Do we think any of the FI bloggers are just making it all up?

[cangelosibrown]

I was just reading another forum post about how Financial Samurai (who I've never really read) has gotten very click-baity and focused on how "impossible" FI is. Made me wonder -- is it possible any of these financial bloggers who claim to be FI are just making it up for the clicks? I'm not coming at this from the yahoo commenter "this is impossible, no one is actually FI" POV. Just that there are a lot of these people now, and some of them are probably making decent money from their blogs. My guess is, at least one of them is just making up their "story" to drive interest/revenue.

[ixtap]

Well, we know their numbers don't add up. Even MMM just excludes random things to say he sticks to his budget. ERE Jacob could just say anything was his wife's expense, rather than his own.

[cangelosibrown]

I don't  know how much the average blogger makes. Those that DO make a lot, like MMM and FS, are probably easy enough to find out if they are really truthful or not. I think the problem comes when you define FI and RE. I think most are FI but few are really RE (putting on my IRP hat here). While I personally don't consider blogging the same as a paid job...more of a paid hobby and one that doesn't guareentee much pay if any...many people who claim to be RE probably arent by most "normal" peoples standards.

Very true. I personally don't like to claim to be anything at all. My situation is specific to me (as is everyone's...) and doesn't really generalize to everyone and isn't easily labelled or categorize. That's one of the things that bugs me about a lot of bloggers -- anyone claiming on any level that any part of their life generalizes to others just feels like hubris to me.

But I'm not really asking the question in an IRP kind of way, and not asking if anyone is fudging things a bit to sound a little better/easier/simplified. I am really wondering if anyone is completely 100% making it up because they wanted to start a blog and make some $$$.

[Davnasty]

I doubt it.

It's certainly possible, but fabricating a lifestyle and writing a blog about it seems like a lot of work for what is ultimately a long shot at making any real money. From what I've seen most people with successful blogs get started because they're very passionate about a subject and they put out a lot of content before they really start getting many followers. Even genuinely good writers with sincerity in their content get passed over simply because they never reach enough readers.

I suppose someone who really knows how to market their blog and get traffic might be able to pull it off, but if they can do that there are probably other topics with more potential for selling products and making income.

[Villanelle]

I doubt they are manufacturing it whole cloth, but almost certainly there is some degree of fabrication or manipulation to skirt the edges of truth.  Expenses excluded, creative rounding... that sort of thing.

If MMM lived in a palatial estate with an army of servants and summered on a yacht, that truth would be pretty quickly discovered.  Once his identity became widely known, the ability to lie to that extent vanished.  But an extra $50 or $100 a month on grocery bills?  Easy. 

Beyond Pete, I think the concept still holds.  I was interneting in the fairly early days, and spent a lot of time on message boards that were mostly just social, so we got to "know" one another.  It was absolutely amazing to me how people could sleuth out truths (and lies).  In one memorable incident, someone was posting about how she was cheating on her husband.  Some other poster managed to sleuth out this person's identity, then figured out who her husband was and contacted him to tell him about the affair.  And this was just with little scraps of information--things like profession, location, maybe an offhand mention of attending X conference, etc.  Similarly, posters were able to sniff out some very committed frauds who manufactured nearly their entire lives, seemingly only for attention.  "Munchausen by internet".  But observant posters grew suspicious and did some digging, and it all unraveled.

So I think someone could fake it for a while, but once they had a fair amount of readers and enough post with details that could be compared and checked, I think it would fall apart. 

[HenryDavid]

Maybe there is some creative rounding or what have you.
But honestly, I don’t care.
Just like when I read the novel The Swiss Family Robinson, then got inspired and built my own treehouse—a whole series of them—these bloggers could be writing inspirational fiction. If the result is that I get inspired and accomplish something real in my own life . . . Well, hurray.
And that has happened, for lots of readers, to the degree they themselves choose.

That said, I agree with those who point out it would be hard for the writer of this particular blog  to egregiously fake his situation. Word would out!

[undercover]

“Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one”

I think it’s important to understand that MrMoneyMustache.com is a product. You’re being sold a lifestyle/idea regardless of whether the author is authentic or not. In fact, I think the author being authentic is 100% irrelevant. Do you gain value from this product and is it worth your time to read it is a better question to ask yourself.

[Metalcat]

It would be very very very difficult to write even remotely compelling blog content about frugality/FI/RE without personal experience.

[cangelosibrown]

“Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one”

I think it’s important to understand that MrMoneyMustache.com is a product. You’re being sold a lifestyle/idea regardless of whether the author is authentic or not. In fact, I think the author being authentic is 100% irrelevant. Do you gain value from this product and is it worth your time to read it is a better question to ask yourself.

I somewhat agree with this sentiment. You do read a lot of stuff (on the forums or otherwise) that criticize some specific thing MMM has done, and then wondering why they should listen to him at all. "He homeschools his kids! He's clearly a whackjob! why should I listen to anything he says!?!?!" This is obviously nonsense, he's not prophet, he's just a guy, and we can evaluate for ourselves the facts and ideas he puts forward. I agree with him on some stuff, I don't agree with him on some stuff, no big deal. He (and all the other bloggers) is just a guy, and I don't give all that much weight to his statements beyond their value as facts and ideas.

OTOH -- There's not all that much factual content to any of these blogs. The reason I read any of it is to hear actual stories of what people have done and how it's worked out and affected them. Obviously it would affect me differently, but that doesn't mean hearing their stories and how it worked out for them isn't extremely valuable. To go back to the homeschooling example -- it was great to hear from a person who I feel I've gotten to know a little bit talk about how homeschooling has worked out for him and his family.  If you told me that was 100% fiction, and it was just him speculating about what it would be like based on some stuff he had read, then I would read it from a completely different angle. It would be less useful. No less entertaining, perhaps, but less useful.

[Travis]

It would be very very very difficult to write even remotely compelling blog content about frugality/FI/RE without personal experience.

Monetarily successful bloggers require popularity. Popularity requires interacting with a lot of people virtually and in person. I think it would take a serious con artist to pull that off consistently.

