A big risk of a FIRE plan that is often overlooked...

[afox]

This website and a goal to FIRE are popular among my friends mostly in late 30's early 40's.  Im noticing that many of those with FIRE goals are quite frankly working thier asses off and sacrificing their TIME now for the promise of TIME in the future.  Best example are numerous friends with a full time job/career in professional fields such as engineering that are now also full time real estate investors/landlords.  Their goal is that the real estate will enable them to quit the day job in their profession and FIRE.

I have begun to notice that this is a very risky gamble.  As some of my friends reach their mid forties and some just become more inactive due to working more to reach their FIRE goals Im noticing that they do not appreciate the same active lifestyle they used to.  To me it appears that their quality of life is suffering now and I fear that they may be "wasting" the "last best years" of their life.  Unfortunately age is the best predictor of disease and mortality.  There is no doubt that trading time in your 30's & 40's for time in your 50's and older is a risk.  I am not sure how to quantify that risk.  Mortality is predicatable through actuarial tables but debilitating disease and quality of life degradation are not.  Unlike money, time is not something you can get back.  Money is truly an inexhuastable resource, there are infinite ways to make it and infinite amounts you can make.  Time, is not infinite at all. 

Please note that IM not advocating spending more money at a younger age or making changes to a frugal lifestyle.  Personally, I was born and raised frugal and always will be no matter how much money I make.  Frivolous spending disgusts me.  I am wondering if it is worthwhile to spend more TIME at a younger age in exchange for TIME at an older age (a work harder now, stop working earlier approach).

Your thoughts? 

[Prairie Stash]

An hour of overtime in my 20's allows me to retire 2-4 hours earlier. Due to the magic of compounding, an hour in your early years can compound to allow you earlier retirement. Its not a straight hour to hour trade.

The next factor is the quality of your time. If I have 3-4 hours in an evening its not the same as having the full week off. I can't do the same activities, like travel for a week. The intangible part of time is that not every hour has the same value. I know several people that work week on/week off. How they spend their time off is different than how an office worker spends their free time; yet they both work 80 hours every 2 weeks.

I'm not disputing your observations, just fueling your thoughts here.

[afox]

I understand its not a straightforward hour for hour trade, that kind of time accounting is what I am thinking about.  Lets say that an hour now is worth 4 in the future but with the risk that you may  be dead or disabled when you get the 4 hours.  At the minimum you wont be able enjoy the 4 hours with the same physical enthusiasm with which you enjoy the hour now.  Its a trade-off and a gamble.  I dont have the answer for everyone but for me at this point in my life (40 yrs old) I am going to work as little as I can now even if it means I work later in life.  My frugality does not change, never has, never will.  Im just not willing to make the gamble that the hour of overtime now will lead to 4 hours later.  It may or it may not.  My nitemare is that when Im a retired 50 year old with 1M in the bank and a debilitating disease I realize I spent age 40-50 working 2 jobs and gave up my passions (and probably my health) to retire at 50 instead of 70. 

[frugledoc]

I understand its not a straightforward hour for hour trade, that kind of time accounting is what I am thinking about.  Lets say that an hour now is worth 4 in the future but with the risk that you may  be dead or disabled when you get the 4 hours.  At the minimum you wont be able enjoy the 4 hours with the same physical enthusiasm with which you enjoy the hour now.  Its a trade-off and a gamble.  I dont have the answer for everyone but for me at this point in my life (40 yrs old) I am going to work as little as I can now even if it means I work later in life.  My frugality does not change, never has, never will.  Im just not willing to make the gamble that the hour of overtime now will lead to 4 hours later.  It may or it may not. My nitemare is that when Im a retired 50 year old with 1M in the bank and a debilitating disease I realize I spent age 40-50 working 2 jobs and gave up my passions (and probably my health) to retire at 50 instead of 70.

Unlikely but not impossible.  You can't plan for every eventuality.

A more extreme version of this thought process, often heard from mass consumers is "spend it all today because you could get hit by a bus tomorrow".

[limeandpepper]

That's why some of us are downshifting and/or doing serial mini retirements.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/post-fire/calling-all-downshifters!/

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/post-fire/early-retirement-vs-serial-mini-retirements/

[SwitchActiveDWG]

This sacrifice now for later concept may be practiced by some, but is not inherent in the ideas I’ve observed on this site.

