Author Topic: Has FIRE become “spendy”?  (Read 50732 times)

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6200
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #100 on: April 15, 2023, 11:11:31 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 11:16:12 AM by iris lily »

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3217
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #101 on: April 15, 2023, 11:35:48 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25477
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #102 on: April 15, 2023, 03:34:40 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

Not if you've already purchased the gun!

frugalecon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #103 on: April 15, 2023, 06:12:28 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

Long-term care is definitely a risk, though far fewer people spend significant time in an institutional setting than some may think. But it can definitely be expensive. A LOT more than $25k or $30k per person per year. I guess you can just go into a Medicaid facility if you go to zero assets, but those can be kind of grim. (I just had a family member die in one a month ago. I wouldn’t have wanted to live there.)

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1897
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #104 on: April 15, 2023, 07:06:19 PM »
I am starting to think I am too poor for this forum ...

Like Laura, I’ve been a fan of FIRE and MMM for a long time, but I was never really on board with the $24k.

Let's all keep in mind that the actual original 2010 MMM spending was $30,500 - at the tail end of a mortgage. 2011 was $28.5k with nearly no mortgage spend ($27k excluding the mortgage they paid off early in the year). 2012 was $25k with no mortgage.

Pete also lives in an area with relatively low property taxes. I'm sure his house at the time was worth 2x what mine was, yet I was the one paying 2x more in property taxes.

So, let's inflation adjust the original year of Pete's spending.

In 2023 dollars, Pete spent $42.2k in 2010. That's pretty close to double the oft-quoted 24k/year (with a paid off house).

Even if we take the first actual no-mortgage year of 2012, it's still $33k in today's dollars

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/27/exposed-the-mmm-familys-actual-spending/
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/16/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2011-spending/
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/01/21/exposed-the-mmm-familys-2012-spending/
(all the numbers are in the 3rd linked article)

Wow. I honestly find all of the FIRE forums completely baffling. I don't even understand what people are spending their money on. My life is perfectly comfortable and I've never even gotten close to $33K in spending. Where are all the other people like me? I'm constantly looking for posts by people at my financial level and I really start to question my perception of reality. Am I poor? I don't feel poor! At least until I get on these forums where 80% of posts are by people with huge DB pensions and millions invested sincerely wondering if they can retire. I don't feel like I live like a "lean fire" person at all. I have a nice house in a great historic neighborhood, wear cute clothes, buy the organic chicken from the food co-op, etc. It is so confusing.

You sound like a single person. Completely different than having a spouse and or kids. I went from about $15-20k a year spend to about $60k with a wife and 1 child. Hint: I haven't changed, I'm still just as frugal if not more so. $33k is a ton of money for a single person.

Fomerly known as something

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
  • Location: CA
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #105 on: April 15, 2023, 08:22:54 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

Well neither do most FIRE folks.  In fact, that was always one of the criticisms I’ve heard about FIRE, what about late in life if you are basing your math on spending in your 40s or 50s.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #106 on: April 16, 2023, 06:42:35 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

Ramit has a lot more in common with FIRE folks than I think most here realize.

bmjohnson35

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #107 on: April 16, 2023, 08:43:26 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

Long-term care is definitely a risk, though far fewer people spend significant time in an institutional setting than some may think. But it can definitely be expensive. A LOT more than $25k or $30k per person per year. I guess you can just go into a Medicaid facility if you go to zero assets, but those can be kind of grim. (I just had a family member die in one a month ago. I wouldn’t have wanted to live there.)

I had to "save" my mom from a rehab center around a year in half ago.  She wouldn't have survived their "care" for very long if I wouldn't have been there as her advocate.  This was supposed to be one of the best facilities in the area.  It was clean, but it was woefully understaffed and individual patient care was poor.  As far as I'm concerned, whether it's your own healthcare or being an advocate for a fellow loved one, you can't leave it to the healthcare industry.  You have to ask lots of questions, do your own research, steer them in the right direction when needed and be prepared to change doctor/facility when necessary.

I'm not sure how prepared we will be for long-term care down the road. It is a scary issue. The costs are high and insurance is prohibitively expensive.  Ultimately, I chose to retire early and enjoy our time while we are healthy. We try to maintain a healthy lifestyle and fully utilize the preventive care available.  I've known too many people who died earlier than expected or had their health decline significantly early into their retirement.  Our goal is to die young.......as late as possible.     

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #108 on: April 16, 2023, 09:23:24 AM »
i do not intend to die with 0, while I have no kids, I would like to ensure my neices and nephews have a head start/possibility of FIRE

Chris Pascale

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #109 on: April 16, 2023, 11:47:27 AM »
Yeah, but who puts only 20% down?  We put 70% down,

In the US the average down payment is about 7% for first time buyers, and about 17% for repeat buyers. Borrowers are required to hold private mortgage insurance until their equity level reaches 20%.

An FHA mortgage requires 3.5% down.

Current home is the first I've ever had a down-payment. Always used a 0% down VA before.

Regarding quotes on spending, I'm actually shocked at the lack of spending people have, particularly with groceries, but I have 7 people and 3 pets in my house.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #110 on: April 16, 2023, 07:26:05 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

There's a whole branch of actuarial science around making sure one doesn't run out of money before dying, and then there are the actuaries working for life insurance companies. All of these data scientists make probabilistic estimations about how not to run out of money or how to ensure the life insurance co receives a sufficient amount of premium to cover deaths. Some percentage of the time these experts with reams of data and entire careers to work on the problem still fail.

So when someone says they want to die at the moment they spend their last dollar, that's like doing a Tony Hawk backward grab 360 on top of a chaotic and difficult-to-predict future. Not running out of money is an extremely hard challenge, and now people want to narrow the thousands of possible portfolio depletion outcomes to the one scenario where zero occurs on your deathday?

The massive challenge of figuring out how not to run out of money in retirement (see earlyretirementnow.com for actuarial calculations) is like saying "I'm going to shoot the arrow slightly over that horizontal rope". The die with zero idea is like saying "I'm going to cut the rope in half with my arrow".

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #111 on: April 16, 2023, 08:32:16 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

There's a whole branch of actuarial science around making sure one doesn't run out of money before dying, and then there are the actuaries working for life insurance companies. All of these data scientists make probabilistic estimations about how not to run out of money or how to ensure the life insurance co receives a sufficient amount of premium to cover deaths. Some percentage of the time these experts with reams of data and entire careers to work on the problem still fail.

