Has FIRE become “spendy”?

[farmecologist]

[]Well I certainly don’t want anyone living like me. Then all the midweek.fun places would be crowded!

I do not want to be a burden to workers on weekends so avoid restaurants, parks, and beaches. But while I ALWAYS DETEST SHOPPING I’ve found way too many retirees in the stores midweek for comfort. Costco for example is a disaster. Too many FIREd, supported, and retired boomers. Mostly a friendly crowd but just too damn many of them.

Bottom line there is never a good time to shop (and “window shopping” is a sickness) so just say no!

Uh...."Boomers" ARE at retirement age....you smoking something?  ;-)   

If anything, you are the one that is supposed to stick out like a sore thumb ( assuming, of course, that you are significantly younger than "boomer" age ).

[BicycleB]

[]Well I certainly don’t want anyone living like me. Then all the midweek.fun places would be crowded!

I do not want to be a burden to workers on weekends so avoid restaurants, parks, and beaches. But while I ALWAYS DETEST SHOPPING I’ve found way too many retirees in the stores midweek for comfort. Costco for example is a disaster. Too many FIREd, supported, and retired boomers. Mostly a friendly crowd but just too damn many of them.

Bottom line there is never a good time to shop (and “window shopping” is a sickness) so just say no!

Yeah sometimas mid-week shopping is (almost) as bad as weekends. Although early mornings are usually good. I don't shop much outside of grocery stores but I've been car shopping the last couple of weeks (yep, sadly getting "spendy" and giving up the car-free life) and omg it's horrible on weekends so stick to visiting used car dealers midweek. Although with fewer suckers... er shoppers around the car sales "sharks"  all attack at once ;-).

Mustachianly, I ask: Why car dealers instead of private party purchase?

(might have to buy a car again someday, trying to stay informed) :)

[mistymoney]

[]Well I certainly don’t want anyone living like me. Then all the midweek.fun places would be crowded!

I do not want to be a burden to workers on weekends so avoid restaurants, parks, and beaches. But while I ALWAYS DETEST SHOPPING I’ve found way too many retirees in the stores midweek for comfort. Costco for example is a disaster. Too many FIREd, supported, and retired boomers. Mostly a friendly crowd but just too damn many of them.

Bottom line there is never a good time to shop (and “window shopping” is a sickness) so just say no!

Uh...."Boomers" ARE at retirement age....you smoking something?  ;-)   

If anything, you are the one that is supposed to stick out like a sore thumb ( assuming, of course, that you are significantly younger than "boomer" age ).

what kind of retirement age are we talking? FRA per social security? or the standards of this board?

for the youngest boomers to hit soc sec FRA would be Dec 31 2031....

[Ron Scott]

[]Well I certainly don’t want anyone living like me. Then all the midweek.fun places would be crowded!

I do not want to be a burden to workers on weekends so avoid restaurants, parks, and beaches. But while I ALWAYS DETEST SHOPPING I’ve found way too many retirees in the stores midweek for comfort. Costco for example is a disaster. Too many FIREd, supported, and retired boomers. Mostly a friendly crowd but just too damn many of them.

Bottom line there is never a good time to shop (and “window shopping” is a sickness) so just say no!

Uh...."Boomers" ARE at retirement age....you smoking something?  ;-)   

If anything, you are the one that is supposed to stick out like a sore thumb ( assuming, of course, that you are significantly younger than "boomer" age ).

what kind of retirement age are we talking? FRA per social security? or the standards of this board?

for the youngest boomers to hit soc sec FRA would be Dec 31 2031....

Three types of people:
A. FIREd
B. Supported (by a worker)
C. Retired Boomers


English…

[TomTX]

I'm not sleeping on the fucking floor Steve ;)

Well, I would certainly hope not! It would get in the way of the people wanting to fuck! ;)

[GuitarStv]

I'm not sleeping on the fucking floor Steve ;)

Well, I would certainly hope not! It would get in the way of the people wanting to fuck! ;)

No it won't.  If the floor is your bed you can usually fit far more people than a traditional mattress if that's your jam.

[mistymoney]

[]Well I certainly don’t want anyone living like me. Then all the midweek.fun places would be crowded!

I do not want to be a burden to workers on weekends so avoid restaurants, parks, and beaches. But while I ALWAYS DETEST SHOPPING I’ve found way too many retirees in the stores midweek for comfort. Costco for example is a disaster. Too many FIREd, supported, and retired boomers. Mostly a friendly crowd but just too damn many of them.

Bottom line there is never a good time to shop (and “window shopping” is a sickness) so just say no!

Uh...."Boomers" ARE at retirement age....you smoking something?  ;-)   

If anything, you are the one that is supposed to stick out like a sore thumb ( assuming, of course, that you are significantly younger than "boomer" age ).

what kind of retirement age are we talking? FRA per social security? or the standards of this board?

for the youngest boomers to hit soc sec FRA would be Dec 31 2031....

Three types of people:
A. FIREd
B. Supported (by a worker)
C. Retired Boomers


English…

did you completely miss that I was not directing my comment to your post?

[farmecologist]

[]Well I certainly don’t want anyone living like me. Then all the midweek.fun places would be crowded!

I do not want to be a burden to workers on weekends so avoid restaurants, parks, and beaches. But while I ALWAYS DETEST SHOPPING I’ve found way too many retirees in the stores midweek for comfort. Costco for example is a disaster. Too many FIREd, supported, and retired boomers. Mostly a friendly crowd but just too damn many of them.

Bottom line there is never a good time to shop (and “window shopping” is a sickness) so just say no!

Uh...."Boomers" ARE at retirement age....you smoking something?  ;-)   

If anything, you are the one that is supposed to stick out like a sore thumb ( assuming, of course, that you are significantly younger than "boomer" age ).

what kind of retirement age are we talking? FRA per social security? or the standards of this board?

for the youngest boomers to hit soc sec FRA would be Dec 31 2031....

