I know this is dreadfully shallow, but...

[PhilB]

My FIRE date is planned for June 2019, at which point my stash should be more than adequate, but there is a very good chance that work will offer me a nice little part time deal of one or two days a week, term time only, WFH - and a very good chance that I would actually enjoy that.  I'll be tied to home for another 5 years until the kids are finished high school anyway, I'll enjoy the social interaction, won't have to buy my own laptop, etc.  My biggest problem with taking the deal, should it materialise, is that I really want to be able to describe myself as 'retired'.  See, I said it was shallow.  I don't want to upset the Internet Retirement Police, but can anyone suggest a way round this?

[Khaetra]

If it's something you'd enjoy doing, then I would do it.  As far as calling yourself retired, just tell yourself (and others, if it's really important for you to do so) that yes, I am retired from the grind and work one or two days a week as a 'consultant' because I enjoy it.  Simple :).

[Linea_Norway]

Just do it. You will make an extra financial bonus and you will enjoy yourself.

You will have retired from the grind, isn`t that what they call it? You don`t need to travel to an office, doing tasks you don`t enjoy. You will work from home on tasks you like and can quit whenever you stop enjoying it. Try to avoid all tasks, meetings, personal reviews and other stuff you hate. For your boss, I think they will be very flexible.

Make sure tou can take as many vacations as you please.

[kina]

You will be retired! This will be your new hobby!

[Indexer]

You will be retired! This will be your new hobby!

+1.

You will be retired with a hobby that pays very well. Sounds perfect to me.

[Maenad]

I know I get the same buzz from imagining myself as "financially independent" as I do "retired". Would that term work for you?

[nereo]

a subset of the population will always say anyone who gets paid cannot also be "retired".  Whatever.

There are other terms one could use, including "financially independent" and "freelance-consultant" that won't trigger objections by others.

OR:  Just stop caring whawt others thing and/or stop trying to defend whether or not you are really "retired".  It doesn't matter to anyone but you.

[misshathaway]

Saying you are retired with a hobby job is BETTER than just retired. With "retired" the other person can harbor some doubt that you were "made redundant". I love that British  phrase. But "hobby job" says you just do what you please.

[MrDelane]

There is nothing you can do about what other people think or say.

Anyone who wants to argue that you are not 'retired' at that point is completely free to do so outside of the 40 hours a week they have to work in order to stay ahead of their monthly bills.  The good news is most of them will be too busy to say anything about it.

As a good friend of mine told me a long time ago, 'no one thinks about you nearly as much as you do.'  We are all the main character in our own story.  Live the life you want to live.  No matter what you do, other people are going to think whatever they want.

Sounds like you've got a great plan and a great opportunity.
Congratulations.

[WhiteTrashCash]

You don't need anybody's permission to do what you want. Take the job if it will make you happy.

[nereo]

...'no one thinks about you nearly as much as you do.'  ...

This is going to be my new quote on my door.

[Mr. Green]

I would worry about it later. A lot can change in almost 2 years.

[Livewell]

OP - sounds good to me!  I may do something similar.  My thinking is the kids will get about 12-14 weeks total off a year and we would look to travel at least half of those weeks.  At the same time I could continue at work and do some kind of job sharing to cover the weeks I’m out, and when they are in school I’d work 20-25 hrs per week.  Once FI, it’s all upside and the plug can be pulled at any time!  I’m a few years out so we’ll have to see...

[PhilB]

You will be retired! This will be your new hobby!

That is brilliant!  Thank you, that definitely works for me.  I think I would even be able to cope with the incredulous response of "Your hobby is chartered accountancy?!"

"I'm retired, but I still do a little bit here and there just to keep in touch with friends and keep the brain agile" sounds like the way to go.  And as others have said, if anyone thinks "you're not really retired", stuff 'em.

[RobFIRE]

Financially independent, semi-retired and still working purely out of interest sounds like a fair summary to me. Though who cares whether other people will accept it in those words or not.

[nereo]

You will be retired! This will be your new hobby!

That is brilliant!  Thank you, that definitely works for me.  I think I would even be able to cope with the incredulous response of "Your hobby is chartered accountancy?!"