[ender]

I don't know but it'd be hilarious to fake-it-till-you-make-it as a FIRE blogger.

Then again, I think that MMM himself more or less lies in how he presents his expenses at this point (specifically the business vs personal distinction he makes) so I guess I probably have to answer "yes" to this question.

[habanero]

I don't really see any reason why a successful bloggers spending, like MMMs, should increase a lot because of having a successful blog. If you didn't have expensive habits to start with and you are wired in such a way that spending more money on stuff, entertainment, activities or whatever does not give you and increased happiness, why should your spending go up (a lot) just because your brokerage statement displays a Very High Number when you look at it?

Once you become a public figure with a large following like MMM it becomes very, very hard, if not impossible to maintain an online personality significantly different from who you are in real life. It's probably doable (and likely tedious as fuck) as long as noone or almost noone knows who you are in real life, but maintaining a consistent story for almost 10 years based on a lie? Why bother?

If his spending is higher or lower than annually stated I personally couldn't care less. I know from my own expense tracking that it is easy to forget an item here and there and they can add up over the year - I can get my actual spending for a year by looking at annual pay minus amount invested but that also requires that I remember to include every item sold on Craigslist, CC rewards used etc, but it does give the overall picture. When you have plenty of money anyways and don't really have to worry about that aspect of life it's harder to maintain accurate tracking because it does not really serve any purpose anymore.

And if you don't really derive any joy from spending money and already have all the stuff you need - what purpose should increased spending serve? If you didn't have expensive habits to start with there is not really any reason to develop any just because you have a lot more money.

[jeroly]

Some people lie.
FIRE bloggers are people.
Therefore it is possible that some FIRE bloggers lie.

Does that mean that FIRE is impossible? Clearly not...
However, it’s reasonable to expect that people with a vested interest at “selling themselves” are more likely to lie than the general population overall, and that their FIRE journeys have been less dramatic than they present them to be.  Whether that means they actually spend more, save less, get lower investment returns, retain more debt, or whatever, probably varies.

The whole lying thing is really somewhat irrelevant though, as it’s patently obvious that many if not most of the bloggers present their stories in ways that distort their realities.  Whether it’s hiding post-FIRE spending as “business expenses,” presenting themselves as particularly thrifty when their FIRE status primarily derived from a high tech exec salary, or calculating their investment returns incorrectly in a way that just so happens to wildly inflate their investing prowess, it’s easy to find FIRE related case studies that make it seem like FIRE is even easier than it is.

The most important thing to bear in mind, though, is that FIRE is in fact achievable, and is relatively straightforward to accomplish.  Just do some basic things:  LBYM while avoiding lifestyle inflation, don’t buy too much house or car, stay invested in the market, take advantage of tax-deferred accounts... it’s not rocket science.

[slappy]

First off, I don't believe Financial Samurai is a FIRE blog.

[Villanelle]

I don't know but it'd be hilarious to fake-it-till-you-make-it as a FIRE blogger.

Then again, I think that MMM himself more or less lies in how he presents his expenses at this point (specifically the business vs personal distinction he makes) so I guess I probably have to answer "yes" to this question.

This is kind of the rub with FI bloggers. If, like MMM, you attained FI and RE on $x amount of money a decade or so ago and lived that life do you lose your credibity if your income increase and your spending follows along? Can MMM or Jacob at ERE say they live on the same (inflation adjusted) amount as they did when they started blogging post-FIRE? I agree MMM and some others (bloggers and ordinary FIREd people alike) spend more on different thing then they did 10 years ago but does that mean they are lying or intentionally being deciteful? I think MMM purposes categorizes business vs personal spending so he can show that his personal spending level is still relatively low even though he's been FIREd forever and dispite how much income he earns.  I don't know. As a long term FIREee myself (who hasn't earned any income or blogs) and who could FIRE on a low income, I think my situation has changed but my FIRE status hasn't. Now it would be pretty disappointing if I heard MMM has a batcave full of Ferraris and Lear jets he takes out for weekend trips to Vegas and Monte Carlo

This does make sense to me, but I do wish MMM would acknowledge the change in his life.  Since is blog is at least as much about the mindset (hedonistic adaptation, face punches, etc.) as it is the numbers, and since he preaches that money and things don't buy happiness, when he then spends more money, it seems to create a conflict.  It would be great for him to talk about why and how he's spending more, and the thought process that got him there, assuming it is in fact thoughtful spending and not just sloppiness and laziness that comes from having a firehose of cash coming in.

Personally, I do feel that sometimes, money does buy happiness.  I posted about that here a couple months ago.  To me, the point is continuing to be thoughtful about spending, and really evaluating why we want to spend more on something.  If the answer is laziness or envy or societal expectation, keep your wallet in your pocket.  If not, then maybe it's a good spend.  That's fine.  And my impression is that this is some of what Pete is doing, but he doesn't acknowledge this, even though it seems to be a slight shift in his thinking.  That's where it starts to feel a bit disengenuous to me.

Say what you want about FS and his motivation and sincerity, but at least he's admitted that things, including his mindset, have changed. 

[TheContinentalOp]

"Everybody lies!"   /Dr. House

[Zikoris]

I mean, you have to wonder if it really matters? Obviously lying is bad, etc etc, but personally, I just evaluate people's ideas on their own merit. Especially in terms of FIRE - it's math, it either works or it doesn't. Ideas are either logically sound or they aren't. Someone saying "ditching cars saves tons of money and makes you healthier" is right, whether they personally grocery shop with a bicycle or a private jet.

Personally, that level of deception just seems like way too much work. In order to fudge expenses, you'd have to track your expenses accurately in order to know what to fudge. Then keep track of what you're fudging and not slip up. I guess you'd do, like, an Excel formula to import real values into a new spreadsheet and add a fudge factor to each category? But you'd have to remember, like "Okay, I take 10% off my groceries, 25% off my transportation....". What a huge hassle for zero benefit.

It just seems like it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly in finance discussion circles, but it just seems pointless.