All the Greatest Generation are likely retired (or dead) but you're right, many younger Boomers are still working if retiring at a tradtional FRA (67ish).
"59-77 years old
Baby Boomers: Born 1946-1964 (59-77 years old) Gen X: Born 1965-1980 (43-58 years old) Millennials: Born 1981-1996 (27-42 years old) Gen Z: Born 1997-2012 (11-26 years old)"

My entire point was that a LARGE cohort of baby boomers are already retired...and that is why the @spartana sees a ton of them at Costco.  Not sure why we have to analyze this to wits end...lol.   By hey, it's a internets message board...that's what we do!  Haha...

[PassMMM]

There are two arguments here.

1. The evidence is that kids are more likely to become independent if they’re not given houses, money... Eg. See The Millionaire Next Door.
2. We are a more equitable society if there is less inherited wealth.

How does Millionaire Next Door show this?

I'm pretty sure the premise of that is more "you don't need parental support/inheritance to become a millionaire" which is a significantly different premise than what you are claiming.

No, it's what deborah said.  They noted the correlation between kids who can't stand on their own two feet and ongoing parental support of adult children, and they had the idea to reverse the normal cause-effect relationship.  Obv. parents support grown kids when they think the kids need help.  But the book posited that the parents were harming their kids, because by providing so much economic support, they shielded their kids from having to learn to be independent, control spending, and all those other things that allowed the parents to become independently wealthy in the first place.

Oof, anecdotally, I know A LOT of adult kids of very wealthy parents and they frequently make me feel grateful for growing up poor. Lol.

Discovered this thread a little late but wanted to add something to this discussion. One novel approach that a family member did I think resolves many of the major concerns. He basically gave a certain amount of $$ to a young couple in the family after they closed on a home and for the specific purpose of putting it towards the principal of the mortgage. This resolves concern (1) because the couple had to have their finances in order to close on the home on their own, and resolves (2) to an extent because they didn't have extra money to bid up the houses in the market or buy a more expensive property, etc. Obviously their NW is higher but their consumption is largely the same until they just no longer have a mortgage payment X years early.

Just though I'd throw out the idea as I thought it was a pretty good one.

[Dicey]

There are two arguments here.

1. The evidence is that kids are more likely to become independent if they’re not given houses, money... Eg. See The Millionaire Next Door.
2. We are a more equitable society if there is less inherited wealth.

How does Millionaire Next Door show this?

I'm pretty sure the premise of that is more "you don't need parental support/inheritance to become a millionaire" which is a significantly different premise than what you are claiming.

No, it's what deborah said.  They noted the correlation between kids who can't stand on their own two feet and ongoing parental support of adult children, and they had the idea to reverse the normal cause-effect relationship.  Obv. parents support grown kids when they think the kids need help.  But the book posited that the parents were harming their kids, because by providing so much economic support, they shielded their kids from having to learn to be independent, control spending, and all those other things that allowed the parents to become independently wealthy in the first place.

Oof, anecdotally, I know A LOT of adult kids of very wealthy parents and they frequently make me feel grateful for growing up poor. Lol.

Discovered this thread a little late but wanted to add something to this discussion. One novel approach that a family member did I think resolves many of the major concerns. He basically gave a certain amount of $$ to a young couple in the family after they closed on a home and for the specific purpose of putting it towards the principal of the mortgage. This resolves concern (1) because the couple had to have their finances in order to close on the home on their own, and resolves (2) to an extent because they didn't have extra money to bid up the houses in the market or buy a more expensive property, etc. Obviously their NW is higher but their consumption is largely the same until they just no longer have a mortgage payment X years early.

Just though I'd throw out the idea as I thought it was a pretty good one.

Butbutbut, if they took that chunk of money and invested it, they could keep making the monthly payments they qualified for and the windfall would go a long way towards funding their retirement.

[coppertop]

As a single mom who had to go to court multiple times to make my kids' Dead Beat Dad pay the paltry sum that the courts had ordered for child support, I didn't have the funds to do a lot of extra things for my kids, including college.  DBD made promises to help with school that he never kept.  I felt bad for the kids, but the flip side of that is that my three made their own way.  DD worked at several jobs while obtaining her undergrad degree, including waiting tables, working in an auto repair shop at the service desk, and as a dental assistant.  She got a fellowship for grad school and has a Ph.D. Older son worked his butt off full time in the service department of an auto dealership while attending university full time before attending law school.  Younger son was promised tuition for his grad school, but DBD reneged and YS finished anyway and is paying off his student loan.  All three have great jobs making excellent salaries.  I don't know if they would be doing so well had DBD not defaulted on his obligations and promises, but thankfully I will never have to find out.  Conversely, DBD was given a full ride to an expensive private university by his parents and didn't really seem to appreciate his good fortune and certainly didn't care enough to do the same for his children. 

[PassMMM]

There are two arguments here.

1. The evidence is that kids are more likely to become independent if they’re not given houses, money... Eg. See The Millionaire Next Door.
2. We are a more equitable society if there is less inherited wealth.

How does Millionaire Next Door show this?

I'm pretty sure the premise of that is more "you don't need parental support/inheritance to become a millionaire" which is a significantly different premise than what you are claiming.

No, it's what deborah said.  They noted the correlation between kids who can't stand on their own two feet and ongoing parental support of adult children, and they had the idea to reverse the normal cause-effect relationship.  Obv. parents support grown kids when they think the kids need help.  But the book posited that the parents were harming their kids, because by providing so much economic support, they shielded their kids from having to learn to be independent, control spending, and all those other things that allowed the parents to become independently wealthy in the first place.

Oof, anecdotally, I know A LOT of adult kids of very wealthy parents and they frequently make me feel grateful for growing up poor. Lol.

