Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire?

[AlanStache]

...
Sure the cash position is a drag on portfolio performance. But how is it any worse or different than working OMY in 2022. If you retired in 2021 and felt the market was over priced so you built a cash reserve to use for a market downturn, how is that worse than continuing to work while the market is down?

Well using cash is a contingency plain against RE failure and there for bad, but OMY is not RE so it cant be a failure of RE so is good!  /s

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
Sure the cash position is a drag on portfolio performance. But how is it any worse or different than working OMY in 2022. If you retired in 2021 and felt the market was over priced so you built a cash reserve to use for a market downturn, how is that worse than continuing to work while the market is down?

Well using cash is a contingency plain against RE failure and there for bad, but OMY is not RE so it cant be a failure of RE so is good!  /s

On an earlier post, I started an exercise to try to quantify how much cash it takes to equal OMY.  It is a lot more complicated that people realize.  For example, OMY typically provides more generous healthcare and dental coverage (I'd love to hear from ACA-plan people though) and you can efficiently invest in a 401k, get some paid leave, and various other benefits.  You also have more tax drag, but that just offsets income.  There are also little things like extra contributions to Social Security (increased benefits in the future), short term and long term disability insurance (hard to evaluate - if you get sick or injured and are covered, this is invaluable, but if ER and disabled?)... 

So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses. 

[rantk81]

On an earlier post, I started an exercise to try to quantify how much cash it takes to equal OMY.  It is a lot more complicated that people realize.  For example, OMY typically provides more generous healthcare and dental coverage (I'd love to hear from ACA-plan people though) and you can efficiently invest in a 401k, get some paid leave, and various other benefits.  You also have more tax drag, but that just offsets income.  There are also little things like extra contributions to Social Security (increased benefits in the future), short term and long term disability insurance (hard to evaluate - if you get sick or injured and are covered, this is invaluable, but if ER and disabled?)... 

So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.

Great points.  I'm in the "OMY++" stage of my time horizon.
I like to view it this way:  If I'm already FI and could RE, then presumably, my existing investments would fully fund my lifestyle.  Since I'm also working at this time, then I can consider all of my compensation from a W-2 job as being contributed toward a "100%" savings rate. :)
All of the "little things" with minor tweaks to benefits and stuff are kind of just "rounding errors" IMO.

[Morning Glory]

...
Sure the cash position is a drag on portfolio performance. But how is it any worse or different than working OMY in 2022. If you retired in 2021 and felt the market was over priced so you built a cash reserve to use for a market downturn, how is that worse than continuing to work while the market is down?

Well using cash is a contingency plain against RE failure and there for bad, but OMY is not RE so it cant be a failure of RE so is good!  /s

On an earlier post, I started an exercise to try to quantify how much cash it takes to equal OMY.  It is a lot more complicated that people realize.  For example, OMY typically provides more generous healthcare and dental coverage (I'd love to hear from ACA-plan people though) and you can efficiently invest in a 401k, get some paid leave, and various other benefits.  You also have more tax drag, but that just offsets income.  There are also little things like extra contributions to Social Security (increased benefits in the future), short term and long term disability insurance (hard to evaluate - if you get sick or injured and are covered, this is invaluable, but if ER and disabled?)... 

So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.

I disagree with your last statement.  Most people have a >0 amount of expenses that will go away if they are not working (clothes, extra gas for the car). Some can be really big e.g. daycare, outsourced domestic tasks, transit/tolls, higher marginal tax rates, etc.

For healthcare, its ymmv. My current aca health plan costs less in both premiums and deductibles/ co-pays than the last work one I had, however I have seen forum posts about much better employer insurance than I've ever had.  I feel much healthier now that I'm not working,  that has to be worth something.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
Sure the cash position is a drag on portfolio performance. But how is it any worse or different than working OMY in 2022. If you retired in 2021 and felt the market was over priced so you built a cash reserve to use for a market downturn, how is that worse than continuing to work while the market is down?

Well using cash is a contingency plain against RE failure and there for bad, but OMY is not RE so it cant be a failure of RE so is good!  /s

On an earlier post, I started an exercise to try to quantify how much cash it takes to equal OMY.  It is a lot more complicated that people realize.  For example, OMY typically provides more generous healthcare and dental coverage (I'd love to hear from ACA-plan people though) and you can efficiently invest in a 401k, get some paid leave, and various other benefits.  You also have more tax drag, but that just offsets income.  There are also little things like extra contributions to Social Security (increased benefits in the future), short term and long term disability insurance (hard to evaluate - if you get sick or injured and are covered, this is invaluable, but if ER and disabled?)... 

So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.

I disagree with your last statement.  Most people have a >0 amount of expenses that will go away if they are not working (clothes, extra gas for the car). Some can be really big e.g. daycare, outsourced domestic tasks, transit/tolls, higher marginal tax rates, etc.

For healthcare, its ymmv. My current aca health plan costs less in both premiums and deductibles/ co-pays than the last work one I had, however I have seen forum posts about much better employer insurance than I've ever had.  I feel much healthier now that I'm not working,  that has to be worth something.

That's why there is no 'one size fits all' answer to how much OMY is worth, each situation will be different.  Saving daycare expenses is probably the most obvious case where, having one lower earning parent stay home could be about equivalent to working that year, but folks typically note having savings rates at 50% or higher.  That would mean that their OMY is worth at least 2 years of expenses, quite likely MUCH higher.  That investment than gets at least one year of (hopefully) positive real returns to further boost its value.

It's the FIRE paradox, the more your OMY is worth (in cash equivalent), the quicker you'd be able to FIRE :)

[AlanStache]

...
Well using cash is a contingency plain against RE failure and there for bad, but OMY is not RE so it cant be a failure of RE so is good!  /s

On an earlier post, I started an exercise to try to quantify how much cash it takes to equal OMY.  It is a lot more complicated that people realize.  For example, OMY typically provides more generous healthcare and dental coverage (I'd love to hear from ACA-plan people though) and you can efficiently invest in a 401k, get some paid leave, and various other benefits.  You also have more tax drag, but that just offsets income.  There are also little things like extra contributions to Social Security (increased benefits in the future), short term and long term disability insurance (hard to evaluate - if you get sick or injured and are covered, this is invaluable, but if ER and disabled?)... 

So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.
[/quote]

Sorry that was intended as sarcasm, but EV you did give a very good concise explanation of the issues. 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS

[dividendman]

<snip>
So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.