[Metalcat]

I mean, you have to wonder if it really matters? Obviously lying is bad, etc etc, but personally, I just evaluate people's ideas on their own merit. Especially in terms of FIRE - it's math, it either works or it doesn't. Ideas are either logically sound or they aren't. Someone saying "ditching cars saves tons of money and makes you healthier" is right, whether they personally grocery shop with a bicycle or a private jet.

Personally, that level of deception just seems like way too much work. In order to fudge expenses, you'd have to track your expenses accurately in order to know what to fudge. Then keep track of what you're fudging and not slip up. I guess you'd do, like, an Excel formula to import real values into a new spreadsheet and add a fudge factor to each category? But you'd have to remember, like "Okay, I take 10% off my groceries, 25% off my transportation....". What a huge hassle for zero benefit.

It just seems like it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly in finance discussion circles, but it just seems pointless.

Yep, little poetic license and protecting of a brand is one thing, but full scale deception is a truly exceptional skill that would be utterly wasted on blogging about personal finance.

Then again, we do live in a world where people can rent a private jet on the tarmac for an hour just for photoshoots to post on social media pretending to be wealthy to strangers on Instagram.

So...

[cangelosibrown]

If, like MMM, you attained FI and RE on $x amount of money a decade or so ago and lived that life do you lose your credibity if your income increase and your spending follows along? Can MMM or Jacob at ERE say they live on the same (inflation adjusted) amount as they did when they started blogging post-FIRE?

I think so much of this depends on the philosophy that you're espousing.

Jacob's (and I found MMM from Jacob's recommendation when he 'unretired') main point seemed to be that it was possible to retire and live well on a very small amount of money. He unretired after he proved that point to himself, and decided to try other things.

MMM's main philosophy seems to be that frugal living is the best possible life to live, and that he couldn't possibly spend any more money than he does, without being a face-punch-worthy spendy-pants driving luxury clown-cars.  I'm being somewhat facetious, obviously, but that really does seem to be the philosophy he's espousing.

Now I'm much more in the camp that "spending more money"="get more value", but that's not a linear curve, and that at some point the effort to get more money becomes larger than the gain. We all have to find that point for ourselves. And if a bunch of money fell into my lap, I would live differently because of it. I have no problem with bloggers doing the same. But if it conflicts with their stated philosophy, it does undercut that philosophy somewhat.

[PathtoFIRE]

I'm not really sure if there are any current FIRE bloggers that are totally upfront about ALL their spending and ALL their income sources.

I don't follow many, but Root of Good and Go Curry Cracker both strike me as very transparent and upfront about net worth, expenses, and income, but both are closer to fatFIRE, at least in terms of net worth, if not necessarily expenses. Of course neither are publishing their 1040s either, though GCC does go through parts of his return to make various points.

[robartsd]

I do consider some of the things MMM has excluded from his personal expenses are really lifestyle inflation rather than "business" expenses. I believe Pete would have been reasonably happy without these in his life, but I do think Pete would have upgraded to an e-bike, purchased an electric car to play with (he could have rented one for a week or two to do his reviews or sold it after completing his research), and taken some of the trips chalked up as "business" even if he hadn't started the blog - assuming he could afford to do so without threatening his financial independence. I'm not sure that I believe he would have created a private clubhouse (MMM World HQ), but he might have spent more on entertainment (local music scene) without that local outlet occupying his time. None of this alters the core message that lots of "normal" consumption isn't really worth the costs.

[Cassie]

I noticed that Pete no longer posts his yearly spending. I think it’s been a couple of years.

[Villanelle]

I mean, you have to wonder if it really matters? Obviously lying is bad, etc etc, but personally, I just evaluate people's ideas on their own merit. Especially in terms of FIRE - it's math, it either works or it doesn't. Ideas are either logically sound or they aren't. Someone saying "ditching cars saves tons of money and makes you healthier" is right, whether they personally grocery shop with a bicycle or a private jet.

Personally, that level of deception just seems like way too much work. In order to fudge expenses, you'd have to track your expenses accurately in order to know what to fudge. Then keep track of what you're fudging and not slip up. I guess you'd do, like, an Excel formula to import real values into a new spreadsheet and add a fudge factor to each category? But you'd have to remember, like "Okay, I take 10% off my groceries, 25% off my transportation....". What a huge hassle for zero benefit.

It just seems like it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly in finance discussion circles, but it just seems pointless.

MMM is about way more than the math though.  It's about how to get to numbers where the math works; it's highly philosophical.  In a nutshell, he claims that not only do you not need to buy much in order to be happy, but that buying more rarely increases happiness.  So when he buys more, one has to wonder which part of the philosophy has shifted for him.

I'd live differently if I had a significant extra money, I'd spend more.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  And I'd love to see MMM explore how he makes those choices now that he has way more money than he needs (so saving for the sake of security isn't an issue) and has loosened the reins a bit.  I think that would be helpful for a lot of people.  How do you balance maybe buying a luxury here and there without letting it snowball?  How do you allow some additional comforts and excitements without spiraling into hedonistic adaptation?

It's especially interesting to me because a refusal to be completely transparent seems almost certainly to come from knowing it would hurt the blog business.  But if MMM truly doesn't need the blog money, why does he care?  Yet is seems fairly clear to me that he does.  So what are we supposed to surmise from that?

Also, as far as how difficult it would be to fudge the numbers, it wouldn't need to be complicated at all.  Just make them up.

Groceries: $155
Gifts: $15
Clothing:$10
pet care: $70
electric: $100
gas: $40
rent (incl. water) : $2100
vacation/travel:$150
fuel: $15
metro:$10
insurance:  $55
car sinking fund: $25
home improvement/repair/decor:$10
misc: $15
haircuts: $15
medical: $15 (co pays)
...

There.  Entirely made up.  I don't even have a pet.  Most of those numbers weren't based on my spending plus or minus something.  They are just what might be reasonable or possible for someone. 

