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

[Metalcat]

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.

Sure, which is why I've said it so many times that I think my brain will explode: for people who never want to earn ever again under any circumstances, saving more up front is a better option.

However, for some folks, maintaining professional networks just means staying connected to people they like. Likewise for some folks, getting more education and learning new skills is a hobby, and it's not a question of whether or not to invest in a new graduate degree, but more of a question of "okay, which program should I do first?"

For *those* folks, which describes many industrious, curious people who enjoy ongoing challenges, generating high income work options is remarkably easy and just consists of doing the shit they would be doing anyway, but perhaps with a bit of intentional direction towards profitability.

Again, if that's not someone's strength or interest, then that's a bad plan for them. But I think a lot of very successful people really underestimate just how *easy* and interesting it is to build skills and capitalize on them.

This picture of the highly driven, highly successful, highly compensated professional who just starts rotting in terms of their value the moment they leave their megacorp world is depressing to me, and I kind of refuse to subscribe to it.

[NotJen]

I'm a "retired = leaving career for good" kind of person (for myself, not trying to IRP anyone) - 100% uninterested in maintaining skills or networks, though I undoubtedly still have a network out there.

I took on fun summer seasonal jobs for the last two years for non-monetary reasons, and I'm really happy with the unintended benefits.  I worked at a hotel front desk, and now I have skills I can use anywhere.  Sure, the pay is abysmal, but I still earned 20-25% of my current spend while basically on vacation, which is nothing to sneeze at.  Plus, I'm not a total idiot, and was offered (but declined) a senior position my first year, and could easily get a manager role next year in Glacier if I wanted it (I don't).  I even kind of like the work (as a part time gig)!  I now have confidence that if I *needed* a job, I could get one, and I could even aim for something that wasn't entry level.

I didn't have this confidence before, and it's pretty great.

[clifp]

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.

What do you mean by matchmaking?

Roughly twice a week I move money around to pay down my Pledged Asset Loan, it takes one-two minutes and saves me $600/year in interest so roughly $200/hour.

For me the entire point of retirement is because there are things I like to do, things I don't mind doing, and things I hate doing.  There are also I ton of things I haven't done, that I'm not sure about. Orbiting the earth seems like a ton of fun, but I could get nauseous and hate it.  Retirement for me means I can spend more doing things, I want, and hire people to do things I hate.

So for me, I don't mind and in some cases actually enjoy doing anything involved in investing and money management. Including posting on financial forums :-).  But I hate to do things, like cleaning, or gardening.  I hate, and I am spectacularly bad at doing any kind of DIY home repair projects.

I was fortunate that I never hated my job, in fact most years I enjoyed much of it and only hated 10% of the tasks.  So if I was looking at OMY, where I might be able to add an additional 50K to my stash, plus whatever passive funds the stash was earning in year.  I'd say that $50k could pay for 10 years of paying a gardener $100 once/month, a $300/month for a cleaning lady twice a month.  So I'd spend 200 hours (10% *2000 hours at work) doing task I hated to earn enough money to avoid 20 hours of cleaning and gardening a month for the next 10 years, that's a great tradeoff for me.

[Omy]

I was a realtor in my past life. I still get calls from past clients who want me to help them buy or sell. I match buyers with good buyer's agents and sellers with good listing agents.

[clifp]

Sure, which is why I've said it so many times that I think my brain will explode: for people who never want to earn ever again under any circumstances, saving more up front is a better option.

However, for some folks, maintaining professional networks just means staying connected to people they like. Likewise for some folks, getting more education and learning new skills is a hobby, and it's not a question of whether or not to invest in a new graduate degree, but more of a question of "okay, which program should I do first?"

For *those* folks, which describes many industrious, curious people who enjoy ongoing challenges, generating high income work options is remarkably easy and just consists of doing the shit they would be doing anyway, but perhaps with a bit of intentional direction towards profitability.

Again, if that's not someone's strength or interest, then that's a bad plan for them. But I think a lot of very successful people really underestimate just how *easy* and interesting it is to build skills and capitalize on them.

This picture of the highly driven, highly successful, highly compensated professional who just starts rotting in terms of their value the moment they leave their megacorp world is depressing to me, and I kind of refuse to subscribe to it.

I think you are significantly underestimating the role luck plays in wealth creation.  Yesterday, I typed a lengthy post on 3 friends, Jack 66, Jill 70, and Bill 52, three people who all accumulated $1 million, and $2 million for Jill from a divorce settlement.  All three are still struggling 15-20 years  later.  Jack, and Bill had tech jobs with salaries around $150k in the mid-2000s.  Jill had a master from one of the seven sisters.  Unfortunately, my post got deleted, but I went into some detail on their struggles to find employment.   Jack has been involuntarily ER for 15 years, he is getting by on social security, and rent he is collecting from 3 roommates in his bay area house.  He is a gay man, who doesn't particularly like women but is living with four of them and a toddler. I lost touch with Jill about 5 years ago, but between 2009 to 2017 she has been working min wage jobs, couch surfing, and living at youth hostels, and the YMCA.  Bill left Intel shortly after I did with a $1 million worth of stock options, he's had a series of financial and personal tragedies. He is currently struggling as Lyte/Uber driver and is renting a room in a house, with a nice but weird guy.

My friends aren't unique.  From 2008- to around 2011, the PBS Newshour would have roughly weekly segments on 40,50, and 60 year old, who were laid off during the great recession from good paying white collar jobs, and now struggling to make it on min wage jobs.  There were plenty of statistics published at that showed a minority of older American were able to find jobs at close to their old salaries.   There is age discrimination against older workers, especially for those who are considered long-term unemployed.

Hard work, creativity, intelligence, and good social network are all very helpful to find a good job, but the aren't guarrantee by any means.  You need luck also.

[dividendman]

Sure, which is why I've said it so many times that I think my brain will explode: for people who never want to earn ever again under any circumstances, saving more up front is a better option.

However, for some folks, maintaining professional networks just means staying connected to people they like. Likewise for some folks, getting more education and learning new skills is a hobby, and it's not a question of whether or not to invest in a new graduate degree, but more of a question of "okay, which program should I do first?"

For *those* folks, which describes many industrious, curious people who enjoy ongoing challenges, generating high income work options is remarkably easy and just consists of doing the shit they would be doing anyway, but perhaps with a bit of intentional direction towards profitability.

Again, if that's not someone's strength or interest, then that's a bad plan for them. But I think a lot of very successful people really underestimate just how *easy* and interesting it is to build skills and capitalize on them.

This picture of the highly driven, highly successful, highly compensated professional who just starts rotting in terms of their value the moment they leave their megacorp world is depressing to me, and I kind of refuse to subscribe to it.

