Escape FIRE - How to get a job in corporate America

[Fru-Gal]

This thread is gold!!!! Loving the history lessons and the inspiring couples.

When I was in my teens or 20s, I remember reading about some kid who had saved a million dollars from modest earnings. It intrigued me, but the premise of the article was "look at this weird penny pincher". While I was naturally moderately frugal and had some early 401k savings that compounded a very long time, I also had a lot of toxic money beliefs and consumerist denialism and it wasn't until my mid 40s that I started figuring out that saving wasn't a weird inaccessible thing, and that I could do it -- aggressively. So it took 30 years but I am now that kid.

[Villanelle]

I saw the YMOYL team on Oprah back when they were just getting known- they were on the show with Amy Dacyczyn of the Tightwad Gazette.  Most chalked them up as hippy-dippy types and dismissed them as weirdos.   

People doing this a while will the remember useless retirement calculators that did not allow you to set your post-work annual spend amount at anything less than 80% of your current salary.  That could be said another way -- the concept of saving more than 20% of your pay was not fathomable.  If I live on 60% of my current pay, why do I need 80% when I am not working?  Vanguard's was this way up until pretty recently.     

I also remember being frustrated that none of the calculators allowed you to look at the effect of eating your nest egg in the last years of life.  The introduction of Monte Carlo simulations and graphic displays of same made a huge difference. 

We've come a long way, baby.   

Long before I knew much about anything financial--when I was signing on for a front-loaded, high expense-ratio investment fund recommended to me by me commission-based advisor--I remember being highly frustrated that all the retirement calculators seemed to be based on current salary, ignoring entirely actual spending.  IOW, they based how much I'd need on how much I made. A person making a million a year and spending every penny of it needed as much to retire as a person making a million dollars and living on $10,000.  Intuitively, I knew that was completely illogical.  But there were no alternatives [that I could find]. Mostly I decided to kick the can down the road as far as establishing a target goal.  I knew I'd need some amount of money, so at least that was enough to get me started investing, and I figured I could calculate the exact amounts needed when I was closer to retirement.

But the 4% rule was such a revelation.  Suddenly, I wasn't just saving and hoping it was enough and feeling the anxiety of the vagueness of that undefined end goal.  I had an approximate target, which meant I was no longer just kinda hoping for the best.  I understand that "4%" isn't a hard and fast thing (for me, at least)  It's a large ring on the target, not a tiny bullseye, but even a large ring gives you somewhere to aim, and that was more than enough to make retirement far less anxiety-ridden for me.

[Nords]

This is a brief history of the modern FIRE movement based on my own leaky memory, things I heard over the fence, and some help from Google.   Corrections, comments, and additions welcome.  For entertainment purposes only.  No warranty is expressed or implied.

I have a few updates!

However, Dominguez, Robin, and the Terhorsts all made a key planning error, in that they relied 100% on bonds for income. 

They weren’t wrong, just battle-scarred veterans of our environment of 1970s stagflation and 1980s double-digit inflation.  Treasuries and CDs were the only things which didn’t suck, although they weren’t working very well either.

The period of 1966-82 is one of the potential failure modes of the 4% SWR, and Business Week published their notorious “Death Of Equities” magazine cover in 1979-- three years ahead of the bottom.  Dominguez (a Wall Street trader) reached FI in 1969 and he could see what was coming.  He and Robin actually insisted on Treasuries (for their government backing) and Paul Terhorst started with CDs. 

Back in 1979, “everybody knew” that the best investments were gold bullion (especially Krugerrands) and raw diamonds. 

In 1982 I had a checking account from a bank paying 10% interest.

Peter Lynch, who probably had as many tools available to him as anyone, advocated a 7% WR. 

That was the first edition of “One Up On Wall Street.”  Later editions are still for sale on Amazon. 

Hey, any stockpickers as talented and intense as Peter Lynch could have a sustainable withdrawal rate of 7%-- but that sounds like a full-time job.  CFP Michael Kitces and others have observed that a 7% WR is quite possible if you reach FI when the stock market is at all-time lows.  Of course it takes incredible guts (or blissful ignorance) to quit working for a paycheck in early 2009.

This changed in 1994 when Bill Bengen discovered the 4% rule and  published it an a industry journal.  Now, there was good answer to the central question of retirement planning, namely how much do I need? But back then the Internet didn't really exist as we know it today and I don't believe the 4% rule made a lot of penetration into the mainstream.

It was published in a financial journal whose subscription was only bought by big firms and libraries.  Nobody else read it unless you were waiting for your turn with the library’s copy of ValueLine. 

The Trinity Study made a much bigger impact in 1998, partly because more people had bandwidth.  I thought I was pretty hot stuff with my 4800 bps modem but I was saving to upgrade to a 14.4 kbps model.

He also allowed people to download his Excel spreadsheet and data so you could see for yourself and make modifications.  And he set up a Retire Early Home Page discussion page at The Motley Fool.

That spreadsheet was what Bill Sholar used to code FIRECalc 1.0.  I think he wrote most of it in PHP.  The biggest issue was the annual updates from Schiller’s database. 