[Zikoris]

I mean, you have to wonder if it really matters? Obviously lying is bad, etc etc, but personally, I just evaluate people's ideas on their own merit. Especially in terms of FIRE - it's math, it either works or it doesn't. Ideas are either logically sound or they aren't. Someone saying "ditching cars saves tons of money and makes you healthier" is right, whether they personally grocery shop with a bicycle or a private jet.

Personally, that level of deception just seems like way too much work. In order to fudge expenses, you'd have to track your expenses accurately in order to know what to fudge. Then keep track of what you're fudging and not slip up. I guess you'd do, like, an Excel formula to import real values into a new spreadsheet and add a fudge factor to each category? But you'd have to remember, like "Okay, I take 10% off my groceries, 25% off my transportation....". What a huge hassle for zero benefit.

It just seems like it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly in finance discussion circles, but it just seems pointless.

MMM is about way more than the math though.  It's about how to get to numbers where the math works; it's highly philosophical.  In a nutshell, he claims that not only do you not need to buy much in order to be happy, but that buying more rarely increases happiness.  So when he buys more, one has to wonder which part of the philosophy has shifted for him.

I'd live differently if I had a significant extra money, I'd spend more.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  And I'd love to see MMM explore how he makes those choices now that he has way more money than he needs (so saving for the sake of security isn't an issue) and has loosened the reins a bit.  I think that would be helpful for a lot of people.  How do you balance maybe buying a luxury here and there without letting it snowball?  How do you allow some additional comforts and excitements without spiraling into hedonistic adaptation?

It's especially interesting to me because a refusal to be completely transparent seems almost certainly to come from knowing it would hurt the blog business.  But if MMM truly doesn't need the blog money, why does he care?  Yet is seems fairly clear to me that he does.  So what are we supposed to surmise from that?

Also, as far as how difficult it would be to fudge the numbers, it wouldn't need to be complicated at all.  Just make them up.

Groceries: $155
Gifts: $15
Clothing:$10
pet care: $70
electric: $100
gas: $40
rent (incl. water) : $2100
vacation/travel:$150
fuel: $15
metro:$10
insurance:  $55
car sinking fund: $25
home improvement/repair/decor:$10
misc: $15
haircuts: $15
medical: $15 (co pays)
...

There.  Entirely made up.  I don't even have a pet.  Most of those numbers weren't based on my spending plus or minus something.  They are just what might be reasonable or possible for someone.

I mean, I think it's been pretty well established by research in general that buying tons of stuff doesn't lead to happiness - that's not some revolutionary thing MMM (or any other blogger) came up with.

As far as fudging numbers, the problem comes with consistency. Fudging something now means you need to remember your fudge in the future. If you forget and start making mistakes, people will call you out on it really quickly. If you say you spend $155 on groceries now, then six months from now you say you spend $300, that's not going to slip by unnoticed. So if you're going to go that route, you'd need to come up with some sort of system to keep your lies straight.

You know what I find really interesting? How many people, even on FIRE forums, are still linking spending levels with happiness. People just CANNOT seem to let go of the idea that low spending = shitty life. Therefore, if someone says they spend little but live a happy fulfilling life, they're LYING. And yet this is one of the most central tenets of the FIRE concept as a whole. I have never had that problem myself, so it's pretty tough for me to wrap my head around it, but I suspect people use it to rationalize their own over-consumption and laziness (especially re: driving, cooking, and so on). Example: "Groceries just cost a certain amount, spending less than that means eating garbage, and it's definitely not that I'm just too fucking lazy to cook and plan!"

[roomtempmayo]

While we're bagging on financial bloggers, I'll add my pet peeve.

Why is it that basically nobody wants to talk transparently about their finances from age 18 to about age 26?  Most who are very proud of their financial situation seem to have an origin story like: "This story begins at age 29 when we were happily married, with two super-expensive graduate degrees, 400k in home equity, two paid off cars, 250k in tax advantaged accounts, and zero debt of any sort."

Wait... if that's where you're at at 29, you basically already have the world by the tail.  I'm not even interested in what comes next.  What I want to know is how you got there.  And if the unstated story as a whole lot of intergenerational wealth transfer, then all this really is is a story about how rich families tend to stay rich, which is about the oldest story in capitalism and not particularly insightful or interesting.

[Villanelle]

I mean, you have to wonder if it really matters? Obviously lying is bad, etc etc, but personally, I just evaluate people's ideas on their own merit. Especially in terms of FIRE - it's math, it either works or it doesn't. Ideas are either logically sound or they aren't. Someone saying "ditching cars saves tons of money and makes you healthier" is right, whether they personally grocery shop with a bicycle or a private jet.

Personally, that level of deception just seems like way too much work. In order to fudge expenses, you'd have to track your expenses accurately in order to know what to fudge. Then keep track of what you're fudging and not slip up. I guess you'd do, like, an Excel formula to import real values into a new spreadsheet and add a fudge factor to each category? But you'd have to remember, like "Okay, I take 10% off my groceries, 25% off my transportation....". What a huge hassle for zero benefit.

It just seems like it's a topic that comes up fairly regularly in finance discussion circles, but it just seems pointless.

MMM is about way more than the math though.  It's about how to get to numbers where the math works; it's highly philosophical.  In a nutshell, he claims that not only do you not need to buy much in order to be happy, but that buying more rarely increases happiness.  So when he buys more, one has to wonder which part of the philosophy has shifted for him.

I'd live differently if I had a significant extra money, I'd spend more.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  And I'd love to see MMM explore how he makes those choices now that he has way more money than he needs (so saving for the sake of security isn't an issue) and has loosened the reins a bit.  I think that would be helpful for a lot of people.  How do you balance maybe buying a luxury here and there without letting it snowball?  How do you allow some additional comforts and excitements without spiraling into hedonistic adaptation?

It's especially interesting to me because a refusal to be completely transparent seems almost certainly to come from knowing it would hurt the blog business.  But if MMM truly doesn't need the blog money, why does he care?  Yet is seems fairly clear to me that he does.  So what are we supposed to surmise from that?

Also, as far as how difficult it would be to fudge the numbers, it wouldn't need to be complicated at all.  Just make them up.

