Has FIRE become “spendy”?

[BeanCounter]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch. But as far as regret goes, I think far more people will regret not saving enough vs. the people who will regret saving too much and pulling the trigger too early.

I think the sweet spot is to save as much as you can towards that 25X goal, and some point along the way, you realize that life is way too volatile to leave the workforce super early and plan for 50 years of the type of low spending that a 30 year old could handle. Then you start exploring a bunch of other really great options that are available to you because you did the saving aggressively and early.

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

[Metalcat]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch. But as far as regret goes, I think far more people will regret not saving enough vs. the people who will regret saving too much and pulling the trigger too early.

I think the sweet spot is to save as much as you can towards that 25X goal, and some point along the way, you realize that life is way too volatile to leave the workforce super early and plan for 50 years of the type of low spending that a 30 year old could handle. Then you start exploring a bunch of other really great options that are available to you because you did the saving aggressively and early.

I don’t know about that. Ask all the people that retired after 55 and died less than ten years later. Thats regret.
Personally I think the sweet spot is to get to 25 times a decent budget for spend and if you’re still not quite comfortable downshift to part time or even better yet part time fun work.

Yeah, fun part time work is a very powerful lever during a long retirement, especially if you can get really well compensated fun part time work.

Any added flexibility is really valuable.

[mathlete]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

[charis]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

There are lots of folks on this forum that go back to work after they FIRE for various reasons, boredom, a good part time or short term opportunity falls in their laps, market volatility, etc, etc.  I don't consider it a FIRE failure if someone goes back to work because they are worried about money.  I've been reading here and around about FIRE for years now and, like Metalcat, I've never assumed 25x meant freedom from both work and ever worrying about money again forever amen.   People who put this much work into financial planning and preparing for their retirement are not doing this.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

There are lots of folks on this forum that go back to work after they FIRE for various reasons, boredom, a good part time or short term opportunity falls in their laps, market volatility, etc, etc.  I don't consider it a FIRE failure if someone goes back to work because they are worried about money.  I've been reading here and around about FIRE for years now and, like Metalcat, I've never assumed 25x meant freedom from both work and ever worrying about money again forever amen.   People who put this much work into financial planning and preparing for their retirement are not doing this.

I guess you've missed all of the people that say that having excess money at the end means you've worked longer than you needed to and THAT should be considered FIRE failure...  and yes, there are quite a few people on this forum that like to make this argument.

[charis]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

There are lots of folks on this forum that go back to work after they FIRE for various reasons, boredom, a good part time or short term opportunity falls in their laps, market volatility, etc, etc.  I don't consider it a FIRE failure if someone goes back to work because they are worried about money.  I've been reading here and around about FIRE for years now and, like Metalcat, I've never assumed 25x meant freedom from both work and ever worrying about money again forever amen.   People who put this much work into financial planning and preparing for their retirement are not doing this.

I guess you've missed all of the people that say that having excess money at the end means you've worked longer than you needed to and THAT should be considered FIRE failure...  and yes, there are quite a few people on this forum that like to make this argument.

I haven't missed that argument, but I don't believe that's what mathlete was referring to (maybe I'm wrong).  But I guess that could be considered a failure, but I think most people are anticipating having excess money at the end as a result of having a conservative WR.  Maybe the issue is that we don't know that there is a FIRE failure until the end.

[BicycleB]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

MMM's articles clearly said something similar to "Cut spending. Save 25X. Freedom", so surely not crazy. It's just a little reductive. MMM's own take in the 4% rule article gave a range from 20x to 30x and suggested being active enough that you'd have flexibility to respond to events. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need-for-retirement/

Whether "25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money" is accurate or hyperbole depends on one's definition of "super lean budget", and "worry". Same article suggests adjusting spending in recessions (is that because of worry?) and that the "retiree" would probably find part-time employment at some point. He didn't really say 25x was a final number for all circumstances. He said an active lifestyle full of skills and efficiency plus a number in the 25x ballpark would be excellent enough that continuing a job you don't like would be unnecessary.

If there's any case of someone floating lazily on a small stash, with minimal skills, it's probably me. I plan for contingencies and make adjustments, but I may yet find some part time work too. I think everyone can see that if your spend is low and your stash barely enought to cover it, a change that does cause higher expenses could be a problem, and that the effect would be bigger than if you had a bigger reserve.

There's some chance, perhaps a few percent, that this will happen to me in a way that I haven't planned for. There's an additional % chance, maybe 5%, that I will get Alzheimer's AND live long enough, while my resources are used to pay for the care that I desire, that the resources run out and I suffer a period - most likely 1 to 3 years, but who knows - of getting subpar care near end of life due to insufficient savings. I don't like that risk but accept it in exchange for my near-100% chance of pleasant life during the next 10 or 15 years, plus the subsequent 10-15 years of independent life I'll likely get in the non-Alz scenario.  Again, I'm about the laziest small-stash FIREee here, and even I see the middle of the road.

The normal case here, as MetalCat and others have pointed out, seems to have become much higher spends, or much higher safety margins, or people working longer to ensure both. On the topic in the thread title, becoming "spendy", it looks to me like the common issue prior to FIRE isn't spend level vs 4% rule and sufficient safety margin, it's spend level vs years of work. 

After FIRE, as others have said repeatedly, people with higher means are spending within them, which raises the question of whether "within your means" or "at a low spend similar to MMM's original one" is the right target, so to speak. Many fine posts here have already discussed this.

But plenty of posts on this thread seem to have boiled down to people who like their work saying that people who quit too early are doing it wrong. Continued work that you like has been part of MMM's actual life and tales from the start. But so is quitting work on a low spend and low stash to do what you want.

[charis]

Continued work you like has been part of MMM's actual life and tales from the start. But so is quitting work on a low spend and low stash to do what you want.

This has been my biggest takeaway from MMM.  Pad your stache to have the flexibility to have the life (and work) that you like.  To some that will be no work and to others it will be an MMM level of projects.

[mathlete]

There are lots of folks on this forum that go back to work after they FIRE for various reasons, boredom, a good part time or short term opportunity falls in their laps, market volatility, etc, etc.  I don't consider it a FIRE failure if someone goes back to work because they are worried about money.  I've been reading here and around about FIRE for years now and, like Metalcat, I've never assumed 25x meant freedom from both work and ever worrying about money again forever amen.   People who put this much work into financial planning and preparing for their retirement are not doing this.

Yeah but I think this is covered by the rest of my post.

But as far as regret goes, I think far more people will regret not saving enough vs. the people who will regret saving too much and pulling the trigger too early.

I think the sweet spot is to save as much as you can towards that 25X goal, and some point along the way, you realize that life is way too volatile to leave the workforce super early and plan for 50 years of the type of low spending that a 30 year old could handle. Then you start exploring a bunch of other really great options that are available to you because you did the saving aggressively and early.

[BeanCounter]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

I don't think the idea promoted is to " save 25x of your low level of spending and never have to work again". It's more save what you expect to be your FIRE budget once you are no longer working and include all the reasonable bells and whistles in that projected  budget.

So 25x that number is likely to be a different amount then 25x your current leaner budget while saving. So most people include the fluff - travel, new cars, extra medical and dental costs, home improvements, kids college, kids weddings, inflation, old age care,  fancy gadgets, etc - in their planned FIRE budget. I did. I even had 2 budgets - one for basic living expenses (which was extremely low) and one for fluff that could be cut temporarily or even forever without having to work again.  I think most do. Some people add a lot for fluff (the fat fire crowd) some have very little extra for fluff (lean fire). Some know their future expenses will increase, whike others (me) knew that they would decrease, or our stash would increase without working,  and we base our FIRE number on that rather then 25x current expenses.