It all comes back to recognizing and prioritizing value. Those that are truly sacrificing valuable years with crazy work schedules with hopes of a utopian future are missing the point in my opinion.

[EngineeringFI]

This is why I think it's just as important to invest in one's health as it is to make smart financial investments. All that money you're saving up doesn't do a damn bit of good if you're too unhealthy later in life to enjoy the freedom you've earned. This is also why working every single hour of every day to make every possible dollar is false economy. Instead, taking time now to get a full night of sleep, cook healthy meals, exercise moderately, actively manage stress, and cultivate meaningful relationships with friends can pay huge dividends later in terms of all the medical bills you'll save.

With all the uncertainty surrounding healthcare in the U.S., we tend to forget that we do still have some control over our own health. Yes, you don't have 100% control over your health, but you also don't have 100% control over what the stock market does to your portfolio, all you can do is select a course of action that statistically improves your chances of achieving the outcome you want.

Finally, if you're delaying all pleasure until some future time when your net worth crosses an imaginary barrier, you're doing this all wrong. Part of mustachianism is finding joy in the life you have today, instead of lusting after what you don't have (regardless of whether that is a possession or retirement status).

[big_slacker]

This website and a goal to FIRE are popular among my friends mostly in late 30's early 40's.  Im noticing that many of those with FIRE goals are quite frankly working thier asses off and sacrificing their TIME now for the promise of TIME in the future.  Best example are numerous friends with a full time job/career in professional fields such as engineering that are now also full time real estate investors/landlords.  Their goal is that the real estate will enable them to quit the day job in their profession and FIRE.

I have begun to notice that this is a very risky gamble.  As some of my friends reach their mid forties and some just become more inactive due to working more to reach their FIRE goals Im noticing that they do not appreciate the same active lifestyle they used to.  To me it appears that their quality of life is suffering now and I fear that they may be "wasting" the "last best years" of their life.  Unfortunately age is the best predictor of disease and mortality.  There is no doubt that trading time in your 30's & 40's for time in your 50's and older is a risk.  I am not sure how to quantify that risk.  Mortality is predicatable through actuarial tables but debilitating disease and quality of life degradation are not.  Unlike money, time is not something you can get back.  Money is truly an inexhuastable resource, there are infinite ways to make it and infinite amounts you can make.  Time, is not infinite at all. 

Please note that IM not advocating spending more money at a younger age or making changes to a frugal lifestyle.  Personally, I was born and raised frugal and always will be no matter how much money I make.  Frivolous spending disgusts me.  I am wondering if it is worthwhile to spend more TIME at a younger age in exchange for TIME at an older age (a work harder now, stop working earlier approach).

Your thoughts?

I've ridden next to guys in an ultra distance MTB ride in their 60's and skied with 60 year olds as well. Life doesn't end at 49. :D

That said it's hard to stay lifelong healthy if you're spending every available hour of the day working. It's also hard to enjoy life enough to have lower stress, a good diet and good relationships, all of which are the keys to a minimizing chances of mid-late life disease and illness.

As others have said, it you're doing this then you're doing it wrong. Work towards something sure, but live life while you're doing it!

[SC93]

One can invest every penny they have in their health and something can still happen and you can't control that big truck that runs the redlight and plows over you. Just sayin......

I am one to understand about not enjoying your 20's & 30's, I didn't for the most part. I sometimes worked 120+ hours a week/over 500 hours per month!!! I'm very lucky and things are going great for me over 50 but it could have easily went wrong at any moment. Would I change how I did things? Well, looking back since everything turned out fine, no. But, if I didn't know the outcome yet it was pointed out to me that things could go wrong at any turn.... yes, I would do things way different.

[GetItRight]

Yeah some of my ski buddies are 60-ish, but they do a quick set and are done. Most don't wakeboard, and they don't throw inverts or get big air or really even try new tricks. I'm young enough to be able (though my injuries are starting to add up!), so I spend every moment I can on my board behind my boat. It's not a poor man's sport, but I do it darn cheap compared to most people I know and am frugal enough that my watersports addiction, gearhead problem, and general transportation combined all cost less than most people seem to spend for one crappy econobox to shuttle their pampered butt to a job they hate.