Of course if you get really sick or really disabled you may regret the OMY more than the benefits. Imagine going OMY at some job you hate then getting a terminal illness or some illness that makes you unable to do a lot of the things you were planning on in RE? Then the OMY cost a lot.

[TempusFugit]

I try to keep it pretty simple when considering the OMY option.   In my own situation, I figure OMY working = 2 years additional retirement spending.  Instead of spending 60-70K from my stash, I would be adding 50K and I also hold my projected lifespan constant, so there is one less year of spending in retirement (yay?)

[bmjohnson35]

People tend to oversimplify these evaluations.  There are an infinite number of scenarios for FIRE and trying to fit everyone into a single box doesn't work.    People may have pensions, be collecting dividends, collecting rent from real estate properties or any number of different income sources. My spouse is 10 yrs older than me and collects SS. I'm not eligible for SS for another 10 yrs.  The point is that cash reserves is only one contingency and it likely doesn't have to completely fund their annual expenses. For example, if a couple lives off $35k annually and have some income sources that don't require selling investment shares during a downturn, they may only need to use $10k in cash reserves to meet their needs.  Some would argue that a person or a couple who works PT is not FIRE'd or falls under a different label than FIRE.  Regardless of your stance on that topic, if a person or a couple could work a simple PT job for 1-2 days a week or even seasonly, it's still likely better to them to do this than one or both of them having to continue the full time grind.   

[dividendman]

Part of the reason 2022 looks so bad is that the stock market peaked at the start of the year.

Right when I pulled the retirement plug! Somehow I'm not very bothered. Stocks and bonds are down, yes, but my reverse equity glidepath has a couple of years of cash (included in the bond %) so I haven't sold anything at a low yet. Maybe if this keeps up for a couple of years I'll start to get worried.

I’m sure that you are aware of all the flaws and criticisms of the cash buffer and how little it holds up to scrutiny, but I guess if it helps you sleep better then there is value in that.

I will though just reiterate that imo a 25x portfolio +2yr cash buffer is just a roundabout way of saying a 27x portfolio with a 7.4% cash allocation with no strict rules on internal asset allocation.

Well, I do have some strict rules per my IPS, below is the post RE portion of the IPS (that I started in 2017 when I first "retired" then went back to work, but stuck to the below):

   - To implement a rising equity glidepath of investments
      - this means starting with VTI/VEU/(BND or cash), of 48%/27%/25%
      - reducing the bond allocation by 2% (1% to each domestic and international) a year for the first 10 years
      - the final breakdown after 10 years will be 58/37/5
      - keep 1 to 2 year of expenses in short term bonds/cash (included in the bond allocation)

So, currently I have VTI/VEU/(BND or cash) at 53%/32%/15% (since I'm 5 years in)

Of that 15% I have 4% in < 1 year T-bills or ibonds, so it's not on top of my other investments.

All of that being said, in Feb/22 when I RE for the second time I had about a 3% withdrawal rate due to the crazy runup of the markets. So it's like a 33x portfolio at the market peak back in Feb/22 and therefore can be mocked and ridiculed for being well beyond 25x at RE and I shouldn't comment on any of the threads on the viability of 25x.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

<snip>
So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.

Of course if you get really sick or really disabled you may regret the OMY more than the benefits. Imagine going OMY at some job you hate then getting a terminal illness or some illness that makes you unable to do a lot of the things you were planning on in RE? Then the OMY cost a lot.

On the flip side, and this has happened more than once, someone close to retirement is diagnosed with cancer, uses their company benefits (health insurance, short term disability, etc.) and gets well, then retires soon after.  Saves them a TON of money and stress vs. going through that unemployed.  Again, YMMV, just noting that there are two sides to the situation to be aware of.

[RWTL]

I try to keep it pretty simple when considering the OMY option.   In my own situation, I figure OMY working = 2 years additional retirement spending.  Instead of spending 60-70K from my stash, I would be adding 50K and I also hold my projected lifespan constant, so there is one less year of spending in retirement (yay?)

It's also a good way to put some back of the napkin math around the time vs money trade-off since you are keeping your lifespan constant.

So, you trade 110-120K for 1 year less in retirement.   Only you can decide if it is worth it or not.

[mistymoney]

...
Sure the cash position is a drag on portfolio performance. But how is it any worse or different than working OMY in 2022. If you retired in 2021 and felt the market was over priced so you built a cash reserve to use for a market downturn, how is that worse than continuing to work while the market is down?

Well using cash is a contingency plain against RE failure and there for bad, but OMY is not RE so it cant be a failure of RE so is good!  /s

On an earlier post, I started an exercise to try to quantify how much cash it takes to equal OMY.  It is a lot more complicated that people realize.  For example, OMY typically provides more generous healthcare and dental coverage (I'd love to hear from ACA-plan people though) and you can efficiently invest in a 401k, get some paid leave, and various other benefits.  You also have more tax drag, but that just offsets income.  There are also little things like extra contributions to Social Security (increased benefits in the future), short term and long term disability insurance (hard to evaluate - if you get sick or injured and are covered, this is invaluable, but if ER and disabled?)... 

So in short, it's really hard to know how much cash it takes to be equivalent to OMY, and if you get sick or disabled during that time, OMY has much higher value...  But OMY is worth much more than one year of expenses.

I disagree with your last statement.  Most people have a >0 amount of expenses that will go away if they are not working (clothes, extra gas for the car). Some can be really big e.g. daycare, outsourced domestic tasks, transit/tolls, higher marginal tax rates, etc.

For healthcare, its ymmv. My current aca health plan costs less in both premiums and deductibles/ co-pays than the last work one I had, however I have seen forum posts about much better employer insurance than I've ever had.  I feel much healthier now that I'm not working,  that has to be worth something.

I'd say that it is more than 1 more year of expenses, but your exceptions to the costs of working are valid. I also don't think it is that hard to quantify at all. $$ Spent on living-$$costs associated with working+$$additional savings and SS benefit accrual. health insurance can be calculated and added in just get a premium quote somewhere. LTD and STD and other more fringy benefits are highly likely not to be used and therefore rather neglibile in the estimate of value.

So I think 2 years of cash to live on would likely pretty closely approx OMY in terms of value to the portfolio once the two years of cash runs out. In a kinda sorta approximation. Which I usually find more compelling than and exact to the penny comparison that is likely rife with assumptions and estimations.