"I'm retired, but I still do a little bit here and there just to keep in touch with friends and keep the brain agile" sounds like the way to go.  And as others have said, if anyone thinks "you're not really retired", stuff 'em.

Come to think of it, my mother continued to work part time at her job of 20+ years (elementary school administrator) several years after my father retired, which itself was several years after they had become 'fully-FI'.  They didn't really need the money - it mainly served to keep my mom engaged with the community and friends.  It had the added benefit of boosting her pension.  Was she "retired?" - who the hell cares?

[PhilB]

I would worry about it later. A lot can change in almost 2 years.

I need to solidify my position re staying on part time much sooner than that.  I'm already FI, just adding some extra padding for peace of mind / inheritance purposes, so it's very hard to see any circumstances where I would want to stay full time beyond June 2019.  I've already told work this and there has been some discussion about possibly doing some PT afterwards. Many of the things I do are on an annual cycle and it makes doing a good handover much more important if I'm not going to be around to handle people's queries next time it happens.

[MrThatsDifferent]

Bizarre. You’re not retired, you’re working. MMM himself is not retired, he’s working. So what? Is it about bragging rights and making working people feel small?  Consider taking your ego out of it. You’re working part-time because you’re too valuable to be let go, let that stroke your ego. And if being retired is that important to you, then don’t accept the offer.

[PhilB]

Bizarre. You’re not retired, you’re working. MMM himself is not retired, he’s working. So what? Is it about bragging rights and making working people feel small?  Consider taking your ego out of it. You’re working part-time because you’re too valuable to be let go, let that stroke your ego. And if being retired is that important to you, then don’t accept the offer.

Thank you for that helpful comment.  It is nothing at all to do with scoring points over other people.  It is all about feeling good about myself.  To me 'retired' means you made it, you crossed the finish line and are no longer in the rat race.  Take a deep breath and relax.  'Working part time' does not have anything like the same connotations.  And though MMM works, no way is 'working' a more accurate term for him than 'retired' either.  Whilst I would be one of the first to raise an eyebrow at his creative accountancy in reporting his spend, he already has way more money than he will ever spend and anything he does now is purely a lifestyle choice.  That's like saying that an independently wealthy person who chooses to live on a hobby farm is 'working' because they milk the occasional cow.

[4n6]

Why can't you call working 1-2 days a week retired? I know that in popular culture retired means that you don't work at all and you play shuffleboard all day. However, we also know that definition will change over time. Hell, the idea of retirement didn't really exist for most people 100 years ago. Definitions changed. I think defining yourself as retired is fine.

[Erica]

How do you teach appropriate values to your children when you lack them to such a degree? Is this satire? rhetorical questions.

Telll people you are retired but have a wonderful side gig just once or twice a week

[fuzzy math]

Why not "retire" sooner if you are FI and are almost guaranteed part time work?

[PhilB]

Why not "retire" sooner if you are FI and are almost guaranteed part time work?

That's a very complicated question in my mind.  Whenever I go through it the one option I always end up dismissing is going part time now.  The argument is something like this:
I am a natural worrier and so I 'need' a big cushion in my FIRE plans to stop me fretting.  I have worked out where that balance lies for me and I'll get there in 2019 if I stick at it full time and then never earn another penny.  My quality of life would, notionally, improve hugely if I just went part time now, but it would then take several more years to get the same size of comfort blanket in place - which would tie me to 'having' to work part time rather than doing it for fun.  That would most definitely NOT feel like retirement in my mind. 
In the end, for me it boils down to a) how big a comfort blanket do I 'need' and then b) what's the most efficient way to get there.

[PhilB]

How do you teach appropriate values to your children when you lack them to such a degree? Is this satire? rhetorical questions.

WTF?  Do enlighten us on these 'appropriate values' in which you have such expertise that you can instantly spot their presence or absence based on so little information.  I'm sure we'll all enjoy a good laugh.