I won't trade time in my prime years that I could be enjoying the physically demanding things I love for time in my 50s or older on a gamble I might still be able to enjoy those things in a lesser capacity.

[DreamFIRE]

I've seen various comments that if you are working a job, you are wasting your life, that all those hours of life lived are wasted.  I don't know about you, but I've been enjoying my life while working, and in fact, I enjoy my job the majority of the time.  I don't consider one year of my life to have been wasted - it has all led to me being here now and being able to retire within a year or so, more than 10 years earlier than I had thought I would when I used to think about retirement over 5 years ago.

[Dicey]

In my early twenties, I had a rare cancer that I was told had a "propensity to recur". Great, just great. It fueled my desire to FIRE (way before it was a Thing), while living the best life possible in the meantime. I traveled, went to the weddings, visited the friends and relatives, kissed the babies, and did the things I wanted to do, including buying property by myself in a HCOLA. I scaled back my job to something less demanding for a decade, then decided to kick it back up to finally hit FIRE.

In life, nothing is guaranteed, ever. However, you can do all the things*, if you make wise choices and pace yourself.

*I say this because if you die early, well then, perhaps that's all you were ever destined to do. Life is fickle, and often unfair. Carpet diem. Every damn diem.

[edgema]

No doubt some people take FIRE towards obsession and sacrifice too much of the present and some FIRE bloggers write about this. Misery now for future Utopia is not likely to work.

I believe it is about balancing the probabilities. Without knowing the date my health will 'fail' or the day, shall we say, that none of this will matter anymore, probability is all we have got to work with.

As someone pointed out, arguments in the extreme on either side are not likely to be the best path. Spend/live only for today as you might get hit by a bus tomorrow ignores the fact that most will live into old age. Similarly, working three jobs to get to FIRE earlier is clearly too much deferred gratification. Anecdotes of people dying in the 40s or climbing Everest at 70 is just picking the good and bad 'tails' of the distribution.

There is a middle ground that I think most people are probably treading which in most scenarios is pretty excellent outcome; freedom far earlier than most at an age that you still have plenty of vitality. For me this will be 42 (in a year) and there is nothing I want to do that my age will not allow.   

Preaching to the converted but added to the power of compounding is the fact that most on this forum can earn substantially more now than they will be able to in their 60s. Saving now gives you a larger amount saved earlier that compounds over a longer period. Once you take these two factors into account I have calculated that I would personally have to work something like 10x as many hours at that future point (at lower wages and in a crappier job) versus an hour today. There might be more of a discussion if the ratio was 1x and I could have spent 30-40 'free' in exchange for 50-60 working. But that was not the case, at least for me.   

Whilst it happens, I haven't read anyone supporting that you should be miserable now and sacrifice your health to be free later. If you have ruined yourself getting there, FIRE is not going to be utopia (well it won't be anyway but you know what I mean).

The message I take, as others have already commented, is to be mindful of your spending, save, stay healthy and fit, maintain interests and hobbies, and enjoy life before FIRE. Then in the back of your mind, have a bubble of joy growing that you are getting closer and closer to living your life however you choose.

Please take this as a joke and it may have been auto spell check, but I love the recommendation to carpet diem.

[chasesfish]

There is balance...and as someone who recently hit FI mainly by selling my time for money to a large corporation, there's a lot of truth in what you're saying.   My wife and I both nearly "gave up" our 20s as workaholics and we were in a perpetual state of exhaustion.  The only way to annuitize that income is to invest the difference. 

There's pros and cons, I can't change what we did, but I now wish we would have taken a 1-year "gap year" and diversified our work into some efforts that would annuitize an income stream (rental real estate).   She's been dealing with an injury and subsequent complications that may or may not cause some level of permanent disability, which is unfortunate as we hit the date I was supposed to retire early.

[Laura33]

My nitemare is that when Im a retired 50 year old with 1M in the bank and a debilitating disease I realize I spent age 40-50 working 2 jobs and gave up my passions (and probably my health) to retire at 50 instead of 70.