And I think there is a limit to how much OMYing is going to be a buffer. No one is going to just keep working for 10 years waiting for everything to sort out in the markets and economics like inflation. 4% is likely going to result in some eventual trouble down the line right now. So what would work? I think that  is the better focus, and I think 3 or 3.33% has been thrown out as "working".

Although - if you were at 4% and then lost 20% or so of value, then you're at 5% and it would take a lot more than 1 year to get to 3% without a recovery. That is where an extra year of credit towards pension and/or SS would be helpful.

But anyone who started out this year with a meaningfully less than 4% WR - maybe 3.5?, I think would be justified in thinking they are in good shape.

And I think if someone had 25* in stocks, plus 2 years cash, that would put them at 3.7% - and with no selling of assets for 2 years, I think that could really work, depending on where we head in the next year or two.

Those of us who were just desparately trying to edge towards a 4%, yeah. OMY is looking more likely.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I try to keep it pretty simple when considering the OMY option.   In my own situation, I figure OMY working = 2 years additional retirement spending.  Instead of spending 60-70K from my stash, I would be adding 50K and I also hold my projected lifespan constant, so there is one less year of spending in retirement (yay?)

It's also a good way to put some back of the napkin math around the time vs money trade-off since you are keeping your lifespan constant.

So, you trade 110-120K for 1 year less in retirement.   Only you can decide if it is worth it or not.

To be more precise, it’s one less year of Early retirement.  Most everyone retires by 65 once you start getting penalized for not using Medicare and Social Security.

[Omy]

 
Regardless of your stance on that topic, if a person or a couple could work a simple PT job for 1-2 days a week or even seasonly, it's still likely better to them to do this than one or both of them having to continue the full time grind.

In our situation, working 2 more years increased our stash significantly...i think it added close to a $1M. Not shutting off the firehose of money and stock options prematurely (and allowing the market to do it's thing during that time) was worth not ever feeling the pressure to have to work PT again. I received a few face punches for having that stance in 2018, but the security we feel now has been well worth it.

[mistymoney]

 
Regardless of your stance on that topic, if a person or a couple could work a simple PT job for 1-2 days a week or even seasonly, it's still likely better to them to do this than one or both of them having to continue the full time grind.

In our situation, working 2 more years increased our stash significantly...i think it added close to a $1M. Not shutting off the firehose of money and stock options prematurely (and allowing the market to do it's thing during that time) was worth not ever feeling the pressure to have to work PT again. I received a few face punches for having that stance in 2018, but the security we feel now has been well worth it.

Now that is straight rom the horse's mouth!!!

Full disclosure: TMYs would not get me anywhere near an extra 1 mill.....so not sure how inormative that is for the average josephine!

[Omy]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about  the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

$1MM might be an anomaly, but they do make sure that the golden handcuffs get a bit shinier the more they sense you are FI.  Catch up contributions starting at 50 (an additional $6,500 in 2022), peak salary, severance packages, deferred vesting...  Easy to ignore in your 30's, but by late 40's there is a lot you leave on the table, especially if you are eligible for full retirement benefits at 55 + years of service.

I know this comes up a lot with public employees.

[mistymoney]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

Oh I am right there - right now. Singing to Dione Warwick "I know I'll never, earn this much again, so I keep holding on, till all the doubts are gone...."

https://youtu.be/FAu73aOa2HQ

I try to feel a sense of accomplishment and progress every pay day!

[tooqk4u22]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I am close to going back to old role provided money's there, but even if they didn't come calling I would have to be pretty dire to take a low job/income....that would be a failure to me.

[Metalcat]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I am close to going back to old role provided money's there, but even if they didn't come calling I would have to be pretty dire to take a low job/income....that would be a failure to me.

Yeah, which is why a lot of high earners like me build up options for high earnings. Retirement leaves a lot of time for developing work options.

I can't go back to my high paying career but I cannot fathom a reality where my best option is working a low paying job.

[mistymoney]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I'm not understanding your numbers. what money is 1-10X more for high earners? and what money is 0.2x more?

[Highbeam]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I'm not understanding your numbers. what money is 1-10X more for high earners? and what money is 0.2x more?

Earnings at the regular job today are 1-10x greater than earnings per hour at future part time gig.

[Morning Glory]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I'm not understanding your numbers. what money is 1-10X more for high earners? and what money is 0.2x more?

Earnings at the regular job today are 1-10x greater than earnings per hour at future part time gig.

How do you know this? Doesn't it depend on your field and location? Won't inflation work in your favor at least a little here?

 I really don't understand the fear of having to start over at minimum wage in the same field if you quit as an executive. Wouldn't prior experience count? Wouldn’t the lowest possible pay be what new college grads start at, not the actual minimum wage?

[clifp]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I'm not understanding your numbers. what money is 1-10X more for high earners? and what money is 0.2x more?

Earnings at the regular job today are 1-10x greater than earnings per hour at future part time gig.

How do you know this? Doesn't it depend on your field and location? Won't inflation work in your favor at least a little here?

 I really don't understand the fear of having to start over at minimum wage in the same field if you quit as an executive. Wouldn't prior experience count? Wouldn’t the lowest possible pay be what new college grads start at, not the actual minimum wage?

The problem is that you very well may not be able to work in the same field.  The jobs I was offered paid about 20-25% of my base salary and 10-15% of my total compensation. Now, if I actively looked for a job in say marketing, I would have been hard pressed for my pay to be 30-50% of my Intel pay. . This does not count the inflation from 2000 to say 2010.  Only about 1/3 of workers make over $100k, if you haven't been working for several years it is really hard to convince a company to pay you $100K, in many parts of the country.   

I think assuming a floor of what new college grad gets is a reasonable assumption, but that basically the same as 50-70% pay cut.

[Metalcat]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I'm not understanding your numbers. what money is 1-10X more for high earners? and what money is 0.2x more?

Earnings at the regular job today are 1-10x greater than earnings per hour at future part time gig.

But why would a high earner be limited $15/hr gigs?

I totally get it that some people, once they stop working, never want to ever have to work again. But I seriously think that's more of an anticipatory fear than an actual problem in reality. At least that's what my lived experience tells me. Most people in my life who work part time in retirement command high compensation for it.

Industrious people who already put in the work to develop valuable skills tend to be so well equipped to make money that it's really not that hard to find ways to extract money from the system in the future.

When you have A LOT of time and A LOT of resources, it's just not that hard.

