Go Curry Cracker (Jeremy and Winnie) updates?

[iris lily]

I don't get the controversy that some people see with the Frugalwoods couple. They were both very successful in their respective careers, chose an anti-consumerist lifestyle to save a boatload of money in a short amount of time, and "retired" before they were 40. I think that's a story worth telling.
...

Going off topic here, but I view homesteading as being consumerist, just in a different way.  Living a dense urban housing lifestyle is generally lighter on the planet and wallet than a small family on a giant farm in a rural area with modern conveniences.  I don't read the blog, but they never seemed to lack for good internet, reliable water and electricity through the winter, etc.

We have a different understanding of what consumerism means I guess. I use the word to describe all kinds of "keeping up the the jones' behavior"... constant upgrades to housing, vehicles, clothing, vacations etc. Not ... growing your own food, splitting your own firewood, solar panels, community, etc.

Oh, I think growing your own food, any kind of slow living such as hanging your clothes out on a clothesline, and installing  solar panels are a demonstrative kind of luxe living;  and is keeping up with a certain set of Joneses.

That doesn’t make them people who have “bad values “it just makes him have values that are probably more in line with yours.

I won’t take a position on the Frugalwoods since I haven’t read their blog, although I know who they are, but I do kind of smirk at the back -to-the land- people

[mistymoney]

Interesting discussion for sure!

The most salient point for me in all this is the 1k/hour for a consult - way more than an accountant/cpa, a phd psychotherapist, or a neuosurgical consult. My interpretation: pretty ballsy.

I wonder if this either (both?) a symptom of the out-of-touch 300k a year middle class salary or clap back/FU on the blowback for that becoming common knowledge?

I'm not a big blog follower of - well anyone really. I'm no FIRE posterchild for sure, but it just seems kind of insulting really. To people who might want to hire her, to the whole minimalist/FIRE movement. I'll be your life coach for thrift store shopping for 1k/hr. It is kind of laughable. ok - very laughable.

For the - really don't want to do it so outprice it angle, I'd say that would be maybe 300/hr. This is like so far out of there and I think what people are saying is it changes your opinoin of someone. Who are they? Who were they?

Is it because they were always really out of touch? Are they trying to limit their circle now to others in the 300k club? Is it a just a big FU to the pearl clutchers and 300k! can you beleive! crowd?

The world may never know!

I think I'm going to file the entire thing under performance art.

[JupiterGreen]

After re-reading the responses on this post I am coming around to understand some of the the outrage. Caveat: I have not read the book. If the FW sold their book as a roadmap to FI and were not honest about the numbers they were pulling in (assuming the readers hadn't read the blog carefully enough to notice their numbers), it would lead the reader to believe the FW version of FIRE could be done with lower salaries. My partner and I barely scrape six figures combined. As we all know, the salary part of it is really important to FIRE planning and it is what I like about the MMM blog. Had I paid for and followed FW book, I'd feel duped. The FW blog is free so you sort of get what you pay for there. With that in mind, the MMM blog is a ridiculously good value for free. 

As far as the consulting fee, I agree it is outrageously high. And I can see why FIRE people are pissed off since it is so counter to the concept of frugal and perhaps demolishes their credibility with the FIRE movement but maybe that is not their audience (anymore or ever?) With that said, I will stand by what I said about the consultations in general. There is a good deal of research that supports the benefits of feeling friction with learning. Some people have to lose money to learn. Unless someone has paid for one of these appointments, we also don't know what the consultation entails. I don't think it is fair to judge the FW fee to a CPA or anything else because it doesn't sound like that is what it is and it is not up to us to determine the value of a service anyway (especially a boutique service). We can have opinions and we can determine if the value is worth it for ourselves (I mean, I'm not running out to sign up) but there are a ton of overpriced products out there that people find value in. People pay more than 1k to join some mastermind groups just for the chance to meet successful people.

But yeah I get it, as one half of a couple who has scrimped, saved, lived in a shitty LCOL location for too long, and managed to save over a mil on barely six figures, I'd be mad if I hitched my wagon to the FW only to discover their situation is nothing like ours and there is no chance in hell we could get there following the methods they outlined in their book.

[Louise]

I don't really read FW. I think I did a couple times, but happened to come across a post where she stated they ate a couple of pieces of popcorn dipped in hummus for dinner, so I figured it wasn't for me and my family. I just looked at the blog though. I don't agree with the idea that the high price is only for discouraging people from submitting case studies. The new blog design is clearly a big ad for consulting services.

[slappy]

I don't really read FW. I think I did a couple times, but happened to come across a post where she stated they ate a couple of pieces of popcorn dipped in hummus for dinner, so I figured it wasn't for me and my family. I just looked at the blog though. I don't agree with the idea that the high price is only for discouraging people from submitting case studies. The new blog design is clearly a big ad for consulting services.

Haha this is similar to what turned me off from the ChooseFI guys. They save money because the wife eats one pizza of for dinner. Or she bought one loaf of bread on clearance for 88 cents and eats that for like three days. Personally, I would eat that whole loaf at once! Especially if it was only 88 cents. Haha

[EscapeVelocity2020]

This reminds me of the frugal stomach post Pete made talking about how drinking oil and eating butter for cheap calories was a great hack…. A few people definitely reacted how this was a bridge too far in their frugality journey.

[FireLane]

I don't fault the Frugalwoods for making high salaries; that's just envy talking. It's good to set an example that spending doesn't have to scale with income, or that being frugal is a virtue even if you could afford to spend more.

And in principle, there's nothing wrong with starting a consulting business to give advice to those who want it and are willing to pay for it. If it's what the market will bear, I don't see any harm in that. I get the point that some people won't value good advice unless it costs them something.

But holy hell, $1000 an hour is a lot. If it were a sliding scale based on income, that'd be one thing. But how can you justify charging this much while building a brand on frugality? For anyone who's in debt and trying to get their finances back on track, shouldn't her first piece of advice be "Stop paying for services like mine"?