Discovered this thread a little late but wanted to add something to this discussion. One novel approach that a family member did I think resolves many of the major concerns. He basically gave a certain amount of $$ to a young couple in the family after they closed on a home and for the specific purpose of putting it towards the principal of the mortgage. This resolves concern (1) because the couple had to have their finances in order to close on the home on their own, and resolves (2) to an extent because they didn't have extra money to bid up the houses in the market or buy a more expensive property, etc. Obviously their NW is higher but their consumption is largely the same until they just no longer have a mortgage payment X years early.

Just though I'd throw out the idea as I thought it was a pretty good one.

Butbutbut, if they took that chunk of money and invested it, they could keep making the monthly payments they qualified for and the windfall would go a long way towards funding their retirement.

No argument here on dollars growing faster in the market than paying down a 3-5% mortgage butbutbutbut, the arguments I was responding to were that by providing children with direct financial support, you would be encouraging more spending and less financial independence (not FI like FIRE but as opposed to dependent on family). Obviously if the children were already level-headed, you are right. The paying down the principal of a mortgage solves for that risk by not actually putting any dollars in the kids' pockets until the rest of the mortgage is paid off and the payments are done, likely 10+ years away, so they have the same income, savings, and budget for the foreseeable future.

[Dicey]

Paying down a chunk of the mortgage doesn't protect anyone. The next payment is always due in 30 days until that sucker is completely  paid off.That's assuming this house is in the US, of course. Some other countries are more flexible, allowing one to truly "pay ahead".

[ChickenStash]

If the chunk is large enough they might be able to do a recast then (hopefully) invest the difference in the payment. At least then there's a benefit of less cash flow out for the payments.

[PassMMM]

Paying down a chunk of the mortgage doesn't protect anyone. The next payment is always due in 30 days until that sucker is completely  paid off.That's assuming this house is in the US, of course. Some other countries are more flexible, allowing one to truly "pay ahead".

I think that's the point, that it doesn't protect them from their own financial obligations. It requires them to be financially literate/healthy, but does offer a huge benefit in that their mortgage payments will end X years early depending on the size of the gift paid toward the principal. 

[wageslave23]

I think the bottom line is healthy, semi smart, semi hardworking individuals don't need any financial help. Looking back at my own life, there were a few instances that financial help would have been appreciated along the way. After graduating from college, paying off half my student loans, or when thinking about buying a house offering to bump my 10% down payment up to 20% to avoid pmi and then I'd pay the loan back within a couple of years. None of these things would have been necessary but they would be appreciated and lowered my stress a little.  I don't think they would have made me any less responsible either.  You can do little things like if you are going on vacation and want your adult kids to come along then offer to pay for them. Or take them out to dinner occasionally.

[mistymoney]

well it's not like anyone could upsize their house by selling the one they got subsidized on and going bigger and bolder....

[frugalecon]

well it's not like anyone could upsize their house by selling the one they got subsidized on and going bigger and bolder....

Or just refinancing and taking equity out to invest in the markets. Unless this arrangement is accompanied by intrusive monitoring, it’s not clear that it would accomplish the apparently intended goals,

[Villanelle]

well it's not like anyone could upsize their house by selling the one they got subsidized on and going bigger and bolder....

I think this is part of why some parents choose to help with set ups similar to what I posted earlier.  The child learns how to manage property and is helped financially by not having to pay rent (but still having to work to earn their keep, by being the PM).  And sure, that could theoretically help the child buy a larger/nicer/more excessive house, but that seems less likely, and they weren't given a lump sum or anything like that.  There's no equity to take out or to sell and upgrade.  (I think some parents with this approach do decide to gift the apartment to their child, but that's not a necessary part of the arrangement.)

It's definitely a leg-up that many people don't get.  But it's also a form of help that's pretty hard for the recipient to turn into excess.  And in addition to financial help, there is practical help in understanding how to manage a property, how expenses work, what a PITA tenants can be, how mixing friendship and money can go awry, etc.  It's at least as much a practical education in real estate and landlording as it is free rent that allows them to save.  So while it does have some of the same concerns about deepening inequality, it at least avoids most of the pitfalls of handing a young person a wad of cash. 

I guess the point is there are ways to help kids with real estate, and just a general financial start on life, that don't include giving them large assets.

[Fomerly known as something]

well it's not like anyone could upsize their house by selling the one they got subsidized on and going bigger and bolder....

Or just refinancing and taking equity out to invest in the markets. Unless this arrangement is accompanied by intrusive monitoring, it’s not clear that it would accomplish the apparently intended goals,

Or take out the equity and blow it on the big new truck, speed boat, fancy vacations,  hookers and blow and other shiney new things. I don't have kids but I assume a parent knows their kids well enough to know that any money given them, in whatever form, wouldn't be used for frivolous purchases.

I've been being spendy lately and I hate it. It's on "needed" stuff like a new house but still it's starting to make me...twitchy. I have a very adverse reaction to "stuff" in general and when I need to accumulate things it kinds of drives me nuts. Even reading the mustachian spending habit and things people are lusting after makes me twitchy and I have to log off and go find something to get rid of to make me feel calmer. Guess that's the reverse of buying for the little high people get. It's not even the money - I'm ok.with that - it's just actually owning things. Going from several years of homeownerless, carless, etc-less to getting all that stuff and the few trappings that are needed kind of makes me sad...and twitchy :-). I suppose now I need a Vitamix blender...sigh.

100% you need that blender.

Put me in the camp of, if you want to give a gift, it should be a gift with no strings attached.  Once given it belongs to the person you’ve given it too.  So if I get that Vitamix from you as a gift, I can turn around and give it to Spartana if I want to.

[Weisass]

@spartana that has the makings of a pretty sweet ditty…. Costs nothing to make a song :)

[Metalcat]

well it's not like anyone could upsize their house by selling the one they got subsidized on and going bigger and bolder....

Or just refinancing and taking equity out to invest in the markets. Unless this arrangement is accompanied by intrusive monitoring, it’s not clear that it would accomplish the apparently intended goals,

Or take out the equity and blow it on the big new truck, speed boat, fancy vacations,  hookers and blow and other shiney new things. I don't have kids but I assume a parent knows their kids well enough to know that any money given them, in whatever form, wouldn't be used for frivolous purchases.