[shelivesthedream]

Eh, I would feel weird about calling myself "retired" if I still had a permanent (albeit part-time WFH job). But I'd totally do what my Dad does. He was a consultant and just does a tiny bit of regular work for some of his favourite old clients, but spends most of his day chilling and reading books. So he says "I'm mostly retired". Because that's an accurate description of the situation - he doesn't need the money and has the attitude of a retired person but still works a bit but can quit any time.

"Hey, OP, what do you do?"
OP: I'm mostly retired.
"What do you mean?"
OP: I quit my job, planning to give up work permanently, but they offered me one day a week working from home and it seemed like a sweet deal do I took it. So I'm mostly retired.

Everyone wins.

[MrThatsDifferent]

Bizarre. You’re not retired, you’re working. MMM himself is not retired, he’s working. So what? Is it about bragging rights and making working people feel small?  Consider taking your ego out of it. You’re working part-time because you’re too valuable to be let go, let that stroke your ego. And if being retired is that important to you, then don’t accept the offer.

Thank you for that helpful comment.  It is nothing at all to do with scoring points over other people.  It is all about feeling good about myself.  To me 'retired' means you made it, you crossed the finish line and are no longer in the rat race.  Take a deep breath and relax.  'Working part time' does not have anything like the same connotations.  And though MMM works, no way is 'working' a more accurate term for him than 'retired' either.  Whilst I would be one of the first to raise an eyebrow at his creative accountancy in reporting his spend, he already has way more money than he will ever spend and anything he does now is purely a lifestyle choice.  That's like saying that an independently wealthy person who chooses to live on a hobby farm is 'working' because they milk the occasional cow.

The amount of money you earn and if you need it or not doesn’t qualify someone as retired. Buffet, Gates and Zuckerberg all still work even though they don’t have to. If you receive money from labor, your working. MMM isn’t working full time (as far as we know) but he has an online business that generates $400k a year and now a physical business hub. He’s working, he’s not retired. He might be retired from working for anyone but himself, but he’s still working, he owns and actively manages a business.  If you work 2 days and the company is paying you and you’re getting benefits, you’re not bloody retired! You’re working, part-time. The fact that you don’t have to doesn’t change it. You want to be retired, stop working. Otherwise you’re working or semi-retired if you need that qualifier. I work ft, I’d love to be retired, should I still work and tell people I’m actually retired cause that’s what I want to be instead of what is? Why the hell do we need to twist a definition just to maintain an illusion?

[PhilB]

Eh, I would feel weird about calling myself "retired" if I still had a permanent (albeit part-time WFH job). But I'd totally do what my Dad does. He was a consultant and just does a tiny bit of regular work for some of his favourite old clients, but spends most of his day chilling and reading books. So he says "I'm mostly retired". Because that's an accurate description of the situation - he doesn't need the money and has the attitude of a retired person but still works a bit but can quit any time.

I think you've captured the essence of it there -  for many people being 'retired' is far more a state of mind than a matter of employment law, whatever the IRP say.  I can live with something on the lines of 'basically retired, but still do a bit here and there' as that is where I will be.  It will be for 5 years at max and probably reducing steadily to nothing well before that.

The amount of money you earn and if you need it or not doesn’t qualify someone as retired. Buffet, Gates and Zuckerberg all still work even though they don’t have to

And I'm sure they'd all define themselves as still working and have a 'working' mindset.  Just because you do something because you want to and happen to get paid for it doesn't mean you have that mindset.  I have an elderly neighbour who keeps a few chickens for fun and sells the excess eggs.  Does that make him not 'retired'?
We live in an increasingly non-binary world.  If everyone worked until 65 then stopped, drew their pension and pottered around the garden then there would be a nice clear boundary between 'working' and 'retired'  (unless they had a honesty box out front selling their excess veg!).  More and more people aren't like that any more and there is a whole continuum of shades of grey between those two extremes.  It seems a bit crazy to arbitrarily declare that there is a clear dividing line right out at the extreme end of that continuum and that anyone who earns another penny from whatever source is in the 'working' camp.

[nereo]

Some people insist that if you earn any money or other compensation for doing anything, you cannot fit the definition of being retired - regardless of your assets and reasons for earning said money/compensation.