And my nightmare is that I end up like my stepdad:  work until the last possible minute, retire, and die unexpectedly before the first SS check even arrives.

It is all a crapshoot, and I think which side of the spectrum you fall on depends on which particular nightmare is scarier to you.  For me, my RE plans include extensive slow travel (e.g., renting different apartments for a month in different cities for like a year to start with), so that is not something I can really do on a part-time schedule.  I also have a job that is highly-paid and very mentally engaging, and that would not be available if I routinely wanted extensive periods of time away or left and wanted to return in a few years.  AND my mom and dad are both in their 70s; she's still running, and he still bikes 50 miles on a weekend and takes hiking vacations through big-ass mountains, so I have reason to believe that my genetics will provide both a reasonable lifespan and reasonable activity levels for a good chunk of that (although my knee is currently making me question the latter). So for me, the right choice was to pursue a pretty demanding career and save a lot, with the idea that we will walk away when the kiddos leave the house.  But that is absolutely not the right decision for everyone. 

One other factor to consider is that sometimes people work hard in their 20s/30s because they want to.  I was very ambitious back then, wanted to prove myself to the world and all that.  I also learned a metric shit-ton of useful things, from becoming a much better thinker/writer to how to manage/work with people who are very different than me to learning something of the art of persuasion.  Obviously, you don't need a paying job to learn useful things -- but the fact that I was learning useful stuff made the job more enjoyable and worthwhile.

tl;dr:  there is no objectively right or wrong answer.  You make the best call you can, based on your own needs and interests, and then cross your fingers and hope it works out.

[Slow&Steady]

I understand its not a straightforward hour for hour trade, that kind of time accounting is what I am thinking about.  Lets say that an hour now is worth 4 in the future but with the risk that you may  be dead or disabled when you get the 4 hours.  At the minimum you wont be able enjoy the 4 hours with the same physical enthusiasm with which you enjoy the hour now.  Its a trade-off and a gamble.  I dont have the answer for everyone but for me at this point in my life (40 yrs old) I am going to work as little as I can now even if it means I work later in life.  My frugality does not change, never has, never will.  Im just not willing to make the gamble that the hour of overtime now will lead to 4 hours later.  It may or it may not.  My nitemare is that when Im a retired 50 year old with 1M in the bank and a debilitating disease I realize I spent age 40-50 working 2 jobs and gave up my passions (and probably my health) to retire at 50 instead of 70.

This is a very really concern for some of us on this forum.  My DH has MS and you just never know how that disease will impact you in the future or what kind of medical advances there might be in the next 10-40 years.  He currently takes disease modifying drugs and we hope that he will be physically as healthy as any non-MS person when we finally get to retire.  However, we are also aware that he might not be able to learn how to surf/scuba dive/sail or want to go skiing or hang out at the lake or that travel will require much more accommodations when he is 50 or 60 because he might have some physical (or even cognitive disability).  These considerations led us to not take the working 80 hours a week so that we can speed to FIRE route.  We actually found that just a few years into his diagnosis that him working a traditional full-time job was having a very visible and negative impact on his health.  He now drives a school bus in the afternoons (2 hours a day, max), runs his business (around 2-4 hours a day) 2-4 days a week, and enjoys picking up the kids as early as he wants.  We also make sure that we are not trying to keep the budget so tight that we cannot enjoy some non-MMM type of purchases/spending that we believe we will enjoy today.  This all means that I may not fully retire until at least 55 but it has helped me to stop and enjoy the ride (not just the destination) also.

We all have to find the right pace for ourselves based on our own life experiences and expectations. 

Edited to add: While we are taking the slower path, our path includes making sure we are putting money in savings and paying off debt but just not putting every penny towards those 2 goals.  I have joined both the SL payoff challenge and some of the NW race challenges as ways to remind myself (us) that although we may not have the highest savings % and/or are not paying off debt as fast as others, due to our agreed spending, we are still working on those goals as we are enjoying life.  It helps to keep some of the spending in check to also have accelerated (compared to normal America) NW/debt pay off goals.