So when someone says they want to die at the moment they spend their last dollar, that's like doing a Tony Hawk backward grab 360 on top of a chaotic and difficult-to-predict future. Not running out of money is an extremely hard challenge, and now people want to narrow the thousands of possible portfolio depletion outcomes to the one scenario where zero occurs on your deathday?

The massive challenge of figuring out how not to run out of money in retirement (see earlyretirementnow.com for actuarial calculations) is like saying "I'm going to shoot the arrow slightly over that horizontal rope". The die with zero idea is like saying "I'm going to cut the rope in half with my arrow".

I guess I just don’t understand the logic behind wanting to die just after spending your last dollar but whatever floats your boat.

For those who want to I would imagine working it through annuity wouldn’t be too complicated.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #112 on: April 16, 2023, 08:59:32 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

There's a whole branch of actuarial science around making sure one doesn't run out of money before dying, and then there are the actuaries working for life insurance companies. All of these data scientists make probabilistic estimations about how not to run out of money or how to ensure the life insurance co receives a sufficient amount of premium to cover deaths. Some percentage of the time these experts with reams of data and entire careers to work on the problem still fail.

So when someone says they want to die at the moment they spend their last dollar, that's like doing a Tony Hawk backward grab 360 on top of a chaotic and difficult-to-predict future. Not running out of money is an extremely hard challenge, and now people want to narrow the thousands of possible portfolio depletion outcomes to the one scenario where zero occurs on your deathday?

The massive challenge of figuring out how not to run out of money in retirement (see earlyretirementnow.com for actuarial calculations) is like saying "I'm going to shoot the arrow slightly over that horizontal rope". The die with zero idea is like saying "I'm going to cut the rope in half with my arrow".

I guess I just don’t understand the logic behind wanting to die just after spending your last dollar but whatever floats your boat.

For those who want to I would imagine working it through annuity wouldn’t be too complicated.
My understanding of the "logic" is a focus on making sure no one who didn't earn the money (relatives, government, charity) and therefore doesn't deserve the money gets any. And since money=happiness, there's a fear of failing to extract all the happiness one's portfolio allows.

From a FIRE perspective, it might mean absolutely not doing OMY. But again, guessing a FIRE number that is going to last until the exact day you die (or let's say leaving behind only + or - $30k to not be absolutists or mischaracterize anybody's position) is going to be very hard and very risky. On average, almost half the people who aim for such a goal are going to run out of money.

Late course corrections would be futile. What if you find yourself a healthy 78 year old on your planned death date, but too old to go back to work, and you're broke? What if you find yourself a 65 year old who has just been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer with 4 weeks to live, but there is nothing you could blow your entire portfolio on because you're going into hospice and the idea of eating caviar and lobster for every meal is revolting? F*** that stress. Try to overshoot the target, focus on living your life, and maybe consider the happiness of your heirs or charity recipients.

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #113 on: April 16, 2023, 09:42:57 PM »
My understand was that a lot of "die with zero" is about providing a living inheritance to your heirs, so that 1) they don't have to wait until your dead to get the money if they could use it more earlier in life (getting their career off the ground, having kids) and 2) so that you get benefit from being around to see the happiness and freedom that your generosity provides them. The idea that it's about not sharing your money is completely off-base.

It's about being more generous as you near the end. You don't need to time a retirement perfectly and day at exactly the day you predict. The point is just to draw down more when you can tell that you're not in any danger of running out, and that you can be exceedingly generous when you can tell the end is nigh.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #114 on: April 17, 2023, 03:36:51 AM »
My understand was that a lot of "die with zero" is about providing a living inheritance to your heirs,
It's about being more generous as you near the end.

Blow a step up in basis and lose a good % to taxes? Why do that?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #115 on: April 17, 2023, 04:36:01 AM »
My understand was that a lot of "die with zero" is about providing a living inheritance to your heirs,
It's about being more generous as you near the end.

Blow a step up in basis and lose a good % to taxes? Why do that?

Pretty much any investment of money in your adult age child could be considered in this light. Paying for their college is a huge example of this. Buying them transportation to get to a job, helping them out of a hole from unforeseen medical expenses, paying for them to go on a vacation with you that they couldn't afford to go on or wouldn't want to spend the money at that phase of their life whereas you might not be physically able to go when they are, etc. All of these things wouldn't necessarily make you die with zero, but they are examples of how the marginal utility benefits essentially giving them inheritance early, without consideration for step up basis.

The thought as I understand it is not to give them a half million when you're 90 instead of when you die at 95 but to give it to them as you go along and the need arises, reducing your inheritance but helping them as they need it.

Treedream

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #116 on: April 17, 2023, 04:52:30 AM »
I am glad these calculations are a lot easier in a country with pensions and social security (both in terms of money, and subsidized care).

But I also wanted to say that there are definitely still frugal people here. Although I dwell mostly in the non-American part of this forum. There are people spending less than 12K a year here. And myself I spend about 20K in Europe and that is without sharing a house, I rent my own place and will soon buy an apartment.

What stops me from contributing more to most conversations, is that it often feels of little added value to tell my story, because its hard to compare to an American situation.

But where it can be compared: I don't have a car, or a television. I cycle everywhere and use public transport. I spend most of my free time playing boardgames with friends and I go out for activities and food only about once a month. But my live is good. Its filled with time with friends and family. I only work 4 days, which helps me feel less stuck in the job and I have time to be creative.

There are still really frugal people here. When I explain to friends what I do with money (choosing a different account, because the interest is higher, or investing) I get weird looks and am the odd one out. I don't feel the odd one out here, but then I try to forget those people who earn more than 100K. Those are American 1% incomes. That is not realistic. I have a median income where I live. I am doing well. And that is all I have to account for. What I do with what I have.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15900
  • Age: 15
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #117 on: April 17, 2023, 04:53:36 AM »
My understand was that a lot of "die with zero" is about providing a living inheritance to your heirs,
It's about being more generous as you near the end.

Blow a step up in basis and lose a good % to taxes? Why do that?

Pretty much any investment of money in your adult age child could be considered in this light. Paying for their college is a huge example of this. Buying them transportation to get to a job, helping them out of a hole from unforeseen medical expenses, paying for them to go on a vacation with you that they couldn't afford to go on or wouldn't want to spend the money at that phase of their life whereas you might not be physically able to go when they are, etc. All of these things wouldn't necessarily make you die with zero, but they are examples of how the marginal utility benefits essentially giving them inheritance early, without consideration for step up basis.