Others have a less rigid, more conceptual definition of 'retired', which normally focuses on  i) being financially independent, ii) no longer working at their 'career' profession, iii) part-time/side gig/short term  and iv) doing what they do for reasons other than money.

Each camp will argue with other about who is 'right' - when the only person's opinion who  truly matters is your own.  FWIW I tend to fall in the latter camp, as every family member I can think of did something in their "retirement" which generated compensation.  My dad is a guest lecturer for LLI, my mother worked at the local elementary school, my grandmother for the local library, my uncle for a flower delivery service, my grandfather at the vet hall, my other uncle for the local mayor's office... I (and they) would say they are retired and just putzing around doing things they enjoyed which coincidentally came with a paycheck. Others will yell "they're not really retired!!". 
Ultimately who gets to decide?

[neil]

They are just different terms to me.  I have an engineering degree which I've used to obtain engineeering-like jobs for the last fifteen years.  If I quit tomorrow and decided not to be an engineer anymore, I'd probably term myself a retired engineer whether I had $100 or $100M because I'm not engineering anymore.  This terminology works fine in career areas that are either high paying or have short lifespans and no one seems to argue about those. 

I think as a goal the part I like about MMM is not the switch of retired or not; but the agency to go do what you want.  A little seed money doesn't hurt for safety reasons, but we need to do a better job breaking out of the concept of going to school for a thing and then doing that thing for 40 years.  We are not really built for such monotony and the technology moves too fast to assume any job is "safe".

I know technically I'm not helping OP's case in wanting to use the "retired" term but, when you're FI you can do what you want.  That's the point!  No need to argue with the peanut gallery :)

[PhilB]

No need to argue with the peanut gallery :)

I had to look that one up, but what a wonderful expression!  Strangely, a literal translation to UK English would be 'No need to argue with the gods' :)

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

I had to look that one up, but what a wonderful expression!  Strangely, a literal translation to UK English would be 'No need to argue with the gods' :)

Lol yea, the literal translation is not very correct : )

[PseudoStache]

IMHO - For me to be able to claim that I'm retired will mean that I'm no longer beholden to, accountable to, or relied upon by an employer.

I may have missed your actual responsibilities/accountabilities in this light weight work, but it still sounds like you have a job to me.  One I'm sure that you can quit at anytime, but the business/people are counting on you to complete this work... and whether or not you care/say FU, you are still "chained" to your employer.  Of course these are really flimsy chains as opposed to Khaleesi type chains :), but hopefully you get my point.

On the flip side - if someone FI blogs when they want to, sells a car when they want to, sells a piece of art work they've painted when they want to, etc. where they have COMPLETE freedom to do whatever they want to, when they want to, I would actually call that person retired.

[nereo]

IMHO - For me to be able to claim that I'm retired will mean that I'm no longer beholden to, accountable to, or relied upon by an employer.

how do independent contracts and freelancers fit into this definition?

[Kay-Ell]

One of the things about early retirement is that there will always be people who, for whatever reason, judge your circumstances.  There will be the ones who think you are lazy because you're not not contributing to the wage earning force anymore.  There will be those who think you're hiding something because it's "not possible" to retire early.  There will be those that see the occasional paid gig or money earning hobby as proof that you're not really retired.

But once you no longer need the money, you can give yourself permissionto stop caring what those people think or say.  I mean, honestly, we are social animals that have depended on other people's beliefs, opinions and behaviors to determine our place in societal hiearchy for thousands of generations.  And because we as first world humans have reached the greatest heights of technology and prosperity in history, we finally get to uncouple our survival with the opinions of others.  It's scary, uncharted territory that our DNA isn't necessarily equiped to embrace just yet.  But you literally can stop giving a damn what people think of your status as a retired person or a wage earner.

Personally, I struggle with some wird sense of guilt whenever it "gets out" that I'm retired so young.  Like anyone else in this country at this time in history I started off with a lot of advantages.  But I have had a pretty average amount (for a first world, millenial) of luck and misfortune in my journey.  But still, most of the people I know in real life are struggling in the daily grind with no way out before social security augments their life savings sometime in their 60's.  And because I'm not, explaining my status, creates some guilt that I tend to cover up with phrases such as "self employed" or "consultant" or "semi-retired."