[Fomerly known as something]

Context matters. Can you point to when and where they said that? Also Boston metro "middle class" looks far different than rural Oklahoma "middle class". Hell, nobody in this country can agree what the definition of middle class is... The vast majority of the population identifies as being in the middle class which objectively doesn't make sense.

The average household income of Cambridge Mass is $154,448 per: https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/MA/Cambridge-Demographics.html. So they made twice the average household income at the end of their careers per the $300k you referenced. What number do you think should be the cutoff for the middle class definition? Gatekeepers and manufactured outrage.... How is this serving you?

Again, references to their income are on their blog if you're not too lazy to look for it. I don't get the hate and reactions like this are exactly why I don't share our finances with anyone in real life.

It’s still not middle class even in “Cambridge”.  I resemble the complaining/financial samurai just middle class, highish income earning living in a VHCOL area.  I “only” make $225,000 in the Bay Area which is about 75% of average.

But I understand I’m not middle class.  While I’m not upper class/rich I’m solidly in the upper middle class range.  My life might not look much different from the outside, but it is.  Multiple vacations every year, even if they are just visiting family, yup.  Being able to easily afford a condo, even if it’s not as large as others, high savings rate, being able to quit my day job at 47, buying a new car when I need it, not needing a list at the grocery store, being able to eat every meal out should I wish it yes, yes, yes.

I need to think about all of these things, but I don’t have to make real hard decisions like my middle class teacher parents did.  I’m the “rich kid” like my friend Michelle, but not quite the really rich kids at school like Kari and Tia.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

Edit to add link to YouTube video on wealthy trying to look Middle Class - https://youtu.be/JukGECU6mnI?si=ND_XdtaXM6gDdZRb

[Louise]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

I don't know what class is anymore. I thought 60K was a good middle class income, but when I was investigating healthcare in my state, I found that the state considers that low income and we are  eligible for Medicaid and free college. Who knew?

[Dicey]

Part of the Frugalwoods reticence may have been caused by the fact that Nate was pulling down huge bucks...working for a nonprofit.

If he's making that kind of money, what insane amounts of money are the higher-ups making? He may have been contractually obligated not to reveal his salary, particularly on a public blog. If so, why kill the Golden Goose?

This came to a head when the book was published.

I still maintain that living as frugally as they did once they started making big money took extraordinary amounts of self-discipline. I find that admirable. The derision they face seems unwarranted. They avoided hedonistic adaption. Isn't that a key tenet of  MMM?

[FIPurpose]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

I don't know what class is anymore. I thought 60K was a good middle class income, but when I was investigating healthcare in my state, I found that the state considers that low income and we are  eligible for Medicaid and free college. Who knew?

There are 2 ways I think of measuring. Either using percentiles so that a certain percentage of people are always "lower", "middle", and "upper", or by what amenities are generally affordable at each level. ie Middle class should be relatively able to afford all necessities and afford a reasonable retirement by 70. Lower class may not afford all necessities and may depend on subsidies or doing without. Upper class is able to afford several luxuries (or a very early retirement). Ultra wealthy are able to buy stupid luxuries, kill the planet, and meaningfully affect politics.

Household income
Bottom 25% - < 36k
Middle 50% - < 133k
Upper 25% - > 134k
Ultra Wealthy (99%) - > 600k

If your household makes more than 223k, then you are in the top 10%. I'm not sure how to look at that in any way but upper class. You are making more money than 300MM Americans and are in a class of ~30MM other people. I think you could make a meaningful distinction between the top 25%, 10%, and 1% (and even .1%). But the idea of all Americans thinking of themselves as "middle class" no matter where on the scale they actually are I think does a disservice to our politics.

[afox]

Regarding annual spending/being frugal  one trick a lot of these bloggers/personaliities have used to make it look like their annual spending is super low and gain eyeballs is to frontload their spending. Ie. if one were to replace all of their appliances, buy new cars, buy a house, remodel, buy new clothes, etc. then they can go a few years with ultra low spending and that makes for an interesting blog/website. Eventually, appliances break, cars become unsafe/unmaintainable, houses need remodeling/repair, clothes need replacement, etc and its then time for the blog/website to go dark for a while.

I do the same thing, when there is a downturn in the economy and things are cheap I try to spend more. I havent bought a pair of pants in at least 3 years, I need some $10 really good pants as mine are all getting holes in them, and also desperately need cheap labor to complete some house projects, ill hold out for cheaper labor rates/pants for my spending as Im confident there will be a downturn in the economy eventually.

[spartana]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

Edit to add link to YouTube video on wealthy trying to look Middle Class - https://youtu.be/JukGECU6mnI?si=ND_XdtaXM6gDdZRb

The thing is that Pete disclosed his both his pre-FIRE income and his post-FIRE blog income to his readers whereas, at least in her book and former blog, FW didn't. That lack of disclosure (along with leading many to assume they didn't earn much as average middle-class people who work for non-profits") is what people were upset about not that they made a butt load of money (plus her blog income and rental property income).

I think people would have been fine if she just stated "we're a couple who earn very large salaries but live a frugal life and stash 70% so we could retire early and live our dream life".  Actually I think most people would love to read a blog about high income people not being mega-consumers, saving their money and living a bad ass DIY life in the wilds of Vermont. So, at least for me, it was the lack of disclosure and not the high incomes that muddled the message. But I do like them and loved it when she posted here - and loved the frugal hound! Although not my kind of lifestyle (UGH too much work!)

Anyway isn't this suppose to be a thread about Go Curry Cracker? I miss reading their blog but good to know they are doing well and posting on X - which I don't read.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I do appreciate Pete’s transparency over the years, but even he has become tripped up by the Ramit Sethi learn to spend more lifestyle.  It would’ve been a much different experience reading the blog and knowing MMM would one day be singing the praises of buying a new Tesla and disparaging his no longer necessary frugal habits…

[Midwest_Handlebar]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

Edit to add link to YouTube video on wealthy trying to look Middle Class - https://youtu.be/JukGECU6mnI?si=ND_XdtaXM6gDdZRb

The thing is that Pete disclosed his both his pre-FIRE income and his post-FIRE blog income to his readers whereas, at least in her book and former blog, FW didn't. That lack of disclosure (along with leading many to assume they didn't earn much as average middle-class people who work for non-profits") is what people were upset about not that they made a butt load of money (plus her blog income and rental property income).