The thought as I understand it is not to give them a half million when you're 90 instead of when you die at 95 but to give it to them as you go along and the need arises, reducing your inheritance but helping them as they need it.

But isn’t this directly against mustashianism and also against The Millionaire Next Door, who both think that supplying an inheritance is reducing kid’s ability to become frugal themselves, and to live a mustashian lifestyle?

havregryn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #118 on: April 17, 2023, 05:00:51 AM »
There are some threads floating around here about buying teslas and million dollar houses. I'm waiting for the quarter million dollar boat thread.

I think it has slowly turned into a lifestyle design and lifestyle optimization movement.

The average price of a house in Toronto is currently 1,091,300$ . . . down 17% from last year.  :P

This is an example of where 20-30 year old mantras no longer make sense. If you as a middle class person buy that average home, and drop 40% or more of your income on a mortgage payment (or rent), you have destined yourself to a life of being house poor. It doesn't matter what everyone else is doing - you just got on a treadmill that will never stop.

The realm of HCOL areas has expanded from areas like NYC and Silicon Valley to most large North American and European metro areas. Not only does home ownership not make sense in such areas, but even living there doesn't make sense when you compare the salary-COL difference to LCOL areas. LCOL areas are easier to FIRE in, and leave one with a larger monthly surplus for investing or contingencies. Yet nobody wants to live there.

I can't speak for North America because we are in Europe, but to me it is really shocking how much the landscape for a Mustachian person has actually changed over the last 10 years. I would assume that it was actually worse here because we had, for the better part of the last decade, 1 % interest rates, so literally free money given to people who wanted to overspend to spend on whatever they want.
We had those rates on real estate, we had them on cars, we had them on everything.
10 years ago if you were a remotely sensible, frugal person, you could have easily bought/rented housing and lived a modest, frugal life, even if you were unlikely to achieve large nest eggs because we simply had lower incomes, higher taxes, but much better safety nets.
Suddenly, after 10 years of free money, European FIRE forums look exactly like the American ones, it is nowadays only people with 7 figure nest eggs (mostly obtained through inheritance and some real estate jackpots during this super boom of real estate due to low rates, because it is still fairly far fetched to somehow work your way into a 200-300k salary over here) that even dare to discuss financial independence and you suddenly can't really count on buying affordable, modest housing anywhere where you would also happen to wanna live.
We lived in a cheap suburb of Stockholm that 10 years ago just wasn't posh but was otherwise perfectly pleasant to live in. Sadly,  now it is actually a place where you can get shot having a walk and yeah, sorry, no, it's not the same type of decision making that goes into deciding to not pay the premium for posh and the one that goes into deciding to pay the premium for a reasonable chance of NOT getting shot at. But everyone with access to cheap credit went to the most expensive areas they could find and never looked back.

In short, there are simply no places left where you can obtain housing that is affordable but that also guarantees you access to things that were taken for granted just 10 years ago (amenities, low crime, you name it, it varies across Europe but the trend is SUPER OBVIOUS).
It is becoming easier to somehow stumble your way into your first million than it is to find an affordable, pleasant place to live. It's appalling but so it is. And I blame the free money. North America inflated epic speculative bubbles just by having a low-ish interest rate. We had effectively free money and you could get if just by showing up (1% interest worked also on personal loans). How the fuck ECB didn't think this would wreak havoc in our societies, I have no idea, but here we are...



curious_george

  • Guest
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #119 on: April 17, 2023, 05:29:18 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

Not if you've already purchased the gun!

No no no, guns are expensive. This isn't the proper, Mustachian way to kill yourself.

The proper, mustachian way to kill yourself is to spend everything, sell the house, sell the van down by the river, sell everything. Then when you are homeless, and out of money, you simply starve to death slowly, making sure you use up every last ounce of fat reserves left on your body.

Or you could - idk - simply live off social security like millions of other truly poor people do everyday because they have no choice in the matter...I know that idea might seem radical on these forums these days, with all the million dollar houses and Teslas and quarter million dollar boats and whatnot.

But seriously, social security is the answer folks.  $1,500 / month is all you're gonna need when you're old and frail anyway.

havregryn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #120 on: April 17, 2023, 06:27:35 AM »

But seriously, social security is the answer folks.  $1,500 / month is all you're gonna need when you're old and frail anyway.

Again, no clue on North America and rest of the world, but in Europe for decades it was considered that the state pension (which more or less works exactly like your social security, just gets called differently) was all you were ever gonna need when retired and it worked for just about everyone. Because a) practically anyone, except the junkies, gamblers and people who'd end up homeless even if everything was done to help them met their mid sixties living in a paid off property or a rent-controlled rental b) they all had reasonable healthcare available to them and c) really, what do you need to spend large amounts of money on when you're retired and living in a vibrant community where you feel at home, surrounded by your friends and family? My late grandfather had a pension of about 200€ and spent 50 of it on beer and cigarettes and gave the rest of it to us grandkids (lived in the same household with us, as was and still is common in Eastern Europe).
But now suddenly we find ourselves in a completely different world, where most people younger than 50 have to be able to deal with the possibility that there won't be any income from the state pension, where many of them don't actually have any kind of really stable or appropriate housing  that they can count on in old age and where healthcare is becoming more and more bottlenecked on all ends. People are also becoming more and more socially isolated so again, a vibrant community comes with a hefty price tag. You are now actually better off having always been poor so stuck in a multigenerational household to begin with.

My husband and I are around 40 and we are gonna be fine because we were lucky to play the whole thing in a Mustachian way but also with access to some bigger money making opportunities but I am downright terrified for the future of my kids. And that speaking as someone who will cushion their landing into adulthood very nicely. I can completely understand why millenials who were less lucky skip having kids all together. I honestly feel that any parent today in Western Europe who is NOT saving aggresively with the sole intention of giving the money to their kids is failing them miserably.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #121 on: April 17, 2023, 07:19:55 AM »

But seriously, social security is the answer folks.  $1,500 / month is all you're gonna need when you're old and frail anyway.