I think you are significantly underestimating the role luck plays in wealth creation.  Yesterday, I typed a lengthy post on 3 friends, Jack 66, Jill 70, and Bill 52, three people who all accumulated $1 million, and $2 million for Jill from a divorce settlement.  All three are still struggling 15-20 years  later.  Jack, and Bill had tech jobs with salaries around $150k in the mid-2000s.  Jill had a master from one of the seven sisters.  Unfortunately, my post got deleted, but I went into some detail on their struggles to find employment.   Jack has been involuntarily ER for 15 years, he is getting by on social security, and rent he is collecting from 3 roommates in his bay area house.  He is a gay man, who doesn't particularly like women but is living with four of them and a toddler. I lost touch with Jill about 5 years ago, but between 2009 to 2017 she has been working min wage jobs, couch surfing, and living at youth hostels, and the YMCA.  Bill left Intel shortly after I did with a $1 million worth of stock options, he's had a series of financial and personal tragedies. He is currently struggling as Lyte/Uber driver and is renting a room in a house, with a nice but weird guy.

My friends aren't unique.  From 2008- to around 2011, the PBS Newshour would have roughly weekly segments on 40,50, and 60 year old, who were laid off during the great recession from good paying white collar jobs, and now struggling to make it on min wage jobs.  There were plenty of statistics published at that showed a minority of older American were able to find jobs at close to their old salaries.   There is age discrimination against older workers, especially for those who are considered long-term unemployed.

Hard work, creativity, intelligence, and good social network are all very helpful to find a good job, but the aren't guarrantee by any means.  You need luck also.

Sounds like maybe it wasn't luck and maybe they just suck at their jobs. A lot of people think they're good and aren't. The people who get laid off (especially first in any downturn) tend to be underperformers. People can work hard, be intelligent and creative and still suck at their jobs or think they're way better than they are.

Of course luck is required to some degree, but I think working in tech and not being able to get a job from 2012 to 2020 was pretty hard since every company was hiring like crazy in the bay area. I worked for several top tier tech companies and even we made many questionable hires.

[Metalcat]

Sure, which is why I've said it so many times that I think my brain will explode: for people who never want to earn ever again under any circumstances, saving more up front is a better option.

However, for some folks, maintaining professional networks just means staying connected to people they like. Likewise for some folks, getting more education and learning new skills is a hobby, and it's not a question of whether or not to invest in a new graduate degree, but more of a question of "okay, which program should I do first?"

For *those* folks, which describes many industrious, curious people who enjoy ongoing challenges, generating high income work options is remarkably easy and just consists of doing the shit they would be doing anyway, but perhaps with a bit of intentional direction towards profitability.

Again, if that's not someone's strength or interest, then that's a bad plan for them. But I think a lot of very successful people really underestimate just how *easy* and interesting it is to build skills and capitalize on them.

This picture of the highly driven, highly successful, highly compensated professional who just starts rotting in terms of their value the moment they leave their megacorp world is depressing to me, and I kind of refuse to subscribe to it.

I think you are significantly underestimating the role luck plays in wealth creation.  Yesterday, I typed a lengthy post on 3 friends, Jack 66, Jill 70, and Bill 52, three people who all accumulated $1 million, and $2 million for Jill from a divorce settlement.  All three are still struggling 15-20 years  later.  Jack, and Bill had tech jobs with salaries around $150k in the mid-2000s.  Jill had a master from one of the seven sisters.  Unfortunately, my post got deleted, but I went into some detail on their struggles to find employment.   Jack has been involuntarily ER for 15 years, he is getting by on social security, and rent he is collecting from 3 roommates in his bay area house.  He is a gay man, who doesn't particularly like women but is living with four of them and a toddler. I lost touch with Jill about 5 years ago, but between 2009 to 2017 she has been working min wage jobs, couch surfing, and living at youth hostels, and the YMCA.  Bill left Intel shortly after I did with a $1 million worth of stock options, he's had a series of financial and personal tragedies. He is currently struggling as Lyte/Uber driver and is renting a room in a house, with a nice but weird guy.

My friends aren't unique.  From 2008- to around 2011, the PBS Newshour would have roughly weekly segments on 40,50, and 60 year old, who were laid off during the great recession from good paying white collar jobs, and now struggling to make it on min wage jobs.  There were plenty of statistics published at that showed a minority of older American were able to find jobs at close to their old salaries.   There is age discrimination against older workers, especially for those who are considered long-term unemployed.

Hard work, creativity, intelligence, and good social network are all very helpful to find a good job, but the aren't guarrantee by any means.  You need luck also.

I would never compare the experience of wealthy people who have tons of money, free time, support, and resources to the struggles of people who don't even have what they need for decent living circumstances.

To me that's like comparing apples to blenders.

Generating profitable opportunities is a bazillion times easier for folks who don't need them. That's just the unfair reality of our world.

I would never in a million years compare my ultra cushy situation to that of your friends, and my position isn't anywhere near as cushy as that of most people in this thread once they retire.

[clifp]

Sounds like maybe it wasn't luck and maybe they just suck at their jobs. A lot of people think they're good and aren't. The people who get laid off (especially first in any downturn) tend to be underperformers. People can work hard, be intelligent and creative and still suck at their jobs or think they're way better than they are.

Of course luck is required to some degree, but I think working in tech and not being able to get a job from 2012 to 2020 was pretty hard since every company was hiring like crazy in the bay area. I worked for several top tier tech companies and even we made many questionable hires.

I think it is fair to say they all sucked at interviewing. Jack, was obese and we called him curmudgeonly even when he was in his 30s.  He hadn't kept us his technical skills.  But by 2012 after 5 years of getting rejections, He gave up looking and can't say I blame him.  How many of those hires were folks over 50, or had been unemployed for 5 years.  Of my many engineering friends only a handful are still doing technical work after 55, in many cases by choice, but valley in particular loves young people.

Jill didn't have technical degree, a MA in some humanity from Smith, I believe. Still it is a very selective school that many employers use as an IQ test. She made many mistakes which led her to squander her $2 million.  The primary one was agreeing to pay for her kids graduate degrees.  It is easy for childless me to say that was stupid, but I am sure many parents would do the same thing.

Bill told me, that last rounds of chemo really affected his ability to concentrate. (I let him stay with me for a year, and I observed it.). He went many places, Costa Rica, New Jersey, Texas, the Big Island of Hawaii, as well Oahu, and the Bay Area looking for work.  Lots of diseases can affect your ability to work, as Malcat has said. . I read that roughly 1 million people have long-Covid that is preventing them from holding a job.

In general, I think MMM folks will be wiser than either Bill, or Jill with managing money. Jack asked me for my advice, did research, and took my advice.

All of these folks had by MMM standards accumulated enough for a lean retirement, but only Jack was successful in maintaining it.  After watching probably a 100 of these stories on PBS, and reading an equal number in WaPo and the WSJ. I can nit pick their money management skills, but in most cases watching their struggles to find a job as unemployed older Americans. I really say there but the grace of god, go I.

[Metalcat]

Lots of diseases can affect your ability to work, as Malcat has said. . I read that roughly 1 million people have long-Covid that is preventing them from holding a job.

Let's frame this though.

It's still VERY different being unexpectedly disabled and financially crunched because of it vs being comfortably retired and having to adapt to a new set of limitations.

I really cannot overstate how radically different the reality of pursuing paid projects is when you don't really need the money any time soon and can invest in support and training if you want to.

If your friends had ample resources, they could invest in interview coaches, head hunters, take networking courses, level up their skills, or fully retrain.