**raises hand

I’ve got two budgets. The basic budget for when the market tanks. And budget plus fluff.
Since we still have kids at home I’ve modeled several versions of five-ten year budgets. Next ten years includes various levels of tuition plus mortgage. Then that goes away and we’ll increase travel. Then that will likely go away and medical expenses will increase.

I was in finance before RE so modeling is what I do but I know I’m not the only person who has spent this much time thinking it all over.

[BeanCounter]

^^^ Yeah pretty much I did too. I think pre-FIRE I spent more time at work making various budget and expense spreadsheets to cover all future contingencies then actually working lol. Since I was separated from DH then and no kids it was a pretty easy task though. I knew that I could very easily live very happily on my barebones basic budget under most situations so the rest was just figuring out how spendy I want to be!

Kids definitely make things more complex. I was really adamant that I would take opportunities away from them by choosing not to work. So our FIRE budget is ridiculous for the next ten years. I’m estimating $135k-$150k. The bulk being tuition for two kids, travel for four and mortgage.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

There are lots of folks on this forum that go back to work after they FIRE for various reasons, boredom, a good part time or short term opportunity falls in their laps, market volatility, etc, etc.  I don't consider it a FIRE failure if someone goes back to work because they are worried about money.  I've been reading here and around about FIRE for years now and, like Metalcat, I've never assumed 25x meant freedom from both work and ever worrying about money again forever amen.   People who put this much work into financial planning and preparing for their retirement are not doing this.

I guess you've missed all of the people that say that having excess money at the end means you've worked longer than you needed to and THAT should be considered FIRE failure...  and yes, there are quite a few people on this forum that like to make this argument.

Hey, I got quoted :-).

Just to sum up my position from the posts, I feel there is a rational argument to be made that having excess money is a failure IF you have nobody you want to leave money to and also that having money left over being a failure is not really my position, as I stated a few posts later. I just understand the perspective and think the argument has validity. I would never personally pursue dying with zero for sure.

[Villanelle]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch. But as far as regret goes, I think far more people will regret not saving enough vs. the people who will regret saving too much and pulling the trigger too early.

I think the sweet spot is to save as much as you can towards that 25X goal, and some point along the way, you realize that life is way too volatile to leave the workforce super early and plan for 50 years of the type of low spending that a 30 year old could handle. Then you start exploring a bunch of other really great options that are available to you because you did the saving aggressively and early.

Really?  IRL, I've never met anyone who has said they retired too early and regret the financial outcomes of that.  I know multiple people who say that as it turns out, they could have quit sooner and wish they did.  And while MMM, as far as I can recall, hasn't specifically come out and said he wished he'd quit earlier, I'm guessing that if he had to choose one of your two options, it would be a no brainer for him to say that if he had to change it, he'd opt for having quit earlier rather than worked longer, so the MMM "source material" is one example that runs contrary to your supposition.

Then again, you mention "low spending" and most of the people I know don't have what would likely be considered "low spending" (let's say that's <$40k, or <$50k without a paid off house, as an arbitrary cut off.

[Metalcat]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

Who exactly is promoting that pitch, other than breathless articles using it as a strawman to knock down?

Yeah...I personally have never actually read anything that made me think that I could save 25X of a super lean budget and never again have to worry about money.

I only ever hear it framed that way by people "worried" about this huge population of financially irresponsible early retirees...who don't exist.

Am I crazy? Is this not the pitch of the modern FIRE movement? Cut spending. Save 25x. Freedom?

And FIRE failures do happen. They’re just understandably quiet about it, or they’re buoyed by affiliate advertising.

Sure, in the same ultra broad strokes as someone saying "study hard, get a science degree, get good grades, and become a doctor"

Anyone who actually looks into it, puts in the work, and succeeds is going to know that it's a complex lifestyle decision with an enormous range of factors at play well beyond what the markets do.

[GuitarStv]

IRL, I've never met anyone who has said they retired too early and regret the financial outcomes of that.

To be fair, that's an admission of making a pretty colossal fuck up.  Few people want to own up to that.  (This is the reason you don't often hear people saying that they hate their kids and completely fucked up their lives by having them.)

[Villanelle]

IRL, I've never met anyone who has said they retired too early and regret the financial outcomes of that.

To be fair, that's an admission of making a pretty colossal fuck up.  Few people want to own up to that.  (This is the reason you don't often hear people saying that they hate their kids and completely fucked up their lives by having them.)

True, but I think in most cases it would be clear that they were at least potentially lying based on their living situations.  None of them are struggling or living hand to mouth, so I don't have good reason to doubt the veracity. 

But that's also because I don't know anyone personally who has retired super early and on a super lean budget.  It makes sense that those are the people most likely to have regrets.  Which just reinforces the point that examining your personal flexibility, and whatever that looks like with regard to your budget and your plans, is a massively important part of the decision to FIRE, or even just to R at all. 

Personally, while our FIRE plans are quite chubby so it seems very unlikely, I won't consider going back for some part-time work to be a failure at all.  How can it be when it's actually part of our plan?  (Dear God, no one answer that.  It's a rhetorical question and that horse is well and truly dead.)  I plan to keep my very PT job freelance writing as long as they will have me, since it is so flexible and unobtrusive, and we don't count that money at all.  It's a few thousand $, which simultaneously isn't much and is enough to make a meaningful difference in a down-market scenario.   But we've done the math and factored the contingencies. 

[mathlete]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch. But as far as regret goes, I think far more people will regret not saving enough vs. the people who will regret saving too much and pulling the trigger too early.

I think the sweet spot is to save as much as you can towards that 25X goal, and some point along the way, you realize that life is way too volatile to leave the workforce super early and plan for 50 years of the type of low spending that a 30 year old could handle. Then you start exploring a bunch of other really great options that are available to you because you did the saving aggressively and early.

Really?  IRL, I've never met anyone who has said they retired too early and regret the financial outcomes of that.  I know multiple people who say that as it turns out, they could have quit sooner and wish they did.  And while MMM, as far as I can recall, hasn't specifically come out and said he wished he'd quit earlier, I'm guessing that if he had to choose one of your two options, it would be a no brainer for him to say that if he had to change it, he'd opt for having quit earlier rather than worked longer, so the MMM "source material" is one example that runs contrary to your supposition.

Then again, you mention "low spending" and most of the people I know don't have what would likely be considered "low spending" (let's say that's <$40k, or <$50k without a paid off house, as an arbitrary cut off.

When I said "regret not saving enough", I was actually referring to normies. The type who doesn't get serious about saving until later in life. So I was comparing FIRE related regrets to the regret of being the average American saving single digit percentages of their income.

To be clear, I think people can and do regret the vigor with which the pursue FIRE. It can potentially have you thinking too much about the future at the expense of the present. It can put a strain on relationships. I don't think anyone denies this. But yeah, the problem of hitting 10-15X your spending before realizing your goals were a little too optimistic (which again, I think does happen) is a better problem to have than getting to age 55 and only have meager savings, which is a more common personal finance issue.

[Villanelle]

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch. But as far as regret goes, I think far more people will regret not saving enough vs. the people who will regret saving too much and pulling the trigger too early.

I think the sweet spot is to save as much as you can towards that 25X goal, and some point along the way, you realize that life is way too volatile to leave the workforce super early and plan for 50 years of the type of low spending that a 30 year old could handle. Then you start exploring a bunch of other really great options that are available to you because you did the saving aggressively and early.

Really?  IRL, I've never met anyone who has said they retired too early and regret the financial outcomes of that.  I know multiple people who say that as it turns out, they could have quit sooner and wish they did.  And while MMM, as far as I can recall, hasn't specifically come out and said he wished he'd quit earlier, I'm guessing that if he had to choose one of your two options, it would be a no brainer for him to say that if he had to change it, he'd opt for having quit earlier rather than worked longer, so the MMM "source material" is one example that runs contrary to your supposition.