So the very people who have the most to "lose" by leaving highly compensated jobs are also often the people who have the most capacity to generate opportunities in the future.

I personally wouldn't leave a job I enjoyed at the height of my income, during fucked up economic times. Of course I wouldn't. I'm just saying that this sad, hard to find, shitty paying, part time boogey man job that so many people here invoke just isn't as much of a reality as people tend to think.

Obviously, if someone is being heinously over paid for mediocre skills and doesn't actually have skills of real value, and if they leave, they can never hope to ever get that income ever again, or anything close to it, even if they were to retrain, then sure, that person should be much more cautious about un-latching from the golden teet. 100%.

However, I also think that many, many highly capable professionals have blinders on to the myriad possibilities for being *highly* compensated for interesting work outside of their specific professional experience. And having free time makes generating those possibilities so much easier.

Industrious people tend to be industrious.

The truth of it is that for many of us, there just isn't much difference between tapping into our human capital early or throughout our lives. It's more of a personal preference.

If the preference truly is to never, ever do anything ever again that is worthy of compensation, then cool. Plan accordingly, and definitely don't bank on only 25X reasonably estimated expenses. That's just batshit nuts.

But if that preference is driven by fear of being stuck slinging burgers for minimum wage, I think that's a consequence that could only result from incredibly poor planning, and people who make high incomes don't tend to be poor planners.

I just don't think this dichotomy of work now or be doomed to work for pennies on the dollar later is very realistic for most people in *this* particular community.

Gen Pop? Perhaps moreso, but not the kind of folks who get up early and make financial graphs before going to work at their highly paid side gig that they're trying out while on sabbatical from their elite academic job, right @maizefolk?

I would bet my more functional leg that half the posters in this thread could generate equal or higher hourly equivalent part time incomes if they really wanted to. Yes, it would take work, but as I said, it's personal preference whether that's more appealing than staying put a few more years.

And I think I'm being pretty conservative when I say "half."

[Metalcat]

Yes...we might have been an anomaly, but your final career years are usually the most lucrative. I think a lot of people who think it's easier/better to just work a bit later if needed aren't really considering that you will likely be making pennies on the dollar at the PT barista job compared to what was being thrown at you in the last few years of your "real" job.

After 3 years of FIRE, I'd be miserable if I was freaking about about the stock market and inflation and had to seriously consider going back to the stress of working...even if it was just a PT gig.

Yeah, I think this is underestimated.   For high earners omy can equal 1-10x more money.  For me the fallback of getting a $15/hr job to offset some SORR was completely unpalatable.....so I can end up working omy for like 0.2x more.

I'm not understanding your numbers. what money is 1-10X more for high earners? and what money is 0.2x more?

Earnings at the regular job today are 1-10x greater than earnings per hour at future part time gig.

How do you know this? Doesn't it depend on your field and location? Won't inflation work in your favor at least a little here?

 I really don't understand the fear of having to start over at minimum wage in the same field if you quit as an executive. Wouldn't prior experience count? Wouldn’t the lowest possible pay be what new college grads start at, not the actual minimum wage?

The problem is that you very well may not be able to work in the same field.  The jobs I was offered paid about 20-25% of my base salary and 10-15% of my total compensation. Now, if I actively looked for a job in say marketing, I would have been hard pressed for my pay to be 30-50% of my Intel pay. . This does not count the inflation from 2000 to say 2010.  Only about 1/3 of workers make over $100k, if you haven't been working for several years it is really hard to convince a company to pay you $100K, in many parts of the country.   

I think assuming a floor of what new college grad gets is a reasonable assumption, but that basically the same as 50-70% pay cut.

It very much depends on the field and what retraining you are willing to do.

What *is* an issue is that many professionals haven't learned the networking and opportunity-building skills required for generating lucrative opportunities outside of the conventional job ladder world.

It is a different skillset. Which again, it's a matter of personal preference whether someone wants to bother leaning that or just sticking with their day-job for awhile.

The population here are VERY big on research and learning though, so I have pretty high faith in them. 

[dmc]

First off I havnt read much of this thread.  But I did early retire back in 2007.  Sure I was a little concerned 08-10, but so far everything has been fine.

Now I’m 65 and glad I had all those years that my time was my own. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

First off I havnt read much of this thread.  But I did early retire back in 2007.  Sure I was a little concerned 08-10, but so far everything has been fine.

Now I’m 65 and glad I had all those years that my time was my own.

Congratulations on retiring at 50, that’s my goal also.  On this board it’s hardly considered early though!  One more year…

[StarBright]

But why would a high earner be limited $15/hr gigs?

I totally get it that some people, once they stop working, never want to ever have to work again. But I seriously think that's more of an anticipatory fear than an actual problem in reality. At least that's what my lived experience tells me. Most people in my life who work part time in retirement command high compensation for it.

Industrious people who already put in the work to develop valuable skills tend to be so well equipped to make money that it's really not that hard to find ways to extract money from the system in the future.

When you have A LOT of time and A LOT of resources, it's just not that hard.

So the very people who have the most to "lose" by leaving highly compensated jobs are also often the people who have the most capacity to generate opportunities in the future.

I personally wouldn't leave a job I enjoyed at the height of my income, during fucked up economic times. Of course I wouldn't. I'm just saying that this sad, hard to find, shitty paying, part time boogey man job that so many people here invoke just isn't as much of a reality as people tend to think.

Obviously, if someone is being heinously over paid for mediocre skills and doesn't actually have skills of real value, and if they leave, they can never hope to ever get that income ever again, or anything close to it, even if they were to retrain, then sure, that person should be much more cautious about un-latching from the golden teet. 100%.

However, I also think that many, many highly capable professionals have blinders on to the myriad possibilities for being *highly* compensated for interesting work outside of their specific professional experience. And having free time makes generating those possibilities so much easier.

Industrious people tend to be industrious.

The truth of it is that for many of us, there just isn't much difference between tapping into our human capital early or throughout our lives. It's more of a personal preference.

If the preference truly is to never, ever do anything ever again that is worthy of compensation, then cool. Plan accordingly, and definitely don't bank on only 25X reasonably estimated expenses. That's just batshit nuts.

But if that preference is driven by fear of being stuck slinging burgers for minimum wage, I think that's a consequence that could only result from incredibly poor planning, and people who make high incomes don't tend to be poor planners.

I just don't think this dichotomy of work now or be doomed to work for pennies on the dollar later is very realistic for most people in *this* particular community.

