Does this article make sense to anyone else??

[Metalcat]

This man retired after 30 years of working in IT, his company had a generous retirement matching program and he had a substantial inheritance.

Says he has enough money to be secure for a single year, although I'm not sure what that means exactly, and that he has no regrets retiring early, despite the fact that he cannot afford not to work in retirement.

Without numbers, this article is reading like absolute gibberish to me.

https://www.businessinsider.com/retired-early-with-enough-money-for-one-year-no-regrets-2025-5

[Sanitary Stache]

I ran into a pay wall on that article and came to the conclusion that I have fallen for far too many click bait headlines from business insider.

[Metalcat]

I ran into a pay wall on that article and came to the conclusion that I have fallen for far too many click bait headlines from business insider.

I should know better than to click on them, but it was early morning and I was like "am I sleep deprived or is this confusing as fuck??"

The article is all about how happy this dude is to retire early, but that he can't actually afford to retire, even after 30 years of IT work and an inheritance.

So he retired anyway, and only has enough money to be secure for one year??? Makes no sense at all. I felt like I was having a stroke reading it.

Oh, I should also note that I'm quite dyslexic and can't read articles in a linear fashion, so if I can't quickly parse the main point of an article by scanning, I quite literally can't understand it. So I'm quite literally asking if the article makes sense to others who can read in a typical fashion. Lol.

[GuitarStv]

- He worked in IT for 30 years.  IT has a six figure median salary . . . and after 30 years he should have been well on the higher side of that.
- His job gave him retirement matching, and he contributed to that for decades.  What this actually means is totally up in the air though.
- He inherited what sounds like a large chunk of money from his parents (although six figure means anything from 100,000 - 999,999 . . . and I'm confused why this was a big deal since he was likely making at least six figures)

"There are some common retirement guideposts to follow, like the 4% rule or having 25 times your expenses in savings, but for me, it felt most important to stick to my basics: food, healthcare, utilities, transportation, and veterinary care."

I don't know what the fuck that means.  Is he following the 4% rule?  Or not?

- It says that he's financially supporting three adult children, which could certainly take a big bite out of savings.



Yeah, I don't know what this article is saying.  If you can only live on your savings for a year, I don't think you've retired.  It sounds more like rage/burn out quitting a job without having any prospects lined up.  It's unclear if he has saved up 25 times his expenses.  It's unclear how much his mooching children are eating into his cash.  We have no idea how much savings he actually has.

[Louise]

This article makes no sense to me either! It doesn't mention expenses or what he has in his stash.

Reading between the lines, I'm wondering if he was part of that Walmart IT layoff and this is just his positive spin on his situation. He's probably OK as long as he can find some kind of employment.

[Metalcat]

- He worked in IT for 30 years.  IT has a six figure median salary . . . and after 30 years he should have been well on the higher side of that.
- His job gave him retirement matching, and he contributed to that for decades.  What this actually means is totally up in the air though.
- He inherited what sounds like a large chunk of money from his parents (although six figure means anything from 100,000 - 999,999 . . . and I'm confused why this was a big deal since he was likely making at least six figures)

"There are some common retirement guideposts to follow, like the 4% rule or having 25 times your expenses in savings, but for me, it felt most important to stick to my basics: food, healthcare, utilities, transportation, and veterinary care."

I don't know what the fuck that means.  Is he following the 4% rule?  Or not?

- It says that he's financially supporting three adult children, which could certainly take a big bite out of savings.



Yeah, I don't know what this article is saying.  If you can only live on your savings for a year, I don't think you've retired.  It sounds more like rage/burn out quitting a job without having any prospects lined up.  It's unclear if he has saved up 25 times his expenses.  It's unclear how much his mooching children are eating into his cash.  We have no idea how much savings he actually has.

THANK YOU, especially for the bullets, bullets are my love language

I thought it didn't make sense, but because of the whacky way I read, sometimes I can completely miss what an article is about if it's just written strangely, but I actually tried to understand this one because none of it made any sense, so I was like, either can I force myself to read this thing linearly, which is literally painful for me and reserved only for reading tasks where the stakes are high, like contract review, or I could ask the folks here to read and see if it really was as nonsensical as I was seeing.

[TempusFugit]

Maybe they are experimenting with AI generated content.  Or AI editing!

[Metalcat]

Maybe they are experimenting with AI generated content.  Or AI editing!

Oh, that would make sense.

My reading style picks up on meaning patterns, not so much sentences, and I've found that I do really struggle to read AI generated content because I don't actually, y'know, read.

[Nadia Edits]

I wonder if he's actually doing baristaFIRE, where he has his retirement stash invested, but it isn't quite enough to fully FIRE at the income he wants, so he's looking for a low-stress (maybe part-time?) job to help pay the bills or top up his income. He has a year's expenses in a savings account to provide a buffer. In that case the article is incoherent, but at least the underlying strategy makes more sense?