Then again, you mention "low spending" and most of the people I know don't have what would likely be considered "low spending" (let's say that's <$40k, or <$50k without a paid off house, as an arbitrary cut off.

When I said "regret not saving enough", I was actually referring to normies. The type who doesn't get serious about saving until later in life. So I was comparing FIRE related regrets to the regret of being the average American saving single digit percentages of their income.

To be clear, I think people can and do regret the vigor with which the pursue FIRE. It can potentially have you thinking too much about the future at the expense of the present. It can put a strain on relationships. I don't think anyone denies this. But yeah, the problem of hitting 10-15X your spending before realizing your goals were a little too optimistic (which again, I think does happen) is a better problem to have than getting to age 55 and only have meager savings, which is a more common personal finance issue.

To compare apples to apples, don't we need to compare 'normies' who save 4%?  Sure, I think someone who doesn't start saving until later in life might be more likely than someone who starts much earlier to regret not working longer.  But that's because they almost certainly will have saved less when they retire.  If we look at people who retire at age 65 (so, 'normies") and have a ~~4% WR, and then see whether there are more in the wish I'd retired later camp, versus wish I'd retired sooner, I still think you are going to see not just more, but far more who wish they'd retired sooner. 

Also, while FIRE can put a strain on relationships, so can having children, not having children, buying a vacation home, dealing with families, and many other things.  But I don't care even a little about that, because it doesn't matter that it causes strain on *some* relationships; I only care if it puts a strain on *my* relationships.  And it hasn't ever for one single second.  We are on more or less the same page, and to the extent that we are on the same page but different paragraphs, we've always been able to talk it out and come fo very happy agreement.

[mathlete]

To compare apples to apples, don't we need to compare 'normies' who save 4%?  Sure, I think someone who doesn't start saving until later in life might be more likely than someone who starts much earlier to regret not working longer.  But that's because they almost certainly will have saved less when they retire.  If we look at people who retire at age 65 (so, 'normies") and have a ~~4% WR, and then see whether there are more in the wish I'd retired later camp, versus wish I'd retired sooner, I still think you are going to see not just more, but far more who wish they'd retired sooner. 

Maybe I should start over. My point was to say that the pursuit of FIRE can cause these regrets but that bigger and more severe regrets, at least from a personal finance standpoint, come from people who don't save enough in the first place. So while I do think FIRE is partially oversold, someone who gets into it and ends up with regrets probably has a "better" set of regrets than the average American.

Also, while FIRE can put a strain on relationships, so can having children, not having children, buying a vacation home, dealing with families, and many other things.  But I don't care even a little about that, because it doesn't matter that it causes strain on *some* relationships; I only care if it puts a strain on *my* relationships.  And it hasn't ever for one single second.  We are on more or less the same page, and to the extent that we are on the same page but different paragraphs, we've always been able to talk it out and come fo very happy agreement.

I'm glad it's working out for you. I only meant to say that I'm critical of how FIRE is promoted because I think it very often leans into being clickable over being realistic and does so under the cover of being a broadly positive movement, which it is. I stand by that. But I'm glad it's working out for you.

[Villanelle]

To compare apples to apples, don't we need to compare 'normies' who save 4%?  Sure, I think someone who doesn't start saving until later in life might be more likely than someone who starts much earlier to regret not working longer.  But that's because they almost certainly will have saved less when they retire.  If we look at people who retire at age 65 (so, 'normies") and have a ~~4% WR, and then see whether there are more in the wish I'd retired later camp, versus wish I'd retired sooner, I still think you are going to see not just more, but far more who wish they'd retired sooner. 

Maybe I should start over. My point was to say that the pursuit of FIRE can cause these regrets but that bigger and more severe regrets, at least from a personal finance standpoint, come from people who don't save enough in the first place. So while I do think FIRE is partially oversold, someone who gets into it and ends up with regrets probably has a "better" set of regrets than the average American.

Also, while FIRE can put a strain on relationships, so can having children, not having children, buying a vacation home, dealing with families, and many other things.  But I don't care even a little about that, because it doesn't matter that it causes strain on *some* relationships; I only care if it puts a strain on *my* relationships.  And it hasn't ever for one single second.  We are on more or less the same page, and to the extent that we are on the same page but different paragraphs, we've always been able to talk it out and come fo very happy agreement.

I'm glad it's working out for you. I only meant to say that I'm critical of how FIRE is promoted because I think it very often leans into being clickable over being realistic and does so under the cover of being a broadly positive movement, which it is. I stand by that. But I'm glad it's working out for you.

What's not realistic about it?  Just that most people won't actually end up doing it? 

[charis]

To compare apples to apples, don't we need to compare 'normies' who save 4%?  Sure, I think someone who doesn't start saving until later in life might be more likely than someone who starts much earlier to regret not working longer.  But that's because they almost certainly will have saved less when they retire.  If we look at people who retire at age 65 (so, 'normies") and have a ~~4% WR, and then see whether there are more in the wish I'd retired later camp, versus wish I'd retired sooner, I still think you are going to see not just more, but far more who wish they'd retired sooner. 

Maybe I should start over. My point was to say that the pursuit of FIRE can cause these regrets but that bigger and more severe regrets, at least from a personal finance standpoint, come from people who don't save enough in the first place. So while I do think FIRE is partially oversold, someone who gets into it and ends up with regrets probably has a "better" set of regrets than the average American.

Also, while FIRE can put a strain on relationships, so can having children, not having children, buying a vacation home, dealing with families, and many other things.  But I don't care even a little about that, because it doesn't matter that it causes strain on *some* relationships; I only care if it puts a strain on *my* relationships.  And it hasn't ever for one single second.  We are on more or less the same page, and to the extent that we are on the same page but different paragraphs, we've always been able to talk it out and come fo very happy agreement.

I'm glad it's working out for you. I only meant to say that I'm critical of how FIRE is promoted because I think it very often leans into being clickable over being realistic and does so under the cover of being a broadly positive movement, which it is. I stand by that. But I'm glad it's working out for you.

I find that everyone I know irl, including myself, who is pursing early retirement has less strain on their relationship because they are much less likely to be worrying about money.  I know three families who are into MMM, one spouse is now working part time and another has a SAHP.  Neither are stressing about finances and set to downshift or fully RE. 

What's not realistic is the majority of families that I know who spending as much as they make and have little saved for retirement.

[ixtap]

I think main stream media presents FIRE as "deprive yourself to get this goal, then live deprived," then follows up with someone who "FIREd" at well under 25x and it doesn't work out. That is, the failures we see often aren't anywhere close to FI.

[Simpli-Fi]

In fact, the longer the retirement, the *less* relevant the market risks because relative to the shit that can change in a person's lifetime, that market risk is tiny.

Love this!

When/why did you become Metalcat?  You get some bionic parts installed?

[totoro]

I'm not crazy about it. In addition to the environmental issues, the human rights abuses you participate in by buying most consumer goods are pretty horrific, especially for electronic things. I don't like the mindset that any spending is okay if you're mindful about it or whatever the latest crap getting peddled is, because all spending is not equal, and as a society we need to reduce our consumption.

Some interesting reading material if anyone's interested in learning more:

Dying for an iPhone by Jenny Chan
The Rare Metals War by Guillaume Pitron
Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives by Siddharth Kara

Isn't your air travel avoidable consumption with a very significant carbon footprint?  Climate change is already causing impacts on human health and in-country migration.  This too could be framed as human, animal and planetary abuse and probably will be within the next 30 years. 