Out of that board (I believe) our own @Nords and a poster named Dory36 (Bill Sholar) emerged, along with a few other notable posters.

Dory36 set up a early retirement discussion board: Early Retirement.org and he also created FireCalc.  So for the first time there was an online SWR calculator where you can enter your own inputs and assumptions. About this time, Johnathan Clements at the Wall Street Journal and noted syndicated personal finance author Scott Burns picked up on the 4% rule and introduced the concept of FIRE to a mainstream audience. 

Bill was retiring from his corporate job and his fellow employees had decorated his office door with the usual cards and gag gifts.  One of them had printed out the homepage of Greaney’s site.  Bill had bought a boat, a... Dory36... on which he and his spouse spent several years cruising the Intracoastal Waterway.  He started E-R.org in 2002 and used to run it from his cell phone hotspot, usually logging on around 5 PM after he and his spouse had moored for the evening.  He usually turned off his phone the next morning, so if we had a problem with trolls or spammers it had to wait for evening on the east coast.

RetireEarlyHomePage (and later Early-Retirement.org) grew out of The Motley Fool bulletin boards because those MF people started charging for forum access.  Everyone immediately left for Greaney’s forum and eventually E-R.org.

I never spent much time on TMF but I was one of the early members of Early-Retirement.org.  After a couple years it grew so big that we needed moderators, and I was one of the original mod volunteers.

I believe CFIREsim also came out of Early Retirement.org as well, but I'm not sure of that.

Bo_Knows, or @lauren_knows, created cFIREsim right here on this very forum:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/oh-hai-i-once-created-a-site-called-cfiresim-saying-hello-again/msg2874684/#msg2874684

Unlike Bill, she wrote sustainable and well-documented code.

After that, as far as I know  there wasn't a lot of real movement in the FIRE community until MMM arrived.   MMM did several notable things.  For one, he did the nuts and bolts kind of calculations like intercst and Dory36, but he also introduced a lot of philosophy and lifestyle discussion like YMOYL and the Terhorsts.  It really caught on and we all know the rest.

Jacob Lund Fisker was famous in his corner of the Internet for EarlyRetirementExtreme, and (as Pete has said) he handed off to Pete to further promote their sustainable environmentalism.  Jacob is still online somewhere (and on Facebook) but last I heard he was working as a quant analyst.

Joe Dominguez died in 1996.  I heard but cannot confirm that his bond ladder was starting to fail and he was living a much diminished lifestyle.   Vicki Robin lives on an island in Washington State and makes occasional media appearances. Robin switched to index funds years ago. 

To Joe’s credit, his Treasuries made it for the rest of his life.  He died of cancer in a group home while still living off that ladder’s greatly-diminished income.

Vicki’s on Whidbey Island, as active an environmentalist as ever.  When Grant Sabatier and a few other people tracked her down in the 2010s with questions about YMOYL, she was surprised to learn that it had such a cult following on the Internet.  A cameo of her 1980s Oprah appearance is on the documentary "Playing With FIRE."

Maybe someone here has attended a Camp Mustache with her-- I think she was there in 2018 or 2019.

The Terhorsts also switched to index funds and apparently are still having a blast.  John Greaney is still around, and says  "If I knew then what I know now, I would have retired at 30." 

Yes.

Somewhere in there we should also mention Billy & Akaisha Kaderli of RetireEarlyLifestyle, who started their ER as expats in 1991 and are still going strong.  These days they spend most of their time in Mexico and Latin America.  They’re also very familiar with Thailand and the rest of southeast Asia and will probably head back there for a few laps after the pandemic turns endemic.

The Terhorsts were online for years with a Geocities(!) page, but today it only survives on the Internet Archive.  His Body Work post is a classic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091026192612/http://sites.google.com/site/paulvicgroup/Home/paul-page/body-work

Nords appears to be doing well.

I am, thank you!  My spouse started her Navy Reserve pension this month.  Our asset allocation of >90% equities has been very volatile but has grown much faster than inflation.  We’ve gone from “more than enough” to “ridiculously way more than we’re ever going to need and are now giving it away faster.”

I wrote this in 2017 and updated it a couple months ago:
https://the-military-guide.com/hey-nords-hows-net-worth/
This review of the 4% SWR is for everyone, not just military families.

Bill Sholar decided running a message board was a lot like work and sailed off into the sunset.

Shortly after his granddaughter was born, he and his spouse beached themselves.  The last I heard he was running a web design firm in Dallas.

Bill sold E-R.org and FIRECalc to a forum aggregator who... to put it politely... did not exactly hit it off with the E-R.org crowd.  I wrote The Military Guide from that forum but I moved on from moderating.  These days I only check there weekly for keywords, along with here and Bogleheads.  My daughter and I wrote Raising Your Money-Savvy Family from this forum and from IRL conversations at CampFI.

Today I spend much more of my online time in Facebook groups and on ESIMoney’s Millionaire Money Mentor forum.  I never in my life thought I’d pay for membership in a forum, but it’s one of the few places on the Internet that’s free of trolls, haters, scammers, and spammers.