The people in this thread will not be retiring to crappy lifestyles and desperate for work to upgrade them. They will be very wealthy, very comfortable, and have all the time, energy, and resources they need to invest in themselves if they decide that it's worthwhile to re-enter the workforce in whatever capacity makes sense to them and their abilities at the time.

Even profoundly disabled (physically and neurologically), my financial privilege dramatically outweighs an uncomfortably unemployed person's able-bodied privilege. That's massive.

[BeanCounter]

All of these folks had by MMM standards accumulated enough for a lean retirement, but only Jack was successful in maintaining it.  After watching probably a 100 of these stories on PBS, and reading an equal number in WaPo and the WSJ. I can nit pick their money management skills, but in most cases watching their struggles to find a job as unemployed older Americans. I really say there but the grace of god, go I.

Now wait a minute. You can't say "by MMM standards accumulated enough for a lean retirement", you're missing half the equation. If their expenses were higher than 3%-4% of their NW then it doesn't matter if they have $1M, $2M or more, they didn't have enough to successfully RE. They HAD to get a job. Or they needed to make some serious lifestyle changes (like move) and they failed because they didn't do either. I don't think that's "nitpicking their money management skills".

But, to your point, those in the 50+ age bracket often don't fair well after a layoff. 2008 was what brought me to the FIRE movement. I was still early in my career at mega-corp and I saw a bunch of mid-level managers in conference rooms crying. They were laid off. Many of them had large mortgages to worry about, car loans and other debts. Over the next years I would say half of them successfully landed another similar position. Others remained unemployed or underemployed. My DH and I watched this and set a goal to be financial independent by age 50. Just in case.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, luck has a lot to do with successes in life. But so does your reaction to the good or bad luck you are thrown.

[Villanelle]

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?

I agree that most people are far too pessimistic about this. 

Also, it isn't like they will need to replace their fancy $400,000 year job.  In a down market, even bringing in a few thousand dollars makes a difference.  So you were making $200/hr before, and now you only make $50/hr consulting.  You've also had time to decompress from your job, and you are in control of your own time and schedule.  And instead of putting in long days and weeks, you work for 20 hours, for a few months.  That's $12,000 of income, which is enough to have a meaningful effect on how much you need to withdraw in a down market.

Even if you get a job as a barista or substitute teacher, it's 15-20 hours a week, worked around your schedule of mahjong games and tennis club and napping.  For me, that would be so, so, so worth getting away from the grind.  But it's even better than that, because it's not getting away from the grind of stressful FTE, or being a barista or sub teacher.  It's getting away from the grind vs a *chance* you have to make coffee or teach high school history *for a short period of time*.

And those things don't require maintaining professional networks or doing CTEs to keep anything current. 

If I felt like retiring pus my family in a position where there was a decent change we'd need to start bringing in $50k+/yr at some point down the road, I'd be worried.  If I think there is a small chance we may want to bring in $10k or less per year, for a year or two?  No problem.  I can walk dogs.  I can advise on and edit college entrance essays, cover letters, and the like.  I can make grocery and pharmacy runs for old people.  None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 

And of course, I think most people here are smart enough to cut spending, and will have enough fat in their budget to do so, when things look bad.

So is 22 the worse year ever to retire?  Time will tell.  But if it is, I think the picture for those retirees is still far less gloomy than many make it out to be.  Heck, the employment market is still fantastic, so picking up some part-time work right now would be a breeze for nearly all of them.  So already, there's an example of how not just blindly following "spend my 4% and hope for the best" offers a higher chance for overall success (or how I would define success) than what the graphs and charts show. 

Having to make a few thousand dollars a year is hard for me to define as "failure" or "worth working another year at a job someone doesn't particularly like, to avoid". 

[wageslave23]

https://earlyretirementnow.com/

This article is relevant to this thread. Because the market is more properly valued now compared to 6 months ago, you really only lost about half of the decrease in your SWR. Intuitively I was thinking this was the case but big ERN shows the calculations nicely.  It's the silver lining for retirees. And helps to understand that your portfolio value is only part of the equation to SWR. Also a note of caution to not think you are suddenly rolling in the dough if the market rebounds up 30%. CAPE and market performance are inversely related and together form SWR.

[nereo]

. … Because the market is more properly valued now compared to 6 months ago…

These kinds of proclaimations always set off internal alarm bells. It assumes both that we can accurately value the market and that the market will correct (rather than convergence with macroeconomics) in a timely fashion.

[Metalcat]

https://earlyretirementnow.com/

This article is relevant to this thread. Because the market is more properly valued now compared to 6 months ago, you really only lost about half of the decrease in your SWR. Intuitively I was thinking this was the case but big ERN shows the calculations nicely.  It's the silver lining for retirees. And helps to understand that your portfolio value is only part of the equation to SWR. Also a note of caution to not think you are suddenly rolling in the dough if the market rebounds up 30%. CAPE and market performance are inversely related and together form SWR.

True, I remember being at a MMM GTG and one person saying that on paper he had hit his "number" but he dropped 25% off of his investment value because he didn't consider it "real" due to the market behaviour.

I guess I just assume everyone here would be cautious about hitting their "number" during a massive run-up.

[GodlessCommie]

It may be both harder and easier to find a job than people assume. Luck definitely plays a role. It is also possible to create your own luck. But not all people are equally equipped to create their own luck.

We are often blind to the advantages we have, kind of how fish is blind to water. One of them is having good people skills. A large network is a huge advantage, an uninterrupted source of opportunities. But for some, building and maintaining it is worse than a job, and they may never truly succeed.

I have a friend who had a high-paying tech job, developed an addiction, beat it, and was never able to get back into the field. You may say it's harder to get a job than assumed. She found a job in real estate that she enjoys, and while it pays way less than a tech job, it's significantly more than $15/hr. So you may say it's easier to find a job than assumed, even for someone with a significant blemish on her resume.

Age definitely matters. I have a ton of examples of people winning a green card, and outperforming native-born Americans in $$$ terms in 2-3 years. They are all young. I know 0 immigrants who came to the US after 50, and has a job anywhere near a type of job they had in their native country. Most have degrees and experience, most work entry-level service jobs.

[wageslave23]

https://earlyretirementnow.com/

This article is relevant to this thread. Because the market is more properly valued now compared to 6 months ago, you really only lost about half of the decrease in your SWR. Intuitively I was thinking this was the case but big ERN shows the calculations nicely.  It's the silver lining for retirees. And helps to understand that your portfolio value is only part of the equation to SWR. Also a note of caution to not think you are suddenly rolling in the dough if the market rebounds up 30%. CAPE and market performance are inversely related and together form SWR.

True, I remember being at a MMM GTG and one person saying that on paper he had hit his "number" but he dropped 25% off of his investment value because he didn't consider it "real" due to the market behaviour.

I guess I just assume everyone here would be cautious about hitting their "number" during a massive run-up.

I was saying that too the last couple years on the forums. I discounted my nestegg by about 15%.

[wageslave23]

. … Because the market is more properly valued now compared to 6 months ago…

These kinds of proclaimations always set off internal alarm bells. It assumes both that we can accurately value the market and that the market will correct (rather than convergence with macroeconomics) in a timely fashion.