Groceries: $155
Gifts: $15
Clothing:$10
pet care: $70
electric: $100
gas: $40
rent (incl. water) : $2100
vacation/travel:$150
fuel: $15
metro:$10
insurance:  $55
car sinking fund: $25
home improvement/repair/decor:$10
misc: $15
haircuts: $15
medical: $15 (co pays)
...

There.  Entirely made up.  I don't even have a pet.  Most of those numbers weren't based on my spending plus or minus something.  They are just what might be reasonable or possible for someone.

I mean, I think it's been pretty well established by research in general that buying tons of stuff doesn't lead to happiness - that's not some revolutionary thing MMM (or any other blogger) came up with.

As far as fudging numbers, the problem comes with consistency. Fudging something now means you need to remember your fudge in the future. If you forget and start making mistakes, people will call you out on it really quickly. If you say you spend $155 on groceries now, then six months from now you say you spend $300, that's not going to slip by unnoticed. So if you're going to go that route, you'd need to come up with some sort of system to keep your lies straight.

You know what I find really interesting? How many people, even on FIRE forums, are still linking spending levels with happiness. People just CANNOT seem to let go of the idea that low spending = shitty life. Therefore, if someone says they spend little but live a happy fulfilling life, they're LYING. And yet this is one of the most central tenets of the FIRE concept as a whole. I have never had that problem myself, so it's pretty tough for me to wrap my head around it, but I suspect people use it to rationalize their own over-consumption and laziness (especially re: driving, cooking, and so on). Example: "Groceries just cost a certain amount, spending less than that means eating garbage, and it's definitely not that I'm just too fucking lazy to cook and plan!"

But, and this is the point I tried and failed to make earlier, MMM was a leading champion of what you are saying and yet he's now spending more.  Why?  If it's not bringing additional happiness, why is this guy who spent years and many a blog post examining this concept, spending more?  Did he just get lazy?  (If so, that suggests that keeping things locked down isn't quite as simple as his schtick claims.)  Did he find that in specific, targeted ways, spending more can increase happiness? (This is the case for me, and what I suspect happened with Pete.)

Shit is my life is complicated right now, it's a crazy time of year, we are traveling a ton, and my anxiety is in a not-great place--a situation that is unlikely to resolve itself for at least another month due to the things pushing the anxiety spike.  I'm giving thought to---Gasp!--bringing in a housekeeper for a one time deep clean early in January.  This is anathema to mustachianism.  But I suspect that doing so absolutely would purchase me some additional happiness. Just thinking about it feels like a weight lifted.  I need some help and I am very fortunate enough (due in part to things like not having a regular housekeeper, even though in many circles that's seen as a basic need.) to be able to purchase that help. That said, I'm not just doing it.  I'm thinking about it.  I'm in the process of making a carefully examined decision.  Part of that is telling myself that this WILL be a one-time thing if I do it.  It won't bleed into, "well, it's cheaper per hour if I book a regular service, and we can afford once a month, and...".  Is that lazy, or an excuse for over consumption?  Not by my definition. 

So I no longer buy  (ha!) the concept that money doesn't buy happiness.  Sometimes, it does.  And I think we all, even the most frugal among us, acknowledge that on some level because we don't live in vans down by the river eating beans and rice and roadkill and wearing clothes dug out of landfills.  Maybe we purchase some moderately priced spices to add to our beans.  That $10/year buys is some happiness we wouldn't have if we choked down unflavored beans every day.  The difference is where we draw the line on the continuum:  [spices for beans]-----------------------[Kardashian extravagance].  By refusing to acknowledge that in focused, considered levels money does by happiness, and to discuss how to draw that line and what questions we should ask ourselves before an expense, it kind of makes the entire concept bullshit.  If you [global] are spending money on ANYTHING that truly brings you happiness--which we ALL do, then you are tacitly acknowledging that money can buy happiness.  The real issue is how, and on what. 

I know that, nearly everyone knows that, and Pete knows it.  And he's doing it.  As far as I can tell, he's doing it responsibly and thoughtfully and carefully and well.  But he can't quite say he's doing it because it waters down the badass persona that was the hallmark of his success.


There's a lot of room between "spending only the bare minimum buys you as much happiness as money every will and everything else is wasted" and "I couldn't possibly spend less than I do know because what I spend now is comfortable which I translate to mean any less would make my life catastropically sucky, so I won't spend less and I won't examine any existing or future expense."

[Villanelle]

While we're bagging on financial bloggers, I'll add my pet peeve.

Why is it that basically nobody wants to talk transparently about their finances from age 18 to about age 26?  Most who are very proud of their financial situation seem to have an origin story like: "This story begins at age 29 when we were happily married, with two super-expensive graduate degrees, 400k in home equity, two paid off cars, 250k in tax advantaged accounts, and zero debt of any sort."

Wait... if that's where you're at at 29, you basically already have the world by the tail.  I'm not even interested in what comes next.  What I want to know is how you got there.  And if the unstated story as a whole lot of intergenerational wealth transfer, then all this really is is a story about how rich families tend to stay rich, which is about the oldest story in capitalism and not particularly insightful or interesting.

What a great idea for a thread!  "What did your finances look like from 18-26?"

[cangelosibrown]

I'm not really sure if there are any current FIRE bloggers that are totally upfront about ALL their spending and ALL their income sources.

I don't follow many, but Root of Good and Go Curry Cracker both strike me as very transparent and upfront about net worth, expenses, and income, but both are closer to fatFIRE, at least in terms of net worth, if not necessarily expenses. Of course neither are publishing their 1040s either, though GCC does go through parts of his return to make various points.

it's funny you should mention Curry cracker, I actually had an email exchange am with him a couple years ago about his "packing list". At the time I was also traveling full-time time and was thinking about having kids, so I had some questions. He kept responding with things he had with for the kids that weren't on the packing list he'd just published. All small things that were no big deal to leave out in and if themselves, but as a whole added up to a decent amount. Would have made the packing list look worse, less simple and easy, and thus would have made his life look less easy. I'm not saying I blame him or think he's intentionally fudging anything, but these sorts of small omissions are easy to make. Makes the narrative better, so you leave it out.