I guess the point is you can't pick and choose and just because you don't have, say a child or a car, doesn't mean that you get a free pass if you promote this viewpoint for other avoidable detrimental patterns of consumption.

No-one is perfect. 

There are also ways to spend more money if you are more than FI and get high value without high consumerism.  For us it is paying for accessible healthcare in Canada because of the doctor shortages and the rationing system. 

[Metalcat]

In fact, the longer the retirement, the *less* relevant the market risks because relative to the shit that can change in a person's lifetime, that market risk is tiny.

Love this!

When/why did you become Metalcat?  You get some bionic parts installed?

Yep, I gained close to a pound of metal in January.

[Ron Scott]

I understand the negative aspects of capitalism and so-called “consumerism”—which enabled the spread of Western culture throughout the world. They include environmental stress, growth in inequality, and a general reduction in cultural diversity. These are real problems.

However, as they spread throughout the world, these economic forces are also responsible for good. There has been a dramatic reduction in poverty, dramatic reduction is violent deaths in wars, and worldwide increases in longevity. You don’t bitch about inequality and heatwaves when you’re dead.

Those who focus exclusively on either the negatives or the positives have bought into the marketing hype of competing special interests. They argue their positions by reciting talking points, don’t really listen to opposing views (from their “enemies”), and are largely irrelevant in the search for solutions. It creates a set of class war vs. culture war; fuck-the-rich vs. stop-entitlements-for-the-lazy echo chambers within society that talk over and demonize each other. Your basic shit show.

Every complex problem has a simple solution and it’s wrong. Problem solvers grapple with complexity.

[Metalcat]

I don't think a forum full of people who are avid investors, many quite rich because of it, are clueless to the benefits of capitalism.

We have talked about this quite extensively. It's a common, complex, nuanced ethical discussion here.

Honestly Ron, it frequently comes off like you think the people here are kind of stupid.

[ChpBstrd]

I don't think a forum full of people who are avid investors, many quite rich because of it, are clueless to the benefits of capitalism.

We have talked about this quite extensively. It's a common, complex, nuanced ethical discussion here.

Honestly Ron, it frequently comes off like you think the people here are kind of stupid.

I disagree. Ron's post was "complex, nuanced ethical discussion" illustrating the tradeoffs that underlay both our problems and our successes, while tying this complexity to our constant search for simple solutions. It did not talk down to anyone in the slightest way.

[Metalcat]

I don't think a forum full of people who are avid investors, many quite rich because of it, are clueless to the benefits of capitalism.

We have talked about this quite extensively. It's a common, complex, nuanced ethical discussion here.

Honestly Ron, it frequently comes off like you think the people here are kind of stupid.

I disagree. Ron's post was "complex, nuanced ethical discussion" illustrating the tradeoffs that underlay both our problems and our successes, while tying this complexity to our constant search for simple solutions. It did not talk down to anyone in the slightest way.

Fair enough, maybe my impression isn't reasonable.

[Ron Scott]

I don't think a forum full of people who are avid investors, many quite rich because of it, are clueless to the benefits of capitalism.

We have talked about this quite extensively. It's a common, complex, nuanced ethical discussion here.

Honestly Ron, it frequently comes off like you think the people here are kind of stupid.

I disagree. Ron's post was "complex, nuanced ethical discussion" illustrating the tradeoffs that underlay both our problems and our successes, while tying this complexity to our constant search for simple solutions. It did not talk down to anyone in the slightest way.

Fair enough, maybe my impression isn't reasonable.

No harm, no foul. We’re good!

I may stake my positions a bit aggressively too sometimes. But I “try” to debate ideas and not criticize individuals, I do not think anyone here is misguided or unintelligent, and I don’t want such an interesting forum as this one to become an echo chamber that reinforces a specific set of beliefs in we-they mode.

Diversity is really valuable for learning. Those who disagree with you can be educational for you.

[mathlete]

What's not realistic about it?  Just that most people won't actually end up doing it?

I think early retirement is realistic and achievable to just about anyone. It just depends upon how early we're talking. Most of the headline-grabbing stories are about people retiring in their 30s though, and much of the instruction revolves around saving enough to live off your investments via the 4% rule.

What I think is unrealistic, is projecting 40 or 50 years of spending and making a major career move based on that projection. So much of life happens between the ages of 25-45. Are you going to have kids? How many? What are their needs? College? Ar you married? Will you get divorced? Major medical events?

Much of that is super uncertain during the first half of someone's traditional working life. As you get older, you benefit from three pretty big things;

1.) Your investments actually have time to grow
2.) You ride out a lot of the above uncertainty
3.) You get closer to the least vulnerable safety nets and access to the most powerful dollars you invested

The choice to leave the workforce very early on the strength of a mega-high savings rate means forgoing most of those advantages.

My first ever estimate of my FIRE date was 2029. But a ton of life happened between now and then and I couldn't imagine leaving the workforce in 6 years. That's no problem for me because I'm a personal finance geek and I'm good at conceptualizing volatility. It also helps that I don't hate my job and I didn't get into PF or ER looking for an escape hatch.

So this brings me to my statement;

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

To be admitedly reductive, FIRE has gotten as big as it has based on the pitch, "Do you hate your job? Save $750K-$1M and you can live on $30K a year forever!". I don't think this is a realistic thing to tell young people. Of course everyone can benefit from saving more and spending less. But I really wish did less of that and maybe talked a little more about how you can not hate your job / pre-ER life so much.

[BicycleB]

I understand the negative aspects of capitalism and so-called “consumerism”—which enabled the spread of Western culture throughout the world. They include environmental stress, growth in inequality, and a general reduction in cultural diversity. These are real problems.

However, as they spread throughout the world, these economic forces are also responsible for good. There has been a dramatic reduction in poverty, dramatic reduction is violent deaths in wars, and worldwide increases in longevity.

@Ron Scott, excellent overall summary in the above, both of negatives and positives.

Those who focus exclusively on either the negatives or the positives have bought into the marketing hype of competing special interests. They argue their positions by reciting talking points, don’t really listen to opposing views (from their “enemies”), and are largely irrelevant in the search for solutions. It creates a set of class war vs. culture war; fuck-the-rich vs. stop-entitlements-for-the-lazy echo chambers within society that talk over and demonize each other. Your basic shit show.

Every complex problem has a simple solution and it’s wrong. Problem solvers grapple with complexity.

I think it's incorrect to assume that someone who focuses on the positives or the negatives isn't a problem solver.

For example, a few posts upthread Zikoris focused on the negatives of consumerism. Yet if I understand from reading her previous posts elsewhere, she has organized her daily life in ways designed to contribute towards solutions. Her small shared apartment, from-scratch cooking and overall thrift do address the consumption side of the problem. She also blogs successfully and has gotten national media notice repeatedly due to the financial successes resulting from her lifestyle, which is notably nonspendy in the context of thread. As I understand it, she undertakes this media activity to contribute to solutions wider than herself by showing others what they can do. Her lifestyle and media activity are examples of solving the problem.

I agree that there can be cases where a person only sees one part of the problem and that sometimes the reason is hype from special interests. I sympathize if you, like me, are tired of talking points repeated in echo chambers (in that context, this forum includes nuanced discussion far more than most of the internet as far as I can see). But since the problem is, as you point out, complex, I suspect there are components of any reasonable solution mix that can be addressed by problem solvers whose focus is "the negatives" or "the positives".

In fact, since we live in democratic societies that are unlikely to completely unite on a comprehensive solution, problem solvers like Zikoris who take action now are particularly valuable.

[mistymoney]

What's not realistic about it?  Just that most people won't actually end up doing it?

I think early retirement is realistic and achievable to just about anyone. It just depends upon how early we're talking. Most of the headline-grabbing stories are about people retiring in their 30s though, and much of the instruction revolves around saving enough to live off your investments via the 4% rule.