I've been being spendy lately and I hate it. It's on "needed" stuff like a new house but still it's starting to make me...twitchy. I have a very adverse reaction to "stuff" in general and when I need to accumulate things it kinds of drives me nuts. Even reading the mustachian spending habit and things people are lusting after makes me twitchy and I have to log off and go find something to get rid of to make me feel calmer. Guess that's the reverse of buying for the little high people get. It's not even the money - I'm ok.with that - it's just actually owning things. Going from several years of homeownerless, carless, etc-less to getting all that stuff and the few trappings that are needed kind of makes me sad...and twitchy :-). I suppose now I need a Vitamix blender...sigh.

100% you need that blender.

Put me in the camp of, if you want to give a gift, it should be a gift with no strings attached.  Once given it belongs to the person you’ve given it too.  So if I get that Vitamix from you as a gift, I can turn around and give it to Spartana if I want to.

EEK! NO!  People always want to give me stuff. My family. My friends. Burglars who break in and feel bad for me because I have nothing  ;-). Nothing like being a homeless carless waif vagabond to invoke pity (and get free stuff ;-)). That seems like it should be a jaunty little song:

-I'm homeless, I'm carless, and jobless too.
Don't even have kids 'cause I'm a liberal to boot.
No computer or laptop not even TV. Just a stupid smart Tracfone I can barely see.
But I'm a mustashian, I'm FIREd and I'm free!
I have lots of money and can live how I please.
Whether a Villa in France eating fromage by the sea.
Or a van by the river eating government cheese!-

Hmmm nothing rhymes with Vitamix so...the end of jaunty song.  I do have a Ninja Blender that I've had for years so I'm good.

But seriously I often wonder if those who choose to work years longer (decades in some cases) just so they can spend more will regret it later in life. I look back at the things I've done since I FIREd and a'll the different opportunities I've had that I wouldn't have been able to do if I was still working and am endlessly grateful that I cwould retire early and was able to do those things.  So...no regrats!

It's funny, this 100% resonates with me even though I'm going back to work.

But I retired from my profession in my late 30s and I can't imagine going back to a "job" with a boss and shit. I may be going back to work, but I'll be doing it totally independently, autonomously, and I'll be getting paid for basically doing shit I do for free anyway.

DH has a proper "job." He is senior in the federal government, so he is in the biggest bureaucracy there is. It's all rules and protocols and politics (literally). He works from home and I hear him all day and I marvel that he can do it for the 30 years he intends to.

But he absolutely LOVES it. I've never seen him happier. He spent 20 years getting to this place in his career and a year ago he started in his dream role.

But we're FI, and neither of us can fathom choosing work we don't love for even a single year at this point, just for the sake of buying more stuff.

I'll always work, my best life includes work, that much has become extremely self evident since I retired 3 years ago. If I don't do paid work, I'll just end up doing unpaid work.

But you couldn't make me take a "job" I'm not passionate about with a gun to my head, no matter how much you offered to pay me. And yes, I can honestly say that since I basically torpedoed a job in 2020 that would have made me very rich because I wasn't finding it fun.

There's a lot of fun, cool stuff out there to spend on. But none of it appeals to me more than my autonomy. No one can afford that.

[Metalcat]

^^^ Yeah it would be hard for me to go back to a regular job just so I could buy more/fancier things and experiences. I think the only motivator for me at this point would be for some personal gratification, some altruistic reason, or to have an experience that could only be had doing a certain job. Money, and stuff I could buy with more money, wouldn't be enough to give up this level of freedom. I am spending now because of buying a new house (so far I bought a bed-in-a-box, one pot and one pan lol) but I still need more furniture and a vehicle  and some other things but that's all practical stuff (although I like new somewhat expensive stuff) so not a big deal.

Yeah, DH and I are both working on deeply satisfying and meaningful work. He's doing climate change policy and I'm doing clinical counselling. Once he retires from the government at 60, he'll likely do consulting.

We're both interested in doing contracts up in the arctic and want to prioritize contracting opportunities that would pay us to travel to really cool places for a few months at a time.

[ixtap]

Funnily enough, I am considering looking for just any old job for the sole purpose of increasing our savings rate. At first it was because we really want an new boat. Now, we are also spending most of what we are saving from DH's salary this to help out a friend. We like being able to do that kind of thing, but he is willing to spend much more than we ever have before, which means we are going to have to increase our portfolio to allow for anything remotely like this again in the future. He thinks we will recoup a high proportion of the money, but I have way too much space on my boat taken up with hair brained projects to have any hopes for a practical conclusion.

Inspiring work would be better, but I am not feeling inspired and my main skill is teaching but I cannot imagine being in a classroom with children or even young adults. I have thought about looking into tutoring.

[mathlete]

I'll say for me, the marginal return on saving more has fallen off as I get older, for a few reasons.

1.) Kids. Having kids changes everything. They could represent anything, from a huge financial liability stemming from expensive therapies and college education, to a huge bonus of buying mama that new house after they make it in the NBA. Once I had kids, it seemed silly to plan to leave the work force during the 20 or so years they'll live with me. Just too much uncertainty. Maybe it'll happen, but skipping starbucks to make it marginally more possible is a different value calculation now.

2.) Planning to retire on 25X your (very low) spending when you're very young is a bad idea. Life changes as you get older. And it often gets more expensive. See item #1. See any FIRE blogger who gets divorced, and imagine them going through that on only 12.5X their pre retirement, married spending. Medical costs are one of the biggest changes, and unless you're an actuary, you're probably not factoring that in. In the US, we basically have three ways of getting help paying for healthcare. The most reliable ways are to have a job or to be 65+, so leaving the workforce early opens you up to a lot of risk.

3.) You don't really realize the benefits of compound growth unless you let your money grow for decades.