[poetdereves]

I definitely go back and forth with the same ideas. I think something that really helped me was to set as concrete goals as possible and define what I value. Instead of saying "I want to be FIRE asap" I took time to think about what my ideal day would look like if I was done with work. I wanted to be able to run on sunny days, wake up and have coffee without needing to rush out the door, spend evenings with friends, enjoy the city I live in, etc. I realized that I actually had time to do those things now while still being well on my way to FIRE pretty early.

 I work on keeping my savings rate high and not making purchases without thinking about what is really important to me. I am also still young and married with no kids (28), and it is important for my wife and I to travel to a few places without children in tow. Some may say it seems contrary to FIRE goals, but it really isn't. We travel hack and use airbnb, pay cash for our trips, have no car payments or consumer debt, and live in a house $100k under the median for our area. We sacrifice on things that aren't important to us (cars, housing, etc) so that we can enjoy what is (travel, time, family, friends). Some things are more now-or-never (traveling without kids), so we prioritize them without sacrificing our high savings rate. People will change, income will change, economies will change, and personal goals will change. Prioritizing what is important to you now AND in the future do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[netskyblue]

If you worked your butt off every day to retire on your 40th birthday and then died the next day... did you "waste" those years working?  You're dead.  It's not like it makes any difference to *you.* 

That's pretty extreme though, and I don't advocate work, work, work, with no joy at all in life.  This goal of FIRE has kept me on track to keep moving up in my career, looking for a better paying position, etc, rather than stagnating at something where I'm underpaid.  It's made me think about priorities when I make a purchase, so I don't just blow all my money and then wallow in sadness when I don't have any more until payday and can't get that spending "high."

If I'm destined to die at 40, then so be it.  A glut of consumer goods, or not, is not going to make people say I had a better life, and even if they do, I'm not going to care, being dead and all.

[big_slacker]

Yeah some of my ski buddies are 60-ish, but they do a quick set and are done. Most don't wakeboard, and they don't throw inverts or get big air or really even try new tricks. I'm young enough to be able (though my injuries are starting to add up!), so I spend every moment I can on my board behind my boat. It's not a poor man's sport, but I do it darn cheap compared to most people I know and am frugal enough that my watersports addiction, gearhead problem, and general transportation combined all cost less than most people seem to spend for one crappy econobox to shuttle their pampered butt to a job they hate.

I won't trade time in my prime years that I could be enjoying the physically demanding things I love for time in my 50s or older on a gamble I might still be able to enjoy those things in a lesser capacity.

Assume you were replying to my post. I wasn't advocating for the working your prime years away. I was a snowboard/bike bum and lived with roomies in a mountain town till I was 30. Wouldn't trade it for starting a career earlier, I'll still FI at 50-ish and got to have my fun. Even though I work for a big corp now in my 40's I still have a pass and ride in winter, still huck myself off stuff in the bike park and do big rides. You can still do epic shit and hold down a day job, it's just for you to decide where your sweet spot is.

[swampwiz]

It's a matter of realizing that extra income or lessened spending has a multiplier for its use in the future.  Yes, being a super cheapskate just to live like a mogul in the future is ridiculous.  However, being a cheapskate now and then continuing to be a cheapskate in the future allows one to move the ER needle up earlier.  If I just had to do some discretionary spending, I would do it - I justified this by being a cheapskate.

[fuzzy math]

I am not actually working any extra hours on my path to FIRE. I'm just not spending wastefully (and earning tax inefficiently) like I would have been had I not discovered this site. I would argue that more regular people get into trouble and trapped in the "working 2-3 jobs" cycle due to their spending than this group. If anyone here works the extra time, its because they have the time to, not out of obligation to keep the electricity on.

[Scortius]

People seem to love to bring up the 'what if you die?' argument anytime the idea of saving and living frugally comes up. Ignoring the fact that a frugal (but not cheap) existence generally leads to greater happiness, I always figure the first question should be followed with a 'what if you live?' response. As noted above, if you die, you're dead. There's not going to be a whole lot of regret or suffering involved past that end point. On the other hand, if you don't die early, you may be around for quite a while to reap the fruits of your labors, for better or worse.

Consider it this way. Many of us purchase life insurance, which paradoxically is to provide for our families in the case of an early death. It's a way of ensuring that people who depend on our future earnings will be able to get by in our absence.