Somewhere in this unofficial history we should mention how Morningstar sponsored a bunch of forums in the 1990s and 2000s.  (Maybe they’re still going.)  One of them was Vanguard Diehards, and a notorious troll became a significant problem in that group.  Morningstar’s moderators did such a bad job that Taylor, Mel, Alex, and a few others broke off to start Bogleheads. 

I’m sensing a theme here on corporate forums gone bad and leading to crowdsourced initiatives.  I think the moderators here are doing a good job but it’s never easy.

There’s a couple other unofficial (but very detailed) histories floating around the Web:
https://www.getrichslowly.org/history-of-financial-independence/
https://earlyretirementdude.com/the-history-of-fier/

[lhamo]

A couple of other early FIRE-oriented forums from the 90s-MMM era:

The Armchair Millionaire site became quite active at one point -- I think maybe when The Motley Fool started charging for access?  Focused on buy and hold investing, though not exclusively index fund oriented.  I was a moderator there from around 1997 until it pretty much crashed and burned along with the dot.com bubble.

The Simple Living Network was hosted by a guy in Trout Lake, Washington who ran a B-to-C operation selling Your Money and YOur Life and other similar books and resources out of his garage.  The forums on that site were very much focused on the YMOYL message and approach to FIRE, and interest in YMOYL was what drew and kept a lot of people there.  The forums migrated to a crowd-funded site when the SLN shut down  -- IIRC that was in 2006 or 2007?  I was a moderator there from that point to around when I started posting here, in  2012 I guess?  I found MMM through the "torch passing" post on Get Rich Slowly when Jacob stepped back from ERE.  Quite a few of us who were active on SLN moved over here as this forum gained momentum.

[ysette9]

I feel like we need a separate sticky thread for the history of the FIRE movement. This stuff is gold and important background to understanding what truths are rehashed around these parts all the time. I get a lot out of the history of the stock market performance and where the 4% rule comes from and how it was originally perceived (ridiculously low!). This gives good context in current discussions where people like to rush to the lowest common denominator (3% is too risky because Reasons so I’m shooting for 2%!). Similarly understanding the shoulders of giants, so to speak, upon which MMM stands is interesting.

@arebelspy

[herbgeek]

The Simple Living Network was hosted by a guy in Trout Lake, Washington who ran a B-to-C operation selling Your Money and YOur Life and other similar books and resources out of his garage.

Going even further back, before there was the www, there was a mailing list called MaxLife that I was a part of.  Most of the folks there went on to the SLN and MaxLife died a natural death.  We had a study group for YMOYL on Maxlife and this was eye opening and life changing for me and the first time I really understood that I didn't have to work until 65 if I was thoughtful about spending and saving.

[Telecaster]

Thank you so much for the updates!!  I was really hoping you'd comment. 

Somewhere in this unofficial history we should mention how Morningstar sponsored a bunch of forums in the 1990s and 2000s.  (Maybe they’re still going.)  One of them was Vanguard Diehards, and a notorious troll became a significant problem in that group.  Morningstar’s moderators did such a bad job that Taylor, Mel, Alex, and a few others broke off to start Bogleheads. 

Yes!  That was Rob "Hocus" Bennett who burned Morningstar to the ground.  Hocus got it stuck in his skull the 4% rule is wrong, and went on a jihad.    Bogleheads is a hugely important and influential forum in the FI movement, and its formation for sure needs to be mentioned as a milestone in our community. 

[nereo]

Thank you so much for the updates!!  I was really hoping you'd comment. 

Somewhere in this unofficial history we should mention how Morningstar sponsored a bunch of forums in the 1990s and 2000s.  (Maybe they’re still going.)  One of them was Vanguard Diehards, and a notorious troll became a significant problem in that group.  Morningstar’s moderators did such a bad job that Taylor, Mel, Alex, and a few others broke off to start Bogleheads. 

Yes!  That was Rob "Hocus" Bennett who burned Morningstar to the ground.  Hocus got it stuck in his skull the 4% rule is wrong, and went on a jihad.    Bogleheads is a hugely important and influential forum in the FI movement, and its formation for sure needs to be mentioned as a milestone in our community.

Hmm…. A financial jihad.  I think I’ve seen a few of those types crop up now and again.  Thankfully our Mods have done a tremendous job (along with our forum’s ability to remain open to discussion while self-regulating along the forum rules).

[boarder42]

@arebelspy can we extract telecasters response to mine down into a sticky on the post fire thread

[Skyhigh]

We're into the new year and for me, that means preparing for job fairs. My goal is to attend at least three a year. COVID suspended most of the meaningful job fairs for nearly two years. At present, it seems that they are ready to resume.
Due to my forced departure from my profession, the industry wants me to start over at zero and climb up the ladder from the bottom. They want me to prove anew my willingness and cower to the industry through the humiliation of enduring the lower rungs again. Getting up at 3 am to undergo a forced drive into an unholy workplace is not very appealing. We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic. FIRE effectively removes much of the motivation to do this part since I don't have to anymore.