[Zikoris]

I have to wonder how many people even have records dating back that far. I'm one I the more nitpicky, long term trackers around, with eight years of to the penny records, and even I didn't start until I was 25. Not that there was much exciting before that. A string of dead end low paying jobs and a net worth fluctuating between zero and slightly negative. I remember what my rent was, because I haven't had that many different apartments, but anything else, no clue.

[roomtempmayo]

What a great idea for a thread!  "What did your finances look like from 18-26?"

Maybe, but it would likely just be a self-selecting sample of folks who are proud of bootstrapping it, not necessary a representative picture of people who have accumulated serious net worth by their late 20s.

On the topic of faking it, there's a great quote from the Wait A Minute, How Can They Afford That When I Can't? article in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/your-money/financial-security-envy.html

Sharon (not her real name), who lives in Westchester County, N.Y., has relatives who have paid her children’s full college tuition and give the family additional help.

She doesn’t like sharing that with people, “a little bit because I’m protecting the image of my husband that he rolls with the big boys,” she said. “And I also feel really lucky and it doesn’t feel fair. I’m not comfortable, but I’m thrilled we have it.”

How many "Sharons" are there in the world who hold themselves out as financial geniuses when really they were just born into wealth to a greater or lesser extent?  I expect that's a non-zero number.

[Travis]

I have to wonder how many people even have records dating back that far. I'm one I the more nitpicky, long term trackers around, with eight years of to the penny records, and even I didn't start until I was 25. Not that there was much exciting before that. A string of dead end low paying jobs and a net worth fluctuating between zero and slightly negative. I remember what my rent was, because I haven't had that many different apartments, but anything else, no clue.

I didn't get on the budgeting/MMM train until 32, so most of my financial history prior to that would be guesswork except for my income levels and the very large purchases I made along the way.

I'm not really sure if there are any current FIRE bloggers that are totally upfront about ALL their spending and ALL their income sources.

I don't follow many, but Root of Good and Go Curry Cracker both strike me as very transparent and upfront about net worth, expenses, and income, but both are closer to fatFIRE, at least in terms of net worth, if not necessarily expenses. Of course neither are publishing their 1040s either, though GCC does go through parts of his return to make various points.

it's funny you should mention Curry cracker, I actually had an email exchange am with him a couple years ago about his "packing list". At the time I was also traveling full-time time and was thinking about having kids, so I had some questions. He kept responding with things he had with for the kids that weren't on the packing list he'd just published. All small things that were no big deal to leave out in and if themselves, but as a whole added up to a decent amount. Would have made the packing list look worse, less simple and easy, and thus would have made his life look less easy. I'm not saying I blame him or think he's intentionally fudging anything, but these sorts of small omissions are easy to make. Makes the narrative better, so you leave it out.

He put out an end-of-the-year spending report that included a line about how his website is now bringing in upper $20k/year which I believe he stated is now his primary spending source.  Unless Pete has changed his plans in the last couple years (maybe with the new HQ?), I believe his website income has been sitting in a separate account unspent this whole time.

[partgypsy]

What a great idea for a thread!  "What did your finances look like from 18-26?"

Maybe, but it would likely just be a self-selecting sample of folks who are proud of bootstrapping it, not necessary a representative picture of people who have accumulated serious net worth by their late 20s.

On the topic of faking it, there's a great quote from the Wait A Minute, How Can They Afford That When I Can't? article in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/your-money/financial-security-envy.html

Sharon (not her real name), who lives in Westchester County, N.Y., has relatives who have paid her children’s full college tuition and give the family additional help.

She doesn’t like sharing that with people, “a little bit because I’m protecting the image of my husband that he rolls with the big boys,” she said. “And I also feel really lucky and it doesn’t feel fair. I’m not comfortable, but I’m thrilled we have it.”

How many "Sharons" are there in the world who hold themselves out as financial geniuses when really they were just born into wealth to a greater or lesser extent?  I expect that's a non-zero number.

Yes.i live in a neighborhood that rapidly gentrified, and can think of a least 3 neighbors who got significant help from parents to buy their house, 1 to substationally renovate it, and two instances where the people occupation (one a yoga instructor?) Another 2 professors,1 adjunct) don't match the 500k or 1 mill house they live in.

[SwordGuy]

What a great idea for a thread!  "What did your finances look like from 18-26?"

From 14 to 17 I ran my own yard business and socked away a bit of money. 

From 16/17 to age 22 I worked at a fast food restaurant and lived at home with my parents.

Age 22/24 I worked as a graduate assistant, worked at the same fast food restaurant, and shared an apartment.   I got two meals a day for free any day I worked at the restaurant which helped my food bill considerably.   

Age 24-30 I lived with my wife in an apartment, living on 1/3rd median family income, and paid child support.   We ran two businesses (one for software and one for publishing).     We were living in a slumlord doctor's apartment building.  Our only savings were from my yard mowing business as a kid.  During this time we got a $2,000 loan from my parents for computer equipment.   We had a master card with a $300 credit limit because we gave the bank $300 to put in a secured account for 2 years.   A businessman we partnered with on a couple of deals cosigned on a used car for us when our one car died.     

The software business almost made us multi-millionaires.  I saw an opening and we went for it.   We had a 20% chance at it plus as the product was completed our income started rising a bit.   We might be dirt poor and live in a cheap apartment that wasn't properly maintained, but we had a $2 million dollar line of credit if our bid was accepted by the government.   Aren't a lot of people who have ever had a $2 million dollar line of credit, much less in those financial circumstances.   

At age 30 we gave it up and I got work as a corporate software developer.   We finally had a decent income which was exactly the median family income for that year.   We thought we were pigs in clover there was so much money.   If we had learned about MMM back then we could have doubled our standard of living instead of tripled it and had a 33% savings rate.    My income in the corporate world climbed pretty quickly.   Had we kept the 2/3rds median income standard of living we would have had a 60% savings rate.   FI could have easily been by 45, possibly as early as 40.