In that vein, I consider Mustachianism a form of 'death insurance', essentially covering our lives in oh so likely case that we live. By saving and investing early, you ensure that you will have provisions to live a truly wonderful and free life if you happen to not die. For me, that's a great insurance policy to have.

[Mezzie]

I think people who aren't enjoying themselves now are doing it wrong. You can shove a lot of money into investment accounts and still have the time and funds to do what matters. Generally those things aren't all that expensive to begin with.

If I die before I retire, then I'll still have done a good job taking care of my husband's retirement needs. I'm not about to regret that.

[MrThatsDifferent]

The presumption is that you have to work overtime or a second job in order to FIRE. You don’t. You do have to save, budget and position yourself to get a decent job and it helps to have a partner. You don’t have to sacrifice everything early to enjoy life late.

[afox]

It is so great to see that so many have of you the same thoughts about this that I do.

Unfortunate to see that some couldn't comprehend what I wrote:
"Please note that IM not advocating spending more money at a younger age or making changes to a frugal lifestyle.  Personally, I was born and raised frugal and always will be no matter how much money I make.  Frivolous spending disgusts me.  I am wondering if it is worthwhile to spend more TIME at a younger age in exchange for TIME at an older age (a work harder now, stop working earlier approach)."

Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend for some but oh well.  Maybe this blog post will help, it is exactly what I am trying to explain and what others here have echoed:
https://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/crafting-lifestyle-real-estate-business/

[Johnez]

  My nitemare is that when Im a retired 50 year old with 1M in the bank and a debilitating disease I realize I spent age 40-50 working 2 jobs and gave up my passions (and probably my health) to retire at 50 instead of 70.

Imagine coasting till 50 and then getting that debilitating disease. I think I still rather have a million in the bank than a few more free weekends and vacations.

[Cpa Cat]

Yeah - a big risk of FIRE is that you could be dead by the time you enjoy it.

Of course, the big risk of not FIRE'ing is that you could be dead before you retire.

My father died of a heart attack at age 54.

He retired early at 52. He enjoyed retirement for a whopping 2 years.

Would it have been better for him to have saved LESS and never retired? Or would it have been better for him to have saved MORE and retired even earlier?

[nara]

The gap year I took in my late 20's was the best time of my life. I lived abroad and traveled to 10 countries for over year and then moved across the country from a HCOLA to a LCOLA. I then worked for a few more years, got burnt out and then moved to part-time work for several years. I've since become full-time self-employed and CANNOT wait for the next gap year!!!

I don't feel like I missed out on my life all that much... but I do wish I had known about FIRE and made better decisions early on in my 20's. Although I work like crazy now, I also travel hack 2 international vacations per year. It's all a choice and a balance...you can work your ass off for a decade and never work again, you can work your ass for a few years and take a gap year, or you can work part-time forever. Or a mix of everything!

[Rosy]

This sacrifice now for later concept may be practiced by some, but is not inherent in the ideas I’ve observed on this site.

It all comes back to recognizing and prioritizing value. Those that are truly sacrificing valuable years with crazy work schedules with hopes of a utopian future are missing the point in my opinion.

^^^ this ^^^

Temporarily revving up while you have a specific goal in mind (like paying off student loans or credit cards) is a good idea, because it puts you in a better position to plan for your financial future. Beyond that - the key is balance.
Enjoy your life, have fun, invest in yourself, allow enough family time - it is always a balancing act, put savings and investments on automatic and live your life.
Tweak and adjust as needed - plow extra income and raises into your savings and your retirement funds - it's that simple.

If by risk you mean that you might not be around to enjoy your savings and investments - then make certain that you live now plus have a will to specify who will benefit from the fruits of your labors if you die before retirement.
It is, in reality, a risk unrelated to the MMM lifestyle - do you really want to leave behind a financial mess for your nearest and dearest to sort out or worse to have to pay off?

Do what you can to stay healthy, that is just common sense - again, unrelated to the MMM lifestyle.

[asosharp]

Of course it's hard to predict what life will bring. Maybe you'll have a heart attack next week out of the blue or be struck down by a mysterious illness. Who knows?