In my defense, I have been working several fringe jobs in my industry and have restored my professional credentials. However, at my current age, I do not make for a very appealing candidate. The reason I bring all of this up is that I want to make the point that abandoning one's profession, either willingly or by force, often comes with a difficult path back. In my case, if employers believe that one's departure was voluntary then it serves as proof that they may vacate their position again. My strategy is to keep throwing for the end-zone and hope that I get lucky.

The opportunity cost of FIRE can mean the destruction of one's professional momentum. Certain job skills and credentials are perishable. Once lost it may mean that the escape route back to gainful employment in your career field is gone. All those years in higher education and experience building effectively gone. If employers detect that your involvement in your career is voluntary and not that of servitude then your options narrow even more.

[boarder42]

@Skyhigh can you rename this thread the history of fire starting page 9?

Thanks

[Moustachienne]

We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic.  Must we though? 

[nereo]

[Emphasis Added]

Due to my forced departure from my profession, the industry wants me to start over at zero and climb up the ladder from the bottom. They want me to prove anew my willingness and cower to the industry through the humiliation of enduring the lower rungs again. Getting up at 3 am to undergo a forced drive into an unholy workplace is not very appealing. We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic. FIRE effectively removes much of the motivation to do this part since I don't have to anymore.

In my defense, I have been working several fringe jobs in my industry and have restored my professional credentials. However, at my current age, I do not make for a very appealing candidate.

As this is your attitude and mindset, I do not find it very surprising that you have found it difficult to get the job that you want, or to find fulfillment in your life.  We are currently in a job market where qualified employees are the more scarce they have been in decades: BLS estimates there are 0.7 job seekers for every job opening.

To beat a dead horse, your "destruction of professional momentum" is your own doing, not FIREs. If a particular career is something you wish to do, you find a way. Those that are motivated learn that being financially independent is an asset towards progressing their life-goals. You appear to have never been truly motivated in the first place.

[Dicey]

[Emphasis Added]

Due to my forced departure from my profession, the industry wants me to start over at zero and climb up the ladder from the bottom. They want me to prove anew my willingness and cower to the industry through the humiliation of enduring the lower rungs again. Getting up at 3 am to undergo a forced drive into an unholy workplace is not very appealing. We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic. FIRE effectively removes much of the motivation to do this part since I don't have to anymore.

In my defense, I have been working several fringe jobs in my industry and have restored my professional credentials. However, at my current age, I do not make for a very appealing candidate.

As this is your attitude and mindset, I do not find it very surprising that you have found it difficult to get the job that you want, or to find fulfillment in your life.  We are currently in a job market where qualified employees are the more scarce they have been in decades: BLS estimates there are 0.7 job seekers for every job opening.

To beat a dead horse, you "destruction of professional momentum" is your own doing, not FIREs. If a particular career is something you wish to do, you find a way. Those that are motivated learn that being financially independent is an asset towards progressing their life-goals. You appear to have never been truly motivated in the first place.

To build on to nereo's train of thought, I would not want to work with you, nor would I want to be a passenger on any plane you were piloting. Sorry dude, I've been following your threads for a long time and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired, and that's the most Rule #1-friendly way I can phrase it. At some point, recognizing that YOU are the problem and doing something about it, possibly through therapy, or coaching, which have been suggested many times, will lead you into the end zone to the Holy Grail you seek.

[lhamo]

OP probably won't listen to it, but this recent episode of Afford Anything has some great commentary on  some of the dangers of not only FIRE (when pursued for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way), but any singular goal that is not based an a well-rounded understanding of what a particular individual wants and needs to do with their limited time and energy in order to have a fulfilling life.  It is an interview with Doc G, who runs the Earn and Invest podcast and had a career as a hospice doctor:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9wYXVsYWFuZGpheW1vbmV5LmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz/episode/YWY1MjI5NjAtMGIzNS00NGQ4LWE0MjItZjk5NDNmYmRjYjRj?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwiYs8GGq5n1AhUQIzQIHTFlAwsQjrkEegQIAxAI&ep=6

[DaTrill]

FIRE has roots much older than 1988. 

Walden by Henry David Thoreau 1854. 

Free copy on Project Gutenberg. 

[dougules]

@Skyhigh, did you ever talk to a doctor or a therapist like I mentioned 2 years ago?

[Skyhigh]

Financial Independence

It is my position that if one intends to retire at a young age exclusively on savings then they are very financially dependent and shouldn't consider themselves as being otherwise. Those who intend to retire at 35 on perhaps $1,000,000 are proposing that this sum be sufficient to carry them through the next potential 70 years of life. As such they are very dependent upon certain things.

Inflation: to retire on savings alone you have to assume certain things regarding the future of inflation.

Taxes: As administrations change the nature of the tax code often follows. To expect conditions to remain the same for seven decades is incredibly unlikely.

Stock market: Often people who retire very young are depending upon the stock market performing in a predictable manner. As most of us have learned it regularly surprises us in a spectacular manner.

Social Security: People usually incorporate the continued health and existence of Social Security to supplement their early retirement plan. Personally, I think is unwise for a 35-year-old to expect it to remain in the same form by the time they reach 67.