Again, no clue on North America and rest of the world, but in Europe for decades it was considered that the state pension (which more or less works exactly like your social security, just gets called differently) was all you were ever gonna need when retired and it worked for just about everyone. Because a) practically anyone, except the junkies, gamblers and people who'd end up homeless even if everything was done to help them met their mid sixties living in a paid off property or a rent-controlled rental b) they all had reasonable healthcare available to them and c) really, what do you need to spend large amounts of money on when you're retired and living in a vibrant community where you feel at home, surrounded by your friends and family? My late grandfather had a pension of about 200€ and spent 50 of it on beer and cigarettes and gave the rest of it to us grandkids (lived in the same household with us, as was and still is common in Eastern Europe).
But now suddenly we find ourselves in a completely different world, where most people younger than 50 have to be able to deal with the possibility that there won't be any income from the state pension, where many of them don't actually have any kind of really stable or appropriate housing  that they can count on in old age and where healthcare is becoming more and more bottlenecked on all ends. People are also becoming more and more socially isolated so again, a vibrant community comes with a hefty price tag. You are now actually better off having always been poor so stuck in a multigenerational household to begin with.

My husband and I are around 40 and we are gonna be fine because we were lucky to play the whole thing in a Mustachian way but also with access to some bigger money making opportunities but I am downright terrified for the future of my kids. And that speaking as someone who will cushion their landing into adulthood very nicely. I can completely understand why millenials who were less lucky skip having kids all together. I honestly feel that any parent today in Western Europe who is NOT saving aggresively with the sole intention of giving the money to their kids is failing them miserably.
Great insights. Multi-generational homes are becoming more common on the U.S. side. The people who don't get along with their families are often the ones bouncing between 1BR apartments in the pursuit of higher-paying jobs.

The boomer generation and gen X have a "die with $0" mentality, so their kids are living at home well into their 30s as a way to extract value before it is gone. To some extent it makes sense. A young person who is investing instead of paying market rents has the time to multiply that money, whereas an inheritance comes too late and is too uncertain.

However, I always thought it was odd that people feel the need to have a mortgage around their neck before getting married, having kids, etc. If anything, being renters provides the flexibility to adjust to the rapidly changing realities of young parenthood without having to worry about home repairs. A multi-generational home may be inconvenient in terms of walking around naked in the middle of the night, but for young parents we're talking about onsite babysitters and maybe school pickup/dropoff help.

If anything, there's a failing assumption that young people and young parents can just let the market take care of all their needs (home ownership + daycare + housekeeping help...). There simply isn't enough time in the day to earn enough money to pay for this idealized pattern of consumption. So people are returning to the concept of caring for one another.

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3356
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #122 on: April 17, 2023, 07:36:36 AM »
If you really want to die with zero sell everything and buy a SPIA.  Then the challenge is spend the stream so nothing accumulates.

Sanitary Stache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #123 on: April 17, 2023, 08:38:44 AM »
If anything, there's a failing assumption that young people and young parents can just let the market take care of all their needs (home ownership + daycare + housekeeping help...). There simply isn't enough time in the day to earn enough money to pay for this idealized pattern of consumption. So people are returning to the concept of caring for one another.

A failing assumption... There isn't enough time in the day...

I look pretty frequently at the benefits cliff and where benefits for families (in the US, on a state by state basis) meet a certain standard of living.  That standard of living is the idealized pattern of consumption and work requirements - always work requirements.  Home ownership + daycare + two cars + processed foods + 40+ hours of work x two parents / week + side hustles.  A perfect balance of time that leaves no time for the concept of caring for one another and no resources for elder care let alone participating in the volunteer necessities of society (democracy, education, helping your neighbor, etc.).

Not enough time to eat healthy, not enough time to teach the kids, not enough time to exercise, not enough time to think, to plan, to volunteer. Not enough time to participate. Not enough time to attend the doctor's appointment with grandma, not enough time to sit down for a meal together.  Not enough time to meet with friends and share ideas and connect.  Not enough time to focus on the source of the problem of not enough time.

I rode the kids to school today and one other family was on a bike.  Everyone else was in a car.  A fancy expensive car.  A truck even.  I thought about how my people were the very low income people not in cars and that the people in the cars wanted to be safe from those people. And accumulating the wealth for the car people to feel safe kept the low income people in their low income place. Separate from the fancy car people.

Then I rode my bike up the hill to the fancy houses on 5+ acre lots with views and I thought about how those people were hoarding space from the poor people and accumulating resources to keep their space safe and valuable by keeping the poor people out.  That, for now, the hill and the distance would keep the imagined dangers of the carless away.


Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7366
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #124 on: April 17, 2023, 09:40:32 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

There's a whole branch of actuarial science around making sure one doesn't run out of money before dying, and then there are the actuaries working for life insurance companies. All of these data scientists make probabilistic estimations about how not to run out of money or how to ensure the life insurance co receives a sufficient amount of premium to cover deaths. Some percentage of the time these experts with reams of data and entire careers to work on the problem still fail.

So when someone says they want to die at the moment they spend their last dollar, that's like doing a Tony Hawk backward grab 360 on top of a chaotic and difficult-to-predict future. Not running out of money is an extremely hard challenge, and now people want to narrow the thousands of possible portfolio depletion outcomes to the one scenario where zero occurs on your deathday?

The massive challenge of figuring out how not to run out of money in retirement (see earlyretirementnow.com for actuarial calculations) is like saying "I'm going to shoot the arrow slightly over that horizontal rope". The die with zero idea is like saying "I'm going to cut the rope in half with my arrow".

I guess I just don’t understand the logic behind wanting to die just after spending your last dollar but whatever floats your boat.

For those who want to I would imagine working it through annuity wouldn’t be too complicated.
My understanding of the "logic" is a focus on making sure no one who didn't earn the money (relatives, government, charity) and therefore doesn't deserve the money gets any. And since money=happiness, there's a fear of failing to extract all the happiness one's portfolio allows.

From a FIRE perspective, it might mean absolutely not doing OMY. But again, guessing a FIRE number that is going to last until the exact day you die (or let's say leaving behind only + or - $30k to not be absolutists or mischaracterize anybody's position) is going to be very hard and very risky. On average, almost half the people who aim for such a goal are going to run out of money.

Late course corrections would be futile. What if you find yourself a healthy 78 year old on your planned death date, but too old to go back to work, and you're broke? What if you find yourself a 65 year old who has just been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer with 4 weeks to live, but there is nothing you could blow your entire portfolio on because you're going into hospice and the idea of eating caviar and lobster for every meal is revolting? F*** that stress. Try to overshoot the target, focus on living your life, and maybe consider the happiness of your heirs or charity recipients.