I think people would have been fine if she just stated "we're a couple who earn very large salaries but live a frugal life and stash 70% so we could retire early and live our dream life".  Actually I think most people would love to read a blog about high income people not being mega-consumers, saving their money and living a bad ass DIY life in the wilds of Vermont. So, at least for me, it was the lack of disclosure and not the high incomes that muddled the message. But I do like them and loved it when she posted here - and loved the frugal hound! Not my kind of lifestyle (UGH too much work!)

But they did disclose how much they were making. They actually posted their savings rate and monthly expenses on their blog for years. It's very easy to calculate how much they were making....

So the remaining "controversy" is that they made twice the average income in their area for a portion of their career and described themselves as "middle class". Seems pretty flimsy to me and I don't particularly like her blog.

I guess it just bothers me because it misses the whole message of deliberate frugality to live life on your own terms. It's a message that our society desperately needs to hear more, and I think people are finding an excuse to dismiss them because they want to make excuses about their own lives. People have harder/easier paths to FI, but those who are conscience enough to make progress should be modeled, not made into some sort of unrealistic anomaly that can't be replicated to some degree.

[spartana]

^^Which is why I said their message would have been better received if they had outright disclosed their incomes. All I ever saw were their approx $50k expenses after Mrs. FW retired and started her blog. They were nicely detailed and showed their frugal lives well which I think would be very inspirational to others in similar income situations.

So I don't think it's money jealousy at all. I'm a person who also saved 50% of my income (70% when I was married) but I was firmly in rice and beans territory at earning under $50k/year and the frugal things I did really mattered to my bottom line and to reaching FI. Whereas not so much for the FW. If I had a blog, or put myself out there as an FI expert who charged money,  I would disclose my income, along with any other advantages I've had that lead me to FIRE. To me that's important whether high income or low.

Edited to correct spellings and clarity.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

As to how this all might be relevant to GoCurryCracker, I believe Jeremy used to work for Microsoft and has had a banner year with MSFT being up 68% this year, to all time highs.  He has never claimed to be frugal, but also probably finds himself with a too much money problem these days…. Maybe he’ll also pivot his blog to $2000 per hour Zoom calls LOL

[iris lily]

… They avoided hedonistic adaption. Isn't that a key tenet of  MMM?

That’s a good point, and I like the phrase “hedonistic adaptation.”

[Dicey]

As to how this all might be relevant to GoCurryCracker, I believe Jeremy used to work for Microsoft and has had a banner year with MSFT being up 68% this year, to all time highs.  He has never claimed to be frugal, but also probably finds himself with a too much money problem these days…. Maybe he’ll also pivot his blog to $2000 per hour Zoom calls LOL

This reminds me that GCC is another one who was anti-home ownership (based on one house) who became a homeowner again. One day I stumbled on an old YT video of his filmed in their kitchen. IIRC, the kitchen was dark, cramped and full of old pink and yellow tile surfaces. Um, awful kitchen that you never improved and you're complaining that homeownership is a bad investment? Hmmm...

Another thought, based on EV's observation, is that GCC used to post extensively about how he avoided paying income taxes.  Perhaps he's crossed a threshold and has to pay taxes now. It absolutely doesn't matter, IMO, but people on the internet have quixotic "rules".

[Dicey waves to @deborah.]

[ChpBstrd]

Y'all don't want to hear this but blogs are dying out. Traffic is migrating to YouTube and TikTok, as the internet evolves into something more akin to television as opposed to writing stuff back and forth to real people.

At some point falling ad revenue and a known-dying format makes creators wonder if it's even worth it to pay another year's hosting fees. Some of the creators themselves may have fallen into the autoplay-video rabbit hole, and thus find themselves with no original thoughts or time to write them down.

[mistymoney]

Part of the Frugalwoods reticence may have been caused by the fact that Nate was pulling down huge bucks...working for a nonprofit.

If he's making that kind of money, what insane amounts of money are the higher-ups making? He may have been contractually obligated not to reveal his salary, particularly on a public blog. If so, why kill the Golden Goose?

This came to a head when the book was published.

I still maintain that living as frugally as they did once they started making big money took extraordinary amounts of self-discipline. I find that admirable. The derision they face seems unwarranted. They avoided hedonistic adaption. Isn't that a key tenet of  MMM?

Non profits would be filing 0990 on highly compensated employees, so I don't think his salary would have been a big secret from that perspective.

[force majeure]

People making big money working for a non-profit?
They need to take a look at themselves in the mirror.
Its not morally or ethically acceptable, in my world.
I think FW are sickening, and do not represent my version of the FIRE movement.

[englishteacheralex]

Y'all don't want to hear this but blogs are dying out. Traffic is migrating to YouTube and TikTok, as the internet evolves into something more akin to television as opposed to writing stuff back and forth to real people.

At some point falling ad revenue and a known-dying format makes creators wonder if it's even worth it to pay another year's hosting fees. Some of the creators themselves may have fallen into the autoplay-video rabbit hole, and thus find themselves with no original thoughts or time to write them down.

Oh, I definitely am aware of this. The disappearing blog situation in general is such a bummer, and has been the case for the past several years. It doesn't seem like a financially viable option for most people anymore, and as a hobby it seems like it's dying out, too. I LOVE reading blogs but I never would have one for myself--the idea of being that public is terrifying to me. So I understand why people wouldn't be excited to do personal blogs anymore. Too many trolls, too little reward. Why open yourself up to that much criticism?