Consumption rate: Plenty of financial squirrels brood over spreadsheets that include many assumptions besides inflation and stock market returns. They assume that their life will remain static and their consumption rate will remain constant. If your plan is that your life is to be unchanged over the next 70 years then that is unfortunate in my opinion.

Relationship status: Housing and other financial systems assume that we all share a household with others for maximum efficiency. A divorce can have a massive detriment upon one’s best laid financial plans. Often we can only control half of the equasion.

Health Challenge: We all hope to retain vigorous health well into our later years. However, an unexpected health challenge can rapidly deplete savings and dramatically change the trajectory of one's consumption plan. Also, an individual might live well beyond their maximum target date. At 35 years old it's hard to project your situation 60 or more years into the future. Will Medicade/Medicare remain solvent three decades in the future?

The point is that it is incredibly unwise to expect to happily live on passive income for five to seven decades unless you have considerable wealth that holds the prospect of outstripping anything that life can throw at you. Few people can truly say that they are financially independent with confidence. A better plan is to retain some form of active income such as your primary career or a business venture until you reach the more respected retirement age of the later 60s.

Imagine reaching your mid-50s. You've enjoyed a few decades of early retirement. Now after going over your latest spreadsheet are horrified to learn that the lines on the graph are falling short. Too late to do a lot about it. Your career earnings potential is long behind you. It happens to people all the time.

In the early 1990s, my parents purchased a house for $115,000 in a suburb. Zillow just sent me an email last week informing me that its current value hit $1,200,000. If you would have told us that our family home would go up 10 times over the next 30 years I doubt anyone would have believed it. It is folly to think that any one of us has an accurate vision so far into the future. Even the most privileged are always looking over your shoulder at what might be sneaking up behind. You are never truly safe when living on savings and hope.

[Skyhigh]

We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic.  Must we though?

As an employee, we do often have to endure less palatable portions of our careers and daily life in order to reach the higher ranks of our profession.

[boarder42]

We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic.  Must we though?

As an employee, we do often have to endure less palatable portions of our careers and daily life in order to reach the higher ranks of our profession.

i just put in my 2 weeks as a middle level PM at an engineering firm and someone is offering me a CFO position.... so your experience doesn't align with my reality.

[nereo]

Financial Independence

It is my position that if one intends to retire at a young age exclusively on savings then they are very financially dependent and shouldn't consider themselves as being otherwise. Those who intend to retire at 35 on perhaps $1,000,000 are proposing that this sum be sufficient to carry them through the next potential 70 years of life. As such they are very dependent upon certain things.

Your definition is very much the polar opposite of what the common usage of the term “Financially Independent” means

As for all of your points, they have been discussed, analyzed and debated ad nauseam.  If you cannot bother to read or acknowledge all of this discussion there is little point in engaging with you. Much of what you claim is contrarian to most people’s experiences or simply flat out wrong. Your ultimate assertion that you have lost motivation towards your ideal job but that money is not your motivating factor is completely non-sensical and shows an utter lack of introspection.

The list of Long-time FIREd individuals and a general update on their whereabouts has made this thread worth it.

[lhamo]

This thread reminds me of a Charlie Brown cartoon.  The OP is that voice of the teacher blabbering on in the background nonsensically while the main focus is the rest of us having an actually interesting discussion.

[youngwildandfree]

We must go through the bits of truly awful to reach the fantastic.  Must we though?

As an employee, we do often have to endure less palatable portions of our careers and daily life in order to reach the higher ranks of our profession.

i just put in my 2 weeks as a middle level PM at an engineering firm and someone is offering me a CFO position.... so your experience doesn't align with my reality.

That's really coo @boarder42! Congrats. Methods for keeping up with the professional and scientific (in my case) world after FIRE is something I think on a bit. I have a while before I get there, but publishing, networking, and generally interacting with others in the space seems to be the key rather than holding specific titles.

[Telecaster]

This guy agrees with SkyHigh.  Early retirement bites.

[DadJokes]

This guy agrees with SkyHigh.  Early retirement bites.

I was expecting Financial Samurai and had to check the link address to make sure I wasn't giving him clicks - that was much better!

[boarder42]

This guy agrees with SkyHigh.  Early retirement bites.

mmm popcorn!

[nereo]

This guy agrees with SkyHigh.  Early retirement bites.

Just in case anyone is confused...

Spoiler: show

That blog post was an April Fool's joke

Oh, and Happy April Fool’s Day. Obviously 99% of what I wrote in this post is the exact opposite of what I actually do and believe in real life.

[yachi]

Lost in America is a movie starring Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty about a middle 30's urban professional couple who decide to quit their corporate jobs and retire early. They believe that they had reached a point of savings where they could sell their home, buy an RV and retire.

Van-life and FIRE concepts have been around for a long time. The movie came out in 1985. If I recall they had accumulated $400,000 at that point in their lives and believed that they had enough to live on for the rest of their lives. Albert Brooks was 38 at the time. He is currently 74. Imagine having to support a couple from a $400,000 nest egg for all that time. In 1985 $400,000 seemed like a limitless fortune.