What I think is unrealistic, is projecting 40 or 50 years of spending and making a major career move based on that projection. So much of life happens between the ages of 25-45. Are you going to have kids? How many? What are their needs? College? Ar you married? Will you get divorced? Major medical events?

Much of that is super uncertain during the first half of someone's traditional working life. As you get older, you benefit from three pretty big things;

1.) Your investments actually have time to grow
2.) You ride out a lot of the above uncertainty
3.) You get closer to the least vulnerable safety nets and access to the most powerful dollars you invested

The choice to leave the workforce very early on the strength of a mega-high savings rate means forgoing most of those advantages.

My first ever estimate of my FIRE date was 2029. But a ton of life happened between now and then and I couldn't imagine leaving the workforce in 6 years. That's no problem for me because I'm a personal finance geek and I'm good at conceptualizing volatility. It also helps that I don't hate my job and I didn't get into PF or ER looking for an escape hatch.

So this brings me to my statement;

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

To be admitedly reductive, FIRE has gotten as big as it has based on the pitch, "Do you hate your job? Save $750K-$1M and you can live on $30K a year forever!". I don't think this is a realistic thing to tell young people. Of course everyone can benefit from saving more and spending less. But I really wish did less of that and maybe talked a little more about how you can not hate your job / pre-ER life so much.

but isn't it just a 5% fail rate on that over 30 years? Rich broke or dead says 4% fail at 30 years, 15% at 40 years, and 19% at 50.

this does not include any eventual soc sec income.

so even at a 50 year retirement, you have greater than 80% success without doing anything out of the ordinary.

Adding 15% felxibiity to spending, takes you back to a 4% fail rate over 50 years.

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

[mathlete]

but isn't it just a 5% fail rate on that over 30 years? Rich broke or dead says 4% fail at 30 years, 15% at 40 years, and 19% at 50.

this does not include any eventual soc sec income.

so even at a 50 year retirement, you have greater than 80% success without doing anything out of the ordinary.

Adding 15% felxibiity to spending, takes you back to a 4% fail rate over 50 years.

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

It's not the SWR research that I take issue with. If y / x = .04 where y is your spending and x is your porfolio value, you're probably right. 80% success rate. And if you're in the 20% zone, you likely know it within the first few years and can course correct.

I take issue with someone's ability to predict what "y" will be. You can ballpark it, but no one, and I mean no one is imputing the the cost of self-insurance to any reasonable degree. And you mentioned making choices. Sometimes it's a choice, but sometimes it's not. My first kid was a (happy) accident.

The core of the financial independence movement is something I'll call "Story A":

A: "Save a lot of money by cutting down on things that don't actually bring much value to you. Doing this gives you lots of options in the future. One of these options could be retiring early." I love that message. And I know it's the message a lot of us see and hear.

But the message in the broader popular culture is story B,

B: "This crazy guy or gal left their desk job at 30 and now lives off investments!"

My issue with this is it's largely not true of anyone. Not even for MMM. The story of MMM is a guy saved a millionish dollars by his early 30s and that gave him the freedom to pursue a second career. The second career was far more lucrative than the first.

The popular narrative on MMM is really just a hypothetical. MMM saved a million dollars. Hypothetically, he could live off of $30K a year without ever having to work again. This hypoethical version of MMM would be re-entering the workforce with skills that are a decade out of date right now, because life gets in the way.

We sell story B instead of story A because it appeals to more people. Specifically, it appeals to disaffected workers who hate their jobs and see a future for themselves in the B story. These are the people who are most likely to get burned.

[charis]

but isn't it just a 5% fail rate on that over 30 years? Rich broke or dead says 4% fail at 30 years, 15% at 40 years, and 19% at 50.

this does not include any eventual soc sec income.

so even at a 50 year retirement, you have greater than 80% success without doing anything out of the ordinary.

Adding 15% felxibiity to spending, takes you back to a 4% fail rate over 50 years.

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

It's not the SWR research that I take issue with. If y / x = .04 where y is your spending and x is your porfolio value, you're probably right. 80% success rate. And if you're in the 20% zone, you likely know it within the first few years and can course correct.

I take issue with someone's ability to predict what "y" will be. You can ballpark it, but no one, and I mean no one is imputing the the cost of self-insurance to any reasonable degree. And you mentioned making choices. Sometimes it's a choice, but sometimes it's not. My first kid was a (happy) accident.

The core of the financial independence movement is something I'll call "Story A":

A: "Save a lot of money by cutting down on things that don't actually bring much value to you. Doing this gives you lots of options in the future. One of these options could be retiring early." I love that message. And I know it's the message a lot of us see and hear.

But the message in the broader popular culture is story B,

B: "This crazy guy or gal left their desk job at 30 and now lives off investments!"

My issue with this is it's largely not true of anyone. Not even for MMM. The story of MMM is a guy saved a millionish dollars by his early 30s and that gave him the freedom to pursue a second career. The second career was far more lucrative than the first.

The popular narrative on MMM is really just a hypothetical. MMM saved a million dollars. Hypothetically, he could live off of $30K a year without ever having to work again. This hypoethical version of MMM would be re-entering the workforce with skills that are a decade out of date right now, because life gets in the way.

We sell story B instead of story A because it appeals to more people. Specifically, it appeals to disaffected workers who hate their jobs and see a future for themselves in the B story. These are the people who are most likely to get burned.

What evidence do you have that anyone is actually following the B story?  I've been reading MMM for at least 10 years, as well as other forums on FIRE, and have never seen story B widely "sold" as anything other than a clickbait bit that is roundly scoffed at by mustachians and "normies" alike.  And if they cause anyone to actually start reviewing their own finances when they otherwise wouldn't have, great.

Yay, you can't fully predict "y," but you are better off than the majority of Americans, who work until 67 and still save almost nothing for retirement.

[Ron Scott]

What's not realistic about it?  Just that most people won't actually end up doing it?

I think early retirement is realistic and achievable to just about anyone. It just depends upon how early we're talking. Most of the headline-grabbing stories are about people retiring in their 30s though, and much of the instruction revolves around saving enough to live off your investments via the 4% rule.

What I think is unrealistic, is projecting 40 or 50 years of spending and making a major career move based on that projection. So much of life happens between the ages of 25-45. Are you going to have kids? How many? What are their needs? College? Ar you married? Will you get divorced? Major medical events?

Much of that is super uncertain during the first half of someone's traditional working life. As you get older, you benefit from three pretty big things;

1.) Your investments actually have time to grow
2.) You ride out a lot of the above uncertainty
3.) You get closer to the least vulnerable safety nets and access to the most powerful dollars you invested

The choice to leave the workforce very early on the strength of a mega-high savings rate means forgoing most of those advantages.

My first ever estimate of my FIRE date was 2029. But a ton of life happened between now and then and I couldn't imagine leaving the workforce in 6 years. That's no problem for me because I'm a personal finance geek and I'm good at conceptualizing volatility. It also helps that I don't hate my job and I didn't get into PF or ER looking for an escape hatch.

So this brings me to my statement;

I'm very critical of the way that FIRE is promoted. Specifically, the "save 25X your low level of spending and you can live without work forever" pitch.

To be admitedly reductive, FIRE has gotten as big as it has based on the pitch, "Do you hate your job? Save $750K-$1M and you can live on $30K a year forever!". I don't think this is a realistic thing to tell young people. Of course everyone can benefit from saving more and spending less. But I really wish did less of that and maybe talked a little more about how you can not hate your job / pre-ER life so much.

This is generally my perspective as well.

