do with your time afterwards is no one’s business. (What you do with your time before FI is also no one’s business.)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 04:43:14 PM by Freedomin5 »

aetheldrea

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2019, 04:37:13 PM »
If one is going to work 40 hours a week for the purpose of making money, I would not call that person retired. Just like those One More Year folks working towards a 2% withdrawal rate aren’t retired even though they have plenty enough money to retire if they wanted to.

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2019, 06:35:38 AM »
Strictly speaking, FI is accurate, where RE to describe a person who works anyway is writing flair by MMM.

In saying I think of it as RE, I just mean to support anyone who wants to use that particular provocative way of thinking about it as a way to enjoy their FI experience, and perhaps resist some of the emotional hassles that might come with still working. It's obviously a nonstandard usage. Whether we use it or not is up to us.

mistymoney

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2019, 06:58:14 AM »
If you had done all that at 56 vs. 36 would it be viewed differently? I sort of think so. All the people I know who retired from a long career in X, started collecting pension, and then started up a co singing gig in Y are usually still considered retired. I can see how people would take better to the “sabbatical followed by 4 years work and then retire for good” line.

I personally think you can refer to yourself as whatever you want. ;)


+1!

retired means what, exactly?
True around here but we've all seen the negative articles (oh so many) that trash an early retiree who doesn't follow the traditional retirement rules of never working again. That's even true of anyone who has a traditional retirement of 65 or later.

Are they actually trashing the person - or just quibbling about definitions?

I can't say I've seen anything trashing people*, although I have seen a few things were people are really tied into what does term1 or term2 actually mean - and that is an interesting phenomenon on the internet.

In face to face communication, seems that people would just stop and say - what do you mean by term1? I consider term1 to be x and y but not z and you consider it x, y, and z. And after clarifying - they move on with the conversation. But on the internet, Term1 Wars rage.

Who cares if someone uses different definitional meanings than you do?




*except for the big proponents who are out there advocating their views, and in that case, the trash talking goes both ways from what I've see.

mistymoney

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2019, 06:59:27 AM »
If they were FI in the first place, then yes, I would consider them 20 years retired. What is the term SWAMI for if not for the situation you describe?

:)

PS. In real life, I'm not militant about how people describe these things. I secretly like the term "gainfully unemployed".

I'm out of the loop, and google did not explain! Could you clue me in on what this stands for?


Dragonswan

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Location: Between realms
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2019, 07:28:34 AM »
Well, in comparable terms, when an artist like a singer or actor retires and then comes back years later for the comeback tour or role of a lifetime, the person is said to be coming out of retirement.  Then they retire again. 

Think too about the not so successful artists.  When you go into a restaurant in Nashville, nobody is a waitress or waiter, they're all musicians between gigs and waiting for their their big break.  Same with actors in LA.  What would you label these people's profession as?

It's all about perception and everyone is going to define and label the situation you describe/see differently.

simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Midwest
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2019, 09:03:16 AM »
If they were FI in the first place, then yes, I would consider them 20 years retired. What is the term SWAMI for if not for the situation you describe?

:)

PS. In real life, I'm not militant about how people describe these things. I secretly like the term "gainfully unemployed".
Well I wouldn't really say I was "satisfied" working but can't think of a cool acronym for "Stupid SO decides he wants to keep working longer so even though we are both FI separately and can RE I guess Ill work a bit longer too". Followed closely by "Divorced so I can now FIRE"  ;-)

I still consider my 2 year work break followed by 4 years working  as non-FIRE time but I have FIREd mustashian friend who disagrees (and choses to do occasional work even if FI) and calls it all FIRE-time.
I agree with you based on the context.  If you returned to work of your own volition and desire and it was truly independent of any financial reasoning and because that is how you wanted to spend your time - then I'd call it 20 years of FI.  But since I sense a little reluctance due to the stupid SO and that working those four years was NOT beneficial to realizing your freedom (possibly the exact opposite), I'd call it what you do.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2019, 09:09:08 AM »
Generally unless it reaches the level of gross fabrication, I let people label themselves. So if you... er, "this person"... consider yourself retired, that's good enough for me as the facts could certainly support either conclusion.

That said, if I were writing an article about this person, I'd likely not say they'd been retired for twenty years, simply because that creates a traction surface for nay-sayers.  And saying that this person was retired for 14 years , while including the other info about the path they took to get there, still makes a compelling story. 

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5263
  • Location: Coolest Neighborhood on Earth, They Say
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2019, 09:22:19 AM »
If they were FI in the first place, then yes, I would consider them 20 years retired. What is the term SWAMI for if not for the situation you describe?

:)

PS. In real life, I'm not militant about how people describe these things. I secretly like the term "gainfully unemployed".

I'm out of the loop, and google did not explain! Could you clue me in on what this stands for?

Hi, @mistymoney. SWAMI is a term from one of MMM's first articles: "Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual." It means a person who is Financially Independent but works because they feel like it.

Or at least I thought it did. Here's the article. Upon re-reading it, really it says that a SWAMI is someone who enjoys their work because they aren't worried about losing it.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/

« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 09:31:26 AM by BicycleB »

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2019, 12:39:20 PM »
If someone was working FT for 4 years in the same career they left behind, I'd say they were FIRE for 16 years. I went back to work for a year, and I didn't consider myself FIRE during that time. But I don't care that much. You could also say you FIRE'd 20 years ago, which is true.

I might start calling myself funemployed since I could go back to work next year, and it's easier to explain to people my age.
Not only the same career but the same employer! I (since yes I'm talking about me) was off living the FIRE life in Spain and they called me asking me to come back. Does that make a difference?

Not to me. Seems like you FIRE'd, unretired, then re-retired.
I agree but would used the word sabbatical instead of FIREd or retired. But the little argument I had about this with someone is making me wonder if, like MMM and so many other say (and I don't really agree) FI and RE are the same whether you work or not if its a choice. I admit I'm very IRP about and its hard for me to consider myself (or anyone) who works a full time job as REd whether FI or not and likely no one cares except maybe the Suze Ormand/anti-FIRE crowd. Although I suppose there's.not too much difference saying you are FI and RE at 36 or at 42 since, ya know, no one can retire until they are 65 anyways ;-).

I would go by intent for FIRE vs sabbatical. I called my year off a FIREbattical, because I intended to get another job within a year. I had the money to LeanFIRE, and would work for non-financial reasons, but it felt strange calling it retirement. During your first years off, did you think you were done working?

Then again, the audience for the definition matters. Are you being written up in an article, or trying to define it for yourself?

DeepEllumStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4138
  • I came, I saw, I made it awkward
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2019, 12:47:45 PM »
I’d call it enjoyed FIRE-ing so much that you did it twice. With the second time being a bit more permanent.

mistymoney

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2019, 06:23:41 AM »
If they were FI in the first place, then yes, I would consider them 20 years retired. What is the term SWAMI for if not for the situation you describe?

:)

PS. In real life, I'm not militant about how people describe these things. I secretly like the term "gainfully unemployed".

I'm out of the loop, and google did not explain! Could you clue me in on what this stands for?

Hi, @mistymoney. SWAMI is a term from one of MMM's first articles: "Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual." It means a person who is Financially Independent but works because they feel like it.

Or at least I thought it did. Here's the article. Upon re-reading it, really it says that a SWAMI is someone who enjoys their work because they aren't worried about losing it.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/30/weekend-edition-retire-in-your-mind-even-if-you-love-your-job/

Thank you! makes sense!