Gen Pop? Perhaps moreso, but not the kind of folks who get up early and make financial graphs before going to work at their highly paid side gig that they're trying out while on sabbatical from their elite academic job, right @maizefolk?

I would bet my more functional leg that half the posters in this thread could generate equal or higher hourly equivalent part time incomes if they really wanted to. Yes, it would take work, but as I said, it's personal preference whether that's more appealing than staying put a few more years.

And I think I'm being pretty conservative when I say "half."

I wonder if this is a fairly specific American and regional boogyman? Retraining is expensive in the US. You might need 20-50k set aside for retraining depending on what you want to get into.

And regionally, I've seen very different options in the midwest vs. the east coast of the US. In the Midlantic and New England a graduate degree and work experience seem to be enough to get you in the door for most knowledge work. In the Midwest people want industry specific degrees and regional schools are preferable.

I will never forget an interview I did in Indiana where the interviewer asked if Johns Hopkins was a good school because he had never heard of it. And then asked if it was ranked as high as state U. It can be so insular.  Since we've moved back to the midwest I've reached out to recruiters and been told I'll need to get another bachelor's degree in the field I work in if I want to job hop. I make decent money, but don't love what I do, so no way am I going to spend 3-4 years getting a degree in it.

[MisterA]

First off I havnt read much of this thread.  But I did early retire back in 2007.  Sure I was a little concerned 08-10, but so far everything has been fine.

Now I’m 65 and glad I had all those years that my time was my own.

Congratulations on 15 years not working, so much time to suit yourself!

And thanks for your incite, which I think is very useful in the current situation.

[nereo]

I’m left wondering how much of this discussion on post -RE pay and retraining costs is hyperbole and how much is driven by uncertainty and fear.

First, I don’t see anyone with with experience getting $15/hr anymore. Starting positions are advertising $18 and up, professionals with experience can easily double that.

As for “retraining” and networking - that seems largely a strategy, not a reactive movement. If you mail that door shut it might very well take the tens of thousands of dollars some here expect and hundreds of hours, but that’s kind of like waiting till your roof is leaking to start looking at solutions and hoping there’s no minimal disruption to your daily life.  The effort can be fairly minimal is you consider it well in advance.

As for needing to branch out - retirement is leaving your field, potentially permanently. Yet people are entrenched with their identity of what they used to be so much that they consider doing something outside that a a “failure”? Alternatively, consider it growth.

… but I’m just cranky today…

[EvenSteven]

I’m left wondering how much of this discussion on post -RE pay and retraining costs is hyperbole and how much is driven by uncertainty and fear.

First, I don’t see anyone with with experience getting $15/hr anymore. Starting positions are advertising $18 and up, professionals with experience can easily double that.

As for “retraining” and networking - that seems largely a strategy, not a reactive movement. If you mail that door shut it might very well take the tens of thousands of dollars some here expect and hundreds of hours, but that’s kind of like waiting till your roof is leaking to start looking at solutions and hoping there’s no minimal disruption to your daily life.  The effort can be fairly minimal is you consider it well in advance.

As for needing to branch out - retirement is leaving your field, potentially permanently. Yet people are entrenched with their identity of what they used to be so much that they consider doing something outside that a a “failure”? Alternatively, consider it growth.

… but I’m just cranky today…

There is also the part where, with low-ish expenses, it takes very little income to make a very large difference in your withdrawal rate. Lets say you walk on down to the local micro brewery and pour beers 3 nights a week for four hours (surely a fate worse than death!!). If you have expenses of 40K per year, you just dropped your withdrawal rate from 4% to 3%, a huge difference.

[AlanStache]

...
As for “retraining” and networking - that seems largely a strategy, not a reactive movement. If you mail that door shut it might very well take the tens of thousands of dollars some here expect and hundreds of hours, but that’s kind of like waiting till your roof is leaking to start looking at solutions and hoping there’s no minimal disruption to your daily life.  The effort can be fairly minimal is you consider it well in advance.

As for needing to branch out - retirement is leaving your field, potentially permanently. Yet people are entrenched with their identity of what they used to be so much that they consider doing something outside that a a “failure”? Alternatively, consider it growth.

… but I’m just cranky today…

I am not 100% clear on what you are indenting to say. 

Hypothetical time line
year 0: FIRE with no intent to ever have a "real" job again
year 2: Market down 30%, decide I an not comfortable with the size of the stache or withdrawal rate.
year 2.1: Do a credentialed bootcamp, spend 2k-5k$.
year ~3: Get job in with new credential.
year 3+: make +70k / year.  What is the lowest hourly rate I could make as a retired engineer with a fresh credential in <something trendy>?
year ~5: down shift or re-FIRE
year +5: profit

At year 2.1 when I start the program I would still have a crap ton of money and going broke would still be 10-20 years out.  The making money in year +3 is about not going broke when I am 70 or 80 not in the imminent future. 

"dig the well before you are trusty" and all that, but that sort of contradicts the likely success of FIRE without having to work again.  Why should I plain on FIRE failing and go get a credential early on or "while (true) {OMY}". 


*Edit - Ok so you say it will be hard to get a job in year 3, fine but I dont need the money in year 3 I need is so I dont go broke in year 20-30.  If I dont get a job till year 4 well that is not great and maybe I will have to work longer as I would be living on savings in a down market they re-buying investments in a partly recovered market. but this is a contingency plain and still not that bad. 

[Metalcat]

I wonder if this is a fairly specific American and regional boogyman? Retraining is expensive in the US. You might need 20-50k set aside for retraining depending on what you want to get into.

And regionally, I've seen very different options in the midwest vs. the east coast of the US. In the Midlantic and New England a graduate degree and work experience seem to be enough to get you in the door for most knowledge work. In the Midwest people want industry specific degrees and regional schools are preferable.

I will never forget an interview I did in Indiana where the interviewer asked if Johns Hopkins was a good school because he had never heard of it. And then asked if it was ranked as high as state U. It can be so insular.  Since we've moved back to the midwest I've reached out to recruiters and been told I'll need to get another bachelor's degree in the field I work in if I want to job hop. I make decent money, but don't love what I do, so no way am I going to spend 3-4 years getting a degree in it.

I also tend to think outside the box. So when I say retrain, it could mean to add free courses in internet marketing in order to boost your utility as a consultant, because really, it doesn't take much, lol.

There's a big difference between trying to compete with young, eager (desperate) folks for proper, full time, listed jobs with benefits, vs generating opportunities to be paid for your expert level skills.