I assume most of the people planning to FIRE with a 45/50-year horizon understand the importance of saving for a very wide variety of contingencies and aren’t relying on calculating a minimum multiple of spend at time of retirement. But the stage of life issue you raise cannot be underestimated. 

Just as you are a different person at 35 than you were at 20 so you are again at 60 and so on. The younger you give up your career to FIRE the more you need to ensure you have accounted for potentially changing your perspective on what lifestyle you may want as you age.

[BicycleB]

but isn't it just a 5% fail rate on that over 30 years? Rich broke or dead says 4% fail at 30 years, 15% at 40 years, and 19% at 50.

this does not include any eventual soc sec income.

so even at a 50 year retirement, you have greater than 80% success without doing anything out of the ordinary.

Adding 15% felxibiity to spending, takes you back to a 4% fail rate over 50 years.

Now - if people change their minds.....like minimalist/confirmed singleton/no kids changes their mind, meets someone and wants 3 kids and the whole suburban lifestyle at 40 - well they are going to need to rethink and go back to work. I'm just not seeing how that invalidates anything?

If you change your mind about your life, you'll need to make changes. Aren't we all doing this all the time?

It's not the SWR research that I take issue with. If y / x = .04 where y is your spending and x is your porfolio value, you're probably right. 80% success rate. And if you're in the 20% zone, you likely know it within the first few years and can course correct.

I take issue with someone's ability to predict what "y" will be. You can ballpark it, but no one, and I mean no one is imputing the the cost of self-insurance to any reasonable degree. And you mentioned making choices. Sometimes it's a choice, but sometimes it's not. My first kid was a (happy) accident.

The core of the financial independence movement is something I'll call "Story A":

A: "Save a lot of money by cutting down on things that don't actually bring much value to you. Doing this gives you lots of options in the future. One of these options could be retiring early." I love that message. And I know it's the message a lot of us see and hear.

But the message in the broader popular culture is story B,

B: "This crazy guy or gal left their desk job at 30 and now lives off investments!"

My issue with this is it's largely not true of anyone. Not even for MMM. The story of MMM is a guy saved a millionish dollars by his early 30s and that gave him the freedom to pursue a second career. The second career was far more lucrative than the first.

The popular narrative on MMM is really just a hypothetical. MMM saved a million dollars. Hypothetically, he could live off of $30K a year without ever having to work again. This hypoethical version of MMM would be re-entering the workforce with skills that are a decade out of date right now, because life gets in the way.

We sell story B instead of story A because it appeals to more people. Specifically, it appeals to disaffected workers who hate their jobs and see a future for themselves in the B story. These are the people who are most likely to get burned.

Why do you say that hypothetical MMM would be entering the workforce now?

Real MMM survived the GFC unscathed before ever writing a blog post, albeit with a stressful experience from a post-retirement project partner. Since then the financial assets in his stash would have roughly tripled less living expenses, which at roughly 4%/year were far lower than returns. Real estate also soared. Even assuming divorce just like real MMM, he'd have more now than when he started.

Re "the second career was more lucrative than the first":

1. Do you mean handyman work and real estate fixer-upper projects, both apparently done for fun, or the blog?
2. Why does it matter that the second career was more lucrative, or even made anything at all? Doesn't the fact that his lifestyle cost was covered by the original investments support the FIRE at 30 concept, which in turn makes the second career's income irrelevant?

[ixtap]

Just as you are a different person at 35 than you were at 20 so you are again at 60 and so on. The younger you give up your career to FIRE the more you need to ensure you have accounted for potentially changing your perspective on what lifestyle you may want as you age.

When we were running calculations for what some might call lean FI, we added in a "transition buffer." This was an amount above and beyond 25x that would cover expenses to transition to a different lifestyle, but not necessarily a more expensive one.

Even then, we ended up not pulling the trigger and while we are just now in the time frame we expected to FIRE, by now our buffers have buffers. Turns out, DH really enjoys his work when it doesn't occupy 10-16 hours a day.

[Villanelle]

Once again it seems to me like we are seeing arguments against something that no one, or almost no one actually does.  Who here at 25 or 35 made concrete decisions about what the rest of their life would look like, then retired with no ability to change that vision or plan for doing so?  Just like almost no one says "4%, baby!!1!11!" and blindly withdraws and spends their 4% + inflation number,  I don't think anyone ( with "anyone" being slightly hyperbolic, but only very slightly) says, at 30 years old, I know exactly what I want until the day I die, I will budget for that and only that, and I will never change anything". 

Yes, they may leave their desk job at 30 and live off investments.  That doesn't actually preclude deciding they want to live in Spain when that was never the vision at 30, or having a kid, or getting married.  (And of course while they decide to have a kid which increases costs, they may also decide to live in a can, which decreases costs.  Or take in foreign college students because they find it interesting and it also happens to make them some money.  Or no longer own pets.  Or get really into gardening and not only reduce their produce bills to almost nothing, but also have eggs, some of which they sell to neighbors to cover the cost of chicken feed. There always seems to be the assumption, from the doomsayers, that future changes will end up costing more, and that there won't be offsets, either natural or as willing sacrifices, with things that end up costing less. 

And of course there's also the fact that people can go back to work if all else fails.  And yes, they may make significantly less, but to them, that risk is worth the gamble when it most likely means they get to stop working full time before 65, or even 55.  If someone stops working at 30, it seems to me like they already have a decent idea on whether they will want children.  It's not as though they are making that choice at age 12 when they have no sense at all of what life during child-bearing years look like.  (Admitedly, this is more true for women, since mean can easily decide to have kids at 65, and for most women that's not viable.)  But suppose three years after FIRE they meet the love of their life (or have a broken condom) and decide they want kids after all.  Okay. Maybe they return to work.  And maybe that 3 year gap means a 20% decrease in pay.  Well, life has changed and they go back to work.

The argument seems to be that 30 year old (or pick a FIRE age) you doesn't know what 50 and 60 and 80 year old you wants.  Well, of course that's true!  But for smart, resourseful, thoughtful people, and especially those not retiring on the leanest of budgets, I don't see how that's problematic. 


I don't know of anyone who thinks that nothing about their plan or situation or desires can or will change, and that they can just blindly live on 30k forever, with exactly the same expense patterns, just because some FIRE movement tells the that. 

[Metalcat]

Once again it seems to me like we are seeing arguments against something that no one, or almost no one actually does.  Who here at 25 or 35 made concrete decisions about what the rest of their life would look like, then retired with no ability to change that vision or plan for doing so?  Just like almost no one says "4%, baby!!1!11!" and blindly withdraws and spends their 4% + inflation number,  I don't think anyone ( with "anyone" being slightly hyperbolic, but only very slightly) says, at 30 years old, I know exactly what I want until the day I die, I will budget for that and only that, and I will never change anything". 

Yes, they may leave their desk job at 30 and live off investments.  That doesn't actually preclude deciding they want to live in Spain when that was never the vision at 30, or having a kid, or getting married.  (And of course while they decide to have a kid which increases costs, they may also decide to live in a can, which decreases costs.  Or take in foreign college students because they find it interesting and it also happens to make them some money.  Or no longer own pets.  Or get really into gardening and not only reduce their produce bills to almost nothing, but also have eggs, some of which they sell to neighbors to cover the cost of chicken feed. There always seems to be the assumption, from the doomsayers, that future changes will end up costing more, and that there won't be offsets, either natural or as willing sacrifices, with things that end up costing less. 

