A Confession

[PhilB]

I didn't FIRE early by MMM standards, but still 11 years before my employer's normal retirement age.  I know we are not supposed to worry about keeping up with the Joneses, but I have to confess that one thing that concerned me was how would I feel when I eventually got to normal retirement age and my peers retired?  Yes, I would have had all that time off to enjoy life, but that would be done and gone. How would I feel when they were retired too, and with so much more money than me because they'd kept working for an extra decade?

I'm now halfway through that 11 year period.  I've spent less than expected and also ended up staying on 7 hours a week, fully flexible WFH, and enjoying it.  I've therefore got more money than now when I FIREd.  I've also suddenly realised how dumb I was in my thinking above.  I assumed that my peers would be saving lots of money towards retirement in the way I did.  Of course they weren't!  Most of them were just contributing the minimum and spending the rest of their income.  I now fully expect that I will reach normal retirement age with MORE than most of them, not less.  Ridiculous.

[Greystache]

I have had a similar observation. Those who retired early like me have a similar lifestyle and have always lived within their means. Those that worked to full retirement age needed to do so in order to pay for second homes, boats and horses. I have been retired for 9.5 years and have a greater net worth than when I retired.

[former player]

13 years into retirement not only am I living comfortably on considerably less than my income but my income in cash terms is more or less back up where it was when I retired*.  Ridiculous.

*Technically not quite as I'm not renting one of my properties out for the full whack because: refugees.  But also: payment for taking in refugees is not subject to income tax and I'd be paying 40% on most of it if it were.  So.

[reeshau]

Most Monte Carlo simulations will bear this out.  While those who care enough to try them want few if any scenarios that will end up with $0 wealth, any simulation with a high percentage in stocks will have many more scenarios that diverge the other way, with skyrocketing wealth.

[PhilB]

I have had a similar observation. Those who retired early like me have a similar lifestyle and have always lived within their means. Those that worked to full retirement age needed to do so in order to pay for second homes, boats and horses. I have been retired for 9.5 years and have a greater net worth than when I retired.

And so many of those seem to end up in the 'have a boat, but can't afford the fuel now they've retired' camp!

13 years into retirement not only am I living comfortably on considerably less than my income but my income in cash terms is more or less back up where it was when I retired*.  Ridiculous.

*Technically not quite as I'm not renting one of my properties out for the full whack because: refugees.  But also: payment for taking in refugees is not subject to income tax and I'd be paying 40% on most of it if it were.  So.

Most Monte Carlo simulations will bear this out.  While those who care enough to try them want few if any scenarios that will end up with $0 wealth, any simulation with a high percentage in stocks will have many more scenarios that diverge the other way, with skyrocketing wealth.

I'm not particularly surprised that I'm still living within my income, nor that my portfolio is appreciating.  I was always very conscious that the 4% SWR models were based on things doing as badly as the worst time in history, not the average.  The thing that was (but shouldn't have been) a revelation was finding that my contemporaries weren't saving as much as me, even with longer to do it. 

I guess part of my issue is a hangover from the days of final salary pensions, where it was automatic that the longer you worked, the bigger your income would be in retirement.  I think I just unconsciously kept that belief without factoring in how much it is now down to personal choice and savings rates, rather than the more paternalistic systems we used to have.

[deborah]

14 years into retirement. My stash is bigger than it was when I retired and I have more in retirement than my peers. I’m also a lot healthier than I was 14 years ago, and much more able to do stuff. Those who want to retire early so they aren’t too old to do stuff don’t realise just how much difference just stopping work makes in what you can do when you’re older.

[Dicey]

Almost twelve years for me and two for DH. Another person piling on to attest that the ol' 'stache keeps increasing. We just figured out that when we start drawing SS, we'll have more income in retirement than we ever had when we were working. MPP, for sure.

Also, wanted to wave "hi" to you, PhilB! I've fallen so far behind in your journal that I was happy to see something I might be able to keep up with.