Properly valued is probably the wrong terminology. High cape ratio compared to closer to historically average cape ratio.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

[vand]

Weighing in on the job discussion, it's worth zooming out and recognizing just how extraordinarily good the labour market is right now.   Even with the recent softening, there are almost 2 job vacancies for every unemployed person. 

If you have actively been in the job market in the last couple of years then the supply/demand means that you have had the upper hand. Typically, though, this isn't the case.

While I do not know how well the job market will hold up in the face of a weakening economy, think about how much more difficult it will be for everyone if that ratio gets inverted, as it easily could.

[wageslave23]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

My thoughts exactly.  Regardless of pay, I can't think of a better job that I'd rather do. Factoring in pay just doubly weighs in favor of my current job. If you have an awful job, then I understand the sentiment. But then you should have probably switched jobs or careers a long time ago.

You show me the job listing that says work from home, flexible hours, no management oversight, one 30 minute zoom meeting a week, maybe 12 hours of responding to emails and reviewing others work per week, and get paid 6 figures.

[Metalcat]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

Yes, which is a common perspective of people who casually toss around the suggestion of working a few more years as if it's the most obvious option in the world.

Yet, we have had countless threads over the years about the devastating impact of burnout. Anyone who has never experienced it is wonderfully fortunate, but it's actually horrifyingly common.

So yes, for some, sticking around even just a few more years in a job that is ravaging them is not exactly a low risk proposition.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Sounds like maybe it wasn't luck and maybe they just suck at their jobs. A lot of people think they're good and aren't. The people who get laid off (especially first in any downturn) tend to be underperformers. People can work hard, be intelligent and creative and still suck at their jobs or think they're way better than they are.

Of course luck is required to some degree, but I think working in tech and not being able to get a job from 2012 to 2020 was pretty hard since every company was hiring like crazy in the bay area. I worked for several top tier tech companies and even we made many questionable hires.

I think it is fair to say they all sucked at interviewing. Jack, was obese and we called him curmudgeonly even when he was in his 30s.  He hadn't kept us his technical skills.  But by 2012 after 5 years of getting rejections, He gave up looking and can't say I blame him.  How many of those hires were folks over 50, or had been unemployed for 5 years.  Of my many engineering friends only a handful are still doing technical work after 55, in many cases by choice, but valley in particular loves young people.

Jill didn't have technical degree, a MA in some humanity from Smith, I believe. Still it is a very selective school that many employers use as an IQ test. She made many mistakes which led her to squander her $2 million.  The primary one was agreeing to pay for her kids graduate degrees.  It is easy for childless me to say that was stupid, but I am sure many parents would do the same thing.

Bill told me, that last rounds of chemo really affected his ability to concentrate. (I let him stay with me for a year, and I observed it.). He went many places, Costa Rica, New Jersey, Texas, the Big Island of Hawaii, as well Oahu, and the Bay Area looking for work.  Lots of diseases can affect your ability to work, as Malcat has said. . I read that roughly 1 million people have long-Covid that is preventing them from holding a job.

In general, I think MMM folks will be wiser than either Bill, or Jill with managing money. Jack asked me for my advice, did research, and took my advice.

All of these folks had by MMM standards accumulated enough for a lean retirement, but only Jack was successful in maintaining it.  After watching probably a 100 of these stories on PBS, and reading an equal number in WaPo and the WSJ. I can nit pick their money management skills, but in most cases watching their struggles to find a job as unemployed older Americans. I really say there but the grace of god, go I.

First, I'll say that major medical emergencies can be catastrophic and derail people employed or otherwise. This is especially true in the USA.

Also, they may have accumulated enough for lean retirement per MMM standards, but did they spend in line with it? Who knows, but it would seem unlikely. Get $2 million but spend $200k per year - it doesn't matter if you have $2 million. Have $1 million and spend $30,000 a year - you're going to be fine. It's not the accumulation; it's the ratio.

That aside, I think a couple of points here are skewed. You comment about not "nit picking" money management skills. If we're talking about budgeting, then I'm certainly living in  a glass house myself. My retirement time could be sped up years and years if I lived as frugally as many on this board.

That's not the issue, though. The issue is how much you have vs. how much you spend.

Using your other example of Jill who made mistakes, the biggest of which was paying for her kid's graduate degrees. I'm not saying it's stupid. I'm also not saying it's a mistake in the connotation it seems to be used here. A mistake is dropping and breaking your phone. This was a deliberate choice that could have been fine if it fit within a person's spending plan. Or it could have been mitigated through going back to work when the decision was made to do that. I know someone who went back after retirement in part to pay for their kid's college. He's doing fine because he didn't make the decision to pay for 4 years of school and then stick his head in the sand about the consequences.

People that get laid off that you mentioned earlier that are in trouble - well, I mean, most people are constantly in trouble financially - they don't have enough savings.

I guess my thoughts are, I understand that catastrophic things can come and break retirement plans. However, I think many things deemed catastrophic tend to be along the lines of the examples you mentioned. A disease that could debilitate you whether or not you're retired. A choice to change your spending significantly - that you then have the chance to prepare and work to mitigate. Etc. But for the grace of God go I can certainly be true. However, the situations where it's truly a terrible, unavoidable, catastrophic situation where you can do nothing to mitigate the problem....I think they're few and far between, and the examples here seem to reinforce it.

[Metalcat]

However, the situations where it's truly a terrible, unavoidable, catastrophic situation where you can do nothing to mitigate the problem....I think they're few and far between, and the examples here seem to reinforce it.

*raises hand* as a mangled cripple with severe neurological issues that came out of fucking nowhere in my 30s, I think I count as having a pretty catastrophic situation. And yeah, there's still plenty I can do to mitigate it because I already have financial security.

The only scenario I can even imagine where I lose all of my best mitigation strategies is if I end up with a severe traumatic brain injury and substantial loss of cognitive function. Short of that, I've got tons of options. Far more than the average unemployed person.

[AlanStache]

" However, the situations where it's truly a terrible, unavoidable, catastrophic situation where you can do nothing to mitigate the problem....I think they're few and far between, and the examples here seem to reinforce it."

Yes and no, in real time you dont know how your luck will run in the future or how badly the current decision will play out.  Hind sight you can always say someone should have done better and maybe they should have.  Personally I like having the padding to be able to shrug off most any financial event, but I dont have kids who want to be on the travel sportsball team. 

[clifp]

Lots of diseases can affect your ability to work, as Malcat has said. . I read that roughly 1 million people have long-Covid that is preventing them from holding a job.

Let's frame this though.

It's still VERY different being unexpectedly disabled and financially crunched because of it vs being comfortably retired and having to adapt to a new set of limitations.

I really cannot overstate how radically different the reality of pursuing paid projects is when you don't really need the money any time soon and can invest in support and training if you want to.

If your friends had ample resources, they could invest in interview coaches, head hunters, take networking courses, level up their skills, or fully retrain.

Other than interview coaches, all 3 did some of those activities and certainly at the beginning of the process they did have ample resources.