But we just didn't know.

[ender]

At age 30 we gave it up and I got work as a corporate software developer.   We finally had a decent income which was exactly the median family income for that year.   We thought we were pigs in clover there was so much money.   If we had learned about MMM back then we could have doubled our standard of living instead of tripled it and had a 33% savings rate.    My income in the corporate world climbed pretty quickly.   Had we kept the 2/3rds median income standard of living we would have had a 60% savings rate.   FI could have easily been by 45, possibly as early as 40.

But we just didn't know.

You might not have known for yourself but there are many of us who are also 30ish who are doing what you recommend you should have done :-)

[SwordGuy]

At age 30 we gave it up and I got work as a corporate software developer.   We finally had a decent income which was exactly the median family income for that year.   We thought we were pigs in clover there was so much money.   If we had learned about MMM back then we could have doubled our standard of living instead of tripled it and had a 33% savings rate.    My income in the corporate world climbed pretty quickly.   Had we kept the 2/3rds median income standard of living we would have had a 60% savings rate.   FI could have easily been by 45, possibly as early as 40.

But we just didn't know.

You might not have known for yourself but there are many of us who are also 30ish who are doing what you recommend you should have done :-)

That's for sure!    You young'uns taught us what to do and how to do it.  And mighty grateful we are!  I might have another decade of working to go if I hadn't found MMM and this forum in 2012.

[ShastaFire]

Well, we know their numbers don't add up. Even MMM just excludes random things to say he sticks to his budget. ERE Jacob could just say anything was his wife's expense, rather than his own.

I see what you mean - there are perhaps some creative interpretations, some built-in subjectivity..but having read Jacob's ERE book, followed his blog and forum for years, even his 10 year update on GRS, I 100% believe he is living what he purports to a high degree.  His intense logic and systems thinking personality mean he has a hard time living otherwise, IMO.

[nirodha]

Jacob from ERE is the last FIRE blogger I'd suspect of making it up. He's not profiting off the work and puts it all out there.

[robartsd]

While we're bagging on financial bloggers, I'll add my pet peeve.

Why is it that basically nobody wants to talk transparently about their finances from age 18 to about age 26?  Most who are very proud of their financial situation seem to have an origin story like: "This story begins at age 29 when we were happily married, with two super-expensive graduate degrees, 400k in home equity, two paid off cars, 250k in tax advantaged accounts, and zero debt of any sort."

Wait... if that's where you're at at 29, you basically already have the world by the tail.  I'm not even interested in what comes next.  What I want to know is how you got there.  And if the unstated story as a whole lot of intergenerational wealth transfer, then all this really is is a story about how rich families tend to stay rich, which is about the oldest story in capitalism and not particularly insightful or interesting.

In MMM's case, there was some help from family, but not all that much:

Student Loans: Zero – due to low spending, about $10k of help from parents and scholarships, and good high school and summer jobs.

But MMM's path didn't start with $0 net worth and a college degree in 1997, it started when he chose to save money for his future as a teenager which helped him earn a college degree with no student debt.

[Metalcat]

In MMM's case, there was some help from family, but not all that much:

Student Loans: Zero – due to low spending, about $10k of help from parents and scholarships, and good high school and summer jobs.

But MMM's path didn't start with $0 net worth and a college degree in 1997, it started when he chose to save money for his future as a teenager which helped him earn a college degree with no student debt.

He was also in Canada

[roomtempmayo]

In MMM's case, there was some help from family, but not all that much:

Student Loans: Zero – due to low spending, about $10k of help from parents and scholarships, and good high school and summer jobs.

But MMM's path didn't start with $0 net worth and a college degree in 1997, it started when he chose to save money for his future as a teenager which helped him earn a college degree with no student debt.

He was also in Canada

Yeah, that's what crossed my mind as well.  https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/05/16/the-cheap-ticket-into-the-elite-class/

I paid for most of my own University education by banking the proceeds of minimum wage jobs starting at age fifteen

The idea that "I paid my own way" isn't necessarily disingenuous, but the Canadian government likely paid quite a bit more for his education than he did. 

And, don't get me wrong, I don't think there's a thing wrong with receiving free or cheap public higher education.  But it does cut against the self made man narrative that most financial bloggers want to present.

[dougules]

The problem is that with folks that have a successful blog the math just gets really tricky to try and relate it back to somebody who retires and doesn't have their hobby turn into a major business.  They are doing some creative math, but I don't know if there's any way around that. 

In MMM's case, there was some help from family, but not all that much:

Student Loans: Zero – due to low spending, about $10k of help from parents and scholarships, and good high school and summer jobs.

But MMM's path didn't start with $0 net worth and a college degree in 1997, it started when he chose to save money for his future as a teenager which helped him earn a college degree with no student debt.

He was also in Canada

Isn't it insirational that he overcame despite the odds. :)

[bacchi]

There have been a few articles through the years about ER people making shit up. They weren't popular bloggers but they were bloggers.

Off the top of my head, one "self-made" FIREee bought an apartment complex by saving and scrumping. A little more investigative work by the journalist and it's discovered that he had received a $400k inheritance to help him along.

On occasion, we have posts by new people who have achieved FIRE at a very young age. The details are vague and questionable. The Pizza Delivery Millionaire blog person is ringing a bell.

[EndlessJourney]

The idea that "I paid my own way" isn't necessarily disingenuous, but the Canadian government likely paid quite a bit more for his education than he did. 

The Canadian government is funded by Canadian taxpayers. Canadians pay a lot more tax than Americans do.

So in a way, he did "pay his own way", if not entirely through tuition, then indirectly by the taxes he paid.

[Metalcat]

The idea that "I paid my own way" isn't necessarily disingenuous, but the Canadian government likely paid quite a bit more for his education than he did. 

The Canadian government is funded by Canadian taxpayers. Canadians pay a lot more tax than Americans do.

So in a way, he did "pay his own way", if not entirely through tuition, then indirectly by the taxes he paid.

Americans here keep telling me that Canadians don't actually pay that much more tax than Americans do.