[Dave1442397]

Maybe they are experimenting with AI generated content.  Or AI editing!

That's what it sounds like - AI generated crap.

Someone at my job just posted an article about AI and its effects on the job market.

The article itself read just like AI-generated garbage, with an ounce of content in a 5lb bag of crap.

[Cassie]

The article definitely does not give enough information and he should not be supporting three adult children. Ugh!

[AuspiciousEight]

As someone who speaks to highly paid IT guys who have worked in IT 30-40 years on a regular basis, you may or may not be surprised to discover that a lot of these guys have virtually no money to their name because they spent it all.

[wageslave23]

Terrible article. My guess is he has a year's worth of expenses in a savings account.  After that he will have to start using inheritance money or retirement fund money. 

[Morning Glory]

Terrible article. My guess is he has a year's worth of expenses in a savings account.  After that he will have to start using inheritance money or retirement fund money.

I came to the same conclusion.  My guess is he said "cash" for the next year and they edited it to "money" because the reporter probably didn't realize FIRE people use the terms differently. He's probably fine but either he did a crappy job at expressing himself or they edited his statements in a way that made them too ambiguous in an attempt to take out jargon. It doesn't scream AI to me.

[merula]

I came to the same conclusion.  My guess is he said "cash" for the next year and they edited it to "money" because the reporter probably didn't realize FIRE people use the terms differently.

It's not just FIRE, everyone in financial services uses cash and money to mean different things. Either AI is mixing it up, or the reporter is, but either way it should have never made it past a Business Insider editor.

[twinstudy]

As someone who speaks to highly paid IT guys who have worked in IT 30-40 years on a regular basis, you may or may not be surprised to discover that a lot of these guys have virtually no money to their name because they spent it all.

Not even sure how it's physically possible to spend, say, $100k-$150k after tax in a year and leave nothing left over in savings. What would you even spend on?

Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask though. Some of my acquaintances spend $80k a year ($50k USD) putting two kids through private school. Imagine spending that much money to prove to the world that your kids can't thrive in a normal environment and aren't smart enough to get into a gifted school.

[Cassie]

As someone who speaks to highly paid IT guys who have worked in IT 30-40 years on a regular basis, you may or may not be surprised to discover that a lot of these guys have virtually no money to their name because they spent it all.

Not even sure how it's physically possible to spend, say, $100k-$150k after tax in a year and leave nothing left over in savings. What would you even spend on?

Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask though. Some of my acquaintances spend $80k a year ($50k USD) putting two kids through private school. Imagine spending that much money to prove to the world that your kids can't thrive in a normal environment and aren't smart enough to get into a gifted school.

If you live in a very high cost-of-living area like San Francisco or New York City, it would be easy to do, especially if you have kids that you have to pay to feed, daycare, or teenage activities.

[JupiterGreen]

The article definitely does not give enough information and he should not be supporting three adult children. Ugh!

I did not read the article because paywall, but yeah the supporting adult children thing is a trend. I understand it is difficult in this market for younger adults to buy a house, but what about renting? We were all renting and sharing housing with a bunch of roommates in our twenties. The Zs don't seem to be doing this as much as people did in the past. I am shocked by the number of parents who have several of their adult kids living at home and they are paying for their housing, food, phone, cars, etc. Many people I know who are compensated really well are living paycheck to paycheck or have no hopes to retire before 70 because of this. I understand it's complicated, but seems crazy to me and I questions if it is a healthy thing or straight up co-dependence.

[Fomerly known as something]

The article definitely does not give enough information and he should not be supporting three adult children. Ugh!

I did not read the article because paywall, but yeah the supporting adult children thing is a trend. I understand it is difficult in this market for younger adults to buy a house, but what about renting? We were all renting and sharing housing with a bunch of roommates in our twenties. The Zs don't seem to be doing this as much as people did in the past. I am shocked by the number of parents who have several of their adult kids living at home and they are paying for their housing, food, phone, cars, etc. Many people I know who are compensated really well are living paycheck to paycheck or have no hopes to retire before 70 because of this. I understand it's complicated, but seems crazy to me and I questions if it is a healthy thing or straight up co-dependence.

Depending on the area, kids still living at home also means less/limited opportunity.  I know there is little good opportunity in many places.  Even in some good opportunity places one might get a much better opportunity someplace else. 

[Morning Glory]

I initially struck a paywall but then it popped up minutes later in my Google News feed with no paywall. It only says his kids "depend on him" which could mean just about anything.  There's no indication of how much support he's providing.

[Metalcat]

I initially struck a paywall but then it popped up minutes later in my Google News feed with no paywall. It only says his kids "depend on him" which could mean just about anything.  There's no indication of how much support he's providing.