That said, I still save 30% of my gross income. I still drive a reliable used sedan and live in the same house I bought 9 years ago, despite doubling my income since then. And I'm still very grateful to be on, and have been on this journey. I'm 30 years away from traditional retirement and even if the markets historically underperform in that time, I'll be a multimillionaire with a paid off house by then, without saving another dime. Retirement is a huge worry for most Americans, but it's basically a non-issue for me thanks to all the aggressive saving I've done (and continue to do) in my youth.

So it becomes a question of, what does another 5% or 10% of gross income saved really do for me? Rather than spending more effort trying to escape my job, it's probably better to focus on what I like aobut my job. The people. The challenge. The chance to show off. etc.

[mistymoney]

I'll say for me, the marginal return on saving more has fallen off as I get older, for a few reasons.

1.) Kids. Having kids changes everything. They could represent anything, from a huge financial liability stemming from expensive therapies and college education, to a huge bonus of buying mama that new house after they make it in the NBA. Once I had kids, it seemed silly to plan to leave the work force during the 20 or so years they'll live with me. Just too much uncertainty. Maybe it'll happen, but skipping starbucks to make it marginally more possible is a different value calculation now.

2.) Planning to retire on 25X your (very low) spending when you're very young is a bad idea. Life changes as you get older. And it often gets more expensive. See item #1. See any FIRE blogger who gets divorced, and imagine them going through that on only 12.5X their pre retirement, married spending. Medical costs are one of the biggest changes, and unless you're an actuary, you're probably not factoring that in. In the US, we basically have three ways of getting help paying for healthcare. The most reliable ways are to have a job or to be 65+, so leaving the workforce early opens you up to a lot of risk.

3.) You don't really realize the benefits of compound growth unless you let your money grow for decades.

That said, I still save 30% of my gross income. I still drive a reliable used sedan and live in the same house I bought 9 years ago, despite doubling my income since then. And I'm still very grateful to be on, and have been on this journey. I'm 30 years away from traditional retirement and even if the markets historically underperform in that time, I'll be a multimillionaire with a paid off house by then, without saving another dime. Retirement is a huge worry for most Americans, but it's basically a non-issue for me thanks to all the aggressive saving I've done (and continue to do) in my youth.

So it becomes a question of, what does another 5% or 10% of gross income saved really do for me? Rather than spending more effort trying to escape my job, it's probably better to focus on what I like aobut my job. The people. The challenge. The chance to show off. etc.

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

[Fomerly known as something]

Funnily enough, I am considering looking for just any old job for the sole purpose of increasing our savings rate. At first it was because we really want an new boat. Now, we are also spending most of what we are saving from DH's salary this to help out a friend. We like being able to do that kind of thing, but he is willing to spend much more than we ever have before, which means we are going to have to increase our portfolio to allow for anything remotely like this again in the future. He thinks we will recoup a high proportion of the money, but I have way too much space on my boat taken up with hair brained projects to have any hopes for a practical conclusion.

Inspiring work would be better, but I am not feeling inspired and my main skill is teaching but I cannot imagine being in a classroom with children or even young adults. I have thought about looking into tutoring.

A friend of mine is taking her teaching degree to be the education coordinator for recreation at my local water district (which has hundreds of acres of rec land around our reservoirs)  So there is a link to other things.

[Scandium]

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

When a 3% swing in the stock market makes a bigger difference than my 401k contribution for the year it's hard to stay motivated, and go out of my way to get discount lentils and save $2..

[ixtap]

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

When a 3% swing in the stock market makes a bigger difference than my 401k contribution for the year it's hard to stay motivated, and go out of my way to get discount lentils and save $2..

I tend to think I need to keep up the daily habits to have a better idea of actual spending in retirement. When we spend more, it tends to be on the occasional, but big stuff.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

When a 3% swing in the stock market makes a bigger difference than my 401k contribution for the year it's hard to stay motivated, and go out of my way to get discount lentils and save $2..

I tend to think I need to keep up the daily habits to have a better idea of actual spending in retirement. When we spend more, it tends to be on the occasional, but big stuff.

This is how I look at it. If my standard habits - groceries, car, house, general shopping, etc. stays at a certain level, I feel like I'm staying the course. I can take a much more expensive vacation and spend a relatively high percentage of my total budget on a vacation that costs a lot, in large part due to having kids at home that won't always be there and not have elevated my overall lifestyle or feel like I'm super deprived if something about it changes for awhile.

[mathlete]

Yeah at this point, the lifestyle stuff is about more than saving money.

I gained a lot of weight during the pandemic. Like many people, I was working irregular hours, and more than I ever had before. The world was going to hell and so driving to McDonalds to have food brought out to my car a few times a week didn't seem like such a bad idea.

I've since lost all the weight and have really settled back into a groove of cooking at home. I like getting marginally better at cooking each night. I like feeding my family something they enjoy. I like the walk to the store to get the ingredients. I like the alone time I get when scrubbing pots and pans. I like trying some new sauce to spice up the leftovers for the next day. And of course, life is so much easier when I'm around my ideal weight. There's just so much I get out of it before even factoring in the cost savings.

On the other hand, I've probably spent thousands more dollars on home repairs in the past 18 months than I could have if I were a hawk about shopping contractors and project management. But I don't have the bandwidth for all that right now. And even an extra $10K a year of savings doesn't move up my FIRE date by an amount that won't likely be washed out by some externality (good or bad).

[Simpli-Fi]

I used to be "FIRE as soon as we hit 25x spending" but life has had a funny way of changing that.

I found MMM as a young single guy. Now, I'm married, a couple of kids, a house, private school for the What's more exciting to read about than a frugal FIRE? FIRE with a sweet car/yacht/house/vitamix.

A yacht and a blender??  What a fantasy

[mistymoney]

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

When a 3% swing in the stock market makes a bigger difference than my 401k contribution for the year it's hard to stay motivated, and go out of my way to get discount lentils and save $2..

but if we look at it as a first in/first out - then 25k we save during our last year of savings is going to be 500k-1M or more when we are 80+ (depending on when we retire and when we turn 80+)

But I suppose that if we just dump it on the top and up our 4% WR by 1k, then not so much?