But I very much doubt that the MMM way is to sacrifice it all merely for financial independence. What's the point of having it if you're unhealthy and depressed? Of course it's up to us to figure out what's the right balance - maybe you do like splurging on fine dining or going to a gig once in a while. Maybe you hate cycling or your area isn't cycling friendly, public transport is horrendous, and you'd rather drive your car everywhere. (Or even if it is good you prefer the independence of driving everywhere). Maybe you have very strong views about private school - I have a friend who used to live in California and worked a second job to send her kids to private school as she thought that public schools there were awful.

As long you're living a good life, keeping yourself physically, emotionally, mentally, and socially healthy - then save all the rest after that for FIRE.

[matchewed]

Funny, I'm an engineer finishing a degree who nearly a year ago bought a multi-family and now I spend all my time either at school, at work, or working on the property.

It's not so bad. I don't see this taking decades but about three years, with the multi-family sliding to regular maintenance mode in the next two months. I'm still healthy and while I understand I'm not getting as much exercise as I "should" I'm still an active adult. The house work is active and I'd say 10%-25% of my work work is active. I will probably FIRE around around 3-4 years from now at 40/41. That leaves a great deal of time left to spend hiking out in my local woods.

While that risk may be overlooked. It may also just be accounted for.

[Dicey]

Please take this as a joke and it may have been auto spell check, but I love the recommendation to carpet diem.

Hmmm, I wondered if that was me, as I used the phrase recently, so I just checked. Yep, it was. Yes it's an auto-fill, and accidentally funny. You see, I was in the carpet business prior to FIRE. Had more people carpeted diem, perhaps I could have retired earlier.

I'll go add a disclaimer to the other post*, because it's too funny to fix. Thanks for pointing it out.

*Since it's on the same thread, on second thought, I'll leave it alone. You guys will figure it out.

[Arbitrage]

I do consider this (and have considered it even before really starting to push for true FIRE in the past several months).  However, I think about what I'm really giving up.  We're lucky enough to have built a high enough income that I feel we're not really constraining our lifestyle to push for FIRE, with a couple of relatively minor exceptions.  Comparing to my "Jones" friends:

Bigger house/house in nicer area?  Wouldn't change things that much from where we currently live.  Our house is actually quite nice, probably beyond what a true Mustachian would recommend.
More house renovations?  Friends - and to some extent DW - might disagree, but our house does just fine.  We might do some facelifting soon, regardless.
Nicer cars?  I would love one, but the cost is too hard to justify.  Slowly letting go of this desire.
Eating out more/at nicer places?  Never been a big draw for us.
Housekeeper/nanny?  Facepunch needed there.
Vacations?  I know that we could (or even should) do more here.  However, that doesn't need to mean more expensive vacations; it can just mean putting in more effort.  We do take some trips, but I want to get the kids outside more. 
Cable TV/phone plans?  No dropoff in standard of living when we downsized here.
Utility efficiency?  Just common sense.
Nicer electronics/more digital media?  Doing just fine with my Steam Sales, Xbox Games with Gold, and occasional purchase to play with friends.
More regular kids' activities (classes, camps, etc.)?  Haven't had to restrict the kids' desires for anything there.  Hopefully we can be involved enough that expensive summer camps don't make their list of desires.

Soon: E-bike commuting/more bike-based errands? Excited to do this, and anticipate an increase in lifestyle enjoyment over the car-based life.

[Rosy]

[quote author=Rosy link=topic=88245.msg1911963#msg1911963 date=s on automatic and live your
Do what you can to stay healthy, that is just common sense - again, unrelated to the MMM lifestyle.

I actually think maintaining health is a pretty key part of the MMM lifestyle
[/quote]

I see your point, Malkynn but I was thinking along the lines of - more people gravitate toward healthy living and our current culture promotes healthy living, whereas financial fitness is hardly ever talked about and destructive financial behaviors are perfectly acceptable - compared to people remarking on obesity for instance or shaming and ridiculing people for overeating or an inactive lifestyle.
I hadn't actually considered maintaining health as a key part of the MMM lifestyle, (maybe because I already subscribed to that view), but I suppose it is.