BTW, I have read the Frugalwoods book--I got it from the library, of course--and it was fine. It wasn't a guide to FIRE; more of a memoir type book. All the vitriol against the alleged misrepresentation of their income...I didn't really get it. To me the blog was always just light entertainment, which is how I read all blogs. I just find it fun to read about other people's lives. I liked Liz's frugality; made my own feel more normal and gave me some inspiration. I dunno...what more would someone want from a blog? It's free content.

I had a sense the whole time I was reading the blog that they were very lucky--the Cambridge house purchase was an enormous stroke of luck with timing (although also they were smart about being able to take advantage of the opportunity), and she didn't gloss over that. And I didn't realize how much money Mr FW made, but I also didn't really care when it came to light. They showed the internet a genius way to hack a soda stream and the insane amount of work it is to DIY maple syrup. What more do they really owe us?

[simonsez]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

I don't know what class is anymore. I thought 60K was a good middle class income, but when I was investigating healthcare in my state, I found that the state considers that low income and we are  eligible for Medicaid and free college. Who knew?

Yeah, it's one of the most ambiguous words to use because there are so many definitions.  And US definitions seem to focus solely on income/wealth and the income/wealth of your neighbors while many (Western) definitions outside the US usually cross income/wealth with education, career, how you invest/ownership of capital or lack thereof, how you dress, how you talk, hobbies, etc.

I'm glad most societies aren't as rigidly divided anymore (and thus, the "social" part of 'social class' has been dropped in parlance) but it seems like it'd be easier if we just called them 'income percentiles' or some related term with 'income' or 'wealth' in the name if the focus is purely on income/wealth.

But there is something almost beguiling in a way about the term class from a psychosocial POV.  Even if the focus is mainly on income, you'll see all types of people who make loads of money have a hard time admitting they're upper class and will just call themselves upper-middle.  Why join the upper class even in name only and feel responsible for social problems or add whatever proverbial target to your back that the "upper class" has that the upper middle somehow does not?  And conversely on the lower end of the seemingly endless middle class spectrum, it seems to feel better to consider yourself middle class or lower middle class as opposed to lower class.  Your example of qualifying for a social welfare program is a good one.  Middle class people are hardworking who do not suck at the government's teat - that's a lower class type of behavior or so the story goes.  A meaningless term with meaning!

[Captain Cactus]

Y'all don't want to hear this but blogs are dying out. Traffic is migrating to YouTube and TikTok, as the internet evolves into something more akin to television as opposed to writing stuff back and forth to real people.

At some point falling ad revenue and a known-dying format makes creators wonder if it's even worth it to pay another year's hosting fees. Some of the creators themselves may have fallen into the autoplay-video rabbit hole, and thus find themselves with no original thoughts or time to write them down.

This is sad.  I’m sure it’s true but still sad.  I will miss this forum once we all get tired of it.  I have grown tremendously on this forum.  Yes I like to crab about FW (primarily because I’m jealous and my own wife isn’t very ambitious or adventurous and we would never do what they do), but generally speaking this forum has given me a masters in personal finance.  I hope it doesn’t die out.

[Catbert]

I've followed the Frugalwoods since before they moved to Vermont.  I never considered it a FIRE blog.  More of a frugality, lifestyle blog.  I read the book awhile back (won it on RoG) and it seemed a memore of their life rather than a hardcore FIRE book.   As with many other bloggers their life has changed over time.  For several years she bought zero clothing for herself as a detox from being a fashionista.  Now she's back to buying a sensible amount of clothing for a SAHM.   She remains (apparently?) open about what they spend which I find interesting.  Lots of lessons to be learned for people who need to cut back spending.

I think what she charges for a personal consultation is pretty crazy. 

[spartana]

This also reminds me of the trend for very wealthy people (Sam Bankman Fried, Buffett) to show off their folksy middle class preferences to distract from their actual circumstances.  With his $400k/ yr income, Pete could fall off a ladder and pay out of pocket for all his healthcare and still be rich, not exactly what most ‘middle class’ families experience.  Maybe they are blind to their privilege, but it is disrespectful to their audience to call themselves middle class.  I’m sure the ‘middle class police’ will be called upon for saying this though:)

I don't know what class is anymore. I thought 60K was a good middle class income, but when I was investigating healthcare in my state, I found that the state considers that low income and we are  eligible for Medicaid and free college. Who knew?

Yeah, it's one of the most ambiguous words to use because there are so many definitions.  And US definitions seem to focus solely on income/wealth and the income/wealth of your neighbors while many (Western) definitions outside the US usually cross income/wealth with education, career, how you invest/ownership of capital or lack thereof, how you dress, how you talk, hobbies, etc.

I'm glad most societies aren't as rigidly divided anymore (and thus, the "social" part of 'social class' has been dropped in parlance) but it seems like it'd be easier if we just called them 'income percentiles' or some related term with 'income' or 'wealth' in the name if the focus is purely on income/wealth.

But there is something almost beguiling in a way about the term class from a psychosocial POV.  Even if the focus is mainly on income, you'll see all types of people who make loads of money have a hard time admitting they're upper class and will just call themselves upper-middle.  Why join the upper class even in name only and feel responsible for social problems or add whatever proverbial target to your back that the "upper class" has that the upper middle somehow does not?  And conversely on the lower end of the seemingly endless middle class spectrum, it seems to feel better to consider yourself middle class or lower middle class as opposed to lower class.  Your example of qualifying for a social welfare program is a good one.  Middle class people are hardworking who do not suck at the government's teat - that's a lower class type of behavior or so the story goes.  A meaningless term with meaning!

I always prefer the term "income" rather then "class". It's factual based on average incomes in the US without any of the social class aspect attached. Joe-Bob the plumber with only a high school education might pull down a couple hundred K a year but attends tractor pulls and swills cheap beer where as a teacher with an MA  may only earn $50k or less but drinks finebwines at art gallery openings.

Stereotyping big time of course but in the US I think we should use income. Plumber earns $200k and is high income. Teacher earns $50k and is lower middle income.