And of course there's also the fact that people can go back to work if all else fails.  And yes, they may make significantly less, but to them, that risk is worth the gamble when it most likely means they get to stop working full time before 65, or even 55.  If someone stops working at 30, it seems to me like they already have a decent idea on whether they will want children.  It's not as though they are making that choice at age 12 when they have no sense at all of what life during child-bearing years look like.  (Admitedly, this is more true for women, since mean can easily decide to have kids at 65, and for most women that's not viable.)  But suppose three years after FIRE they meet the love of their life (or have a broken condom) and decide they want kids after all.  Okay. Maybe they return to work.  And maybe that 3 year gap means a 20% decrease in pay.  Well, life has changed and they go back to work.

The argument seems to be that 30 year old (or pick a FIRE age) you doesn't know what 50 and 60 and 80 year old you wants.  Well, of course that's true!  But for smart, resourseful, thoughtful people, and especially those not retiring on the leanest of budgets, I don't see how that's problematic. 


I don't know of anyone who thinks that nothing about their plan or situation or desires can or will change, and that they can just blindly live on 30k forever, with exactly the same expense patterns, just because some FIRE movement tells the that.

It's exhausting, isn't it?

I don't think anyone's plans here have failed as spectacularly as mine have, truly, epic level of total fucking plan failure on almost all fronts. I've never seen a plan more mangled than mine from when I started on my FIRE path.

And yet, everything I've learned from MMM and this community has made me more resilient and given me way more options than I would have had otherwise, and the net is that my quality of life is in many ways substantially better than had my plans worked out.

Life fucking happens. So much more can happen than some unpredictable market returns. It's actually downright silly to think that that's the biggest concern for retirement. Life fucking happens and we adapt, and those of us who better understand money, investments, frugality, and optimization are infinitely better equipped to deal with the occasional (or frequent) dowsing of diarrhea that life likes to heap on us for fun.

[RetiredAt63]

Once again it seems to me like we are seeing arguments against something that no one, or almost no one actually does.  Who here at 25 or 35 made concrete decisions about what the rest of their life would look like, then retired with no ability to change that vision or plan for doing so?  Just like almost no one says "4%, baby!!1!11!" and blindly withdraws and spends their 4% + inflation number,  I don't think anyone ( with "anyone" being slightly hyperbolic, but only very slightly) says, at 30 years old, I know exactly what I want until the day I die, I will budget for that and only that, and I will never change anything". 

Yes, they may leave their desk job at 30 and live off investments.  That doesn't actually preclude deciding they want to live in Spain when that was never the vision at 30, or having a kid, or getting married.  (And of course while they decide to have a kid which increases costs, they may also decide to live in a can, which decreases costs.  Or take in foreign college students because they find it interesting and it also happens to make them some money.  Or no longer own pets.  Or get really into gardening and not only reduce their produce bills to almost nothing, but also have eggs, some of which they sell to neighbors to cover the cost of chicken feed. There always seems to be the assumption, from the doomsayers, that future changes will end up costing more, and that there won't be offsets, either natural or as willing sacrifices, with things that end up costing less. 

And of course there's also the fact that people can go back to work if all else fails.  And yes, they may make significantly less, but to them, that risk is worth the gamble when it most likely means they get to stop working full time before 65, or even 55.  If someone stops working at 30, it seems to me like they already have a decent idea on whether they will want children.  It's not as though they are making that choice at age 12 when they have no sense at all of what life during child-bearing years look like.  (Admitedly, this is more true for women, since mean can easily decide to have kids at 65, and for most women that's not viable.)  But suppose three years after FIRE they meet the love of their life (or have a broken condom) and decide they want kids after all.  Okay. Maybe they return to work.  And maybe that 3 year gap means a 20% decrease in pay.  Well, life has changed and they go back to work.

The argument seems to be that 30 year old (or pick a FIRE age) you doesn't know what 50 and 60 and 80 year old you wants.  Well, of course that's true!  But for smart, resourseful, thoughtful people, and especially those not retiring on the leanest of budgets, I don't see how that's problematic. 


I don't know of anyone who thinks that nothing about their plan or situation or desires can or will change, and that they can just blindly live on 30k forever, with exactly the same expense patterns, just because some FIRE movement tells the that.

It's exhausting, isn't it?

I don't think anyone's plans here have failed as spectacularly as mine have, truly, epic level of total fucking plan failure on almost all fronts. I've never seen a plan more mangled than mine from when I started on my FIRE path.

And yet, everything I've learned from MMM and this community has made me more resilient and given me way more options than I would have had otherwise, and the net is that my quality of life is in many ways substantially better than had my plans worked out.

Life fucking happens. So much more can happen than some unpredictable market returns. It's actually downright silly to think that that's the biggest concern for retirement. Life fucking happens and we adapt, and those of us who better understand money, investments, frugality, and optimization are infinitely better equipped to deal with the occasional (or frequent) dowsing of diarrhea that life likes to heap on us for fun.

It has been pointed out many time on the forums that FI gives you choices.   Your choices may change (or change may be forced on you) but you are not being hit by financial problems as well.  Or at east not as much.

Metalcat is right that life fucking happens.  When I got married I didn't expect to end up divorced.  Divorce is expensive.  And rules that even the playing field hit all of us - my divorce was way more expensive than my Ex's divorce, for several reasons.   I also didn't expect to change provinces, to change jobs at the end of my working life, and to move 4 times in 3 years.  And yet here I am.

[mathlete]

It's exhausting, isn't it?

Lol nobody put a gun to your head and made you participate in a friendly back and forth. The option was always, and is always there to simply see someone saying they're critical of something, and let it be. You have my permission to stop being exhuasted and enjoy your weekend if that's what you're looking for.

[Ron Scott]

Just as you are a different person at 35 than you were at 20 so you are again at 60 and so on. The younger you give up your career to FIRE the more you need to ensure you have accounted for potentially changing your perspective on what lifestyle you may want as you age.

When we were running calculations for what some might call lean FI, we added in a "transition buffer." This was an amount above and beyond 25x that would cover expenses to transition to a different lifestyle, but not necessarily a more expensive one.

Even then, we ended up not pulling the trigger and while we are just now in the time frame we expected to FIRE, by now our buffers have buffers. Turns out, DH really enjoys his work when it doesn't occupy 10-16 hours a day.

I am familiar with the phenomena…

FI is a necessary but insufficient condition to retirement. It makes no sense to consider retiring early if you can’t afford it and once you can afford it retirement is simply an option…and not necessarily even a goal. Needing a job or fearing losing it is a completely different experience than working because you enjoy doing it.

Once you’re FI, you set your own plans and your own schedule. And that feels good.

I’ve done 70-hour weeks for a months at a time but it gets old for the entire family. I don’t know… Maybe let the air out of his tires once in a while?

[ixtap]

Just as you are a different person at 35 than you were at 20 so you are again at 60 and so on. The younger you give up your career to FIRE the more you need to ensure you have accounted for potentially changing your perspective on what lifestyle you may want as you age.

When we were running calculations for what some might call lean FI, we added in a "transition buffer." This was an amount above and beyond 25x that would cover expenses to transition to a different lifestyle, but not necessarily a more expensive one.

Even then, we ended up not pulling the trigger and while we are just now in the time frame we expected to FIRE, by now our buffers have buffers. Turns out, DH really enjoys his work when it doesn't occupy 10-16 hours a day.

I am familiar with the phenomena…

FI is a necessary but insufficient condition to retirement. It makes no sense to consider retiring early if you can’t afford it and once you can afford it retirement is simply an option…and not necessarily even a goal. Needing a job or fearing losing it is a completely different experience than working because you enjoy doing it.

Once you’re FI, you set your own plans and your own schedule. And that feels good.

I’ve done 70-hour weeks for a months at a time but it gets old for the entire family. I don’t know… Maybe let the air out of his tires once in a while?

That doesn't help with WFH!

[Ron Scott]

I’ve done 70-hour weeks for a months at a time but it gets old for the entire family. I don’t know… Maybe let the air out of his tires once in a while?

