Thank you for proving my point you would work longer. So why hold any bonds prior to FIRE. I did not say that holding more bonds wouldn't allow you to draw down bonds in lieu of an euqity position I said most here would work longer regardless of their bond position. 2008 was just an example.
And while the future is "unknown" it's not really. The order of events may be unknown but we have a pretty good idea or no one would ever quit working.
It does not prove your point; I specifically responded to:
"there are very few(possily none) reasonable levels of bonds that will work with a 4% SWR for the early retiree that would prevent almost anyone here from working a few extra years if 2008 were to happen and their FIRE date was 2009 ... "
Your argument seems to be that, any amount of bonds (you specified 30% as a high example, so we'll use that) will be insufficient to handle a crash just prior to FIRE. You also explain how your post-FIRE plan is to have something like 10% bonds. So what exactly are you going to do if the market crashed again? Go back to work again? If you design your portfolio with larger amounts of diversification, you lower your risk and it is less likely you'll need to go back to work. There is nothing wrong with going back to work, but my goal is to not have to. It's the "I" in FIRE.
The idea that most people here would work longer if a crash happened right before FIRE, is something that probably needs to be polled, but I do not disagree.
I guess maybe your point is that the last year/part of the accumulations phase is disproportionately impactful on your nest egg size, because of the principles of compounding interest, as well as the tendencies of salaries to increase over the course of a career (both due to inflation as well as career track). I agree with this, but my main point is that without bonds, you may have to extend your accumulation significantly... very significantly. This is not something I want to do... and I think if most people here thought about, they would rather have a little bond buffer zone to balance out the risk of several years of extra work.
My point on unknowns is literally just that, that we are trying to bridge the qualitative/quantitative gap with insufficient information. I think the reality (with poorly defined certainty!) is that, we have an unquanitified feeling that the stock market will continue to grow at 7% ish over longer periods, but this is being balanced with the cost of living a life of working a job we don't find fulfilling. For most people here, this very host cost is worth the risk of relying on the stock market. My point, is that we can further lower the risk by holding bonds, and that diversifying even further lowers risk further. In order to get that lower level of risk without modifying your SWR, you need to work longer in order to save more money. An alternative, the approach you are taking, is to work much longer in the event that the perceived unlikely event does in fact occur. Myself, I prefer to work a little longer, in order to lower my risk of having to work many extra years.