I think I see the disconnect. For you, "pursuing paid projects, learning new employable skills" is an activity that I think you enjoy.  As I said retirement is all about having more time to do stuff I want to do, having the money to pay people to do stuff I hate, and not increasing the amount of time doing I activities I tolerate.  For me, pursuing paid projects... falls in the tolerate to hate activity. This is why I'd rather OMY at a a well-paid job that was in the tolerate or above category.

 quote author=BeanCounter link=topic=127285.msg3071260#msg3071260 date=1666268662]

All of these folks had by MMM standards accumulated enough for a lean retirement, but only Jack was successful in maintaining it.  After watching probably a 100 of these stories on PBS, and reading an equal number in WaPo and the WSJ. I can nit pick their money management skills, but in most cases watching their struggles to find a job as unemployed older Americans. I really say there but the grace of god, go I.

Now wait a minute. You can't say "by MMM standards accumulated enough for a lean retirement", you're missing half the equation. If their expenses were higher than 3%-4% of their NW then it doesn't matter if they have $1M, $2M or more, they didn't have enough to successfully RE. They HAD to get a job. Or they needed to make some serious lifestyle changes (like move) and they failed because they didn't do either. I don't think that's "nitpicking their money management skills".

But, to your point, those in the 50+ age bracket often don't fair well after a layoff. 2008 was what brought me to the FIRE movement. I was still early in my career at mega-corp and I saw a bunch of mid-level managers in conference rooms crying. They were laid off. Many of them had large mortgages to worry about, car loans and other debts. Over the next years I would say half of them successfully landed another similar position. Others remained unemployed or underemployed. My DH and I watched this and set a goal to be financial independent by age 50. Just in case.


[/quote]

My apologies, I wasn't clear.  The grace of God comments was not referring to my friends, it was referring to the 100 or so older folks I saw profiled in the media during the Great Recession.  IIRC, statistically, around 2/3 of white collar workers over 50 ended up worse and 1/3 better. So similar to your former co-workers This was through 2012.  A 50-year getting laid after 2012, I'm sure faired much better due to the great job market.

As far as my friends go, Jack did transition to an early retirement successfully, once he hit 59, the IRA penalties were eliminated. The renter's income was a huge help and so was social security. Social Security provides a majority of income for more than 50% of seniors. It is much less than 1/2 for Jack. He would have preferred working longer at decent pay job to have a bigger cushion and a better lifestyle. He primarily just had bad timing

Jill, mostly made bad investment choices (too much stock market exposure, keeping the house too long and was too generous with her children.

Bill, made one disastrous choice, not diversifying, but other than that lived very frugally

[Metalcat]

]

Other than interview coaches, all 3 did some of those activities and certainly at the beginning of the process they did have ample resources.

I think I see the disconnect. For you, "pursuing paid projects, learning new employable skills" is an activity that I think you enjoy.  As I said retirement is all about having more time to do stuff I want to do, having the money to pay people to do stuff I hate, and not increasing the amount of time doing I activities I tolerate.  For me, pursuing paid projects... falls in the tolerate to hate activity. This is why I'd rather OMY at a a well-paid job that was in the tolerate or above category.

No disconnect. I've said it many, many, many times. OMY is a great option for people who have zero interest in ever doing any paid work ever again. I'm may have even said this in one of my posts that you quoted.

You quoted me and said that I was discounting luck. I'm not. It really is much easier to find work when you don't need it.

That is totally unrelated to not *wanting* to do what is necessary to find work. Which is why I've said, quite literally at least a dozen times in this very thread, that working longer is the most obvious risk hedge for people who never want to work again and who don't mind staying in their jobs.

I'm not saying "you" should work part time in retirement. Do whatever is best for you.

[MisterA]

If you have an awful job, then I understand the sentiment. But then you should have probably switched jobs or careers a long time ago.

I don't have an awful job, but I have been doing it for far too long, and I've become cynical. But, we go through our education, follow a career path and end up with a well paid job (and we support our family). Isn't that how life is?

Switching careers and starting over isn't really something that many people can do, especially when trying to build a FI stache at the same time. I think that having made it (pay wise), you might never fully recover from a career change. So people are inclined to slug it out, for as long as they can, in a situation that they might not enjoy or be good at. Many people don't ever make the sort of money that some of us here are on.

If it's forced on you, like @Malcat, that's something different. Likewise if you're FIRE'd and want a side gig, perhaps that's easier as you're not giving anything up - except some of your time.

[Metalcat]

If you have an awful job, then I understand the sentiment. But then you should have probably switched jobs or careers a long time ago.

I don't have an awful job, but I have been doing it for far too long, and I've become cynical. But, we go through our education, follow a career path and end up with a well paid job (and we support our family). Isn't that how life is?

Switching careers and starting over isn't really something that many people can do, especially when trying to build a FI stache at the same time. I think that having made it (pay wise), you might never fully recover from a career change. So people are inclined to slug it out, for as long as they can, in a situation that they might not enjoy or be good at. Many people don't ever make the sort of money that some of us here are on.

If it's forced on you, like @Malcat, that's something different. Likewise if you're FIRE'd and want a side gig, perhaps that's easier as you're not giving anything up - except some of your time.

I think my perspective is a bit different because I have a family full of people who made huge career changes and developed whole new professional paths in retirement. I just grew up with that kind of thing being totally normal.

I just don't see it as this daunting, impossible thing that everyone seems to insist it is. If anything, I struggled with having too many options. Or at least, I did until a surgeon gave me news that took away 98% of those, which made deciding easier.

But assuming I get legs back, a whole bunch of those go back on the list.

That's another thing. While you are still working, a lot of this all sounds daunting and taxing and a huge waste of "free time." But after a few years of all of your time being free, a lot of this stuff can start sound less like sacrifice and more like adventure.

There's a lot of really cool shit you can get paid to do.

[Tyson]

If you have an awful job, then I understand the sentiment. But then you should have probably switched jobs or careers a long time ago.

I don't have an awful job, but I have been doing it for far too long, and I've become cynical. But, we go through our education, follow a career path and end up with a well paid job (and we support our family). Isn't that how life is?

Switching careers and starting over isn't really something that many people can do, especially when trying to build a FI stache at the same time. I think that having made it (pay wise), you might never fully recover from a career change. So people are inclined to slug it out, for as long as they can, in a situation that they might not enjoy or be good at. Many people don't ever make the sort of money that some of us here are on.

If it's forced on you, like @Malcat, that's something different. Likewise if you're FIRE'd and want a side gig, perhaps that's easier as you're not giving anything up - except some of your time.

I think my perspective is a bit different because I have a family full of people who made huge career changes and developed whole new professional paths in retirement. I just grew up with that kind of thing being totally normal.

I just don't see it as this daunting, impossible thing that everyone seems to insist it is. If anything, I struggled with having too many options. Or at least, I did until a surgeon gave me news that took away 98% of those, which made deciding easier.

But assuming I get legs back, a whole bunch of those go back on the list.

That's another thing. While you are still working, a lot of this all sounds daunting and taxing and a huge waste of "free time." But after a few years of all of your time being free, a lot of this stuff can start sound less like sacrifice and more like adventure.

There's a lot of really cool shit you can get paid to do.