I imagine that in 36 years from now a million dollars will seem like a pittance. I believe this movie is a great film and an example of FIRE gone wrong.

Maybe I'll try and watch this movie.  For anyone interested, 400K in 1985 had the buying power that $1,033,000 has today.  I expect in another 36 years it'll take $2.5 million to have the buying power that a million dollars has today.  *shrug*.  My money's invested in companies that can raise prices when they need to.

[boarder42]

Lost in America is a movie starring Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty about a middle 30's urban professional couple who decide to quit their corporate jobs and retire early. They believe that they had reached a point of savings where they could sell their home, buy an RV and retire.

Van-life and FIRE concepts have been around for a long time. The movie came out in 1985. If I recall they had accumulated $400,000 at that point in their lives and believed that they had enough to live on for the rest of their lives. Albert Brooks was 38 at the time. He is currently 74. Imagine having to support a couple from a $400,000 nest egg for all that time. In 1985 $400,000 seemed like a limitless fortune.

I imagine that in 36 years from now a million dollars will seem like a pittance. I believe this movie is a great film and an example of FIRE gone wrong.

Maybe I'll try and watch this movie.  For anyone interested, 400K in 1985 had the buying power that $1,033,000 has today.  I expect in another 36 years it'll take $2.5 million to have the buying power that a million dollars has today.  *shrug*.  My money's invested in companies that can raise prices when they need to.

haha did all that math above including what the value of that money would be today after withdrawing 4% a year. its a really great example of an excellent year to FIRE.

[Skyhigh]

Lost in America

The movie makes several great points. A primary plot event is when a spouse loses most of their funds in an unexpected manner. A similar disaster can hit anyone’s retirement plan in an unlimited spectrum of ways.

Life is uncertain and the outcome of that uncertainty grows over a long enough period. In the movie "Lost in America", they proposed to retire 36 years ago. Since then, we've had at least three major financial downturns, two or three stock market crashes, and now inflationary threats. If the characters in that movie had made the wrong move at some point during the past 36 years it is easy to see how they could be in terrible shape today.

Retirement disasters are easy to research on the Internet. The world is rife with stories of best-laid plans gone awry. I am nearing the completion of certified financial planner training. One of the biggest issues the instructors keep hammering is to try and motivate clients to remain employed as long as possible.

No one here must take my word for it. A simple Google search will produce many hours of articles regarding the risk of early retirement. It is possible that if the characters in the movie "Lost In America" had done everything exactly right that they could have coasted into their late 70s with something left. I certainly do not want to take that risk. I have seen the consequences of failure.

[Kris]

Lost in America

The movie makes several great points. A primary plot event is when a spouse loses most of their funds in an unexpected manner. A similar disaster can hit anyone’s retirement plan in an unlimited spectrum of ways.

Life is uncertain and the outcome of that uncertainty grows over a long enough period. In the movie "Lost in America", they proposed to retire 36 years ago. Since then, we've had at least three major financial downturns, two or three stock market crashes, and now inflationary threats. If the characters in that movie had made the wrong move at some point during the past 36 years it is easy to see how they could be in terrible shape today.

Retirement disasters are easy to research on the Internet. The world is rife with stories of best-laid plans gone awry. I am nearing the completion of certified financial planner training. One of the biggest issues the instructors keep hammering is to try and motivate clients to remain employed as long as possible.

No one here must take my word for it. A simple Google search will produce many hours of articles regarding the risk of early retirement. It is possible that if the characters in the movie "Lost In America" had done everything exactly right that they could have coasted into their late 70s with something left. I certainly do not want to take that risk. I have seen the consequences of failure.

Yeah, you already posted about that movie. And since you don't really bother to respond to or learn from what other people say on this thread, I'll just ignore what you wrote this time, and post what people responded the last time you talked about it.

Seriously, I cannot imagine how faulty your critical thinking skills are if you honestly believe that citing a fiction film is any sort of slam-dunk for your side. If anything, it makes your argument seem even more ridiculous.

The plot is that a 30-something couple has high paying corporate jobs they hate.  They run the numbers and conclude they can sell everything, RE and RV across the country full time.  The wife promptly losing their nest egg gambling.  They are forced to take menial jobs and living in near-poverty.  They conclude they want their soul-sucking corporate jobs back.

Moral of the story:  Don't lose your life savings gambling.

Wow. That's even a worse argument for his side than I thought. LMAO

[Skyhigh]

Kris,

It seems that I don't agree with that others here are posting. It is possible that I am trying to help them to understand the hazards of early retirement.

[lhamo]

Since we are repeating ourselves....

This thread reminds me of a Charlie Brown cartoon.  The OP is that voice of the teacher blabbering on in the background nonsensically while the main focus is the rest of us having an actually interesting discussion.

[charis]

Kris,

It seems that I don't agree with that others here are posting. It is possible that I am trying to help them to understand the hazards of early retirement.

They already know, lol. But you are tone deaf in this thread.

[boarder42]

Kris,

It seems that I don't agree with that others here are posting. It is possible that I am trying to help them to understand the hazards of early retirement.