[lhamo]

^^^ Yeah it would be hard for me to go back to a regular job just so I could buy more/fancier things and experiences. I think the only motivator for me at this point would be for some personal gratification, some altruistic reason, or to have an experience that could only be had doing a certain job. Money, and stuff I could buy with more money, wouldn't be enough to give up this level of freedom. I am spending now because of buying a new house (so far I bought a bed-in-a-box, one pot and one pan lol) but I still need more furniture and a vehicle  and some other things but that's all practical stuff (although I like new somewhat expensive stuff) so not a big deal.

Is it crazy that I now want you to send me a list of everything you need so that I can load up my car with stuff I want to downsize and drive down to finally meet you?

Seriously, though -- if there is stuff you need/want that isn't too heavy PM me a list.  I'd be happy to send you a box. 

I will also have room in my house for guests between Aug 1 and mid Sept, in case you decide to make a PNW road trip

[lhamo]

Last time I looked there was no Jason Mamoa hanging around -- but who knows what the SO has stashed behind all the random boxes in the basement!

I should probably just do what you are doing and start over fresh from scratch.  But I am far to far from being a minimalist to do that easily.  And I do like at least SOME of my stuff.

Our neighborhood is supposed to have a big Garage Give Away event in August so I'll probably get rid of a bunch of stuff that way -- pile stuff on the parking pad and then load up the car for a trip to goodwill at the end of the day for anything that remains.

[Log]

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

When a 3% swing in the stock market makes a bigger difference than my 401k contribution for the year it's hard to stay motivated, and go out of my way to get discount lentils and save $2..

but if we look at it as a first in/first out - then 25k we save during our last year of savings is going to be 500k-1M or more when we are 80+ (depending on when we retire and when we turn 80+)

But I suppose that if we just dump it on the top and up our 4% WR by 1k, then not so much?

What's the use of an extra 500k on top of the horde? Are we dragons collecting shiny piles of gold? You can't take it with you when you die.

If you continue to work beyond the needs of your previous spending tendencies, spending more (wisely) has a much higher happiness ROI than having a bigger number in your brokerage account. Higher spending doesn't need to be about buying ~stuff~, and it's reductive to moralize higher spending as vapid consumerism. You can use money to share beautiful experiences with loved ones or donate to causes you care about.

If the money is just going to accumulate into a big estate anyway, you might as well share that money with your intended recipients while you're alive instead of waiting until you die. An over-sized inheritance is a waste product of insecure money psychology.

Also, in old age we tend to spend less anyway, so middle age is the right time to splurge on experiences with loved ones that will strengthen those relationships and pay memory dividends for the rest of your life.

[mistymoney]

Being closer to retirement, the marginal return on savings is a demotivator, but it's better than spending it frivolously! Maybe?? Will think on it....

When a 3% swing in the stock market makes a bigger difference than my 401k contribution for the year it's hard to stay motivated, and go out of my way to get discount lentils and save $2..

but if we look at it as a first in/first out - then 25k we save during our last year of savings is going to be 500k-1M or more when we are 80+ (depending on when we retire and when we turn 80+)

But I suppose that if we just dump it on the top and up our 4% WR by 1k, then not so much?

What's the use of an extra 500k on top of the horde? Are we dragons collecting shiny piles of gold? You can't take it with you when you die.

If you continue to work beyond the needs of your previous spending tendencies, spending more (wisely) has a much higher happiness ROI than having a bigger number in your brokerage account. Higher spending doesn't need to be about buying ~stuff~, and it's reductive to moralize higher spending as vapid consumerism. You can use money to share beautiful experiences with loved ones or donate to causes you care about.

If the money is just going to accumulate into a big estate anyway, you might as well share that money with your intended recipients while you're alive instead of waiting until you die. An over-sized inheritance is a waste product of insecure money psychology.

Also, in old age we tend to spend less anyway, so middle age is the right time to splurge on experiences with loved ones that will strengthen those relationships and pay memory dividends for the rest of your life.

if in fact the horde is ever increasing, it may be the last 500k you have left.

[Simpli-Fi]

The die with zero idea is like saying "I'm going to cut the rope in half with my arrow".

my take away from the book was, your networth should peak...not necessarily die when you have no money left.

if you die with a million in the bank/invested and only made a peak of 100k/yr salary...then you worked for quite a few years (maybe a decade) for free.

[Ron Scott]

What's the use of an extra 500k on top of the horde?

Higher spending doesn't need to be about buying ~stuff~. You can use money to share beautiful experiences with loved ones or donate to causes you care about.

I guess I’m with you in a general sense here but the devil is in the details, as always.

Someone dying with $500k left over doesn’t tell you much unless you know how the person lived or who gets the money and whether they can really use it to make a meaningful difference in their lives. So there’s that.

I’m also not sure what ~stuff~ means but if you always dreamed of living on the lake in retirement and $500k makes the difference then go for it.

Finally, I’m familiar with the perceived value of spending on “experiences” vs. tangibles. But when the travel industry successfully hijacked the concept I got off the bus. Travel for its own sake—especially when done on some forced schedule people call “a vacation”—is a tremendous bore preceded by tedious planning that requires dealing with annoying people and exercising way too much patience when you could be seriously relaxing instead.

Giving money to loved ones and sharing their enjoyment however is a wonderful experience.

And that brings us back to the concept of having “extra” money you don’t “need”. This may seem wasteful or, it appears, even psychotic, to the faithful.  But there are those who will tell you it offers a different level of flexibility and yields options in life that are wonderful to have. Played right, that can be priceless.

[Log]

What's the use of an extra 500k on top of the horde?

Higher spending doesn't need to be about buying ~stuff~. You can use money to share beautiful experiences with loved ones or donate to causes you care about.