Just choose how you want to identify yourself, and do so.  And understand that any uncomfortable feelings that exist inside you regarding this choice are left over programming from millenia of social programing that helped our ancestors survive.

[PseudoStache]

IMHO - For me to be able to claim that I'm retired will mean that I'm no longer beholden to, accountable to, or relied upon by an employer.

how do independent contracts and freelancers fit into this definition?

I think the key word in your question is "contract" which keeps them "accountable" - and I meant "employer" broadly - not necessarily W2.

If I can't just randomly say, you know what, I'm gonna take a vacation RIGHT now without putting someone/a business in a bind, then I'm chained... there are consequences to others.

So IN MY DEFINITION, contractors/freelancers still have jobs... sure more freedom than a 9-5er... but not retired - in my book.

Edit: When I say contractors/freelancers I'm generally talking about "long term" contract employees.  If it's like hey fix my roof or do one free lance article, then I don't think those "chains" are there.

[NoVa]

This is MMM, I thought happiness was the goal. It's all about how happiness is an emotional state, not tied to material possessions or a dollar value but a frame of mind. We also value freedom of choice. If a job makes you happy, more power to you.

[nereo]

IMHO - For me to be able to claim that I'm retired will mean that I'm no longer beholden to, accountable to, or relied upon by an employer.

how do independent contracts and freelancers fit into this definition?

I think the key word in your question is "contract" which keeps them "accountable" - and I meant "employer" broadly - not necessarily W2.

If I can't just randomly say, you know what, I'm gonna take a vacation RIGHT now without putting someone/a business in a bind, then I'm chained... there are consequences to others.

So IN MY DEFINITION, contractors/freelancers still have jobs... sure more freedom than a 9-5er... but not retired - in my book.

Edit: When I say contractors/freelancers I'm generally talking about "long term" contract employees.  If it's like hey fix my roof or do one free lance article, then I don't think those "chains" are there.

Fair enough, and in the spirit of debating semantics and all...
I just think placing a somewhat arbitrary definition on others never plays out well IRL. My father 'retired' as a physician about five years ago and now gives guest lectures for the ILL.  He doesn't do one every session, but he gets paid when he does (basically freelance employment).  He still considers himself retired but the IRP would argue no.  Seems like a bizarre thing to tell a 70 year old MD.

Conversely it seems disingenuous to call a roofer who currently has no jobs "retired" if (s)he doesn't have significant savings - that's temporary unemployment (or lack of work), not retirement.

Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I know personally who never earned any money after retiring.  Every family member I can think of and close family friends all seem to do something post-career. The AARP has entire sessions on 'earning money after retirement'.  Does this mean very few people actually retire?... or that 'retirement' isn't a red-line definition?

[neil]

Sometimes I wonder where the chains are in the W-2 model, anyway.  I might need the money to live from, but I can get that in any of 1000 ways.  If I terminate employment, my manager will simply reallocate my work to another, the items will be passed down and they will never bother me again.  The company will hum along, unaffected by my lack of presence.  The chains, if they exist, are only in our heads.  I don't have any ultimate responsibility toward any of it.  Even in the contract model, you have to be careful not to burn business relationships, but since it's almost entirely "for money" I would think the risk low, if FI.

On the other hand, if I retire from engineering work and use my time to go into education roles (something I'm actually considering), I'm FI, largely donating my time (even when paid it will be pennies on my full value) and doing something I enjoy, yet if I decide I want to drop everything and backpack in Europe I'd be fucking with the educational career of the kids I help.  Certainly I can time such things with end of school years and such, but morally I feel more handcuffed because I wouldn't want to let anyone down, even if I have the financial freedom to "do what I want".

So yeah, I guess if you are self employed, you can screw over your customers whenever you like if you look at them as a cash mine only.  But when value generated is often service-related, I would feel more connection with customers and clients than in the more common W-2 business model.