HOLY FUCK no way man

Why didnt you state that as the thread title?  I had no idea your goals were to bash how bad FIRE was.  Maybe you should work on your delivery because this came across to me as you being very very pro FIRE through posting movies that timed out to radically successful FIRE stories. 

[Skyhigh]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

[Dicey]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

All of that could apply whether you're working or not. But hey, you keep doing you. No one does it better.

[Skyhigh]

Kris,

It seems that I don't agree with that others here are posting. It is possible that I am trying to help them to understand the hazards of early retirement.

HOLY FUCK no way man

Why didnt you state that as the thread title?  I had no idea your goals were to bash how bad FIRE was.  Maybe you should work on your delivery because this came across to me as you being very very pro FIRE through posting movies that timed out to radically successful FIRE stories.

I started this thread long ago. The nature of the thread has since changed.

[Skyhigh]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

All of that could apply whether you're working or not. But hey, you keep doing you. No one does it better.

Thank you. My aim is to share my "post FIRE" experiences.

[boarder42]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

All of that could apply whether you're working or not. But hey, you keep doing you. No one does it better.

Thank you. My aim is to share my "post FIRE" experiences.

and how would you say thats going?

[nereo]

It is possible that I am trying to help them to understand the hazards of early retirement.

It's also possible (and far more probable) that you are completely ignoring the considerable contributions of others to this thread.  If you won't consider what they have to say, why should we continue to consider your single-point message? It seems we have already put substantial effort into discussing your premise.

[boarder42]

Kris,

It seems that I don't agree with that others here are posting. It is possible that I am trying to help them to understand the hazards of early retirement.

HOLY FUCK no way man

Why didnt you state that as the thread title?  I had no idea your goals were to bash how bad FIRE was.  Maybe you should work on your delivery because this came across to me as you being very very pro FIRE through posting movies that timed out to radically successful FIRE stories.

I started this thread long ago. The nature of the thread has since changed.

you realize that when you have a different topic you can start a new thread this isnt like your forum facebook page.  Now i'm pretty sure that new thread would receive next to no traffic if you treat it as you have this one so until your attitude and approach changes your message will continue to fall on deaf ears.

[alm0stk00l]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

Many here use the 4% rule as a guideline, not a lifestyle strategy. FIRE people work toward 4% while consistently updating their finances, goals, and understandings and then RE when it feels right. You act like someone reads the 4% rule and then never thoughtfully examines their goals or lifestyle again for the next 20 years. Because you allow the world to happen to you does not mean that others don't live more intentionally.

It is hilarious to me what you are arguing. People here believe:

• Be mindful of your money
• Be thoughtful in your life
• Consume only what makes you happy
• Ignore outside noise in designing your happiness
• Be as charitable as you desire
• Be creative in solving your probelms

You are arguing that approaching life that way will lead to your downfall. The path to FIRE is a collection of guidelines and the collective wisdom of so many people. It is not a set of steadfast rules that must be applied to every life.

[Dicey]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

All of that could apply whether you're working or not. But hey, you keep doing you. No one does it better.

Thank you. My aim is to share my "post FIRE" experiences.

HaHaHaHaHa...

[charis]

Many here like to use the 4% annual withdrawal example and assumptions to prove to themselves that the future will unfold as they expect. The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

To cease the effort of bringing financially new things in our lives also means the elimination of opportunity. These projections often require the assumption that nothing new of value will come into your life that could result in an increased consumption rate. No new relationships. No significant travel opportunities, No helping of others in need. No new hobbies. No new educational exploits. No more children.

To me that just seems so sad. Spending decades watching TV, taking walks in the park, and intentionally having to avoid new things is a grim prospect to me. Carefully doling out your monthly portion is no way to live. I spent a few years doing that and the negatives quickly become obvious. If someone is well past any of that I can see retirement as a welcomed situation, however, to sign off from opportunity at 35 years of age seems like a mistake.

The future could be better, and it could also be very much worse. No graph can predict the future of you.

Many here use the 4% rule as a guideline, not a lifestyle strategy. FIRE people work toward 4% while consistently updating their finances, goals, and understandings and then RE when it feels right. You act like someone reads the 4% rule and then never thoughtfully examines their goals or lifestyle again for the next 20 years. Because you allow the world to happen to you does not mean that others don't live more intentionally.

It is hilarious to me what you are arguing. People here believe:

• Be mindful of your money
• Be thoughtful in your life
• Consume only what makes you happy
• Ignore outside noise in designing your happiness
• Be as charitable as you desire
• Be creative in solving your probelms

You are arguing that approaching life that way will lead to your downfall. The path to FIRE is a collection of guidelines and the collective wisdom of so many people. It is not a set of steadfast rules that must be applied to every life.

The OP was forced out of his job and had to live on apparently a meager savings until he went back to work.  That's what he thinks FIRE is. He doesn't understand what people in this community are doing.

[yachi]

The common early retirement strategy is to accumulate a minimum pile of nuts as a hedge against future needs and minimally feed off the pile in a consistent predictable manner thereon.