We had a retiree here on the forums from a medical field here who became a technical writer for example. I found an online course for $14 and got the training I needed to do medical technical writing. I don't enjoy it very much, but it's a skillset I could lean on for decent income at any time.

I can only speak directly to my own experience, but seriously, it has not been hard at all. I recently picked up a part time job that pays me $35/hr, which is the lowest I'll accept for a job I wouldn't do for free. It's dumbfuck, stupid, easy, reasonably fun work, and insanely flexible, which is great because I need to be able to book 6-12 weeks off at a time for surgeries with little lead time, lol.

It basically took me a day to get that job because I had a whim that I wanted to make a bit of money, and it's not even tangentially related to my previous career, it's related to my volunteer work on my condo board, which I only did because I was retired and had free time.

But yeah, I just personally don't see it as difficult to foster skills that can make you money. I think it's actually remarkably easy when you're retired, because what the hell else are you going to do?

Hell, I have a drinks date with my disability lawyer next week, and I'm pretty sure he's going to try again to hire me to do consulting for his law firm. That job doesn't exist, no one can apply for it. But there's an opportunity there for me to make money.

[dmc]

I guess I don’t understand.  I thought retired means not working for money.  In the last 15 years I only worked one week for money.  I was asked to fill in at my old job so my replacement could take a vacation.  And I made sure I asked for enough that they did not ask again.  I did it more as a favor to him, and to stay on good terms with my former company.  I never wanted to go back to work, but the company still invited me out to ball games and company outings that I enjoyed.

I would have cut back on my lifestyle some before getting another job. 

I will say this has been my worse year financially, I never had to deal with a down market along with high inflation.  I also live in SW Florida and have to deal with some hurricane damage and outrageous quotes for repairs.  The timing is not the best.  But we have lived within our means always, so I’m not worried at this point.  We will just cut back on some discretionary spending till things settle down a bit. 

[nereo]

I guess I don’t understand.  I thought retired means not working for money. 

This is a key source of disagreement. To some, being retired means never working for money again. That’s a very bright line, and it appears you are in that camp. To others, the concept is more fluid and centers more around financial independence and a shift away from one’s primary occupation.

While there is a ver6 strong appeal to the simplicity of the former, there’s lots of data to show a big chunk of self-identified “retired” people occasionally do things which earn money or get compensation in other ways. One can either decide those people are not really retired, or that retirement isn’t strictly about not earning money.

[Metalcat]

I guess I don’t understand.  I thought retired means not working for money.  In the last 15 years I only worked one week for money.  I was asked to fill in at my old job so my replacement could take a vacation.  And I made sure I asked for enough that they did not ask again.  I did it more as a favor to him, and to stay on good terms with my former company.  I never wanted to go back to work, but the company still invited me out to ball games and company outings that I enjoyed.

I would have cut back on my lifestyle some before getting another job. 

I will say this has been my worse year financially, I never had to deal with a down market along with high inflation.  I also live in SW Florida and have to deal with some hurricane damage and outrageous quotes for repairs.  The timing is not the best.  But we have lived within our means always, so I’m not worried at this point.  We will just cut back on some discretionary spending till things settle down a bit.

Yeah, it's been talked about for pages in this thread.

But really, look at it this way. If you hit 25X your savings goal and have a 4% WR, and you don't feel that's enough and want to save more, then you have to work more.

You can either work more full time years now or work more later, perhaps part time. Either way, you have to work more. Calling one retirement and the other something else doesn't change that.

For some people working more now is best, for others working more later is best.

Whatever we call it, it's still working more.

What we're debating right now is not whether or not to call working later "retirement," I mean, that's arbitrary. What we're debating is whether or not working later is really as difficult and low paying as so many people assume it will be.

[BlueMR2]

First, I don’t see anyone with with experience getting $15/hr anymore. Starting positions are advertising $18 and up, professionals with experience can easily double that.

It's a really weird market around here right now.  Experienced general office work jobs are only offering $12-13 while fast food is offering $15-18 now.  Quite the opposite from the historical norm.  Now office workers aspire to work fast food some day!  :D

[Omy]

By Retirement Police standards, we're failing miserably.

Last week DH spent an hour moving $50k from one bank to another for a $500 bonus we'll get in February. Not a bad hourly rate, but it felt like work.

Last year I made $10k for 5 hours on the phone. Obscene amount of money to be a matchmaker, but its definitely work.

We spend 100 hours per year managing 2 rentals that net us $35k a year. Mostly easy, sometimes awful work.

When we were contemplating retirement from our careers, we weren't considering these income streams and assumed our retirement expenses would be much higher than they've been. We were more focused on how the firehose of cash and stock options and free health insurance was going to stop. So we worked a couple more years because we didn't want to be Walmart greeters in our 70s.

But the surprising reality is that we continue to "work" 2-3 weeks a year (on landlording, cc/bonus hacking, matchmaking) at fairly high hourly rates which keep us from having to touch the stash.

I think I've just countered my argument that working a couple more years kept us from ever getting jobs again. The extra money in the bankroll is a nice cushion, but it's our ability to create lucrative, fairly passive income streams that will keep us from ever needing a minimum wage job.

[tooqk4u22]

The RE definitional line for me is at the time you RE you don't need or expect to have anymore earned income.   Doesn't mean thatbyou won't bc you stumbled into something fun or else or years down the road the SHTF and its necessary.   

As for the other comments on OMY or going back to work for high earners.....

$15/hr or $30/hr...what's the difference if you HAVE to do it when SHTF.....odds are when you need it those free caring fun drinkna beer jobs while you work probably won't be what is presented to you.  They will most likely be grudges roles where you will have to eat shit sandwiches while remembering that if I had only worked one more year it would have offset the potential of doing this crap for 5+ more years...ugh!  And keep in mind we are in a really strange employment environment now for a variety of reasons and shouldn't be used as a benchmark expectation.

The reality is that one's skills, network, and overall marketability rapidly declines the further from RE you go.....1-year, no problem.....2-3yr, eh tougher, will take pay cut 25%+ range, and will probably rely on someone from your old network.......5+ years, pretty much starting over just above entry level.    Also don't forget that age discrimination is a real thing, get to 50 with 5+ Yeats removed you will be looked at as will cost to much, will be to inflexible, will not be able to keep up or learn the latest and greatest etc.  Sure there are always exceptions.