I don't really have a point, I guess.  Just don't see the point in the labels.  I know language is important for communication but we all know what we mean here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retired

Dictionaries don't really agree with retired equating to financial status in any way, either.  I feel it's largely a recent invention by finance companies to keep people earning.  Not interested enough to look into it.

[PseudoStache]

IMHO - For me to be able to claim that I'm retired will mean that I'm no longer beholden to, accountable to, or relied upon by an employer.

how do independent contracts and freelancers fit into this definition?

I think the key word in your question is "contract" which keeps them "accountable" - and I meant "employer" broadly - not necessarily W2.

If I can't just randomly say, you know what, I'm gonna take a vacation RIGHT now without putting someone/a business in a bind, then I'm chained... there are consequences to others.

So IN MY DEFINITION, contractors/freelancers still have jobs... sure more freedom than a 9-5er... but not retired - in my book.

Edit: When I say contractors/freelancers I'm generally talking about "long term" contract employees.  If it's like hey fix my roof or do one free lance article, then I don't think those "chains" are there.

Fair enough, and in the spirit of debating semantics and all...
I just think placing a somewhat arbitrary definition on others never plays out well IRL. My father 'retired' as a physician about five years ago and now gives guest lectures for the ILL.  He doesn't do one every session, but he gets paid when he does (basically freelance employment).  He still considers himself retired but the IRP would argue no.  Seems like a bizarre thing to tell a 70 year old MD.

Conversely it seems disingenuous to call a roofer who currently has no jobs "retired" if (s)he doesn't have significant savings - that's temporary unemployment (or lack of work), not retirement.

Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I know personally who never earned any money after retiring.  Every family member I can think of and close family friends all seem to do something post-career. The AARP has entire sessions on 'earning money after retirement'.  Does this mean very few people actually retire?... or that 'retirement' isn't a red-line definition?

It probably wasn't clear in my first post, but I would say to truly be retired, you need to be FI first :)

That roofer would not be retired.

Your dad is absolutely retired (in my book) because he lectures when HE WANTS TO and doesn't need the money to survive.

Your dad has a sweet gig, and I hope someone respects my past accomplishments enough to want to pay me to speak after I retire :)

[PseudoStache]

Sometimes I wonder where the chains are in the W-2 model, anyway.  I might need the money to live from, but I can get that in any of 1000 ways.  If I terminate employment, my manager will simply reallocate my work to another, the items will be passed down and they will never bother me again.  The company will hum along, unaffected by my lack of presence.  The chains, if they exist, are only in our heads.  I don't have any ultimate responsibility toward any of it.  Even in the contract model, you have to be careful not to burn business relationships, but since it's almost entirely "for money" I would think the risk low, if FI.

Yes exactly - those mental chains can be pretty strong.  If I ever have to worry about any of this - then I'm not retired.  Sure you can terminate at any time, but my point is that while you are working for that company, you have a job.  You are not retired.  As soon as you quit and don't work that type of job any more - you're retired.

On the other hand, if I retire from engineering work and use my time to go into education roles (something I'm actually considering), I'm FI, largely donating my time (even when paid it will be pennies on my full value) and doing something I enjoy, yet if I decide I want to drop everything and backpack in Europe I'd be fucking with the educational career of the kids I help.  Certainly I can time such things with end of school years and such, but morally I feel more handcuffed because I wouldn't want to let anyone down, even if I have the financial freedom to "do what I want".

I don't see this being the same thing as WORKING - would you do it without pay?  If not, then maybe you do still have a job.   There's noting wrong with being satisfied while working (SWAMI).  Just don't call yourself retired :)

So yeah, I guess if you are self employed, you can screw over your customers whenever you like if you look at them as a cash mine only.  But when value generated is often service-related, I would feel more connection with customers and clients than in the more common W-2 business model.

I don't really have a point, I guess.  Just don't see the point in the labels.  I know language is important for communication but we all know what we mean here.

At the end of the day I think most of us on here are of the same general mindset and just like to mince words :)  I was just responding to the OP's post and how I would classify their situation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retired

Dictionaries don't really agree with retired equating to financial status in any way, either.  I feel it's largely a recent invention by finance companies to keep people earning.  Not interested enough to look into it.