[EndlessJourney]

Americans here keep telling me that Canadians don't actually pay that much more tax than Americans do.

Those Americans should do some research. Both countries are progressive income tax systems, so there are different ways to measure what a resident pays, not to mention sales taxes and other levies.

But any way you measure it, Canadians pay more than Americans. According to wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

If you measure by lowest marginal income tax rate, Canada ranks 16th highest in the world at 19%. The US ranks 51st highest with a 10% income tax for the lowest earners.

At the highest marginal tax rate, Canada ranks 7th highest in the world, with the top earners getting 54% of their income clawed back. I can attest to this. At the end of my career, I was at an income bracket that for every additional dollar I earned, I gave the government 51 cents in income tax. They made more than I did for every additional dollar I earned. How's that for disincentivizing labour?

In comparison, the highest earners in the US get taxed 43%, for a ranking of 32nd highest in the world.

If you look at sales tax, Canadians pay an average of 14%, ranking around 80th highest in the world. The national average in the US is around 6%, which puts them in the rankings over 100th in the world.

In almost every single metric surrounding taxes, Canadian pay more than Americans do.

[bacchi]

In almost every single metric surrounding taxes, Canadian pay more than Americans do.

What's the property tax rate in Ontario? How about provincial tax rate?

[cangelosibrown]

Americans here keep telling me that Canadians don't actually pay that much more tax than Americans do.

Those Americans should do some research. Both countries are progressive income tax systems, so there are different ways to measure what a resident pays, not to mention sales taxes and other levies.

But any way you measure it, Canadians pay more than Americans. According to wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

If you measure by lowest marginal income tax rate, Canada ranks 16th highest in the world at 19%. The US ranks 51st highest with a 10% income tax for the lowest earners.

At the highest marginal tax rate, Canada ranks 7th highest in the world, with the top earners getting 54% of their income clawed back. I can attest to this. At the end of my career, I was at an income bracket that for every additional dollar I earned, I gave the government 51 cents in income tax. They made more than I did for every additional dollar I earned. How's that for disincentivizing labour?

In comparison, the highest earners in the US get taxed 43%, for a ranking of 32nd highest in the world.

If you look at sales tax, Canadians pay an average of 14%, ranking around 80th highest in the world. The national average in the US is around 6%, which puts them in the rankings over 100th in the world.

In almost every single metric surrounding taxes, Canadian pay more than Americans do.

Well let's not forget that Canada doesn't tax global income, so it seems like the optimal strategy would be to take advantage of the largesse of the state for things like education, and then move to a country like the US that has less funding and less taxes, once you've gotten your education.

This discussion is such a perfect of why a blogger would have to make up some part of their persona. No matter how good their writing or ideas are, people would be sitting here sniping at them for not perfectly matching their definition of "bootstrapping." I'm willing to bet that every single person here had an extraordinary number of advantages growing up. Even if they didn't get money, they probably were raised reasonably well and probably got born with a "good" passport. No one did everything for themselves, and that's ok.

We all sit around thinking anyone who got slightly more advantages than us is just lucky, and anyone who got slightly less than us is probably just lazy.

[Metalcat]

Americans here keep telling me that Canadians don't actually pay that much more tax than Americans do.

Those Americans should do some research. Both countries are progressive income tax systems, so there are different ways to measure what a resident pays, not to mention sales taxes and other levies.

But any way you measure it, Canadians pay more than Americans. According to wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

If you measure by lowest marginal income tax rate, Canada ranks 16th highest in the world at 19%. The US ranks 51st highest with a 10% income tax for the lowest earners.

At the highest marginal tax rate, Canada ranks 7th highest in the world, with the top earners getting 54% of their income clawed back. I can attest to this. At the end of my career, I was at an income bracket that for every additional dollar I earned, I gave the government 51 cents in income tax. They made more than I did for every additional dollar I earned. How's that for disincentivizing labour?

In comparison, the highest earners in the US get taxed 43%, for a ranking of 32nd highest in the world.

If you look at sales tax, Canadians pay an average of 14%, ranking around 80th highest in the world. The national average in the US is around 6%, which puts them in the rankings over 100th in the world.

In almost every single metric surrounding taxes, Canadian pay more than Americans do.

Well let's not forget that Canada doesn't tax global income, so it seems like the optimal strategy would be to take advantage of the largesse of the state for things like education, and then move to a country like the US that has less funding and less taxes, once you've gotten your education.

This discussion is such a perfect of why a blogger would have to make up some part of their persona. No matter how good their writing or ideas are, people would be sitting here sniping at them for not perfectly matching their definition of "bootstrapping." I'm willing to bet that every single person here had an extraordinary number of advantages growing up. Even if they didn't get money, they probably were raised reasonably well and probably got born with a "good" passport. No one did everything for themselves, and that's ok.

We all sit around thinking anyone who got slightly more advantages than us is just lucky, and anyone who got slightly less than us is probably just lazy.

Unless they just don't describe themselves as "bootstrapping".

I never got the impression from Pete that he described himself pulling himself up from nothing. He describes his behaviour as "badass", but that's it. I never got the impression that he saw himself as having no advantages along the way.

[cangelosibrown]

Unless they just don't describe themselves as "bootstrapping".

I never got the impression from Pete that he described himself pulling himself up from nothing. He describes his behaviour as "badass", but that's it. I never got the impression that he saw himself as having no advantages along the way.

Agreed. And yet here we are, dissecting and speculating on any and every possible advantage he may or may not have received growing up. And this is all incredibly reasonable compared to the comments you see anytime there's an article about him in on a news site.

[Wrenchturner]

I think it's the difference between bragging and teaching.  If you've been through tough times(by your own definition) and succeeded, it would be wise for others to learn from that.  If you're simply bragging, or looking down on others for their inadequacies(by your own definition)... well I'm not exactly sure how to navigate that.  Some people need tough love sometimes, but you have to be careful not to cause resentment. 

Whether someone's so-called privilege was a cause for their success is not useful or even relevant to emulating their success.