Exactly. Literally every fact in the article is weirdly ambiguous, to the point that I can't even parse what the article is supposed to really be about. It just seems like a huge jumble of half explained factoids about this one random person.

[AuspiciousEight]

As someone who speaks to highly paid IT guys who have worked in IT 30-40 years on a regular basis, you may or may not be surprised to discover that a lot of these guys have virtually no money to their name because they spent it all.

Not even sure how it's physically possible to spend, say, $100k-$150k after tax in a year and leave nothing left over in savings. What would you even spend on?

Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask though. Some of my acquaintances spend $80k a year ($50k USD) putting two kids through private school. Imagine spending that much money to prove to the world that your kids can't thrive in a normal environment and aren't smart enough to get into a gifted school.

If you live in a very high cost-of-living area like San Francisco or New York City, it would be easy to do, especially if you have kids that you have to pay to feed, daycare, or teenage activities.

This is a low cost of living Midwest city.

Most of my coworkers, who are in the 150-250k salary range, spend their money on constantly eating out 3 meals a day for their whole family, or living in million dollar custom built mansions while driving new SUVs, or buying things like farms and new tractors and sports cars. Just because someone is a well paid engineer doesn't mean they won't completely blow their money on various things that they find valuable, pleasurable, or enjoyable. Early retirement isn't even an option that a lot of engineers consider to be a possibility, despite their background, because they just don't want to give up 'x' or 'y' luxury or their whole identity is their job, etc.

As for the article, it's extremely ambiguous and not worded well. I didn't really take anything away from it except the idea that there are more highly paid engineers who blow all their money in the world than just the people on my team.

[MrGreen]

It's funny that my first thought after seeing a description about a high earner not having enough to retire on after a long career of high earning had me thinking, "I wonder how Financial Samurai in doing?"

[iris lily]

I ran into a pay wall on that article and came to the conclusion that I have fallen for far too many click bait headlines from business insider.

yeah, was it
Business
Insider that had an article coupla days ago about the terrible burden Millennials will soon have when they inherit all of their Boomer parents’ real estate? But the real estate may be a cash boon too.

Both thoughts covered in the article, so what else is new?

And let me just offer my opinion that 80% of real estate passed down to another generation does not have to be a burden. The crap inside the family home can easily be disposed of and the structure sold “as is.” It really isn’t that hard for most of the parents’ stuff.

[Villanelle]

I've noticed that some people use the word "retire" to mean "leave a job [or industry] that I've been in for a long time".  I didn't get past the paywall, but it sounds like that might be what's happening here.  Like, "I retired from stressful Big Law to work as a teacher."  So perhaps he means he left the IT job (not voluntarily, from the sounds of it) without enough money to live off for a year, during which he'll figure out what's next.

What has nothing at all to do with actual retiring or retirement.

[twinstudy]

As someone who speaks to highly paid IT guys who have worked in IT 30-40 years on a regular basis, you may or may not be surprised to discover that a lot of these guys have virtually no money to their name because they spent it all.

Not even sure how it's physically possible to spend, say, $100k-$150k after tax in a year and leave nothing left over in savings. What would you even spend on?

Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask though. Some of my acquaintances spend $80k a year ($50k USD) putting two kids through private school. Imagine spending that much money to prove to the world that your kids can't thrive in a normal environment and aren't smart enough to get into a gifted school.

If you live in a very high cost-of-living area like San Francisco or New York City, it would be easy to do, especially if you have kids that you have to pay to feed, daycare, or teenage activities.

This is a low cost of living Midwest city.

Most of my coworkers, who are in the 150-250k salary range, spend their money on constantly eating out 3 meals a day for their whole family, or living in million dollar custom built mansions while driving new SUVs, or buying things like farms and new tractors and sports cars. Just because someone is a well paid engineer doesn't mean they won't completely blow their money on various things that they find valuable, pleasurable, or enjoyable. Early retirement isn't even an option that a lot of engineers consider to be a possibility, despite their background, because they just don't want to give up 'x' or 'y' luxury or their whole identity is their job, etc.

As for the article, it's extremely ambiguous and not worded well. I didn't really take anything away from it except the idea that there are more highly paid engineers who blow all their money in the world than just the people on my team.

You can eat out three times a day and drive an expensive sports car and still not spend anywhere close to $100-$150k a year, as long as you are smart about managing expenses, which I guess most people are not. I have calculated the overall cost of running a new-ish (3 year old) 911 at around $12k a year - not cheap, but hardly expensive in the scheme of things. But you have to know what you are doing, including having the money upfront to purchase the car rather than relying on finance.

[GuitarStv]

As someone who speaks to highly paid IT guys who have worked in IT 30-40 years on a regular basis, you may or may not be surprised to discover that a lot of these guys have virtually no money to their name because they spent it all.