"What is the median household income in the US in 2023?
The average median household income in the United States was $67,521, but most states range between $50,000—$90,000, with few outliers. Learn more about the average income of each state by browsing the data in the charts.
https://wisevoter.com › state-rankings
Average Income by State 2023 - Wisevoter"

[AnotherEngineer]

Folks, these bloggers don't owe us anything including regular posts and total transparency. Post #600 will not be as frequent or insightful as #100. Get what you will from them and disregard the rest. Enjoy their back catalogues as where they were 10 years ago may be more aligned with where you are now. There are a wealth of blogs out there. Find what fits your your interests, needs, side gigs, and growth areas. Run your own numbers. Find ideas and inspiration. Take off your retirement police badges and make progress on your journey. Don't get pulled into ERN vs Millennial Revolution or arguments about what exactly is in a savings rate calculation.

My list is:
- MMM: you all know
- JLCollins: stock series et al
- Go Curry Cracker and MadFientist: number crunching for things like tax optimization, Roth vs. Trad, 529s, etc; credit card churning. They haven't posted much informational content in years and I don't care as the old stuff is still helpful.
-  1500 Days: DIY and self-deprecating humor
- Frugalwoods: old-school frugality (e.g., sodastream hack) and homesteading
- Root of Good: frugal family early retirement and travel
- Profit Greenly: underrated blog for energy ROI and urban planning

I don't read everything. For instance, I know most case studies are worthless, especially on Frugalwoods and Millennial Revolution, as I can't stand that they don't bother to ask the poster follow up questions and just make assumptions.

[Metalcat]

Folks, these bloggers don't owe us anything including regular posts and total transparency. Post #600 will not be as frequent or insightful as #100. Get what you will from them and disregard the rest. Enjoy their back catalogues as where they were 10 years ago may be more aligned with where you are now. There are a wealth of blogs out there. Find what fits your your interests, needs, side gigs, and growth areas. Run your own numbers. Find ideas and inspiration. Take off your retirement police badges and make progress on your journey. Don't get pulled into ERN vs Millennial Revolution or arguments about what exactly is in a savings rate calculation.

My list is:
- MMM: you all know
- JLCollins: stock series et al
- Go Curry Cracker and MadFientist: number crunching for things like tax optimization, Roth vs. Trad, 529s, etc; credit card churning. They haven't posted much informational content in years and I don't care as the old stuff is still helpful.
-  1500 Days: DIY and self-deprecating humor
- Frugalwoods: old-school frugality (e.g., sodastream hack) and homesteading
- Root of Good: frugal family early retirement and travel
- Profit Greenly: underrated blog for energy ROI and urban planning

I don't read everything. For instance, I know most case studies are worthless, especially on Frugalwoods and Millennial Revolution, as I can't stand that they don't bother to ask the poster follow up questions and just make assumptions.

And we don't owe them to like what they say and how they say it.

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to find what someone says misleading. I'm not demanding anything of the person, I just hold a relatively benign, not particularly impassioned opinion that the way certain information was conveyer definitely felt to me to be misleading.

I don't think she's a monster, I don't think her blog or book were evil, I don't think she should immediately start posting every detail of her personal life. I just think she intentionally made her family sound a certain way because she knew it would resonate with more people.

And I get why people were annoyed by that.

[Captain Cactus]

Folks, these bloggers don't owe us anything including regular posts and total transparency. Post #600 will not be as frequent or insightful as #100. Get what you will from them and disregard the rest. Enjoy their back catalogues as where they were 10 years ago may be more aligned with where you are now. There are a wealth of blogs out there. Find what fits your your interests, needs, side gigs, and growth areas. Run your own numbers. Find ideas and inspiration. Take off your retirement police badges and make progress on your journey. Don't get pulled into ERN vs Millennial Revolution or arguments about what exactly is in a savings rate calculation.

My list is:
- MMM: you all know
- JLCollins: stock series et al
- Go Curry Cracker and MadFientist: number crunching for things like tax optimization, Roth vs. Trad, 529s, etc; credit card churning. They haven't posted much informational content in years and I don't care as the old stuff is still helpful.
-  1500 Days: DIY and self-deprecating humor
- Frugalwoods: old-school frugality (e.g., sodastream hack) and homesteading
- Root of Good: frugal family early retirement and travel
- Profit Greenly: underrated blog for energy ROI and urban planning

I don't read everything. For instance, I know most case studies are worthless, especially on Frugalwoods and Millennial Revolution, as I can't stand that they don't bother to ask the poster follow up questions and just make assumptions.

And we don't owe them to like what they say and how they say it.

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to find what someone says misleading. I'm not demanding anything of the person, I just hold a relatively benign, not particularly impassioned opinion that the way certain information was conveyer definitely felt to me to be misleading.

I don't think she's a monster, I don't think her blog or book were evil, I don't think she should immediately start posting every detail of her personal life. I just think she intentionally made her family sound a certain way because she knew it would resonate with more people.

And I get why people were annoyed by that.

Testify!

[Dicey]

People making big money working for a non-profit?
They need to take a look at themselves in the mirror.
Its not morally or ethically acceptable, in my world.
I think FW are sickening, and do not represent my version of the FIRE movement.

Harsh.

[Midwest_Handlebar]

People making big money working for a non-profit?
They need to take a look at themselves in the mirror.
Its not morally or ethically acceptable, in my world.
I think FW are sickening, and do not represent my version of the FIRE movement.

Harsh.

In the real world you need money to attract talent. If you want untalented asshats to work for your non-profit, pay them nothing.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Folks, these bloggers don't owe us anything including regular posts and total transparency.
...

Did you think I was trying to track down Jeremy in order to demand a blog post?

[mistymoney]

why the name go curry cracker?

sounds more food oriented....

[Dicey]

why the name go curry cracker?

sounds more food oriented....

Somewhere on the blog, he said they started using the phrase while they were on a trip and it just kind of stuck. I'm too lazy to look it up.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

why the name go curry cracker?

sounds more food oriented....