[Villanelle]

I'm used to living on less than my peers.  I don't really notice in the working year, and don't see why that would change in retirement.  If all goes anything at all close to plan, I'll be able to afford everything in retirement that I want to afford.  Just like in pre-retirement.  So if my peers are going  cruises 4x year and staying in the most expensive cabins and buying new wardrobes for each trip, good for them, but that's not for me.  Not because of the money, but because that doesn't appeal to me. 

So it seems to me like pre-FIRE or post-FIRE, I don't care that others have, or spend, more than I do.  I can still do just about everything I want.  And I can still be friends with people who have designer handbags and a collection of four- and five-figure watches. 

[PhilB]

14 years into retirement. My stash is bigger than it was when I retired and I have more in retirement than my peers. I’m also a lot healthier than I was 14 years ago, and much more able to do stuff. Those who want to retire early so they aren’t too old to do stuff don’t realise just how much difference just stopping work makes in what you can do when you’re older.

I'm sure this is right in my case, although it's hard for me to be definitive as the meds I was on my last decade of work made me feel 20 years older all by themselves. 

I would also imagine that it depends a bit on the job.  Sedentary jobs are a killer and retiring from those would make an enormous difference.  At the other extreme, are jobs that wear your body out  - like digging holes or bashing bits of metal.  I suspect there might be a happy medium somewhere in the middle, with just the right amount of exercise, where staying in work is actually better for people on average.  Postman?

[PhilB]

Almost twelve years for me and two for DH. Another person piling on to attest that the ol' 'stache keeps increasing. We just figured out that when we start drawing SS, we'll have more income in retirement than we ever had when we were working. MPP, for sure.

Also, wanted to wave "hi" to you, PhilB! I've fallen so far behind in your journal that I was happy to see something I might be able to keep up with.

Hi Dicey.  95% of activity on my journal is just the weekly quiz, so feel free to jump in and out any time without needing to catch up :)

[former player]

14 years into retirement. My stash is bigger than it was when I retired and I have more in retirement than my peers. I’m also a lot healthier than I was 14 years ago, and much more able to do stuff. Those who want to retire early so they aren’t too old to do stuff don’t realise just how much difference just stopping work makes in what you can do when you’re older.

I'm sure this is right in my case, although it's hard for me to be definitive as the meds I was on my last decade of work made me feel 20 years older all by themselves. 

I would also imagine that it depends a bit on the job.  Sedentary jobs are a killer and retiring from those would make an enormous difference.  At the other extreme, are jobs that wear your body out  - like digging holes or bashing bits of metal.  I suspect there might be a happy medium somewhere in the middle, with just the right amount of exercise, where staying in work is actually better for people on average.  Postman?

Many years ago there was a study that showed that London bus conductors (on their feet all day, up and down the stairs of a double decker) had much better heart disease outcomes than sedentary London bus drivers.   I think it was pivotal in recognising the role exercise plays in a healthy heart?

Sadly the job of London bus conductor no longer exists.

[PhilB]

I'm used to living on less than my peers.  I don't really notice in the working year, and don't see why that would change in retirement.  If all goes anything at all close to plan, I'll be able to afford everything in retirement that I want to afford.  Just like in pre-retirement.  So if my peers are going  cruises 4x year and staying in the most expensive cabins and buying new wardrobes for each trip, good for them, but that's not for me.  Not because of the money, but because that doesn't appeal to me. 

So it seems to me like pre-FIRE or post-FIRE, I don't care that others have, or spend, more than I do.  I can still do just about everything I want.  And I can still be friends with people who have designer handbags and a collection of four- and five-figure watches.

That sounds like a very healthy attitude Villanelle.  I've always tried to cultivate something similar. When it came to pulling the plug time, I still had that tiny, stupid, nagging concern though about how I would feel when I no longer had the ongoing payoff of more freedom for less money.  It wasn't enough to stop me doing it, but it was lurking in some corner of my mind.  Incorrectly as it turns out :)

[former player]

I agree there was a feeling of "I might be left behind", financially speaking - even if you don't spend the money the way other people do it's nice to know you could.

But as the cliche goes, "living well is the best revenge" and I live well, and have done since I retired.