For me the minimalist viewpoints, questioning the value of material goods and resisting the insistent call of consumerism vs de-cluttering has been the component of the MMM lifestyle that I am embracing/struggling with - I am always looking for balance.

It is the balance between denial and allowing yourself the pleasures of daily living without blowing the budget or destroying your future.
Again, I don't call that a risk - just common sense.
I guess what I am saying is that NO, I do not see this as a big risk and NO I do not think that any of us on the mustachian path ever overlook this aspect - to the contrary, we are keenly aware of this "conflict" if you will.

[Maenad]

I am wondering if it is worthwhile to spend more TIME at a younger age in exchange for TIME at an older age (a work harder now, stop working earlier approach).

It's more relevant to the "work until you're 70" crowd, but I always cringe a little when people advocate working longer, since it assumes that you CAN. I think it's important to take a good long look at others in your profession to assess the age distribution. Ageism is a real thing, I don't think there's anyone in the company site I work at that's close to 70, and definitely not older. Plus, there are jobs that most people's bodies physically can't do much past their 50s.

So, as in all things, there's a balance. Taking sabbaticals and gap years and such when you're young and then working until 55 may work well, but assuming one can stretch out one's career until 70 may not be realistic or possible, depending on the profession.

[maizefolk]

Best example are numerous friends with a full time job/career in professional fields such as engineering that are now also full time real estate investors/landlords.  Their goal is that the real estate will enable them to quit the day job in their profession and FIRE. ... I am wondering if it is worthwhile to spend more TIME at a younger age in exchange for TIME at an older age (a work harder now, stop working earlier approach).

My nitemare is that when Im a retired 50 year old with 1M in the bank and a debilitating disease I realize I spent age 40-50 working 2 jobs and gave up my passions (and probably my health) to retire at 50 instead of 70.

AFox, it sounds like your concern isn't about FIRE itself. It's about achieving FIRE using real estate. Buying, managing, and maintaining real estate can indeed be a second job. If it's not work you enjoy -- some people do, although I don't think I'm likely to be one of them -- why not dump your money into index funds instead of down payments and leave your nights and weekends free?

It seems like that would address the concerns you describe above without having to give up on FIRE at all.

[Cranky]

Let me put your mind at ease - an hour of life now that I’m in my 60s is not in fact less pleasurable than an hour of life in my 30s was (and way better than in my 20s, frankly.)

[jim555]

Remember that money earned younger has more power than when it is earned older, due to compounding.  If you have an opportunity to do OT or weekends it is well worth it to do it.

I read a lot of postings about "taking a year off" or "take fewer hours" and I have to say, this is worst idea I have ever heard of.  You will be adding years of additional time to your freedom date. 

[merlin7676]

I'm pretty frugal and don't want or need much stuff or experiences. I probably do deny myself more than I need to now for the "payoff" later.

Unfortunately I started late so I've still got a lot of catching up to do for my age (almost 42) if I want to retire by 55.  Honestly the biggest driver for that isn't the RE part so much as it is life expectancy.  On my mom's side, nobody that we know of has lived to 70.  My dad was adopted so I have no information, medical or otherwise, on his side of the family so I don't know what to expect.

I'd hate to retire at a normal time 64 or so and drop dead a year or two later. That being said I do try to take care of myself and am in better shape than most of the ppl on my mom's side of the family. Most are overweight, smoke or smoked, have heart issues like high blood pressure, diabetes, ect so I'm sure that will play a factor in how long I live too.

I am a bit obsessed when it comes to the financial part. I probably check my assets too often (a few times a week), update my net worth once or twice a week, always reading retirement and investment articles, and play with all my charts and graphs...but to me it's a hobby. I'm enjoy the personal financial planning I do and whatnot

[TheAnonOne]

Do you think that by working in your 20s you are not enjoying life? I have had a good ride in my 20s so far while amassing around 40% of what I need to FIRE.

I will FIRE in my early 30s and not regret my 20s. I see my friends on weekends, travel the world with my wife, and somehow still find time to have a lucrative career.

Do I wish I could travel more than 2-3 weeks a year? YES! Though I expect to be physically able to do more of that in my 30s when I can go on trips that are as long as I damn well please.