Somewhere on the blog, he said they started using the phrase while they were on a trip and it just kind of stuck. I'm too lazy to look it up.

It was their rallying cry during a hiking trip, I think.  They would put a curry paste on a cracker and it would give them a boost to keep going.

[nippycrisp]

I've followed the Frugalwoods since before they moved to Vermont.  I never considered it a FIRE blog.  More of a frugality, lifestyle blog.  I read the book awhile back (won it on RoG) and it seemed a memore of their life rather than a hardcore FIRE book.   As with many other bloggers their life has changed over time.  For several years she bought zero clothing for herself as a detox from being a fashionista.  Now she's back to buying a sensible amount of clothing for a SAHM.   She remains (apparently?) open about what they spend which I find interesting.  Lots of lessons to be learned for people who need to cut back spending.

I think what she charges for a personal consultation is pretty crazy.

That's an interesting take. I'd argue they aren't remotely frugal. The woman used to post their monthly spending in big 30,000-word posts littered with credit card ads and referral links. She stopped doing it (possibly for reasons that may become apparent), but if you take their last 12 months, their actual spend was $71,600. For middle of nowhere Vermont. My lazy googling says median household income in VT is a tad over $67K, so they're spending thousands more than the average family brings in before taxes and calling it the simple life? Maybe it's all lifestyle, but I kinda doubt anyone would pay FW $1500 to learn how to tap a maple tree or build a fence.

At best, it's marketing the unremarkable.

[GilesMM]

Part of the Frugalwoods reticence may have been caused by the fact that Nate was pulling down huge bucks...working for a nonprofit.

If he's making that kind of money, what insane amounts of money are the higher-ups making? He may have been contractually obligated not to reveal his salary, particularly on a public blog. If so, why kill the Golden Goose?
...

Non-profit leaders can earn millions per year, particularly non-profit hospital/healthcare systems.  Some outfit called Sentara Healthcare paid their CEO $33 million last year.  I suppose the rest of executive leadership there scrimps by on $5-10 million per year.

[iris lily]

I've followed the Frugalwoods since before they moved to Vermont.  I never considered it a FIRE blog.  More of a frugality, lifestyle blog.  I read the book awhile back (won it on RoG) and it seemed a memore of their life rather than a hardcore FIRE book.   As with many other bloggers their life has changed over time.  For several years she bought zero clothing for herself as a detox from being a fashionista.  Now she's back to buying a sensible amount of clothing for a SAHM.   She remains (apparently?) open about what they spend which I find interesting.  Lots of lessons to be learned for people who need to cut back spending.

I think what she charges for a personal consultation is pretty crazy.

That's an interesting take. I'd argue they aren't remotely frugal. The woman used to post their monthly spending in big 30,000-word posts littered with credit card ads and referral links. She stopped doing it (possibly for reasons that may become apparent), but if you take their last 12 months, their actual spend was $71,600. For middle of nowhere Vermont. My lazy googling says median household income in VT is a tad over $67K, so they're spending thousands more than the average family brings in before taxes and calling it the simple life? Maybe it's all lifestyle, but I kinda doubt anyone would pay FW $1500 to learn how to tap a maple tree or build a fence.

At best, it's marketing the unremarkable.

Jeez, the FW’s are spending $72,000 annually? That is luxe living where they are based.

[tooqk4u22]

Part of the Frugalwoods reticence may have been caused by the fact that Nate was pulling down huge bucks...working for a nonprofit.

If he's making that kind of money, what insane amounts of money are the higher-ups making? He may have been contractually obligated not to reveal his salary, particularly on a public blog. If so, why kill the Golden Goose?

This came to a head when the book was published.

I still maintain that living as frugally as they did once they started making big money took extraordinary amounts of self-discipline. I find that admirable. The derision they face seems unwarranted. They avoided hedonistic adaption. Isn't that a key tenet of  MMM?

Yeah, if they said "hey, we made a ton of money, saved 50/70/90% of it in a HCOL area and plan or did FIRE" would have been fine....buuuuutttttty what they said was....

"We are are normal simple folk that have worked for non-profits and never made "Banker" salaries and scrimped and saved and FIREd to a farm we bought"

Except that the non-profit was a political activist firm (not really the do gooder type that most people think of when they hear non-profit)  where he made $300k.    Oh, and a little FIRE detail that they left out early on is that he kept making his $300k working from home while shilling their FIRE blog.

If they would have been honest and just said we are at a point where we can FIRE, but we are able to keep a high paying job AND buy our dream farm bc of work from home and just said we plan to live our best life.....that would have been fine.   

I am in the camp that they were truly and intentionally dishonest ad deceitful and once discovered I couldn't stomach their blog.   I have no tolerance for such a lack of integrity.   

[tooqk4u22]

I do appreciate Pete’s transparency over the years, but even he has become tripped up by the Ramit Sethi learn to spend more lifestyle.  It would’ve been a much different experience reading the blog and knowing MMM would one day be singing the praises of buying a new Tesla and disparaging his no longer necessary frugal habits…

Frugality for most is a means to cure a disease that is known as unsatisfying work.  Once cured if one's means increase substantially even those that are truly frugal or environmentally oriented are not immune to finding ways to spend all that extra money.   

[VanillaGorilla]

It's not talked about that much but precious few FIRE influencers (finfluencers?) live below the median of their area. Let's review.

MMM + wife were making roughly 200k in 2007, which CPI adjusts to 300k today (!!). The much-vaunted MMM household spending target of 25k in 2010 CPI adjusts to about 36k today, plus imputed rent of a house in longmont (2k/mo) is a realistic $60k of income. There's also that rental house they had for a while. That's at or higher than the median household income in Colorado.

Root of Good maxed out an income of roughly 120k in 2011 or 2012, which CPI adjusts to $170k today, in North Carolina. With a spending target of 40k (even today!) and imputed rent of a paid off house in NC (2k/mo minimum) that's a $65k of income. Median household income in NC is $62k.