My understanding of Die with Zero is not at all the bolded.  It's about not working more than necessary, and about seeing the good your money can do, while you are still alive to enjoy it.  That means paying for a grandchild to do to college, rather than leaving them $200k after you are dead (and perhaps after if would have given them the best advantage). Or about donating to the local zoo to help find their efforts to save the purple rhino now, before those rhinos are completely gone, and while you are around to hear about the first in vitro fertilization birth of a purple rhino that was made possible by your donation.    And also so you don't deny yourself that trip to see all the natural parks just because you are afraid to spend the money or want to make sure you die with plenty of money leftover.

Now, I think DWZ sounds lovely, and there's some food for thought in it, but as an actual goal, it's silly, unless and until you have a clear fatal diagnosis on a pretty tight timeline, or you plan to orchestrate your own demise.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7366
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #125 on: April 17, 2023, 09:51:00 AM »
My understand was that a lot of "die with zero" is about providing a living inheritance to your heirs,
It's about being more generous as you near the end.

Blow a step up in basis and lose a good % to taxes? Why do that?

Pretty much any investment of money in your adult age child could be considered in this light. Paying for their college is a huge example of this. Buying them transportation to get to a job, helping them out of a hole from unforeseen medical expenses, paying for them to go on a vacation with you that they couldn't afford to go on or wouldn't want to spend the money at that phase of their life whereas you might not be physically able to go when they are, etc. All of these things wouldn't necessarily make you die with zero, but they are examples of how the marginal utility benefits essentially giving them inheritance early, without consideration for step up basis.

The thought as I understand it is not to give them a half million when you're 90 instead of when you die at 95 but to give it to them as you go along and the need arises, reducing your inheritance but helping them as they need it.

But isn’t this directly against mustashianism and also against The Millionaire Next Door, who both think that supplying an inheritance is reducing kid’s ability to become frugal themselves, and to live a mustashian lifestyle?

Is paying for college for your kids and grandkids anti-mustachian?  Is MMM really going to make his kid pay for college--which almost certainly means taking out massive loans unless the kid is one of the fortunate few who receives nearly a fullride?

Is taking your kids and grandkids (and friends and their kids) on a massive 20 person vacation anti-mustachian?  Hey, I'll rent a huge lack house for 3 weeks and let's enjoy time together fishing and swimming and playing board games and hiking and playing card games and cooking and eating together--that seems fairly mustachian to me, if you have the funds to do so.  \

Even giving the kids $XXk, perhaps instead of paying for a fancy wedding, to help them buy their first house (or their first investment property) seems fairly mustachian to me.  It's not like you are buying them an F150 and a jetski and $5000 designer luggage. 

IDK about how the Milliionare Next Door feels about such things because he's not a guy I listen to, but those don't seem like things Pete would object to, if I had to guess.  (He may well have written about college.  Since I don't have kids, thats not a subject I'd have made mental notes about, so maybe I'm wrong.)   

havregryn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #126 on: April 17, 2023, 09:52:39 AM »
The narratives about housing needs are very cultural and I have to admit I didn't even realize this until recently (creeping towards middle age!).

I grew up in post-communist Eastern Europe where home ownership was the absolute norm, renting was a thing maybe if you're a problem person that can't even hold on to something as simple and basic as ownership of an apartment. These people were frequently "protected tenants", i.e. tenants who couldn't really be evicted usually from government owned property (and well, a post-communist government owned a lot of stuff that a "normal" government wouldn't, but this is not really the key element to my story anyway, plus this same system exists in Sweden so you  can obviously do it also without the whole totalitarian part) and "private" tenants were virtually unheard of. It existed literally only as a concept for very problematic people and for college students who for some reason didn't qualify for student housing and whose parents were too poor to afford to finance a purchase of a small apartment. But anyone who was poor who didn't fail a year in college would in fact qualify for student housing so even there private renting was a bit of an extreme solution. Of course, in a place like this, you can imagine who the private landlords are and how the whole thing works. You DON'T WANT TO find yourself renting in a place like that.
My parents were absolutely not rich in any way, they were maybe slightly above average having had university degrees, but to them too buying housing for their college going kids was the most self-explanatory thing in the universe. So they bought me a basement apartment that was generally crappy but well, it was mine. In retrospect, I am really happy this was normalized to me in this way because I very strongly believe that everything about European societies and economies is made in a way that makes renting a TERRIBLE idea, unless you can have a protected rental in a place like Scandinavia.
But anyway, I have three kids and consider it a given that I will need to be able to buy three small apartments in whatever university towns they head off to (and obviously I am already making it clear to them that fairness will be applied to this rule, so when choosing where they want to study, they might wanna check housing prices as while we WILL make sure to house them in a secure and sustainable way through ownership, choosing Paris might mean a 17m2 closet while the sibling who goes off to a smaller university town in Sweden might be looking at a house with a yard.
But anyway, I digress a little, the reason I started this rant was to illustrate that I come from a background where people would always choose to own the simplest, cheapest place they could ever get over renting whatever mansion at whatever attractive price, because the need to create a long term safe housing solution is the first most central pillar of how we plan our finances. And this makes it possible for people to live with their 200-300€ pensions without half the amount of whining I hear here in Western Europe.

Meanwhile, I feel I am meeting more and more people who GENUINELY can't even grasp this world view and who think that wanting to buy housing for our kids makes us "privileged" (even if we are converting a 2 bedroom apartment to a 4 bedroom to be able to keep our finances healthy enough to be able to do this without also having to compromise on where my kids get to grow up (we live in the most privileged area on this planet, the wealthiest suburb in the wealthiest country in the world, by accident (really, we got an Airbnb here and never left, because, following the logic I grew up in, we just immediately bought the place that was for sale right next to it, something that paid off spectacularly as soon thereafter an epic real estate bubble was inflated here, which sadly meant we couldn't easily upgrade, but at this point my kids have friends here and their school is exactly how you would imagine a school in an area like this, so where would we go?). I mean sure as hell I am privileged from the POV of 99% of humanity, but from the point of view of all these local Karens I am actually referring to, oh hell no.

MrGreen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4608
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
  • FIREd in 2017
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #127 on: April 17, 2023, 09:53:27 AM »
I know that idea might seem radical on these forums these days, with all the million dollar houses and Teslas and quarter million dollar boats and whatnot.
These days I hang around maybe 10% as much as I used to so I gotta ask, did someone really start a topic about a yacht? I know the forum has been changing but...
« Last Edit: April 17, 2023, 09:57:08 AM by Mr. Green »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25477
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #128 on: April 17, 2023, 10:00:23 AM »
First they talked about their vitamixes and I remained silent . . .