I agree with the bolded part above.  I'm not retired but I did go through an extended unemployment after some layoffs a few years ago.  Took me 9 months to find a new job in my field.  I knew it would take a long time based on prior time's I'd been laid off.  So I decided to treat it as a 'mini-retirement' instead of stressing about being out of work.

It was awesome to have no work and no responsibilities.  For about 6 months.  After that I started to get bored.  Once I found a job, I was happy to be working again. 

Here's the thing, burnout is real and people don't realize how much being on the grind wears you down.  That was true of me.  But once I actually got a real, extended break and had a chance to decompress, I found that doing 'whatever I wanted' all day every day got kind of dull.  That really shocked me, to be honest.

[AlanStache]

...
I agree with the bolded part above.  I'm not retired but I did go through an extended unemployment after some layoffs a few years ago.  Took me 9 months to find a new job in my field.  I knew it would take a long time based on prior time's I'd been laid off.  So I decided to treat it as a 'mini-retirement' instead of stressing about being out of work.

It was awesome to have no work and no responsibilities.  For about 6 months.  After that I started to get bored.  Once I found a job, I was happy to be working again. 

Here's the thing, burnout is real and people don't realize how much being on the grind wears you down.  That was true of me.  But once I actually got a real, extended break and had a chance to decompress, I found that doing 'whatever I wanted' all day every day got kind of dull.  That really shocked me, to be honest.

How much of the dullness was that you were not really FIREd?  you had free time but you were looking for a job and not slow traveling or getting deep into a hobby.  I presume you were trying to not spend to much too.  - honest questions about a problem I hope to have one day :-)

[maizefolk]

The challenge of trying to mentally model what a hypothetical future version of myself who is not working, has years of new and different experiences, and has very different goals and priorities from the person I am today is a real and big one.

But if you talk to the people who have actually FIREd here on the forum, it is clear that things really do change a lot.

[bmjohnson35]

We will make it through 2022 without selling any shares in our portfolio and we will likely use less than 1% in 2023. My spouse works PT at a low wage job.  She doesn't have to, but she enjoys it and they are extremely flexible with her time off.  She can quit anytime she decides she no longer enjoys it.  As for myself, I don't have any interest in "marketing" myself or validating why someone should hire me. I've developed a lifestyle where I meet up with friends to go paddling, fishing and riding various days of the week. I have also become the family handyman and auto mechanic. I enjoy diagnosing and repairing technical problems. I don't mind manual labor when it's on my terms.  I have always said I could work PT during a downturn, but the reality is that it's unlikely. 

[Metalcat]

...
I agree with the bolded part above.  I'm not retired but I did go through an extended unemployment after some layoffs a few years ago.  Took me 9 months to find a new job in my field.  I knew it would take a long time based on prior time's I'd been laid off.  So I decided to treat it as a 'mini-retirement' instead of stressing about being out of work.

It was awesome to have no work and no responsibilities.  For about 6 months.  After that I started to get bored.  Once I found a job, I was happy to be working again. 

Here's the thing, burnout is real and people don't realize how much being on the grind wears you down.  That was true of me.  But once I actually got a real, extended break and had a chance to decompress, I found that doing 'whatever I wanted' all day every day got kind of dull.  That really shocked me, to be honest.

How much of the dullness was that you were not really FIREd?  you had free time but you were looking for a job and not slow traveling or getting deep into a hobby.  I presume you were trying to not spend to much too.  - honest questions about a problem I hope to have one day :-)

I know you're not asking me, but I had a similar experience just with a different interpretation.

I didn't get "bored" so much as start craving bigger and bigger challenges. At first, decompression meant I had to finally take the pressure off to be productive. I literally spent my days watching as much Netflix as I wanted, going for walks, and occasionally trying out baking, which I hate btw.

It took a solid 6 months to get my fill of learning to not feel pressured to do anything. I got, like, really into my hair for a bit.

Then the craving for bigger challenges crept in and after a few years it was like "ooh...just how big can I go???"

[Tyson]

...
I agree with the bolded part above.  I'm not retired but I did go through an extended unemployment after some layoffs a few years ago.  Took me 9 months to find a new job in my field.  I knew it would take a long time based on prior time's I'd been laid off.  So I decided to treat it as a 'mini-retirement' instead of stressing about being out of work.

It was awesome to have no work and no responsibilities.  For about 6 months.  After that I started to get bored.  Once I found a job, I was happy to be working again. 

Here's the thing, burnout is real and people don't realize how much being on the grind wears you down.  That was true of me.  But once I actually got a real, extended break and had a chance to decompress, I found that doing 'whatever I wanted' all day every day got kind of dull.  That really shocked me, to be honest.

How much of the dullness was that you were not really FIREd?  you had free time but you were looking for a job and not slow traveling or getting deep into a hobby.  I presume you were trying to not spend to much too.  - honest questions about a problem I hope to have one day :-)

I like to do stuff like reading, walking, going to museums, live music performances, etc...   I travelled a lot when I was younger so I'm pretty happy staying put nowadays. 

[Telecaster]

I've been FIRE'd for a few months now.  I'm very fortunate in that I can easily pick up well-paid short term work.  It was my plan to do sort of a coast FIRE, but now I'm out of it my desire for employment has gone to zero.   That could change, but right now I'm done as done can be. 

[Villanelle]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

I never hated my FTE.  I didn't mind it at all.  But it still ate up 40 hours of my week (more, on occasion) and I was at their mercy for planning vacations, being able to go meet a friend on a random Tuesday for lunch or to go to a special event at a museum, and being able to run errands when I wasn't competing with the rest of the M-F working worked.

Why would it have to be hellacious to think that a year less of that is better than *maybe* having to do some substitute teaching, entirely on my schedule, or walk the neighbors dogs a few times a week? Or having to do a couple more freelance writing jobs a month, from the comfort of my home, at 2am if I want to, wearing pajamas and with my dogs curled up at my feet. 

And again, it's not trading one for the other.  It's getting rid of one for the possibility you *might* have to do the other, for a while. 

[mistymoney]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

I never hated my FTE.  I didn't mind it at all.  But it still ate up 40 hours of my week (more, on occasion) and I was at their mercy for planning vacations, being able to go meet a friend on a random Tuesday for lunch or to go to a special event at a museum, and being able to run errands when I wasn't competing with the rest of the M-F working worked.

Why would it have to be hellacious to think that a year less of that is better than *maybe* having to do some substitute teaching, entirely on my schedule, or walk the neighbors dogs a few times a week? Or having to do a couple more freelance writing jobs a month, from the comfort of my home, at 2am if I want to, wearing pajamas and with my dogs curled up at my feet. 

And again, it's not trading one for the other.  It's getting rid of one for the possibility you *might* have to do the other, for a while.

I think that is true of a general retirement, currently 2022 is looking very much like it could be in th 5% of 4%WR fails, so that possibility is much more of thing.

[Fru-Gal]

my desire for employment has gone to zero.

Same. My ability to tolerate BS “command-and-control” interaction is gone.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

I never hated my FTE.  I didn't mind it at all.  But it still ate up 40 hours of my week (more, on occasion) and I was at their mercy for planning vacations, being able to go meet a friend on a random Tuesday for lunch or to go to a special event at a museum, and being able to run errands when I wasn't competing with the rest of the M-F working worked.