Retraining - usually quite a bit of time and money so it doesn't really solve a near term $ need (and may compound it) and generally it means doing it to start an entry level role in the new field.   And sure there are those that find something fun and add cheap or free no work certificates to expand but that is an ongoing pursuit (I won't call it work per se) and is not the same as needing something real time now.   

I guess I don’t understand.  I thought retired means not working for money.  In the last 15 years I only worked one week for money.  I was asked to fill in at my old job so my replacement could take a vacation.  And I made sure I asked for enough that they did not ask again.  I did it more as a favor to him, and to stay on good terms with my former company.  I never wanted to go back to work, but the company still invited me out to ball games and company outings that I enjoyed.

I would have cut back on my lifestyle some before getting another job. 

I will say this has been my worse year financially, I never had to deal with a down market along with high inflation.  I also live in SW Florida and have to deal with some hurricane damage and outrageous quotes for repairs.  The timing is not the best.  But we have lived within our means always, so I’m not worried at this point.  We will just cut back on some discretionary spending till things settle down a bit.

Yeah, it's been talked about for pages in this thread.

But really, look at it this way. If you hit 25X your savings goal and have a 4% WR, and you don't feel that's enough and want to save more, then you have to work more.

You can either work more full time years now or work more later, perhaps part time. Either way, you have to work more. Calling one retirement and the other something else doesn't change that.

For some people working more now is best, for others working more later is best.

Whatever we call it, it's still working more.

What we're debating right now is not whether or not to call working later "retirement," I mean, that's arbitrary. What we're debating is whether or not working later is really as difficult and low paying as so many people assume it will be.

Keeping network current....just a form of unpaid ongoing work.  Don't get me wrong, it's smart to do and certainly is a partial hedge against the above scenarios but even then as you get further out the network will naturally wane as your ability to have real time examples of professional experiences or contributions will be lackluster.

Overall I generally agree that putting in the effort and dollars  with training, networking, putting yourself out there can lead to new job that pays more than $15/hr..well more in fact, but it probably will take considerable time to get there and when SHTF that's not what you want.  And sure you can build up all my credentials, network, retraining and do some $35/hr contract work (which probably doesn't factor in the time to get and train foe said contract work) but how many hours are there for the taking....I mean it might take some time to go from 3 hours a week to 30 hours a week or whatever....again longer time.

TLDR.....the longer you are removed from your career + the older you get = the greater likelihood that lower wage work will be your most viable option if additional $ are needed.  And it grows exponentially.

[TreeLeaf]

First, I don’t see anyone with with experience getting $15/hr anymore. Starting positions are advertising $18 and up, professionals with experience can easily double that.

It's a really weird market around here right now.  Experienced general office work jobs are only offering $12-13 while fast food is offering $15-18 now.  Quite the opposite from the historical norm.  Now office workers aspire to work fast food some day!  :D

Hahaha. That is hilarious.

My local YMCA has several positions open with pay listed as $9 per hour. There are tons of people who work there. Some of them have confirmed to me that they do, in fact, make $9 per hour. I have no idea how they survive.

[nereo]

There is also the part where, with low-ish expenses, it takes very little income to make a very large difference in your withdrawal rate. Lets say you walk on down to the local micro brewery and pour beers 3 nights a week for four hours (surely a fate worse than death!!). If you have expenses of 40K per year, you just dropped your withdrawal rate from 4% to 3%, a huge difference.

Interestingly my uncle basically does this - he spends 2 - 3 days a week tending bar at his favorite pub. He doesn’t even need the money, but likes that he gets to drink for free and it serves as his social connection. He works about 10-15 hours a week but between that and his SS it cuts his disbursement from his (sizeable)retirement account roughly in half.
I have no doubt if it ever stopped being interesting to him he would quit. Shrug.

[Morning Glory]

The RE definitional line for me is at the time you RE you don't need or expect to have anymore earned income.   Doesn't mean thatbyou won't bc you stumbled into something fun or else or years down the road the SHTF and its necessary.   

As for the other comments on OMY or going back to work for high earners.....

$15/hr or $30/hr...what's the difference if you HAVE to do it when SHTF.....odds are when you need it those free caring fun drinkna beer jobs while you work probably won't be what is presented to you.  They will most likely be grudges roles where you will have to eat shit sandwiches while remembering that if I had only worked one more year it would have offset the potential of doing this crap for 5+ more years...ugh!  And keep in mind we are in a really strange employment environment now for a variety of reasons and shouldn't be used as a benchmark expectation.

The reality is that one's skills, network, and overall marketability rapidly declines the further from RE you go.....1-year, no problem.....2-3yr, eh tougher, will take pay cut 25%+ range, and will probably rely on someone from your old network.......5+ years, pretty much starting over just above entry level.    Also don't forget that age discrimination is a real thing, get to 50 with 5+ Yeats removed you will be looked at as will cost to much, will be to inflexible, will not be able to keep up or learn the latest and greatest etc.  Sure there are always exceptions.

Retraining - usually quite a bit of time and money so it doesn't really solve a near term $ need (and may compound it) and generally it means doing it to start an entry level role in the new field.   And sure there are those that find something fun and add cheap or free no work certificates to expand but that is an ongoing pursuit (I won't call it work per se) and is not the same as needing something real time now.   

I guess I don’t understand.  I thought retired means not working for money.  In the last 15 years I only worked one week for money.  I was asked to fill in at my old job so my replacement could take a vacation.  And I made sure I asked for enough that they did not ask again.  I did it more as a favor to him, and to stay on good terms with my former company.  I never wanted to go back to work, but the company still invited me out to ball games and company outings that I enjoyed.

I would have cut back on my lifestyle some before getting another job. 

I will say this has been my worse year financially, I never had to deal with a down market along with high inflation.  I also live in SW Florida and have to deal with some hurricane damage and outrageous quotes for repairs.  The timing is not the best.  But we have lived within our means always, so I’m not worried at this point.  We will just cut back on some discretionary spending till things settle down a bit.

Yeah, it's been talked about for pages in this thread.

But really, look at it this way. If you hit 25X your savings goal and have a 4% WR, and you don't feel that's enough and want to save more, then you have to work more.

You can either work more full time years now or work more later, perhaps part time. Either way, you have to work more. Calling one retirement and the other something else doesn't change that.

For some people working more now is best, for others working more later is best.

Whatever we call it, it's still working more.