[libertarian4321]

My FIRE date is planned for June 2019, at which point my stash should be more than adequate, but there is a very good chance that work will offer me a nice little part time deal of one or two days a week, term time only, WFH - and a very good chance that I would actually enjoy that.  I'll be tied to home for another 5 years until the kids are finished high school anyway, I'll enjoy the social interaction, won't have to buy my own laptop, etc.  My biggest problem with taking the deal, should it materialise, is that I really want to be able to describe myself as 'retired'.  See, I said it was shallow.  I don't want to upset the Internet Retirement Police, but can anyone suggest a way round this?

I was retired from 2006-2010. 

I took a part time WFH job for a small company, working a few days a month, mostly because I figured it wouldn't take much time, and I was helping out a friend (the person who asked me if I could help out when they got too busy).

Over time, they asked me to do more and more.  And I agreed because it was easy, and I could control my hours. 

I eventually ended up working nearly full time.  But it was WFH, not trudging into the office, and I often take a siesta in the afternoon. 

It doesn't feel like "real" work, where I had to trudge into the office and look bright eyed and bushy tailed from 8 AM to 6 PM.  But it's still work. 

I failed RE.  Don't let this happen to you!  :)

[Kay-Ell]

I failed RE.  Don't let this happen to you!  :)

Your PSA made me laugh!

[PhilB]

I think the key take-away point for me from this thread is that I really shouldn't care about what the IRP think.  It's weird and stupid that I have been genuinely considering turning down the part time work because of them.
Re the points around being tied to the job even if it is part time, if the kids weren't still at school I would agree completely.  It's only because I'm already going to be tied to a schedule in term time that I'm even considering it.  Does that mean that even if I didn't take the PT work I wouldn't be 'retired' I'd just be a Stay at Home Dad?

[shelivesthedream]

I think the key take-away point for me from this thread is that I really shouldn't care about what the IRP think.  It's weird and stupid that I have been genuinely considering turning down the part time work because of them.
Re the points around being tied to the job even if it is part time, if the kids weren't still at school I would agree completely.  It's only because I'm already going to be tied to a schedule in term time that I'm even considering it.  Does that mean that even if I didn't take the PT work I wouldn't be 'retired' I'd just be a Stay at Home Dad?

A SAHD relies on their partner's working income. A retired person relies on their investments.

[soccerluvof4]

I retired but they asked me to help them out a day or two a week so the offer was to good to refuse

[Miss Piggy]

How about "I'm retired and I'm doing some consulting work for fun."

[Leisured]

Shelives makes a good point when she says that retirement is an attitude of mind, that is, what matters is how you feel about not working for a living.

'Gentleman (or lady) of leisure.'  I understand that in the US people who do not have to work are classified as the 'independent class' because they have an independent income.  I read many years ago, it might have been the novel 'To kill a mockingbird', that a hundred years ago in the South, people who did not need to work were described as 'buying cotton'.

[MrsPete]

My FIRE date is planned for June 2019, at which point my stash should be more than adequate, but there is a very good chance that work will offer me a nice little part time deal of one or two days a week, term time only, WFH - and a very good chance that I would actually enjoy that.  I'll be tied to home for another 5 years until the kids are finished high school anyway, I'll enjoy the social interaction, won't have to buy my own laptop, etc.  My biggest problem with taking the deal, should it materialise, is that I really want to be able to describe myself as 'retired'.  See, I said it was shallow.  I don't want to upset the Internet Retirement Police, but can anyone suggest a way round this?

Call yourself semi-retired, or say that you're retired, but you consult a bit for your old employer.

[snapperdude]

How about "It is none of your damn business what I do or don't do."

[Retire-Canada]

My biggest problem with taking the deal, should it materialise, is that I really want to be able to describe myself as 'retired'.  See, I said it was shallow.  I don't want to upset the Internet Retirement Police, but can anyone suggest a way round this?

So call yourself retired. You can do that right now while you are working full-time. The Retirement Police can't stop you. ;)