Why would it have to be hellacious to think that a year less of that is better than *maybe* having to do some substitute teaching, entirely on my schedule, or walk the neighbors dogs a few times a week? Or having to do a couple more freelance writing jobs a month, from the comfort of my home, at 2am if I want to, wearing pajamas and with my dogs curled up at my feet. 

And again, it's not trading one for the other.  It's getting rid of one for the possibility you *might* have to do the other, for a while.

So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

[maizefolk]

And again, it's not trading one for the other.  It's getting rid of one for the possibility you *might* have to do the other, for a while.

I think that is true of a general retirement, currently 2022 is looking very much like it could be in th 5% of 4%WR fails, so that possibility is much more of thing.

I think you're double counting risk a bit here.

Scenario 1: we don't know which years will fail until they do. In this case there is a 4-5% chance you end up needing to work at some point after retirement (based on cFireSim results, less if we use different datasets like the original trinity study).

Scenario 2: We know which years will fail. In this case a person retired right at the start of 2022 with exactly 25x their expenses will need to work at least a little sometime in the next three decades with 100% certainty and people who retired at the start of 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, etc have a 0% change of needing to work at all in the next three decades.

But if you add additional concentrated risk for 2022 without reducing the background risk for all years that are not 2022 the same failures get counted twice and you end up seeing the choice to retire and enjoy your life as twice as risky as it actually is.

[AlanStache]

...
So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

It all comes down to an expected value problem.

Without OMY say I think I have a 90% chance of never needing to work again - great. 
Option 1: OMY and take the odds to 95%
Option 2: RE now and roll a pentagonal trapezohedron, if you roll a 1, then you need to go make some money at some point in "FIRE"
Option 3: RE now and maybe find something fun to do that makes a little money if you want or dont and take your chance with the pentagonal trapezohedron.

Everyone will differ on how they decide between option 1, 2 and 3.

[mistymoney]

in speaking of the comparative differences between OMY and potentially needing supplemental income down the line, I think the effect of FI on the FT job deserves more attention.

Back in late 2021 when my net worth was zooming....seemingly unstoppably to my stache goal with stretch goal coming up quickly behind.......the day job stress was just so much less! It was unbeleivable how much less internalized everything was. Now that I'm facing increasingly larger fail potentials with each NW decrease - the internal stress is climbing back up.

But when I was working and thinking "why haven't I quit? I could probably make it!" the job felt very different indeed.

I still likely could "make it" from here, but it isn't a certainty at all and I would need to hang on to my side gig for dear life, and I'd have to curtail some anticipated expenses, and I feel like the life I want depends on keeping this job either until the market recovers, or about 3 more years in continuing stagflation to finish getting everything set up and putting additional savings and safeguards into place. Not the worst situation, but I was thinking to pull the plug next year. So that's a disappointment.

OTOH - I attended and presented at an industry conference this week. It was a great experience - my first in person conference since 2019 - and I really enjoyed the connection to my profession. I noticed so many senior members of the community working into their 70's - and it wasn't because of a lack of money I'm sure!

So - I think when you hit the fringes of FI - there are more ways than one to play the FT job. Just destress about it and not caring if you get fired or being prepared to put in notice if any grave irritation shows up (like kill yourself to make this unreasonable deadline in 3 months.....you just say - I'm sorry, that doesn't work for me. Would you like my two weeks notice?) it's a different ballgame, one I was just starting to play until the game was called for rain.

So if you hit the bare min for FI, and you'd like to pad with O/TMYs but your job sux, you can right-size your efforts, and see where that gets you. Take longer vacations, more 3 day weekends, more sick days, etc. No it likely won't cure severe burnout - but coupled with putting in only reasonable amounts of time and effort on days you work, it will start the process. And not feeling stressed about making unreasonable outcomes happen, it goes a long way.

***so, assuming that I was at a skimpy FI EOY 2021, and the market goes back to an averagish 10% increase/year with average yearly inflation from 2021 at 5%, and adding 30k/year to the stache in new money it take about 5 years to get back to a 4% WR.

That seems crazy to me! and that is 4MY! not 1 or 2.......

[Metalcat]

...
None of those will pay especially well.  But all of them sound less miserable than another year or several spent full-time behind a desk. 
...

Whenever I hear people say some version of this, I wonder what the heck kind of hellacious job they had!  I'm still planning to leave my cushy job to find out what else is out there, but the next person that fills this position will probably feel like they hit the jackpot.  I'm envious of the young whipper snapper that follows in my footsteps, but I also hope they don't get hooked on luxury items and squander their good fortune...

I never hated my FTE.  I didn't mind it at all.  But it still ate up 40 hours of my week (more, on occasion) and I was at their mercy for planning vacations, being able to go meet a friend on a random Tuesday for lunch or to go to a special event at a museum, and being able to run errands when I wasn't competing with the rest of the M-F working worked.

Why would it have to be hellacious to think that a year less of that is better than *maybe* having to do some substitute teaching, entirely on my schedule, or walk the neighbors dogs a few times a week? Or having to do a couple more freelance writing jobs a month, from the comfort of my home, at 2am if I want to, wearing pajamas and with my dogs curled up at my feet. 

And again, it's not trading one for the other.  It's getting rid of one for the possibility you *might* have to do the other, for a while.

So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

As I also pointed out, a lot of people don't have full time jobs as comfortable as yours. I left FTE at 34 after only 2 years and swore I would never go back, and that was work I really loved doing, it was just unpleasant doing it full time.

I don't actually want to do any one thing for 40+hrs/week. Meanwhile, when all your time is free, doing one day a week of chill paid work can just be something fun and interesting to add to your lifestyle.

The vast majority of seniors I know who do paid work do so just because it's interesting and fun, even when it's not well paid.

For some of us, a bit of paid work really is part of our ideal life and staying extra years in a full time day job really isn't. I didn't even make it to anywhere near FI before I bailed on FTE.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

It all comes down to an expected value problem.

Without OMY say I think I have a 90% chance of never needing to work again - great. 
Option 1: OMY and take the odds to 95%
Option 2: RE now and roll a pentagonal trapezohedron, if you roll a 1, then you need to go make some money at some point in "FIRE"
Option 3: RE now and maybe find something fun to do that makes a little money if you want or dont and take your chance with the pentagonal trapezohedron.

Everyone will differ on how they decide between option 1, 2 and 3.

Except Option 1 is OMY and only needing to work again if 'this time it's different'.  For example, the OMY takes you from 4% SWR to 3.5% SWR (10-15% more NW or, in light of ERE's post, the OMY takes you to a lower CAPE year with 4% SWR)... 

I like option 1 the most personally, but as we all are saying, others might find my FT job to be too onerous to last OMY and take their chances with a start of 2022 4% SWR ER and 'figure it out'...

No right or wrong answer, our situations and predispositions are all vastly different.

[mistymoney]

And again, it's not trading one for the other.  It's getting rid of one for the possibility you *might* have to do the other, for a while.

I think that is true of a general retirement, currently 2022 is looking very much like it could be in th 5% of 4%WR fails, so that possibility is much more of thing.