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #129 on: April 17, 2023, 11:53:01 AM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

There's a whole branch of actuarial science around making sure one doesn't run out of money before dying, and then there are the actuaries working for life insurance companies. All of these data scientists make probabilistic estimations about how not to run out of money or how to ensure the life insurance co receives a sufficient amount of premium to cover deaths. Some percentage of the time these experts with reams of data and entire careers to work on the problem still fail.

So when someone says they want to die at the moment they spend their last dollar, that's like doing a Tony Hawk backward grab 360 on top of a chaotic and difficult-to-predict future. Not running out of money is an extremely hard challenge, and now people want to narrow the thousands of possible portfolio depletion outcomes to the one scenario where zero occurs on your deathday?

The massive challenge of figuring out how not to run out of money in retirement (see earlyretirementnow.com for actuarial calculations) is like saying "I'm going to shoot the arrow slightly over that horizontal rope". The die with zero idea is like saying "I'm going to cut the rope in half with my arrow".

I guess I just don’t understand the logic behind wanting to die just after spending your last dollar but whatever floats your boat.

For those who want to I would imagine working it through annuity wouldn’t be too complicated.

My understanding of the "logic" is a focus on making sure no one who didn't earn the money (relatives, government, charity) and therefore doesn't deserve the money gets any.

Probably why I don’t get it. Sounds pretty selfish to me.

curious_george

  • Guest
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #130 on: April 17, 2023, 11:55:23 AM »
I know that idea might seem radical on these forums these days, with all the million dollar houses and Teslas and quarter million dollar boats and whatnot.
These days I hang around maybe 10% as much as I used to so I gotta ask, did someone really start a topic about a yacht? I know the forum has been changing but...

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/are-you-a-sailor-what-advice-do-you-have-do-these-finances-seem-feasible

If you spend a half million on a boat but then live on the boat, is this still a yacht? idk...

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #131 on: April 17, 2023, 12:00:02 PM »
My understand was that a lot of "die with zero" is about providing a living inheritance to your heirs,
It's about being more generous as you near the end.

Blow a step up in basis and lose a good % to taxes? Why do that?

Pretty much any investment of money in your adult age child could be considered in this light. Paying for their college is a huge example of this. Buying them transportation to get to a job, helping them out of a hole from unforeseen medical expenses, paying for them to go on a vacation with you that they couldn't afford to go on or wouldn't want to spend the money at that phase of their life whereas you might not be physically able to go when they are, etc. All of these things wouldn't necessarily make you die with zero, but they are examples of how the marginal utility benefits essentially giving them inheritance early, without consideration for step up basis.

The thought as I understand it is not to give them a half million when you're 90 instead of when you die at 95 but to give it to them as you go along and the need arises, reducing your inheritance but helping them as they need it.

But isn’t this directly against mustashianism and also against The Millionaire Next Door, who both think that supplying an inheritance is reducing kid’s ability to become frugal themselves, and to live a mustashian lifestyle?

Seriously, who gives a shit about what the mustache or some wealth guru have to say about raising your kids and helping them out with an inheritance?

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15900
  • Age: 15
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #132 on: April 17, 2023, 12:24:00 PM »
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.

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3368
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #133 on: April 17, 2023, 01:20:36 PM »
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.

1. My husband and I "struggle" more than either of our sets of parents did 30 years ago (By which I mean we work more hours for less money, inflation adjusted) And that is with 3x as many degrees and 2x the incomes as they had. If theories are correct and subsequent generations do keep getting poorer, our children will have a harder time of it than we have had.

One of my incentives to keep working is to make sure we have enough to help our kids out if they ever want to have children or pursue a career that is meaningful but doesn't pay enough. We are a family of hard workers, I don't worry about my kids being slackers.

2. You aren't wrong. The problem of humanity, I guess? I want there to be more equality but I'm not sure to what level I am willing to sacrifice my individual childrens' future happiness to make inequality better. But if society was more equitable, I don't know that I'd concern myself with it at all. So planning on the status quo while voting and volunteering to change the status quo, I guess?

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #134 on: April 17, 2023, 01:45:42 PM »
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.

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3217
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #135 on: April 17, 2023, 02:15:00 PM »
First they talked about their vitamixes and I remained silent . . .

hilarious!!!

ROF Expat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #136 on: April 17, 2023, 02:33:08 PM »


But isn’t this directly against mustashianism and also against The Millionaire Next Door, who both think that supplying an inheritance is reducing kid’s ability to become frugal themselves, and to live a mustashian lifestyle?
[/quote]

"The Millionaire Next Door" had a big influence on me when I read it many years ago.  Now that I have a child, the advice on transferring money to the next generation is of more interest to me and still looks pretty good.  Basically, the book warns that cash gifts, even if they are intended to spur savings and investment, usually end up encouraging greater consumption and become counterproductive "Economic Outpatient Care."  It stresses that teaching children to live on their own is the best gift, but observes that the most frequently observed gift that millionaires themselves received from their parents is education.  Subsequent gifts of tuition to family members by millionaires is pretty common.  There is some specific advice on raising productive children and providing an inheritance.  Some points that I thought were interesting were: 

"No matter how wealthy you are, teach your children discipline and frugality"

"Assure that your children won't realize you're affluent until after they have established a mature, disciplined, and adult lifestyle and profession" and transfer of wealth. 

"Minimize discussions of the items that each child and grandchild will inherit or receive as gifts" 

I want to be able to help my kid get a good start in life without sapping the will to succeed or creating expectations of permanent support.  Paying for an education seems reasonable to me as long as my child is taking it seriously and making an appropriate effort.  Any transfers of wealth after that will depend on whether my spouse and I see the maturity to indicate that it will, in fact, help for the long term rather than just subsidize an otherwise unaffordable lifestyle. Now that I'm writing this, I realize that direct inheritance from grandparents might be a wild card.  I may have to talk to them about their plans...


Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3917
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #137 on: April 17, 2023, 02:34:09 PM »
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. 

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #138 on: April 17, 2023, 03:01:49 PM »
I really dispute the idea that kicking your kids out without support so that “they’ll learn like I did” is just a great way to perpetuate intergenerational familial dysfunction. Maybe if you want to teach your kids about money you should… openly talk to them about money?? Tell them what you’ve learned, and why you do things the way that you do?

It's like that John Adams quote that goes ~paraphrased~, "I must study politics and war, so that my sons have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, in order to give their children the right to study painting, poetry, and music."

I said earlier in this thread that actual early retirement is largely for people who feel a burning desire to escape their job. FI can often be the escape hatch that allows you to downshift to work that's less remunerative, but more rewarding.

