Author Topic: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?  (Read 817 times)

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • FIREd at 42 or maybe it was 36.
IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« on: August 11, 2019, 09:09:31 AM »
Would you consider a person FIREd for 20 years if they quit their job in Sept of 1999 in their mid 30s and hasn't needed to work to earn money since then? And if they were totally self supporting? Probably yes.

 Or would you consider them FIREd for 14 years instead of 20 if you found out they had taken a couple years off then went back to worked for 4 years (even if they were FI and didn't need to work) then quit and haven't worked since then an lived off passive income?

If someone reading a mainstream article about this person (either a MMM follower or someone more mainstream views about retirement) would they call BS if the article said they were FIREd 20 years but had worked full time for 4 years at some point. The hate on those sorts of FIRE articles for a MMM style FIRE is real.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 09:35:52 AM by spartana »

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5040
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
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?

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • FIREd at 42 or maybe it was 36.
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2019, 09:45:49 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.

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #4 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: 5040
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #5 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: 8291
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #6 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.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • FIREd at 42 or maybe it was 36.
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2019, 02:53:03 PM »
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.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • FIREd at 42 or maybe it was 36.
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2019, 02:58:23 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?

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8291
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #9 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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Location: China
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #10 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: 101
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #11 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.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • FIREd at 42 or maybe it was 36.
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2019, 01:52:35 AM »
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 ;-).
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 01:56:19 AM by spartana »

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #13 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #14 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #15 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: 336
  • Location: Between realms
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #16 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Age: 33
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #17 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

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2814
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #18 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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #19 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: 8291
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #20 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: 3321
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Hiding under my desk
  • I came, I saw, I made it awkward
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #21 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #22 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!

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • FIREd at 42 or maybe it was 36.
Re: IRP question. Retired for 20 years or not?
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2019, 01:06:08 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?
  Not really trying to define it for myself as I'm good saying I FIREd at 42 and haven't worked since. But in hindsight I realize I was FIRE at 36ish by the MMM definition.

I didn't plan to go back to work, and I didn't really need to I think, as ex-DH and I had always planned to "retire" when we're were around 38 and go off adventuring for many years without working. So I was already financially set up for that so probably wouldn't have to work again. But when he decided he didn't want retire I just decided to quit and go solo with no plans to work or not work a regular full time job again.

We ended up getting back together for a couple of years (legally separated but not divorced yet) because he he did want to RE after all. So I came back to Calif and went back to work while I waited for him to pull the plug on his OMY (which was 4 more years) which he didn't so we divorced and I Forever FIREd aboit a year later. He'll likely work until he dies. He's younger then me but has a cool job so I get why he wants to do it forever. Parted friends and amicably.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 01:09:42 PM by spartana »