That doesn't help with WFH!

LOL, right. The pains from the pandemic never ends!

I this case you need to rely on skill sets far beyond my area of expertise…

[Metalcat]

It's exhausting, isn't it?

Lol nobody put a gun to your head and made you participate in a friendly back and forth. The option was always, and is always there to simply see someone saying they're critical of something, and let it be. You have my permission to stop being exhuasted and enjoy your weekend if that's what you're looking for.

To be clear, what's exhausting is more the concept of a broader topic that comes up over and over and over again. The concept that there should be this hand-wringing "concern" for these droves of young people recklessly leaving their perfectly good professions without enough money saved because they don't actually understand the risk, because they didn't actually read the body of the blog posts about early retirement.

Perhaps that's not exactly what's happened in this thread, but we have had A LOT of folks stroll through these parts espousing exactly that concern and seeming very resistant to any evidence that the people they're worried about don't really exist.

It is tedious. It smacks of people posting a whole bunch of opinions about a community without taking the time to actually get to know the community, which is just rude.

Again, perhaps not what has specifically happened in this thread, but that's why I've reacted the way I have.

[ixtap]

I’ve done 70-hour weeks for a months at a time but it gets old for the entire family. I don’t know… Maybe let the air out of his tires once in a while?

That doesn't help with WFH!

LOL, right. The pains from the pandemic never ends!

I this case you need to rely on skill sets far beyond my area of expertise…

Mine, too, if the last year and a half of downshifting is any indication. Turns out his side projects are worse than work ever was because he doesn't have a "I am not working now," trigger of any kind (ie, turn off the computer and focus on home life). He just obsesses nonstop for weeks, or even months, on end and can't have a conversation about any other topic unless he is logged into work. He likes that because those problems are solvable.

[Villanelle]

Once again it seems to me like we are seeing arguments against something that no one, or almost no one actually does.  Who here at 25 or 35 made concrete decisions about what the rest of their life would look like, then retired with no ability to change that vision or plan for doing so?  Just like almost no one says "4%, baby!!1!11!" and blindly withdraws and spends their 4% + inflation number,  I don't think anyone ( with "anyone" being slightly hyperbolic, but only very slightly) says, at 30 years old, I know exactly what I want until the day I die, I will budget for that and only that, and I will never change anything". 

Yes, they may leave their desk job at 30 and live off investments.  That doesn't actually preclude deciding they want to live in Spain when that was never the vision at 30, or having a kid, or getting married.  (And of course while they decide to have a kid which increases costs, they may also decide to live in a can, which decreases costs.  Or take in foreign college students because they find it interesting and it also happens to make them some money.  Or no longer own pets.  Or get really into gardening and not only reduce their produce bills to almost nothing, but also have eggs, some of which they sell to neighbors to cover the cost of chicken feed. There always seems to be the assumption, from the doomsayers, that future changes will end up costing more, and that there won't be offsets, either natural or as willing sacrifices, with things that end up costing less. 

And of course there's also the fact that people can go back to work if all else fails.  And yes, they may make significantly less, but to them, that risk is worth the gamble when it most likely means they get to stop working full time before 65, or even 55.  If someone stops working at 30, it seems to me like they already have a decent idea on whether they will want children.  It's not as though they are making that choice at age 12 when they have no sense at all of what life during child-bearing years look like.  (Admitedly, this is more true for women, since mean can easily decide to have kids at 65, and for most women that's not viable.)  But suppose three years after FIRE they meet the love of their life (or have a broken condom) and decide they want kids after all.  Okay. Maybe they return to work.  And maybe that 3 year gap means a 20% decrease in pay.  Well, life has changed and they go back to work.

The argument seems to be that 30 year old (or pick a FIRE age) you doesn't know what 50 and 60 and 80 year old you wants.  Well, of course that's true!  But for smart, resourseful, thoughtful people, and especially those not retiring on the leanest of budgets, I don't see how that's problematic. 


I don't know of anyone who thinks that nothing about their plan or situation or desires can or will change, and that they can just blindly live on 30k forever, with exactly the same expense patterns, just because some FIRE movement tells the that.

It's exhausting, isn't it?

I don't think anyone's plans here have failed as spectacularly as mine have, truly, epic level of total fucking plan failure on almost all fronts. I've never seen a plan more mangled than mine from when I started on my FIRE path.

And yet, everything I've learned from MMM and this community has made me more resilient and given me way more options than I would have had otherwise, and the net is that my quality of life is in many ways substantially better than had my plans worked out.

Life fucking happens. So much more can happen than some unpredictable market returns. It's actually downright silly to think that that's the biggest concern for retirement. Life fucking happens and we adapt, and those of us who better understand money, investments, frugality, and optimization are infinitely better equipped to deal with the occasional (or frequent) dowsing of diarrhea that life likes to heap on us for fun.

It has been pointed out many time on the forums that FI gives you choices.   Your choices may change (or change may be forced on you) but you are not being hit by financial problems as well.  Or at east not as much.

Metalcat is right that life fucking happens.  When I got married I didn't expect to end up divorced.  Divorce is expensive.  And rules that even the playing field hit all of us - my divorce was way more expensive than my Ex's divorce, for several reasons.   I also didn't expect to change provinces, to change jobs at the end of my working life, and to move 4 times in 3 years.  And yet here I am.

I never made the connection until now, but I guess I/we had a pretty financially significant chang ein our plans.  At 30, I was quite confident we'd be DINKS for life, with DH making good, progressing to really good, money, and me making okay money, and our combined income would therefore be fantastic.

Then he got sent overseas, which was not something we ever asked for, and we had good reason to believe would not happen, or at least not for another 5+ years.  Well, there went my career.  I haven't made >20k per year since then, 13 years ago, and most of those 13 years I made $0.  I now make in the mid to low 4 figures, so while it's nice, it's also paltry in comparison to our total income or net worth. And it's easily >10% of what I'd be making (and have been making for year after year) if I'd have stayed in roughly the same career or income path.  Those 13 years of lost salary, plus growth because it would almost all have been invested, would probably be seven figures, and that's on an unremarkable salary. 

So yeah, our plan changed in a *massive* way.  (To be clear, we are FI but DH still works full time in a mostly SWAMI capacity, and I work so little that I do consider myself retired, Retirement Police be Damned.  About 5-6 hours per week, totally flexible, can be spread out or done in one week per month, or however I see fit.)  But we adapted and flexed the plan for total retirement has stayed the same.  Huge, massive things with million dollar implications changed.  And we did not crumble under the weight of our failed plans, made at 25 and 30. 

[Ron Scott]

^^

“ Plans (RE) are useless, but planning (FI) is indispensable.”

[Metalcat]

^^

“ Plans (RE) are useless, but planning (FI) is indispensable.”

Except that despite the calculators, FI isn't actually a concrete thing.

Someone is FI largely when they *feel* like they have enough money. The "X" of 25X may be based off of data, but it comes down to how much the person *feels* like spending for the quality of life that they *prefer* relative to what they've earned in a career they've chosen.

It's a whole lot of feelings and preferences that can't be easily captured by calculations. One person who prefers a VHCOL area might just like it there, another may not have a choice due to needing specialized medical care for their child with a rare condition.

Two people could spend 80K/yr and one have 30K+ in medical expenses while the other has 30K+ in golf memberships and golf-related travel.

What really matters is flexibility. Saving money up front is one very powerful lever for flexibility, but there are others, such as having a flexible spend, being geographically flexible, being able and willing to earn more money.

Flexibility means having some way to free up capital when it's needed for the bullshit life throws at you. The more flexibility someone has, the more resilience is built into their lives.

Planning in resiliencies is what's valuable, retiring is just a lifestyle choice.