…Finally, I’m familiar with the perceived value of spending on “experiences” vs. tangibles. But when the travel industry successfully hijacked the concept I got off the bus. Travel for its own sake—especially when done on some forced schedule people call “a vacation”—is a tremendous bore preceded by tedious planning that requires dealing with annoying people and exercising way too much patience when you could be seriously relaxing instead…

Haha, yes. There was a great New Yorker article recently about the absurdity of the idea that going to “interesting places” will turn one into an interesting person. Also reminds me of the Fran Lebowitz line from that doc Pretend It’s a City about a neighbor seeing her in the building lobby with a suitcase and asking if she was going on vacation: “vacation? I travel to get paid so I can afford to live here, the place I actually want to be!”

[Metalcat]

What's the use of an extra 500k on top of the horde?

Higher spending doesn't need to be about buying ~stuff~. You can use money to share beautiful experiences with loved ones or donate to causes you care about.

…Finally, I’m familiar with the perceived value of spending on “experiences” vs. tangibles. But when the travel industry successfully hijacked the concept I got off the bus. Travel for its own sake—especially when done on some forced schedule people call “a vacation”—is a tremendous bore preceded by tedious planning that requires dealing with annoying people and exercising way too much patience when you could be seriously relaxing instead…

Haha, yes. There was a great New Yorker article recently about the absurdity of the idea that going to “interesting places” will turn one into an interesting person. Also reminds me of the Fran Lebowitz line from that doc Pretend It’s a City about a neighbor seeing her in the building lobby with a suitcase and asking if she was going on vacation: “vacation? I travel to get paid so I can afford to live here, the place I actually want to be!”

True, some of the most well traveled people I know are also the most dull people I know.

What I find remarkable is how little those folks generally have to say about travel. My father and I are both fascinated that when talking to people about their trips to very exotic places, people really don't have much to say other than that it was beautiful and the food was good. They mostly talk about the flights. Like, dude, I really don't care about your flight, tell me about the cool place I've never been to.

My father and I both despise flying, so we don't even like to hear about it. But nope, that's the bulk of what a lot of people have to say about their travel. It's very unpleasant.

I'm not saying their trips are dull or that travel isn't worth it to them. I'm just saying that regardless of whether they loved the trip, the process of traveling most certainly hasn't made them more interesting. In fact, I kind of dread hearing about trips from a lot of people.

[Ron Scott]

What's the use of an extra 500k on top of the horde?

Higher spending doesn't need to be about buying ~stuff~. You can use money to share beautiful experiences with loved ones or donate to causes you care about.

…Finally, I’m familiar with the perceived value of spending on “experiences” vs. tangibles. But when the travel industry successfully hijacked the concept I got off the bus. Travel for its own sake—especially when done on some forced schedule people call “a vacation”—is a tremendous bore preceded by tedious planning that requires dealing with annoying people and exercising way too much patience when you could be seriously relaxing instead…

Haha, yes. There was a great New Yorker article recently about the absurdity of the idea that going to “interesting places” will turn one into an interesting person. Also reminds me of the Fran Lebowitz line from that doc Pretend It’s a City about a neighbor seeing her in the building lobby with a suitcase and asking if she was going on vacation: “vacation? I travel to get paid so I can afford to live here, the place I actually want to be!”

Yeah, Fran’s a national treasure. Same series, produced by Marty Scorsese BTW, someone asks her why she stayed in Manhattan her whole life. She says “Look, I’d love to leave the city, but where can you go?”

[lifeisshort123]

I think the FI part is still a part of the movement, but many years in the RE part of it has been more or less abandoned...

This is true with many of the heroes of the FIRE movement.... They spend their days working on projects, writing websites, doing interviews, appearing in media.  In addition to renting out and repairing houses, and numerous side-hustles.... I hate to say this, but to me, that's not the definition of retirement.  However, these people are FI, which is wonderful and it affords them the opportunity to do what they want, when they want to.  I'm happy for them.

For me, it is easy to identify every single dollar ever spent could be better put to use investing.  I get that.  I also know that at least for me, I need to enjoy parts of my life.  I don't want to wait for retirement to be able to do at least some of the things I would like to.  It's not a guarantee I'll make it there.

[Metalcat]

I think the FI part is still a part of the movement, but many years in the RE part of it has been more or less abandoned...

This is true with many of the heroes of the FIRE movement.... They spend their days working on projects, writing websites, doing interviews, appearing in media.  In addition to renting out and repairing houses, and numerous side-hustles.... I hate to say this, but to me, that's not the definition of retirement.  However, these people are FI, which is wonderful and it affords them the opportunity to do what they want, when they want to.  I'm happy for them.

For me, it is easy to identify every single dollar ever spent could be better put to use investing.  I get that.  I also know that at least for me, I need to enjoy parts of my life.  I don't want to wait for retirement to be able to do at least some of the things I would like to.  It's not a guarantee I'll make it there.

Which is why Pete so emphatically emphasizes that frugality is NOT the same as being cheap. If you feel deprived, you are doing it wrong.

I started my frugality journey when I went from being a broke student through my entire 20s to being a high income medical professional in my 30s. I started inflating my lifestyle through indulgent spending because, well, that's what you do, and I found it pointless and hollow.

Since I've embraced the concept that frugality *is* the way to being more happy and healthy, my life has become much more fun and interesting.

It's not about spending less, it's about pushing your limits, your creativity, your understanding of what's possible, what options you have, and what you actually need to be happy.

The default solution to any problem is always to try and spend it away, but paradoxically, this often creates more problems.

For me, the exercise of thoroughly examining an issue and trying to creatively solve it without just throwing money at it means that I am just more thorough in my understanding of my own needs and the options available for meeting them.

By making myself look for a less spendy solution, I almost always find options that I never would have even thought of before.

Choosing to always at least try to find more frugal options has opened more doors for me than I ever thought imaginable. Frugality has never limited my life, it's radically expanded it.