I think you're double counting risk a bit here.

Scenario 1: we don't know which years will fail until they do. In this case there is a 4-5% chance you end up needing to work at some point after retirement (based on cFireSim results, less if we use different datasets like the original trinity study).

Scenario 2: We know which years will fail. In this case a person retired right at the start of 2022 with exactly 25x their expenses will need to work at least a little sometime in the next three decades with 100% certainty and people who retired at the start of 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, etc have a 0% change of needing to work at all in the next three decades.

But if you add additional concentrated risk for 2022 without reducing the background risk for all years that are not 2022 the same failures get counted twice and you end up seeing the choice to retire and enjoy your life as twice as risky as it actually is.

What do you see as "adding additional concentrated risk"? And why are 20, 19, and 18 put at 0% for failure?

This story is still playing out. bear/trough could be done and market prepping for the next bull within 6 months, or the market could drop another 30% and chaos reigns as capitulation dominoes through markets, or it could just go sideways for 4-5 years. Maybe a decade? Party like it's 1969.......

In any scenario, this is a classic case of SORR, and if you still think that a 5% fail possibility for a retirement simulation in Jan 2022 is still just a 5% fail....

ok?

I just disagree.

[glacio09]

MY husband and I epitomized the two sides of this conversation. I'm in a very good paying job that I don't want to make a 40-year career out of. It's also almost impossible to make into a part time, hop in and out post "retirement" job, especially since it is a strongly in-office, US centric job and I want to move to Europe. In response to this, I started saving long before I knew what early retirement was.

My husband enjoys his job in IT and is actually staying in a lower paying job right now because he enjoys the work and all the perks of working on a college campus. He responded to that by increasing his certifications so that he'd always be able to find another job somewhere.

When we got together it created this beautiful FIRE symbiotic relationship. I'm saving like a squirrel before winter with the assumption that once I'm done, I'm done. This is our FIRE number and is based off of the amount that we actually need to maintain our lifestyle. He's getting all of his skills in line so that he'll eventual work part time freelance if only to keep him busy and not driving me crazy. It would also be the travel fund.

I don't think either perspective is wrong. It's more about your own disposition and knowledge set.

[mistymoney]

...
So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

It all comes down to an expected value problem.

Without OMY say I think I have a 90% chance of never needing to work again - great. 
Option 1: OMY and take the odds to 95%
Option 2: RE now and roll a pentagonal trapezohedron, if you roll a 1, then you need to go make some money at some point in "FIRE"
Option 3: RE now and maybe find something fun to do that makes a little money if you want or dont and take your chance with the pentagonal trapezohedron.

Everyone will differ on how they decide between option 1, 2 and 3.

I want to question your math, and I think you are just spitballing but checking on that. I think that the effect of OMY under most situations would raise 90 to a lot more than 95%. One less year to pay, one more year of contributions, growth, SS wages, etc. Seems like OMY would provide a lot of cushion....

you know, if the market wasn't sinking like a mid-weight stone....

[Morning Glory]

If you have an awful job, then I understand the sentiment. But then you should have probably switched jobs or careers a long time ago.

I don't have an awful job, but I have been doing it for far too long, and I've become cynical. But, we go through our education, follow a career path and end up with a well paid job (and we support our family). Isn't that how life is?

Switching careers and starting over isn't really something that many people can do, especially when trying to build a FI stache at the same time. I think that having made it (pay wise), you might never fully recover from a career change. So people are inclined to slug it out, for as long as they can, in a situation that they might not enjoy or be good at. Many people don't ever make the sort of money that some of us here are on.

If it's forced on you, like @Malcat, that's something different. Likewise if you're FIRE'd and want a side gig, perhaps that's easier as you're not giving anything up - except some of your time.

I'd like to add that it's really hard to be motivated to learn a new job while suffering from severe burnout. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

It all comes down to an expected value problem.

Without OMY say I think I have a 90% chance of never needing to work again - great. 
Option 1: OMY and take the odds to 95%
Option 2: RE now and roll a pentagonal trapezohedron, if you roll a 1, then you need to go make some money at some point in "FIRE"
Option 3: RE now and maybe find something fun to do that makes a little money if you want or dont and take your chance with the pentagonal trapezohedron.

Everyone will differ on how they decide between option 1, 2 and 3.

I want to question your math, and I think you are just spitballing but checking on that. I think that the effect of OMY under most situations would raise 90 to a lot more than 95%. One less year to pay, one more year of contributions, growth, SS wages, etc. Seems like OMY would provide a lot of cushion....

you know, if the market wasn't sinking like a mid-weight stone....

Exactly.  S&P returns for 2019, 2020, and 2021 were 29%, 16%, and 27% - so OMY would give you ~20% more NW + income and benefits...  Folks that pulled the plug in 2019 saw the S&P500 go from ~2900 to 3200 then to 4273 by 2021, so 4% SWR still looks fine for a 2020 ER!  And if an early 2022 ER did OMY in 2021, they would also be fine so far.  It just those folks that hit 4% SWR in late 2021 / early 2022 and pulled the plug that are highly exposed to probable SORR / SWR failure...

[mistymoney]

...
So then why would you be willing to work far more hours for low pay in the future?  I can run a quick calculation and OMY at my current job is worth at least 5, possibly 10 years income from a low-skill job...  Plus I guess I get enough respect and autonomy (especially in the current flexible work environment) that I can run errands whenever I need to during the week.  Sure I don't have 100% freedom yet, but having the possibility of needing to work in the future doesn't sound very free to me either.

As Malcat points out though, I know I'm fortunate to have found a great job that I'm not in a rush to flee from.  If I were coming up on 40 instead of 50, I'd be more than happy to put in another 10 years...

It all comes down to an expected value problem.

Without OMY say I think I have a 90% chance of never needing to work again - great. 
Option 1: OMY and take the odds to 95%
Option 2: RE now and roll a pentagonal trapezohedron, if you roll a 1, then you need to go make some money at some point in "FIRE"
Option 3: RE now and maybe find something fun to do that makes a little money if you want or dont and take your chance with the pentagonal trapezohedron.

Everyone will differ on how they decide between option 1, 2 and 3.

I want to question your math, and I think you are just spitballing but checking on that. I think that the effect of OMY under most situations would raise 90 to a lot more than 95%. One less year to pay, one more year of contributions, growth, SS wages, etc. Seems like OMY would provide a lot of cushion....

you know, if the market wasn't sinking like a mid-weight stone....

Exactly.  S&P returns for 2019, 2020, and 2021 were 29%, 16%, and 27% - so OMY would give you ~20% more NW + income and benefits...  Folks that pulled the plug in 2019 saw the S&P500 go from ~2900 to 3200 then to 4273 by 2021, so 4% SWR still looks fine for a 2020 ER!  And if an early 2022 ER did OMY in 2021, they would also be fine so far.  It just those folks that hit 4% SWR in late 2021 / early 2022 and pulled the plug that are highly exposed to probable SORR / SWR failure...

at this market value anyway!

Looking good today so far, but I'm on tenterhooks for the next 6 months. I think by 6 months we will have a better idea of which way things are going to go. Then I will determine my own personal next steps for RE....or just R.....