Well, you can use accumulated wealth to give your child the support so that they can feel comfortable pursuing a field with a high barrier to entry, that will be more fulfilling for the rest of their life (as mentioned above: spend generously on education). If your kid has a positive vision for a life as a professor, a journalist, or an artist of some type, you have the privilege to say, "okay kid, give it your best shot, and if it takes a few years you've got my support. Maybe if you're not there yet by [insert timeline here] it'll be time to reconsider, but until then I want to give it everything you've got." Then, if they do fail, they've likely already entered the adult world, accrued some credentials, and built connections that will help them into an alternative line of work.

That's a much more inspiring vision for life than, "well just get a job you hate and if you invest a lot you won't have to do it for too long." Then you die and leave them an inheritance when they're 60 and already set financially? After they already spent their working years slogging through a career they didn't enjoy? The support you give when they're 20-30 can set them on a life-changing trajectory, if guided appropriately.

mistymoney

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3217
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #139 on: April 17, 2023, 03:03:41 PM »
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.

what's the hard proof for one vs the other direction? How to rule out a third, unknown cause?

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20536
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #140 on: April 17, 2023, 03:06:17 PM »
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.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7366
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #141 on: April 17, 2023, 03:34:20 PM »
My theory is that kids who get a lot of financial help are almost always kids who grow up rich (in a broad sense of the term--think 5%ers, not just .05%ers).  So it's hard to separate out what it is that might make them less motivated to work, or lazy, or dependent, or whatever. 

I suspect the problematic outcomes have more to do with growing up and being handed consumeristic items during every phase of life, than with being given $100k toward their first home, having a paid-for education, etc. 

I grew up, at least from about 7th grade on, what many would consider rich.  Certainly upper middle class.  My high school parking lot was full of brand new Mustangs (which seemed to the the car everyone wanted) and the neighborhood driveways had Mercedes and Benzes.  Meanwhile, I was allowed to borrow my my parents well-used Nissan Stanza Wagon.  Our garage had 2 Toyotas (bought used) and that Nissan once I was old enough to drive.  I recall being mortified when I had to help my parents weed the front lawn on the weekend, because we were probably the only family in the neighborhood that didn't have a gardening service.  Looking back, I understand that my parents easily could have afforded all those things--probably more than a lot of the neighbors.  But they were pretty thrifty people. 

I wasn't given money for a downpayment, but they did pay for all of my college, plus board and small amount for living expenses. 

Anyway, my point is that I think that attitudes and lessons toward money are far more likely to cause those pesky dependence issues, not just being given financial assistance.  I suspect many or even most of the kids from my high school had some entitlement that may have held them back.  But I look at my group of friends, whose parents were all varying levels of upper middle class, and who largely had college paid for, and may have received additional support as well.  And all of them launched pretty easily and are responsible, and independent.

My parents drilled in to me that credit cards were never, ever, ever to be used for buying things you didn't have the money for.  They encouraged savings, and explained interest starting when I was very young.  They didn't cave to pressures to buy name brands of fancy things.  That's what affected my outcomes, and allowed me not to be ruined by financial support in college.

I think if helping your kids financially is going to ruin them WRT being willing to work hard or not feeling entitled, they are probably already ruined.  If you've raised them to be responsible, smart with money, thrifty, and not overly concerned with status symbols, giving them some nudges along the way is unlikely to make them ungrateful basement-dwellers. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #142 on: April 17, 2023, 04:09:00 PM »
My theory is that kids who get a lot of financial help are almost always kids who grow up rich (in a broad sense of the term--think 5%ers, not just .05%ers).  So it's hard to separate out what it is that might make them less motivated to work, or lazy, or dependent, or whatever. 

I suspect the problematic outcomes have more to do with growing up and being handed consumeristic items during every phase of life, than with being given $100k toward their first home, having a paid-for education, etc. 

I grew up, at least from about 7th grade on, what many would consider rich.  Certainly upper middle class.  My high school parking lot was full of brand new Mustangs (which seemed to the the car everyone wanted) and the neighborhood driveways had Mercedes and Benzes.  Meanwhile, I was allowed to borrow my my parents well-used Nissan Stanza Wagon.  Our garage had 2 Toyotas (bought used) and that Nissan once I was old enough to drive.  I recall being mortified when I had to help my parents weed the front lawn on the weekend, because we were probably the only family in the neighborhood that didn't have a gardening service.  Looking back, I understand that my parents easily could have afforded all those things--probably more than a lot of the neighbors.  But they were pretty thrifty people. 

I wasn't given money for a downpayment, but they did pay for all of my college, plus board and small amount for living expenses. 

Anyway, my point is that I think that attitudes and lessons toward money are far more likely to cause those pesky dependence issues, not just being given financial assistance.  I suspect many or even most of the kids from my high school had some entitlement that may have held them back.  But I look at my group of friends, whose parents were all varying levels of upper middle class, and who largely had college paid for, and may have received additional support as well.  And all of them launched pretty easily and are responsible, and independent.

My parents drilled in to me that credit cards were never, ever, ever to be used for buying things you didn't have the money for.  They encouraged savings, and explained interest starting when I was very young.  They didn't cave to pressures to buy name brands of fancy things.  That's what affected my outcomes, and allowed me not to be ruined by financial support in college.

I think if helping your kids financially is going to ruin them WRT being willing to work hard or not feeling entitled, they are probably already ruined.  If you've raised them to be responsible, smart with money, thrifty, and not overly concerned with status symbols, giving them some nudges along the way is unlikely to make them ungrateful basement-dwellers.

This makes a lot of sense to me on a gut level and lines up with my experiences. I was raised living pretty frugally despite parents who could "afford" better. Having a good part of my college paid for by them didn't negate what all I learned from them. I was still frugal...I just had a leg up on not having student loans to pay off. I imagine for people whose parents live more extravagantly and give them lots of consumerist stuff, the pattern has already been ingrained.

WesternAugust

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #143 on: April 17, 2023, 04:20:09 PM »
I think if helping your kids financially is going to ruin them WRT being willing to work hard or not feeling entitled, they are probably already ruined.  If you've raised them to be responsible, smart with money, thrifty, and not overly concerned with status symbols, giving them some nudges along the way is unlikely to make them ungrateful basement-dwellers.