What we're debating right now is not whether or not to call working later "retirement," I mean, that's arbitrary. What we're debating is whether or not working later is really as difficult and low paying as so many people assume it will be.

Keeping network current....just a form of unpaid ongoing work.  Don't get me wrong, it's smart to do and certainly is a partial hedge against the above scenarios but even then as you get further out the network will naturally wane as your ability to have real time examples of professional experiences or contributions will be lackluster.

Overall I generally agree that putting in the effort and dollars  with training, networking, putting yourself out there can lead to new job that pays more than $15/hr..well more in fact, but it probably will take considerable time to get there and when SHTF that's not what you want.  And sure you can build up all my credentials, network, retraining and do some $35/hr contract work (which probably doesn't factor in the time to get and train foe said contract work) but how many hours are there for the taking....I mean it might take some time to go from 3 hours a week to 30 hours a week or whatever....again longer time.

TLDR.....the longer you are removed from your career + the older you get = the greater likelihood that lower wage work will be your most viable option if additional $ are needed.  And it grows exponentially.

I have RN licenses in 2 states, one if which is part of the interstate compact. I don't think my ability to get a part time job that pays more than $15 is going away any time soon, even if I don't "network". Travel companies are paying AD nurses barely out of school more than twice what I was making 2 years ago with a Master's degree and 15 years experience. Yes having to work long hours again would suck but it wouldn't be much different than what I've done before,  and contracts are usually only 3 months at a time. I dont see how leaving my full-time job and taking a badly needed break was an overly risky move, especially considering the fact that switching to a lower pay/better schedule job did not fix my burnout.

[maizefolk]

I would put nursing at one end of a spectrum (perpetual shortage of people who have the required degrees/licenses/willingness to work) and tenured professor at the other end of the same spectrum (huge amount of competition for very few jobs, very easy to replace someone who leaves).

Depending on where different people's jobs fall on that spectrum it is going to feel -- and be -- a lot easier or harder for them to return to working in the same field/same role with roughly the same compensation. Like risk tolerance itself (both risk of having to adjust ones lifestyle in FIRE and risk of losing additional years of ones life from working longer than needed), what returning to work looks isn't something where there is one general rule out there we are all going to be able to agree on.

[Arbitrage]

But really, look at it this way. If you hit 25X your savings goal and have a 4% WR, and you don't feel that's enough and want to save more, then you have to work more.

You can either work more full time years now or work more later, perhaps part time. Either way, you have to work more. Calling one retirement and the other something else doesn't change that.

Or you could do what my wife and I are both doing - work more now, but part-time instead of full-time.  Still definitely in the "not retired" bucket in my mind; I'm calling it coast-FI.  I didn't feel comfortable where we were when we ended our full-time employment and moved to our RE location.  Losing ~20% of the stash since then has not improved my comfort level.  Thankfully, we're enjoying our slower-paced lives and are still able to save around 40% of our income.  Looking forward to a market recovery that will give us the comfort level to pull the plug completely.  I will call it retirement once we leave our current jobs.

I'm not sure what to expect should the need arise to return to work down the road.  Because of our move, there will be far fewer job opportunities, particularly for me.  I'd expect a steep pay cut in whatever I find, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that I could find a remote job that wouldn't necessitate that.  As others have noted, though, frugal living combined with an existing stash means that even much lower-paying jobs have a huge impact in withdrawal rates.

[tooqk4u22]

I have RN licenses in 2 states, one if which is part of the interstate compact. I don't think my ability to get a part time job that pays more than $15 is going away any time soon, even if I don't "network". Travel companies are paying AD nurses barely out of school more than twice what I was making 2 years ago with a Master's degree and 15 years experience. Yes having to work long hours again would suck but it wouldn't be much different than what I've done before,  and contracts are usually only 3 months at a time. I dont see how leaving my full-time job and taking a badly needed break was an overly risky move, especially considering the fact that switching to a lower pay/better schedule job did not fix my burnout.

Yes in your case it may not be risky to take a break as you say, which infers that it is just that and not FIRE so more like a short or long sabbatical.  And as I said there are exceptions.

But it really doesn't refute the point.  If you have FIREd (ie expecting not to go back to work)  then foe this to be an option you will need to maintain your licenses/certifications, complete the periodic CE and such, and even then there will become a point where your skills will be, or will be viewed as, rusty and it will simply be easier to go with fresh out of school nurses and train them.

I have plenty of nurses in my circle, many of which do other things now bc it's tough, but they know it would be hard to go back at this point.   

Still, as to OP Topic, if somebody FIREs now in 2022 they will probably be fine even though there is probably still a bit of pain left in the markets and lingering inflation....but late 2021 or early 2022 at 4% rule....don't think so.

[StarBright]

I wonder if this is a fairly specific American and regional boogyman?  .  . .snip

I also tend to think outside the box. So when I say retrain, it could mean to add free courses in internet marketing in order to boost your utility as a consultant, because really, it doesn't take much, lol. .  .
 . . .snip . . .

There's a big difference between trying to compete with young, eager (desperate) folks for proper, full time, listed jobs with benefits, vs generating opportunities to be paid for your expert level skills.

Excellent points all.  And am definitely at the stage where connections are hard, but maybe I'll need to add it to my to-do list :)

I'm also in a market similar to what BlueMR2 described. $10 an hour seems to be the going rate for experienced part-time knowledge/office work while fast food is paying $15 to start and the Amazon and Fedex warehouses are paying $20+ an hour.

I had a connection actively trying to recruit me last year who really thought $12 an hour was going above and beyond because it was "clean" work with some flexibility and "after all, minimum wage is $9".  It was a frustrating waste of time. And I'm sure that experience, and similar ones, have colored how I look at post-FIRE or Coast-FIRE opportunities in my community.

ETA - I'm watching this thread because my tentative "retire from full time job to coast-fire" date is 2023.

[Blackeagle]

I would bet my more functional leg that half the posters in this thread could generate equal or higher hourly equivalent part time incomes if they really wanted to.

Can confirm, in my case.  The contract gig I picked up to pass the time until next year's rafting season pays a considerably higher hourly rate than my pre-FIRE job.  It's a closer run thing if you consider the lack of benefits, but still probably comes out as more lucrative. 

[rantk81]

But why would a high earner be limited $15/hr gigs?

They're absolutely not limited to $15/hr jobs.  But the point is, getting a "high earner" job offer is several orders of magnitude more difficult and time consuming than getting a $15/hr job.  Even more-so if you've been out of the work-force for several years.