Go Curry Cracker gives fewer income details but he was making a good tech salary during his working years, their blog income has been pretty higher, and he's had no qualms about adjusting his lifestyle to match his assets.

The Mad Fientist was making a software salary, had no kids, and his wife kept working. WifeFI.

RetireBy40 made tech salary and also had a wife continuing to work.

1500 Days has a recklessly volatile portfolio, got lucky in a lot of ways, and definitely spends a median+ household income.

Millennial-Revolution, despite my distaste for their blog, might be one of the few finfluencers who actually live a true below-median-household-income lifestyle. But they also pay for it - no house, no car, no pets, no possessions that don't fit in a suitcase.

It's the dirty little FIRE secret: everybody brags about their frugality but in reality the most common situation is someone making 3x the median salary of their area, living on 1.1x the median salary, and banking the rest. That's a 60+% savings rate, and provides them with a median standard of living after retiring.

The real genius of the FIRE principles is the demonstrable benefit of making modest lifestyle concessions allowing astute investing that provides a snowball effect far bigger than a layperson would ever suspect. However, to save money you need to make money, the more the better (shocking!).

[JupiterGreen]

It's not talked about that much but precious few FIRE influencers (finfluencers?) live below the median of their area. Let's review.

MMM + wife were making roughly 200k in 2007, which CPI adjusts to 300k today (!!). The much-vaunted MMM household spending target of 25k in 2010 CPI adjusts to about 36k today, plus imputed rent of a house in longmont (2k/mo) is a realistic $60k of income. There's also that rental house they had for a while. That's at or higher than the median household income in Colorado.

Root of Good maxed out an income of roughly 120k in 2011 or 2012, which CPI adjusts to $170k today, in North Carolina. With a spending target of 40k (even today!) and imputed rent of a paid off house in NC (2k/mo minimum) that's a $65k of income. Median household income in NC is $62k.

Go Curry Cracker gives fewer income details but he was making a good tech salary during his working years, their blog income has been pretty higher, and he's had no qualms about adjusting his lifestyle to match his assets.

The Mad Fientist was making a software salary, had no kids, and his wife kept working. WifeFI.

RetireBy40 made tech salary and also had a wife continuing to work.

1500 Days has a recklessly volatile portfolio, got lucky in a lot of ways, and definitely spends a median+ household income.

Millennial-Revolution, despite my distaste for their blog, might be one of the few finfluencers who actually live a true below-median-household-income lifestyle. But they also pay for it - no house, no car, no pets, no possessions that don't fit in a suitcase.

It's the dirty little FIRE secret: everybody brags about their frugality but in reality the most common situation is someone making 3x the median salary of their area, living on 1.1x the median salary, and banking the rest. That's a 60+% savings rate, and provides them with a median standard of living after retiring.

The real genius of the FIRE principles is the demonstrable benefit of making modest lifestyle concessions allowing astute investing that provides a snowball effect far bigger than a layperson would ever suspect. However, to save money you need to make money, the more the better (shocking!).

This is good, I appreciate the breakdown. And it seems consistent with my anecdotal experience. Our combined household income is at the low 6 figures (at senior positions) so saving 60% or more of it is really doing "a thing", and often hard choices have to be made at our income level. With that said, I don't know if I would have started saving so aggressively ten years ago if not for these blogs (MMM being the one I followed religiously). I'm an "ish" type thinking (e.g. I'm looking to save 1.5mil-ish), I know that the perfection of math isn't always clean when messy life is involved. But if I l read your assessment about these bloggers before embarking on this journey, I may have been disheartened and never started (or I guess there is a chance my last 10 years could have be better, who knows). I'm still going to amplify the value of these blogs regardless of the salaries, budgets, and lifestyle creep of the bloggers.

But yeah, you are amazing for doing this math and laying this out for us.

[englishteacheralex]

@VanillaGorilla , why the distaste for Millennial Revolution's blog, and can you elaborate on their needlessly reckless portfolio? I've been reading their blog for years and have always found it fairly inoffensive. I liked their book, too. I'm kind of oblivious to people's portfolio breakdowns, so I never really noticed anything unusual about theirs. I'm curious about your perspective.

[maizefolk]

I agree that the examples where people earn well above the median income before FI and retire to a lifestyle at or above the median are much more prevalent, but I'd hold up Jacob of ERE as an example of a very profoundly influential voice early in the history of this community who really did (and as far as I know still does) live below* the median income of his area both before and after achieving FI.

*On the order of $14,000/year for his household of two in the 2008 bay area (~$21,000/year in today's dollars).

[VanillaGorilla]

@VanillaGorilla , why the distaste for Millennial Revolution's blog, and can you elaborate on their needlessly reckless portfolio? I've been reading their blog for years and have always found it fairly inoffensive. I liked their book, too. I'm kind of oblivious to people's portfolio breakdowns, so I never really noticed anything unusual about theirs. I'm curious about your perspective.

Sure! I try not to beat on people on the internet unduly, but I can try to be civil.

It's 1500 Days that has a reckless portfolio - but it worked for him, he got rich off Facebook and Tesla!

MR also has dubious investing ideas. The "Yield Shield" portfolio idea adds high yield investments trying to build a portfolio that yields enough dividends to live off. They sell this as a solution to sequence of returns risk. The problem is that it doesn't work, because high yield investments are more volatile than normal and experience greater drawdowns during market crashes. Karsten Jeske has a nice piece on it. It works worse than a normal 60/40 or similar asset allocation, historically.

I find their arguments against home ownership infantile and unrealistic - insulting homeowners as "homeboners" and calculating the costs of homeownership over unrealistically short time periods. They published one analysis comparing renting to owning over three years. It's just not a reasonable comparison. Sure, if you need a place to live for three years then renting will almost aways come out ahead due to transaction costs. That's obvious. There are a lot more nuanced voices around the FIRE ecosystem that discuss the renting vs owning question. Our own @chasesfish has shared a compelling experience, for example.