I think that's probably accurate in most cases. My parents aren't going to have massive assets when they pass, but they have a paid-off home and some IRAs they don't dip into due to living off social security and my mom's public employee pension. They've named me the executor of their will. Most of my siblings are going to receive a direct split share of any assets, but one sister is a financial mess (among other messes) and would squander anything she got within a year, so they've basically said her share will instead go into a trust to be used for my sister's kid's college fund. They figure it still helps her, albeit indirectly, and not how she would like, but oh well...

But the rest of the siblings have largely all followed our parents' frugal and moderate ways with finances, so they're not overly concerned the rest of us will suddenly become layabouts or degenerate gamblers and are happy to give us a few pennies from heaven, so to speak.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7366
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #144 on: April 17, 2023, 05:17:34 PM »
I think if helping your kids financially is going to ruin them WRT being willing to work hard or not feeling entitled, they are probably already ruined.  If you've raised them to be responsible, smart with money, thrifty, and not overly concerned with status symbols, giving them some nudges along the way is unlikely to make them ungrateful basement-dwellers.

I think that's probably accurate in most cases. My parents aren't going to have massive assets when they pass, but they have a paid-off home and some IRAs they don't dip into due to living off social security and my mom's public employee pension. They've named me the executor of their will. Most of my siblings are going to receive a direct split share of any assets, but one sister is a financial mess (among other messes) and would squander anything she got within a year, so they've basically said her share will instead go into a trust to be used for my sister's kid's college fund. They figure it still helps her, albeit indirectly, and not how she would like, but oh well...

But the rest of the siblings have largely all followed our parents' frugal and moderate ways with finances, so they're not overly concerned the rest of us will suddenly become layabouts or degenerate gamblers and are happy to give us a few pennies from heaven, so to speak.

Does your sister know this is the plan?  This seems like a recipe for resentment among the siblings.  I hope at least they've told her that so it's not a surprise.


Chris Pascale

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #145 on: April 17, 2023, 09:12:12 PM »
I’ve been listening to Rami Sethi and I have never heard him address Nursing home/end of life care costs. granted, I’ve only heard him talk to two couples of senior age, but he’s not addressing that, he wants everyone to spend money.

I definitely ascribe to the die broke philosophy. It’s just that I don’t know when I’m going to die. I would love to die with $0.

I think the 6 months leading up to 0 would be stressful!

Not if you've already purchased the gun!

No no no, guns are expensive.

You need a friend with a gun.

havregryn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #146 on: April 18, 2023, 12:39:47 AM »
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.

This doesn't work anymore. I can completely agree it probably worked fine before when it was still a relatively straightforward path between being smart and frugal and becoming successful professionally and financially but this simply doesn't work anymore. At least not in the societies I know (Sweden and Luxembourg and by proxy then probably most of Europe). We are at the point where the kids with family money are completely squeezing kids without money out of almost everything.

Housing market? Most buyers now have substantial help from mom and dad (and I would dare to argue that if we expand the definition of this "help" from actually transferring cash to the kids account to offering children the knowledge that there is cash that can bail them out should their dream home prove too expensive this most becomes almost all). In my circles here, the average age of people buying expensive houses is a lot lower than the average age of people buying modest  housing solutions, because the latter are buying with the incomes and net worth of the average 40y old while the former are buying with the incomes and net worth of the average 60 year old (and this is literally a nascent phenomenon, 10 years ago the parents were less wealthy and kids more convinced they were gonna earn they way into something of their own).

Job market? Kids supported by their parents spend the better part of their twenties and nowadays even 30s doing a bunch of prestigious internships that later land them better jobs while kids without parents supporting them have to almost immediately set their eyes very low. Until now you could at least, not having family money, accept that you won't be a diplomat but you could become a doctor or an IT engineer and get a fair shot at a "good" job too, but now AI seems to be coming to mess with this 10 years from now too.

I would be willing to bet money that all of this is going to be at least 10 times worse 10-20 years from now and it is already really bad.

And yes, it is directly related to point 2, we are becoming more and more unequal every single day and no one seems to care because that would be "communist"
 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2023, 12:42:53 AM by havregryn »

Malossi792

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #147 on: April 18, 2023, 01:05:15 AM »
@havregryn
No offense (seriously), but your posts in this thread along with the title of your journal make me think you might need professional help with the 'anxiety' mentioned in the latter. Speaking from personal experience.
Just my 2 cents.

havregryn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #148 on: April 18, 2023, 01:27:38 AM »
@havregryn
No offense (seriously), but your posts in this thread along with the title of your journal make me think you might need professional help with the 'anxiety' mentioned in the latter. Speaking from personal experience.
Just my 2 cents.

Not offended, but I would rather err on the side of anxiety than watch my kids live the average life experience of a today's 25 year old without parental money ;) There is a lot of research out there on this, you are welcome to look it up.
And to be honest,  I think at this point also high school math can suffice to explain why some of these things are not really working out for the youngsters.
Luxembourg is the wealthiest country on the planet and yet, over 20% of young people are "living in poverty", and that is only after you stop counting all of those who were already forced to live across the border. Maybe I need professional help for not just getting on with the program and telling kids to eat less avocado toast, luckily I can afford it (both the therapy and the avocado toast, I love it!). Not sure how they're gonna do the same, but well, for our kids we will fix, for all the other kids we will pray (figuratively, as we are not religious).

havregryn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
Re: Has FIRE become “spendy”?
« Reply #149 on: April 18, 2023, 01:39:39 AM »
I mean, I actually am offended, but not for myself personally or for the whole "get therapy" thing,  another benefit of approaching middle age is that this sort of stuff gets really old (this was a "nothing personal" insult already when I was a teenager), but I am offended on behalf of all these kids who get constantly gaslighted into believing that they're not playing a rigged game.
When we bought our place, its price was about 5 annual salaries of an entry level civil servant and the mortgage interest rate was 1%. And that was, ladies and gentlemen, 7 years ago. Seven! I do not dare do the math for earlier. Anyone who is an entry level civil servant now, if they want to buy it off me as I retire on the products of my hard work of having bought property early enough, they are looking at about ten annual salaries and mortgage interest of 5%. So, I mean, they can't buy it, not if they also want to eat and I can't sell it to them because well, everyone else is waiting for a Saudi fund to buy theirs (because it doubled in 5 years so surely they're interested).  But of course, the Saudi fund expects the same appreciation and civil servants are overpaid and this must be fixed which means by the time my kids need housing it will be at least 20-30 annual salaries and saying that this is sick will be either communist or mentally ill.
Therapy fixes this. If not therapy, maybe bitcoin.
I mean, one becomes cynical, what else is there?