Nuts?!  Mierda!  I've been accumulating stocks.  Why didn't you guys tell me I should accumulate nuts?  I've got so many questions now:

1.  Can I somehow exchange my stocks for nuts?
2.  Has the cost of nuts outpaced the price of stocks?
3.  Are nuts more or less valuable since America's Funniest Home Videos Kick in the nuts stopped airing?
4.  Can I still store my nuts in an IRA, or do I need a more secure location?
5.  Do I have to rollover my nuts, or do they rollover on their own?

[ysette9]

The concern I carry in the back of my mind is OP becoming some kind of financial advisor and bringing these prejudices to other people’s finances. People who are worried about taking the plunge into retirement may unwittingly work unnecessary years of their lives because OP doesn’t understand or believe in the robustness of a reasonable withdrawal rate, flexible spending strategies, a glide path asset allocation or another of the myriad of ways people can have very secure and happy early retirements. He also can’t see any of the beauty in early freedom so why would he be invested in helping his clients achieve it? It would be like going to a doctor who not-so-secretly thinks you are going to be better off staying sick.

[Telecaster]

3.  Are nuts more or less valuable since America's Funniest Home Videos Kick in the nuts stopped airing?

I had a good laugh at this.  I've never been much of a TV watcher, but back when that show was on I had some roommates who liked it, or at least would watch it regularly.  It wasn't a question if there would be a nut kick video, the question was how many nut kick videos.  We used to refer to it as the Kick in the Nuts Show. 

The host, Bob Saget just died.  On that show, his jokes were juvenile and saccharine.  But his stand up act was side-splitting.   He was one of the direst comedians around.  Complete contrast to his TV work. 

[Skyhigh]

Post-FIRE

My first full experience with FIRE came by accident in my early to mid-20s. By that time in my life, I had suffered my first professional setback and a minor real estate gain. I used my humble proceeds to purchase a four-plex that I lived in. Realizing that my career prospects were slim I set to work slashing my budget down to a meager amount. Minimalism became a great hobby of mine as I combed through my expenses finding every little place I could cut. Eventually, I got my financial requirements down to around a few hundred dollars a month. I mowed the lawn at the building myself, conducted repairs, and managed it.

I also began to cut back on my social life. Associating with others is expensive. Going skiing and out to dinner is hugely destructive to a minimalist lifestyle. Dating also is a very costly and risky endeavor. I narrowed my social life down to a few people that lived within a few blocks and had a similar hermit lifestyle such as myself. The good news is that my plan worked. The rent covered my housing costs. My savings extended my ability to remain minimally employed for many years. Soon rent increases eclipsed the building expenses by a considerable margin. The surplus reached a point where I could extend my savings out into Infinity. Without even thinking about it I had reached a point where I didn't have to work a job ever again. I achieved FIRE at 25 years of age.

My life in FIRE was very safe. I had my expenses and activities whittled down to the bare minimum. Most days I slept until I naturally woke. I watched the morning news, read for a while, and wrote in my journal. I had a subscription to the newspaper so that I could clip coupons and buy macaroni and cheese for $0.35 a box. I sold my newer truck long prior and would ride my bicycle around town since I didn't need to get anywhere quickly. I lived alone and didn't need to carry a huge pile of groceries. The two small saddlebags on my bike could carry supplies to last for several weeks.

Time went by in this manner. The highlights of my week were usually going to the variety store on Tuesdays to survey the surprise sales followed by stopping at the library on my way back to check out new books and movies. This is how my life was living FIRE and it was ending one day at a time. Market conditions began to improve in my profession and opportunities slowly returned. The day came when I received an unsolicited phone call promoting a job offer. I had two days to think about it.

Around that time the realities of my FIRE lifestyle had made themselves painfully apparent. Without even trying I could see the decades of my life unfolding in a very predictable manner. To maintain a safe and comfortable FIRE lifestyle it is urgent to shun new and uncontrollable things in your life. Embarking on a new relationship that could lead to a spouse is akin to dropping a bomb into the middle of a minimalist's well-oiled financial machine. To entertain a relationship prospect that held the possibility of developing into a spouse you also must be prepared to surrender at least half of your control. Later I learned that I was mistaken. When people marry and have children you end up losing all control.

During those two days, I carefully evaluated the paths that lay before me. I could either remain in my humble secure existence of nothingness or hurl myself into the current of life with the full knowledge of what I would be giving up. As you may have already guessed I ended up leaving my safe static cocoon of FIRE in trade for the horror and discomfort of a courageous unrestrained out of control life.

[DaMa]

I would appreciate it if OP shared his troubles with finding a job after a short FIRE.  I retired knowing if the market went to shit, I could always go back to work.  BUT, I also knew after about a year, I would not be able to re-enter my career at the same level and might have trouble finding any job in that industry.  (Especially true, now that I speak out against the industry.)

IF the ACA was repealed and nothing replaced it, I would probably have to find a job with benefits or move to a state with a public plan.  I feel it is unlikely now, but 12 years is a long time, and that's assuming Medicare stays as is.

Just wanted to add, I had carefully considered this, before FIRE.  As does just about everybody who posts here!