Sometimes spending is the best way to meet a need, sometimes spending A LOT is the best way to meet a need, but the mindset of frugality isn't not to spend, it's to be diligent, thoughtful, and creative before jumping to spending, because there very well could be a superior option out there.

[Ron Scott]

I think the FI part is still a part of the movement, but many years in the RE part of it has been more or less abandoned...

This is true with many of the heroes of the FIRE movement.... They spend their days working on projects, writing websites, doing interviews, appearing in media.  In addition to renting out and repairing houses, and numerous side-hustles.... I hate to say this, but to me, that's not the definition of retirement.  However, these people are FI, which is wonderful and it affords them the opportunity to do what they want, when they want to.  I'm happy for them.

By the definitions typically cited on this forum I was FI for many many years before I retired. FI is a great goal for almost everyone; the pros and cons of RE usually need to be more carefully considered.

Case in point, lets consider half the population—women. The percentage of the workforce accounted for by women tripled since your grandmother’s day. Some of this is because men have had a harder time supporting a family as educational requirements rose for high paying jobs. But in the past 40-50 years many women have been enjoying their careers and their dissatisfaction stems more from pay and the challenges of balancing family than the work itself. Today, almost half the US workforce is female, and it would be tough to pin necessity on all of them. I worked with many women who were FI.

Some jobs do suck, but others offer socialization, an attractive career, an environment geared toward self-actualization, mental stimulation, ongoing teamwork, etc. Retiring simply because “you can” isn’t as attractive an option to many people and reminds me of the old joke about dogs.

The “heros” of the FIRE movement, who work hard selling FIRE for a living, are an interesting bunch as you surmise LOL.

The important things are to save (FI) to ensure your ability to support yourself and to make your own decisions on retirement, without being swayed or by criticizing others for having different ideas about it.The most critical are usually the least happy in their own lives.

[Sugaree]

I think the FI part is still a part of the movement, but many years in the RE part of it has been more or less abandoned...

This is true with many of the heroes of the FIRE movement.... They spend their days working on projects, writing websites, doing interviews, appearing in media.  In addition to renting out and repairing houses, and numerous side-hustles.... I hate to say this, but to me, that's not the definition of retirement.  However, these people are FI, which is wonderful and it affords them the opportunity to do what they want, when they want to.  I'm happy for them.

By the definitions typically cited on this forum I was FI for many many years before I retired. FI is a great goal for almost everyone; the pros and cons of RE usually need to be more carefully considered.

Case in point, lets consider half the population—women. The percentage of the workforce accounted for by women tripled since your grandmother’s day. Some of this is because men have had a harder time supporting a family as educational requirements rose for high paying jobs. But in the past 40-50 years many women have been enjoying their careers and their dissatisfaction stems more from pay and the challenges of balancing family than the work itself. Today, almost half the US workforce is female, and it would be tough to pin necessity on all of them. I worked with many women who were FI.

Some jobs do suck, but others offer socialization, an attractive career, an environment geared toward self-actualization, mental stimulation, ongoing teamwork, etc. Retiring simply because “you can” isn’t as attractive an option to many people and reminds me of the old joke about dogs.

The “heros” of the FIRE movement, who work hard selling FIRE for a living, are an interesting bunch as you surmise LOL.

The important things are to save (FI) to ensure your ability to support yourself and to make your own decisions on retirement, without being swayed or by criticizing others for having different ideas about it.The most critical are usually the least happy in their own lives.

This is a great point.  I am lucky enough to have a job where I was able to take 12 weeks of paid maternity leave because I could build up enough leave to cover it (current employees actually get a true paid leave without having to use their own leave, and I'm super happy for them).  I was ready to go back by week 8.  The SAHM thing was absolutely not for me, and if it's your thing then more power to you.  I needed adult conversation and a job to do.  I would have been miserable if that was the only option I had because of society's idea about where a woman's place was.

That being said, I don't necessarily want to do what I'm doing forever.  I like my job, and am reasonably good at it.  And it pays well enough that FI is not only possible, but probable.  The plan is to work here until I'm 57 to keep health insurance and then go find something with less stress.  Maybe I'll go work retail and see how long it takes to get fired when I tell people what I really think about their entitled attitude?  A lot easier to do that when you don't need the paycheck to pay the bills...

[Bartlebooth]

Don't forget how one must have a $160k camper to live the dream (https://thefioneers.com/cost-of-campervan/).  And a $500 pizza oven.  Very spendy indeed.

[lhamo]

There are PLENTY of us out here doing our integrated FIRE thing without any supplemental income from side gigs, blogging, selling courses, or whatever.  We are just fairly low key about it and go about our days doing what we enjoy at a reasonable cost while our portfolios keep ticking along.  In my book, we are the real (if comparatively silent) heroes of FI.  Kind of like Clark Kent, we often blend in until there is a moment of crisis, and then we are able to deploy our resources to help others.

[ixtap]

There are PLENTY of us out here doing our integrated FIRE thing without any supplemental income from side gigs, blogging, selling courses, or whatever.  We are just fairly low key about it and go about our days doing what we enjoy at a reasonable cost while our portfolios keep ticking along.  In my book, we are the real (if comparatively silent) heroes of FI.  Kind of like Clark Kent, we often blend in until there is a moment of crisis, and then we are able to deploy our resources to help others.

That is definitely one of the reasons DH is still working and I am considering looking for work. Sure, we are FI, but a relatively tight FI that doesn't quite allow us to throw money at other people's problems.

[VanillaGorilla]

Don't forget how one must have a $160k camper to live the dream (https://thefioneers.com/cost-of-campervan/).  And a $500 pizza oven.  Very spendy indeed.

Wow.

Well, good for them. I hope they find the cost of their van to be worthwhile. However, I can't help but think of how much 160k buys. That's a lot of car camping, AirBNBs, hotel rooms. It's also about 5x what a pickup truck with slide-in camper or lightweight trailer. Or a used motorhome.

Part of me really misses the original MMM blog content.