Not even sure how it's physically possible to spend, say, $100k-$150k after tax in a year and leave nothing left over in savings. What would you even spend on?

Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask though. Some of my acquaintances spend $80k a year ($50k USD) putting two kids through private school. Imagine spending that much money to prove to the world that your kids can't thrive in a normal environment and aren't smart enough to get into a gifted school.

If you live in a very high cost-of-living area like San Francisco or New York City, it would be easy to do, especially if you have kids that you have to pay to feed, daycare, or teenage activities.

This is a low cost of living Midwest city.

Most of my coworkers, who are in the 150-250k salary range, spend their money on constantly eating out 3 meals a day for their whole family, or living in million dollar custom built mansions while driving new SUVs, or buying things like farms and new tractors and sports cars. Just because someone is a well paid engineer doesn't mean they won't completely blow their money on various things that they find valuable, pleasurable, or enjoyable. Early retirement isn't even an option that a lot of engineers consider to be a possibility, despite their background, because they just don't want to give up 'x' or 'y' luxury or their whole identity is their job, etc.

As for the article, it's extremely ambiguous and not worded well. I didn't really take anything away from it except the idea that there are more highly paid engineers who blow all their money in the world than just the people on my team.

You can eat out three times a day and drive an expensive sports car and still not spend anywhere close to $100-$150k a year, as long as you are smart about managing expenses, which I guess most people are not. I have calculated the overall cost of running a new-ish (3 year old) 911 at around $12k a year - not cheap, but hardly expensive in the scheme of things. But you have to know what you are doing, including having the money upfront to purchase the car rather than relying on finance.

Is it really living if you're not roasting marshmallows on a fat stack of Benjamins though?

[scottish]

Is it really living if you're not roasting marshmallows on a fat stack of Benjamins though?

That sounds ... carcinogenic.

I think it's a poorly written article with almost no information content.    Maybe its generated by an AI, although I'd expect better.

[maizefolk]

I think we've reached the stage where an article written by the latest and greatest AI models sounds better written and more human than an article churned out by some content farm contractor on Fiverr or similar websites.

[uniwelder]

I haven't read the article, but I did happen to come across this news bit---- https://www.reuters.com/technology/business-insider-cuts-21-workforce-memo-shows-2025-05-29/

It says Business Insider is laying off 21% of its workforce and adopting AI to write its articles.

[ChpBstrd]

I haven't read the article, but I did happen to come across this news bit---- https://www.reuters.com/technology/business-insider-cuts-21-workforce-memo-shows-2025-05-29/

It says Business Insider is laying off 21% of its workforce and adopting AI to write its articles.

This makes me optimistic about the pending decline of the internet. The AI will initially feed on mostly human-produced content, and will then become self-referential as the proportion of AI-generated to human-generated content increases, and will then become garbage.

[GuitarStv]

I haven't read the article, but I did happen to come across this news bit---- https://www.reuters.com/technology/business-insider-cuts-21-workforce-memo-shows-2025-05-29/

It says Business Insider is laying off 21% of its workforce and adopting AI to write its articles.

This makes me optimistic about the pending decline of the internet. The AI will initially feed on mostly human-produced content, and will then become self-referential as the proportion of AI-generated to human-generated content increases, and will then become garbage.

AI is already garbage.  You're telling me it's going to get worse???

[ChpBstrd]

I haven't read the article, but I did happen to come across this news bit---- https://www.reuters.com/technology/business-insider-cuts-21-workforce-memo-shows-2025-05-29/

It says Business Insider is laying off 21% of its workforce and adopting AI to write its articles.

This makes me optimistic about the pending decline of the internet. The AI will initially feed on mostly human-produced content, and will then become self-referential as the proportion of AI-generated to human-generated content increases, and will then become garbage.

AI is already garbage.  You're telling me it's going to get worse???

I desperately hope so. Death to the internet!

[RedmondStash]

Working in IT doesn't mean making glamor salary. I worked in IT for 20 years and never broke 6 figures. There are lots of lower-paying jobs in IT. Basically, the farther away your job function is from actual programming, the less $$ you make.

Plus -- some people are bad at managing their finances, and live beyond their means. Or have big medical expenses. Or are supporting aging parents or, as in this article, adult children. Max out a few credit cards at punitive interest, and you can spend some pretty big bucks pretty quickly. Throw in a big mortgage, vacation travel, upgrading cars every few years -- yeah, you can spend big.

I just figured he got a 3% or 6% match on his 401k, invested it in poorly performing, high-ER assets, ended up with a modest nest egg that he thought had to be good because 1) 30 years, and 2) employer match, and overspent.

But yeah the article is quite vague. How big was his nest egg? What was his AA? Most importantly, what was his annual spend? Without that info, you can't really tell if what he's saying makes sense.