To each their own. MR wants to travel the world permanently on a tiny budget; I want to own a house and a car and a dog and more than can fit in a suitcase. There's nothing wrong with either, but there's something wrong with ad hominem attacks against those who adopt different - and sometimes superior! - strategies to your own.

I found their story very impressive many years ago, and they certainly offer a great example of a leanfire alternative lifestyle. I've just realized that I'm aiming for a much different standard of living than theirs, so their content is increasingly irrelevant to me, and their abrasive style is more off-putting. Now that they're parents I will be very interested to see if their ideal lifestyle changes!

[Dicey]

Part of the Frugalwoods reticence may have been caused by the fact that Nate was pulling down huge bucks...working for a nonprofit.

If he's making that kind of money, what insane amounts of money are the higher-ups making? He may have been contractually obligated not to reveal his salary, particularly on a public blog. If so, why kill the Golden Goose?

This came to a head when the book was published.

I still maintain that living as frugally as they did once they started making big money took extraordinary amounts of self-discipline. I find that admirable. The derision they face seems unwarranted. They avoided hedonistic adaption. Isn't that a key tenet of  MMM?

Yeah, if they said "hey, we made a ton of money, saved 50/70/90% of it in a HCOL area and plan or did FIRE" would have been fine....buuuuutttttty what they said was....

"We are are normal simple folk that have worked for non-profits and never made "Banker" salaries and scrimped and saved and FIREd to a farm we bought"

Except that the non-profit was a political activist firm (not really the do gooder type that most people think of when they hear non-profit)  where he made $300k.    Oh, and a little FIRE detail that they left out early on is that he kept making his $300k working from home while shilling their FIRE blog.

If they would have been honest and just said we are at a point where we can FIRE, but we are able to keep a high paying job AND buy our dream farm bc of work from home and just said we plan to live our best life.....that would have been fine.   

I am in the camp that they were truly and intentionally dishonest a[n]d deceitful and once discovered I couldn't stomach their blog.   I have no tolerance for such a lack of integrity.

That's pretty harsh, IMO.

The FWs didn't start out making huge salaries. The fact that they ended up there and were somewhat circumspect about their actual income isn't worthy of that much vitriol, IMO.

It's kind of the way we think Dave Ramsey's advice is spot-on for people with hair-on-fire debt emergencies and pure crap for investment purposes.  Liz's blog, especially her reader case studies, have helped a lot of people, just as DR has. Just because mustachians don't need her spendy financial advice, doesn't mean it won't prove helpful for some people.

[bacchi]

I agree that the examples where people earn well above the median income before FI and retire to a lifestyle at or above the median are much more prevalent, but I'd hold up Jacob of ERE as an example of a very profoundly influential voice early in the history of this community who really did (and as far as I know still does) live below* the median income of his area both before and after achieving FI.

*On the order of $14,000/year for his household of two in the 2008 bay area (~$21,000/year in today's dollars).

I believe it was $14k per person, or $28k for a household of two. It's still impressive.

[englishteacheralex]

@VanillaGorilla , why the distaste for Millennial Revolution's blog, and can you elaborate on their needlessly reckless portfolio? I've been reading their blog for years and have always found it fairly inoffensive. I liked their book, too. I'm kind of oblivious to people's portfolio breakdowns, so I never really noticed anything unusual about theirs. I'm curious about your perspective.

Sure! I try not to beat on people on the internet unduly, but I can try to be civil.

It's 1500 Days that has a reckless portfolio - but it worked for him, he got rich off Facebook and Tesla!

MR also has dubious investing ideas. The "Yield Shield" portfolio idea adds high yield investments trying to build a portfolio that yields enough dividends to live off. They sell this as a solution to sequence of returns risk. The problem is that it doesn't work, because high yield investments are more volatile than normal and experience greater drawdowns during market crashes. Karsten Jeske has a nice piece on it. It works worse than a normal 60/40 or similar asset allocation, historically.

I find their arguments against home ownership infantile and unrealistic - insulting homeowners as "homeboners" and calculating the costs of homeownership over unrealistically short time periods. They published one analysis comparing renting to owning over three years. It's just not a reasonable comparison. Sure, if you need a place to live for three years then renting will almost aways come out ahead due to transaction costs. That's obvious. There are a lot more nuanced voices around the FIRE ecosystem that discuss the renting vs owning question. Our own @chasesfish has shared a compelling experience, for example.

To each their own. MR wants to travel the world permanently on a tiny budget; I want to own a house and a car and a dog and more than can fit in a suitcase. There's nothing wrong with either, but there's something wrong with ad hominem attacks against those who adopt different - and sometimes superior! - strategies to your own.

I found their story very impressive many years ago, and they certainly offer a great example of a leanfire alternative lifestyle. I've just realized that I'm aiming for a much different standard of living than theirs, so their content is increasingly irrelevant to me, and their abrasive style is more off-putting. Now that they're parents I will be very interested to see if their ideal lifestyle changes!

Ahhhh. I see. Yeah, I've read their "yield shield" theory and always been like...um I don't think that's a magic solution to sequence of return risk, but it doesn't really matter that much to me because I'm not interested in retiring early (although I love reading about other people who do, clearly).

And the railing against home-ownership always just seemed kinda quirky and funny to me--you kind of need a "hot take" voice on that subject in order to catch people's attention. It IS wise to run the numbers and don't be overly emotional in the decision to rent vs buy. I live in a real estate market that is almost as bananas as the one in Canada (Honolulu), and I'm well-aware of the pitfalls of buying a house. Guess what? I bought a house (a condo and then a townhouse, actually). I'm married and I have two kids and a stable job and it's pretty clear that owning a reasonable home relative to our income has been a wise financial move.

But it made perfect sense that a DINK/FIRE couple would have no use for homeownership. And I'm not sure it pays to be subtle about your opinions on a blog meant for popular consumption.

Definitely should be interesting how/if things change for them with the new baby.

Thanks for sharing!